Posted on | January 24, 2013 | 16 Comments
- Item One: The left-wing blogger who yesterday complained that it was a “tactic” to quote Hillary is back today with a rant about how the Koch brothers are paying young blondes to write columns at National Review. Or something. I’m not sure if Celia Bigelow and Aubrey Blankenship know that they’re marionettes on strings manipulated by the Evil Koch Conspiracy, but they should start dropping hints to that effect — Facebook status: “Charles is so awesome!” — just for fun.
- Item Two: How dangerous can cyberstalking be? Patterico calls attention to the tale of a professor who was cyberstalked by an obsessed woman who, spurned by the object of her obsession, targeted the professor with “a campaign of malicious e-mail stalking and online defamation.”
Patterico has been cyberstalked since June 2011 by Neal Rauhauser, and Rauhauser’s use of psy-ops tactics (including “accuse the accusers” and “conflict cupid”) has the effect of casting a shadow of suspicion around his targets, creating confusion that prevents law enforcement from identifying Rauhauser as the source of malicious actions.
Go read Mike Stack’s account of Rauhauser’s interactions with New Jersey police. Stack, the first target of SWATting in the WeinerGate saga (with which Neal became obsessed), filed a harassment complaint against Rauhauser. Stack says Neal then contacted New Jersey police, seeking to convince them that somehow Stack was at fault. By sowing hostility between the cops and Stack (“conflict cupid”), Rauhauser avoided serious criminal sanctions for his harassing behavior.
What if you could recruit a whole team of cyberstalkers — all to aid you in a purely personal dispute?
It’s worth reading. The overlap between Kimberlin and Rauhauser remains a subject of much mystery. If Neal and others are actually being paid to cyberstalk Brett’s enemies, this would explain a lot. The other (and more likely) explanation is that they’re all just bat-shit crazy.
Politically motivated stalking is never actually politically motivated. It’s about the personality defects of the stalkers. It’s perhaps most useful to compare Neal Rauhauser to John Tiessen — these are psychologically damaged people whose interest in politics is about the Moment of Glory fantasy: By destroying the hated political enemy, they will vindicate themselves as Winners and (they imagine) be celebrated by their allies.
Is Neal Rauhauser part of Brett Kimberlin’s army of hired stalkers? Or is Neal just an obsessed loser chasing the Moment of Glory fantasy? Obviously, this is not an entirely moot question for Patterico or others they have tried to destroy, but we must be pretty doggone important — Winners! — if we’re living rent-free inside their heads.
P.S.: I’d like to tell you this is all a Koch-funded conspiracy, but unfortunately the check hasn’t shown up yet, so please hit the freaking tip jar!