repress, obsess: stalker psychology.

parasocial sexuality.

stalkers aren’t followers.

To be clear: I’m not talking about followers. A follower is someone whose attachment is motivated by positive or stoic feelings — “good writing, good analysis.” Or even sometimes, “I disagree with you, but find your perspective stimulating or interesting.” Followers can still criticize from a detached, Stoic, or constructive perspective, but they are not “hate following,” or a-logging.

If someone hates me and wants to block me, mute me, or ignore me, that is normal. If someone loves you and wants to spend time with you, that is also normal.¹ A demon is an entity which is attracted to you but simultaneously hates you and seeks your destruction. Stalking combines eros with hatred. In the extreme, it leads to erotic violation and emotional rape.

Vagrant drug addicts can be gross, erratically aggressive, and self-absorbed in schizo thoughts, but they do not "stalk." The e-stalker is sinister and parasitic. He lives off inducing anxiety, adrenochrome, and stealing vital essence. Stalking is the essence of the demonic.

pre-stalking.

Some stalkers are consciously aware that their obsession is sexual in nature. Many, however, are unconsciously driven by urges they do not understand. But whatever their level of self-awareness, there is a predictable process, development, or series of steps that every stalker follows.

First, there is the pre-stalking. Pre-stalking represents the ambiguous activity, behavior, and beliefs which form before the stalking becomes outwardly detectible. There is a spectrum ranging from “healthy following” to “pre-stalking,” and a kind of “Schrödinger stalking.” At this point, things could theoretically go either way.

Worship of God is a form of “following,” but there is the archetype of “cursing God” epitomized by Lucifer-Satan, where love becomes hatred. Someone who goes from loving to hating in this way embodies the Luciferian-Satanic archetype: a scorned follower who becomes dedicated to hating and stalking.

The first sign of potential stalking is an extreme, irrational, or inappropriate dedication and obsession. Because stalking is ultimately aggressive and active, it is important to distinguish between passive consumption and active consumption.

Passive consumption of a Netflix series or a YouTube archive is not necessarily indicative of pre-stalking. Furthermore, reading hundreds of pages of a book is not an indication that someone is “pre-stalking” an author. Pre-stalking is distinguished by the following:

1. Active attempts to interact;

2. Personalization of the object;

3. A distorted sense of hope or inner, secret fantasy about someday being “united.”

active attempts.

Most pre-stalking is defined by active attempts to interact. This does not mean that most people who comment on an article are engaged in pre-stalking. Instead, this qualification is a negative one, meant to reassure. If you read a lot of articles, you are not a pre-stalker. Pre-stalking involves attempts at interaction — this is necessary, but not sufficient. For example, when I was a kid, I spent hundreds of hours watching the Amazing Atheist on YouTube. But out of those hundreds of hours, I only left a few comments, without any real expectation that my comment (out of hundreds) would get a response.

personalization.

Personalization might sound like a friendly or empathetic attitude. The opposite of personalization sounds like dehumanization, but in the case of stalkers, this is a bit of a “horseshoe.” Personalization, in this case, refers to the level of intensity of attachment to the object of stalking.

For example, I have watched hundreds of videos by the chess analyst Agadmator on YouTube. I never took a serious interest in his romantic life, his hometown, his favorite foods, or his family. This doesn’t mean that I “dehumanize” the man behind the analysis, but merely that I value his content without attaching any significance to “knowing him personally.” If he ended up being an ax murderer, I might find that disturbing, but I wouldn’t feel “personally betrayed” by him, as a hero, idol, mentor, father-figure, or lover.

There are many people who read my articles and comment often. This is not pre-stalking, because it lacks personalization: these commenters are addressing my analysis (I might as well be talking about chess) and not me as a “person.” If I become an ax murderer, these commentors might be disturbed or disgusted, but they wouldn’t feel that I have betrayed them personally, or let them down. If they start asking me about my personal life, this still isn’t necessarily evidence of pre-stalking, but we’re getting closer.

fantasies.

The final element of pre-stalking is fantasies. Pre-stalkers engage in wild, romantic, and idealistic fantasies about being united with the object of their focus. These fantasies include the following:

1. “One day, we could live together.”

2. “Maybe we could be neighbors.”

3. “We could start a community, or a religion.”

4. “I’d like to join his cult.”

5. “It would be cool if we married each other’s cousins. Then we’d be family!”

6. “If there was a war going on, I would fight alongside him.”

7. “People who insult him deserve to be killed.”

8. “I would like to torture people who disrespect him.”

9. “I want to make him proud.”

None of these sentiments are pre-stalking in themselves, devoid of context. For example, having a friend in high school, and fantasizing about going to college with that friend, is not pre-stalking, but a natural extension of a real years-long relationship. It is natural for close friends to want to defend each other, to make each other proud, and to want to live together.

Fantasies only become inappropriate when they are applied within a short amount of time to people who do not know you as a person. For example, fantasizing about living with Tom Cruise, torturing the enemies of Tom Cruise, or joining a cult with Tom Cruise, despite the fact that he doesn’t know who you are, is strong evidence of pre-stalking. The more often and intense these fantasies are, the more likely they are to develop into full-blown stalking.

victim blaming.

When I was 13, I would watch the Amazing Atheist almost every day. During COVID, I would watch Agadmator videos every day. However, over time, I lost interest and moved on from these content creators. This is natural. Most people have cycles where they become interested in a type of content, then learn whatever it is they were looking for, and eventually move on.

Despite getting bored, I never “inverted” my interest from love to hate. Instead, I merely detached. Stalkers, on the other hand, go from extreme love to extreme hate in a short period of time. Stalkers are rare, but some forms of content invite more stalkers than others:

1. Fantasy prone;

2. Personal;

3. Reciprocal.

Content creators with these attributes are more likely to attract stalkers. Is it victim blaming to point this out? Maybe, but my intention isn’t to shame these sort of content creators. Rather, I wish to describe the phenomenon objectively.

fantasy prone.

Content creators with the following messages are more likely to attract stalkers:

1. “Maybe one day all my subscribers could live together!”

2. “We’re like a community or a family, and we could start a new religion.”

Some percentage of “fantasy prone” orators and authors are successful. Joseph Smith really did get the Mormons to trek westward (eventually making it to Utah after his death). Lafayette Hubbard really did build a church of Scientology. Not all attempts to gather strangers together into a commune, neighborhood, or cult become abject failures. Jesus was a cult leader, as was Mohammed and Moses. George Washington built a successful cult, as did Hitler, Mao, and Stalin. Trump has a cult. Every popular musician has “stans” and a fandom. As Katherine Dee says, all politics is fandom.

Being idealistic or fantastical sometimes works out well, and is not necessarily an invitation to attract stalkers. However, most cult leaders are failures, and instead of a positive following, people who encourage fantastical thinking usually attract stalkers.

personal.

It is one thing to merely advertise fantasies. Many people engage in roleplay online, imagining that they will help “collapse civilization, so WE can rebuild it from the ashes.” This in itself is not enough to attract stalkers. However, when a content creator personalizes themselves to their audience, they greatly increase their attractiveness to stalkers.

For example:

1. “Here’s how my day went.”

2. “Here’s some of my deepest darkest secrets.”

3. “Here’s a part of me that most people don’t know.”

4. “Here’s something that makes me deeply sad.”

5. “Here’s what makes me different from others.”

This is a difficult fact to grapple with. Many content creators inevitably share intimate parts of themselves with their audience. This is somewhat natural and inevitable, to one degree or another. However, when creators engage in over-sharing, the risk of stalking increases exponentially.

Like a shark drawn to blood, stalkers are attracted to emotional openness and vulnerability. Creators who share intimate parts of their life with their audience are much more likely to attract stalkers than those who write about more objective, abstract topics, like chess or science.

reciprocal.

The final and most important attribute is reciprocity. Stalkers feed off engagement: that is why they stalk and troll. They want to be noticed. They want to be seen. They want emotional conflict as a form of intimacy. Without reciprocal interaction, stalkers get bored and move on to the next victim.

This isn’t to say that creators should never engage with their audience. But if creators are too open, too personal, and on top of that, they can’t resist responding to trolls or stalkers, this is a recipe for disaster.

I will give you an example of exactly what not to do: if someone calls you every slur in the book, insults your intelligence, and threatens you with violence, torture, or imprisonment, spending a long time addressing that person, giving them attention, and making them seem important is very dangerous.

quick math.

1. Encounters: encounters, sometimes known as “impressions,” are people who are briefly made aware of a creator’s existence. For this example, we will say that the creator in question has 100k total encounters. To be clear, this is much more than I’ve achieved in the last 10 months.

2. Followers (1k people / 100k): followers represent the 1% of encounters who “convert” and subscribe, interact, or express interest. Over time, followers choose one of three paths:

   1. Supporters (100 people): supporters are people who feel they benefit from certain content, and feel a moral duty to give back, and support a creator.

      1. Long term supporters (10 people): long term supporters are those who feel a lasting sense of duty to provide support over several years.

      2. Short term supporters (80 people): short term supporters are those who support for a period, but eventually become disinterested. This is a natural process by which people pass in-and-out of interest in content.

      3. Spurned supporters (10 people): spurned supporters, rather than simply becoming apathetic or disinterested, feel “betrayed” or “rejected.” Not all spurned supporters become stalkers, but some do.

The feeling of being "spurned" or "rejected" generally comes about because of some kind of real or imagined negative interaction.

For example, a commenter might feel that he has been “shadowbanned” from commenting. Instead of walking away, devaluing, or disengaging, a stalker will create a series of sock accounts to get around the “shadowban,” and attempt to engage in increasingly shocking antics to get attention. One of the easiest ways to achieve this is through slurs and death threats.

examples.

Trump and Nick Fuentes are examples of people who inspire both love and hate. Trump is such a large celebrity that it almost seems impossible for him to have “stalkers.” The human mass of his supporters and haters is so large that they amalgamate into generalized “blobs” or “mobs” without any specific personalities of their own. Trump is “too big to stalk.”

One counter-example would be the two assassination attempts against him. Were these would-be assassins obsessed with him? “Trump derangement syndrome” could be motivated by a form of narcissistic stalking. I say narcissistic, because anyone who thinks they are important enough to be personally spurned by Trump probably has delusions of grandeur. He doesn’t even know who you are.

Fuentes, on the other hand, has a small but dedicated fan base, and of these, he has a segment of people who have dedicated their lives to "hate-following" him, or "a-logging" him. Every time he makes a mistake, or something bad happens to him, there is a small crowd of “hate-followers” there to celebrate.

BPD and stalking.

Stalking is often related to Borderline Personality Disorder. The relationship between the two is strongest in three areas:

1. Rapid mood swings;

2. Fear of abandonment;

3. Intense but unstable relationships.

There are some similarities between the psychology of “hate-following” and the stereotype of the BPD ex-girlfriend. BPD is characterized by unhealthy attachment styles, including “stalking.” People with BPD may feel that they “deserve” to have certain relationships, because they “can’t live without” someone. It is natural to feel like you “can’t live without” a spouse, a child, or family member. But those sorts of connections generally form mutually over years, not mono-directionally and parasocially over the internet, or after a short term sexual relationship.

In day-time soap opera dramas, this BPD personality is represented by the woman who stalks a married man and tries to kill his wife in order to be with him. There are hundreds if not thousands of these types of stories made for day-time TV or drama novels every year.

sexual desire.

The emotion of “jealousy” is a key part of the psychology of stalking. Jealousy is a sense that “someone else has what I want.” Stalkers are not necessarily focused on “someone else,” like adultery or an affair, rather, they seem to be concerned with “what could have been.”

Stalkers are not necessarily jealous of interaction with “other people” in the audience. Instead, they seem to be preoccupied with the idea that "we could have been something, you and I." Behind stalking, there is a deep sadness and sense of loss of what the beautiful relationship "could have been." This sadness transforms into anger when it is realized that "it is your fault for ruining everything!"

Stalking is sadistic rather than masochistic. Stalking is a way of reclaiming lost power after encountering rejection. Most serial killers have a similar psychosis to the stalker, just taken to a greater extreme.

One of the stories that struck me the most when researching serial killers was concerning the “third grade teacher.” A serial killer was entering people's houses, raping and killing women and girls. Near one of the crime scenes, a note was found where the serial killer detailed his humiliation at the hands of a 3rd grade teacher, decades ago.

In the note, the serial killer detailed how humiliated he felt by this 3rd grade teacher, how she bullied him in front of the class, and how he wished he could get revenge. Raping and killing women was his way of “substituting” or “scapegoating” innocent victims for his third grade teacher. This reflects a psychology of wounded narcissism, or vulnerable narcissism.

sensitive, wounded, vulnerable Narcissism.

Wounded or vulnerable narcissism is a particular form of self-obsession, where some form of disrespect is inflated beyond useful proportion, sometimes even after the “bully” is dead. Feeling wounded by one’s parents or family or long-term mutual friends is understandable, since these bonds are fundamental to a person’s identity. Feeling wounded by a parasocial one-way internet relationship, a stranger, or an acquaintance so much that it leads to stalking is due to ego inflation.

Sensitive and vulnerable narcissists are aware, at least unconsciously, with how much other people can hurt them. As a result, they typically avoid forming relationships with new people. This may make them appear to be anti-social or autistic, and there is some crossover between these traits.

When a sensitive narcissist does form a relationship (on rare occasions), this leads to a mania and panic. Since deep connections are rare for narcissists, they are extremely valuable, but also painful, fearful, and fragile. When this intense emotional expectation, “one-itis,” leads to rejection, the object of affection consumes the entire emotional apparatus. Love, hatred, lust, and rage are all concentrated on a single person.

Elliot Rodger.

Extroverted narcissists, by contrast, love the attention of crowds. They are the life of the party, talking loudly, spreading gossip, the center of attention. Discrete or introverted narcissists are not attracted to crowds, because the pain of potentially being ignored is greater than the emotional benefit of the positive attention. An extroverted narcissist like Trump will tolerate an extreme amount of hatred and vitriol, but still enjoy the attention. Some extroverted narcissists would prefer hatred to being ignored, and this is exemplified on social media by the “cash me outside” attitude.

Introverted narcissists cannot tolerate any negative attention whatsoever. They do not have the self-esteem or psychological strength to survive any form of criticism. However, once they have formed a stalking relationship (the harm has already been done), they get pleasure from receiving attention from the victim.

mono-directional vs Mutual love

"No risk, no reward." Because wounded, vulnerable, sensitive narcissists are unable to handle criticism or rejection, they are generally afraid of forming relationships with humans. As a result, this form of narcissism can correlate with a love of animals, since animal relationships are seen as less emotionally risky than human relationships. This might be why there is a stereotype of the "crazy cat lady," since introverted narcissists do want attention and love, but since they are afraid of "risking" rejection in human relationships, they surround themselves with animals.

Every human being seeks love and attention from others, whether human or animal. The desire for attention, or sociality, comes from man's collectivistic nature, which seeks comfort and solace in groups. There is strength in numbers. The desire for attention is in-born in crying babies. Mammals which feed their young milk are especially predisposed to desire "mothering" attention from others. This instinct generally diminishes in adulthood, and transforms into a feeling of “mutual love.”

Mutual love is distinct from the “milking” or “mothering” instinct, which are mono-directional. Mutual love is established by a recognition of kinship and mutual sacrifice on the basis of shared identity or experience. For example, the most masculine form of love results from two men who experience extreme hardship together and help each other survive, as in times of war. This is distinct from the desire to be mothered or to “milk” others for mono-directional attention.

The “milking” instinct, when it transforms from a biological milk into an emotional metaphor, can manifest with many childlike behaviors. “Look at me!” The desire to be watched or listened to can manifest in a number of ways, but lacks self-awareness. A “milker” may send long walls of text which are essentially unreadable, irrelevant, or not requested or desired, with the expectation that all of this material should be read and respected. A “milker” may go on for tangents and complain about petty details to the “mother,” without any self-awareness of how this could be annoying or a waste of time. It is normal for children to act this way, but this desire is maintained into adulthood (and even old age) in stunted or "delayed” adolescence.

sexuality and stalking.

The process of emotional maturation has a biological component, a psychological component, and a symbolic component. Many cultures throughout the world have "rights of passage" which signify the transition from the dependent state of "milking" to the independent state of adulthood. When children are denied the opportunity to mature (either because of abuse, genetic disease, bio-chemical toxicity, or cultural malformation), the desire for "milking" extends into adulthood. It is at this juncture where it has the Freudian opportunity to become entwined with the desire for sex.

Sex is one of the most fundamental and important aspects of the maturation process. For men, the sex drive is active, aggressive, and “pursues” the target of affection. When the "milking" drive of childhood is not diminished and replaced with mutual love, it becomes more powerful over time since it is an unfulfilled desire.

Consciously, the "milking" desire is repressed, because each human understands that it is not appropriate to want to be breastfed into adulthood. But unconsciously, the desire remains, and intensifies as there is no “mother figure” to satisfy it. It then sublimates into and becomes intertwined with the sexual desire.

The “milking” desire is not necessarily a desire for female attention, although this is a very frequent feature of stalkers: men who stalk women. The next largest category of stalkers are homosexual stalkers: men who stalk men.

homosexual stalking.

While most stalkers are male, stalkers still come in all shapes and sizes. Not all stalkers are homosexual. Not all homosexuals are stalkers.

According to the DOJ, 33% of women and 17% of men will become victims of stalking over their lifetime. This number is probably inflated, but accurately reflects a gender disparity: women are much more likely to be stalked than men. 8% of women and 2% of men have already experienced stalking. However, despite the fact that most victims of stalking are female, 87% of perpetrators are male. If we assume that stalking is inherently sexual, this means that the majority of stalkers are heterosexual.

Feminists have extensively discussed and theorized about why men engage in sexual violence (including stalking) against women. Some theorize that it is a product of misogyny, projection, or scapegoating. Others state that stalking has an evolutionary explanation: heterosexual stalking may play a part in the evolutionary history of mammals. Similarly, when women stalk men, it is possible that this has some sort of evolutionary explanation. But what about gay stalkers? What evolutionary explanation is there for gay stalking?

My hypothesis is that most gay stalkers are not consciously honest or aware about their sexual desires. In other words, most gay stalkers are not “out of the closet.” Gay men who accept their sexual identity are not as likely to become stalkers as closeted or repressed homosexuals. Stalking is an inherently “repressed” or “secretive” activity.

repressed homosexuality.

I would like to distinguish between homosexuality and repressed homosexuality. Homosexuality could simply be an aesthetic preference for the male body. Homosexuality could be biologically determined, and does not necessarily indicate anything harmful or dangerous.

However, repressed homosexuality is not natural, but a cultural, moral, or religious imposition. Whereas homosexuality could be described as a sexual preference, repressed homosexuality is necessarily fetishistic and self-hating.

When homosexuality is repressed, it has similarities to other “narrative taboos,” like incest. That is, for the repressed, the aspect of “forbiddenness” contributes to the excitement. Men who stalk other men are repressed homosexuals.

One of the most common profiles of a stalker is someone who has an absent parent. In this case, repressed sexuality can represent a desire for a father-son relationship, to fulfill or repair the loss of that relationship in childhood.

For example, a son who is abused or neglected by his father in childhood may attempt to “recreate” this relationship sexually. This could be represented by the “bottom” who wants a “daddy.” There are, of course, also "tops" who invert this relationship. By becoming the “daddy,” tops get revenge against their father by becoming a parody of the father: abusive, tyrannical, controlling, aggressive. Tops humiliate and debase bottoms, destroying their masculinity and bringing shame to them. This is an act of erotic rage in order to reclaim the sense of masculinity that was denied in the father-son relationship. The parallels to stalking are clear.

Repressed sexuality uses stalking as a ritual to “recreate” or “heal” the father-son relationship. It is often accompanied by drug use, infidelity, homelessness, as well as the characteristic traits of narcissism. Many boys have absent fathers and do not become repressed; other men are narcissistic but do not become repressed. Repressed sexuality can be viewed as a confluence of different factors, including cultural and religious taboos, the biographical father-son relationship, the mother-son relationship, and narcissistic personality disorder.

addiction and repression.

Narcissism creates rage. Rage is a protective emotion, because it prevents the narcissist from being consumed with the debilitating depression of rejection. Rage is a defense mechanism which narcissists use to avoid being depressed. It turns a “downer” into an “upper.” As a result, narcissistic rage can induce mania, insomnia, sleeplessness, porn addiction, gambling addiction, drug addiction, or even a “workaholic” attitude.

Orgasm can act as a temporary solution to the problem of narcissistic rage. Orgasm is a “downer,” which calms the rage and satisfies it for a time. However, due to the intensity of the rage, which always reappears, sex addicts engage in riskier and more intense forms of sex, such as orgies, gangbangs, and infidelity against their partners.

This “escalation” of sexual behavior is a response to the diminishing returns of the orgasm. At first, the orgasm relieves the constant pressure of narcissistic rage. Eventually, though, years pass, and the original “high” of catharsis becomes diminished. This leads the sex addict to pursue more extreme forms of sexual “relief.”

There is a psychological connection between “risk and reward." The riskier the sex, the more intense the reward, the feeling of “relief,” of “getting away with it.” The exact same psychology is at play in gambling addictions and drug addictions, as well as in the serial killer phenomenon. The fact that many heterosexuals engage in those behaviors demonstrates that this psychology is not exclusive to repressed sexuality, but is generally related to narcissism.

monomania.

Stalkers follow this pattern of behavior, but are typically “repressed” individuals who have no other outlets. If stalkers allowed themselves to use drugs, gamble, or try out Grindr, they might find alternative sources of relief for their pent up rage. However, stalkers tend to have a set of strict rules that do not allow them to engage in these behaviors. They might have a moral prejudice against these behaviors. This is psychological restriction, repression, prudishness, or being “up-tight.”

If stalkers had other outlets for their need for “release,” such as marijuana, they might not feel compelled to engage in stalking as a compulsive and exciting behavior. The increasing popularity of marijuana since the 1990s, for example, may account for some of the decrease in serial killers.

The anticipation of stalking is erotic in nature. When a stalker looks up an address, patrols a street, or discovers some personal information about their victim, they are excited and titillated. This is a similar experience to the porn addict who is searching for a unique or particular erotic situation and who might search for some particular video for hours.

Both the porn addict and the stalker are putting in real work. The frustration of not getting what they want, and spending hours searching, creates a funnel for their pent up rage. This rage is sharpened or honed in the ritual of searching. The prize or reward of finding a particular bit of information, or finding the right video leads to a release of dopamine and endorphins.

This is similar to the “runner's high” or the “athletic high.” The more that the stalker works them up into a rage, the more exhilarating it feels to “win” by successfully stalking, attacking, or threatening a victim, and receiving a response. The more the victim “struggles” by arguing with the stalker, showing fear or frustration, “giving up,” pleading or begging, negotiating or compromising, the more the stalker feels a sense of achievement and revenge. This is exactly parallel to the erotic “struggle” involved in bondage and BDSM generally.

Unfortunately for victims, all of this plays into the addiction of stalking, providing them with “hits.” The only way to win is not to play.

Most men do not deal with stalking. Repressed stalking requires the following:

1. “Type”;

2. Engagement;

3. Presence.

Type.

Repressed attraction, like all sexual attraction, is focused on a particular “type.” The “type” may center on the image of the father, or what the father considered the “ideal son,” or the image of a high school bully, or a person that the bully was friendly with.

Engagement.

Most men do not engage with stalkers. Stalkers come in many different shapes and sizes: some are poor and homeless, others are long-winded, others are clearly mentally ill (schizophrenic, paranoid), while others are more adept at hiding their mental illness.

Presence.

Even if a man fits the right “type” and engages with a stalker, some kind of continued presence is required for the stalking to develop. Prior to the internet, this was difficult. A stalker would need to physically locate the victim and spend time around them in order to fuel the addiction. With the internet, “fuel” is much easier to supply.

“Feeding the trolls”

Some people might choose to engage with stalkers because it gives them a sense of importance. Attention and drama are exciting, like a horror movie.

Other times, victims of stalking might fantasize about “getting revenge,” outsmarting stalkers, “showing them who’s boss,” making them see the error of their ways, shaming them, or humiliating them. These desires mirror the psychology of the stalkers, and come from a place of rage. Still, the desire from revenge is ultimately reactive and defensive, when compared with the aggression of the stalker.

For victims of stalking, fantasies of revenge might sound like attempts to shame or induce guilt:

“Curse you! Shame on you! Fuck you! Go away! Get lost! Aren’t you ashamed of yourself? Don’t you have anything better to do? You sound like a real winner. What’s wrong with you? Were you abused as a kid? Are you gay?”

Unfortunately, all of this would only inflame the situation.

At some point, if a victim of stalking turns from defensive fantasies into aggressive ones, it is possible to engage in “mutual stalking,” or a cycle of sadism. This is typified in the phrase, “living in your head rent free.” Initially, it was the stalker who was obsessed. However, in response to stalking or “trolling” behaviors, a victim might emulate or seek to compete in a sadistic competition.

We have all observed internet feuds devolve into the most sadistic and cruel tirades, disproportionate to whatever the disagreement originally was. Both sides begin to fantasize about all the bad things that could happen to the other.

Some of this is chalked up to “keyboard warriors.” In other words, people are much crueler on the internet than they would be in real life. Perhaps this is true — the internet aggravates cruelty. But it might also reveal it.

loneliness and importance.

Narcissism is a spectrum of attention seeking behavior. It is ok to want to be loved, recognized; to desire praise and attention. This desire can be perverted due to social isolation, where it intensifies in the dark.

There is a healthy aspect to stalking: focus. This isn’t to justify, glorify, or encourage stalking. I’ll try to clarify this:

1. Orgasm is healthy, but a porn addiction is not;

2. Eating and fasting are both healthy, but eating disorders are not.

For people who are endlessly drifting in a world without telos, goal or purpose, stalking gives a sharp edge to life. It provides drive. This doesn’t mean that stalking is good, but that stalking is a perverse expression of a human trying to escape ennui. The instinct to stalk, to pursue, and to hunt is natural, healthy, and good, if it is directed toward real goals, motivated by a desire for glory rather than resentment. Even in the most demonic activities, there is an element of good.

From a young age, I really latched onto the idea that I was special, that I would be a famous author, that I could change the world. Small comments by 8th grade English teachers continue to motivate me to this day. Am I “stalking” the goal of becoming an author? Are stalkers seeking importance?

I think most people get a healthy sense of importance from their friends and family. When you receive a hug from your grandmother, you are important, to her. When you hang out with an old friend, you are important, to him. When you come home to your wife and kids, you’re the man of the hour.

But if someone, like many Americans, grows up in a broken family surrounded by friendless introverts, then these small but crucial acts of validation may be missing. How does someone like that obtain importance? One way is to become powerful and famous, but that’s easier said than done. An easier way to feel important is to harm, attack, and stalk.

Why write about stalkers?

Most importantly, I want to help victims of stalking become aware of these dynamics, so they can avoid them and stop feeding into them. Second of all, I have a very silly and almost impossible hope that some “pre-stalker” will read this, gain some self awareness, and change their behavior.

Although I write here mostly about male stalkers, I believe that female stalkers also deserve attention. I also hypothesize that because women tend to be less violent than men, their stalking tends to be less extreme and more malleable. I believe female stalking behaviors are more responsive to therapy in part because women tend to have lower levels of narcissism. In other words, female “pre-stalkers” are more likely to be open to self-criticism and eventually becoming “reformed.”

I am not a therapist, but for those who have engaged in “pre-stalking” without going “all the way,” I suggest they investigate the works of Sam Vaknin to better understand their own struggle with narcissism. Richard Grannon also provides some resources for non-professionals, and can help to distinguish narcissism from BPD.

Beyond this, rather than trying to “decrease narcissism” (which might be impossible, if it is an immutable personality trait), it might be more advisable to try to avoid triggering narcissistic rage.

Stalking is not a beneficial behavior for anyone. Stalkers don’t become richer, smarter, or get true love or importance out of stalking. If they could recognize this, they would be taking the first step in seeking help, working through their issues, and finding a healthier way to release their rage. Exercise, artistic expression, diet, meditation, prayer, acts of service, time in nature, sunlight, sleep, avoiding triggers (internet, news, politics) can all help manage these behaviors.

But this post is probably not going to help stalkers fix themselves. Rather, my intention was to describe the phenomenon and explain some of its inner workings.

Epilogue: The Birth of a Stalker

Dad is a weird pervert. Mom is negligent and a hoarder. The house smells bad. White cartons of Chinese food are left on the kitchen counter overnight, sometimes for days. Cats wander around, treating the house like their litter box. Mom and dad are ugly. They have diseases. There is no love.

Dad dies of a heart attack. Mom and I live alone now. State dependence. Welfare. Foodstamps. EBT. Can't get a job because of the mental illness. On disability. Browsing the internet. Find “him.” Fall in love. Send him an email.

He responds. It's not good. Everything is going wrong. He doesn't understand. Paranoia. The FBI is tracking me for political extremism. They know about our secret love. They know I am a secret agent. I am special. The government is tracking me. They want to stop our secret love.

I am enraged. Hatred. Unrequited love. He rejected me, just like everyone else. I thought I was safe. I thought I was ok. I just wanted to be friends. He betrayed me. I loved him, and he betrayed me. I was willing to give him everything. He spit in my face. He treated me like everyone else. I will get my revenge. He will regret this.

I stalk him. I need to do it. I keep doing this every few months. I use a slightly different name each time, but he knows it's me. I want him to see me. I want him to know I'm there. Waiting. Watching. Someday I will get my revenge.

1. The fourth case is if someone loves you and wants to get away from you. Fear of embarrassment, or fear of disappointing your idol? I’m thinking of an anime schoolgirl who is too nervous to approach her crush; or Batman not allowing Gotham to love him; Romeo fleeing from Juliet. It’s very tragic to think about.