Rottweilers

Some left-wing political blogs have been upset about The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler. Well, I don't much care for their politics either, but they're interesting for other reasons—mostly because of their rhetoric.

These guys have evolved their own political dialect, and the content is much more emotional than intellectual—that is, the important message is not that the Palestinians are bad people, for example, but that MY HATRED OF THE PALESTINIANS IS SO GREAT THAT IT JUSTIFIES ITSELF, just because it's my emotion.

What the Palestinians actually are, or do, is irrelevant unless it justifies the emotion—whether blowing up a bus or spitting on the sidewalk. Like a forest fire creating its own self-sustaining weather, the Rottweilers' language becomes a way of keeping the buzz going.

That such people have formed a little online community (not so little, actually) is also interesting. The members bond not only by agreeing, but by competing in the creative use of abusive language. Yes, they sometimes disagree; true believers are always at one another's throats over fine points of doctrine.

But their underlying harmony is reflected in their language. Using terms like "Paleswinians" is no different from Marxist cant expressions like "running dogs of capitalism" or Nazisms like "untermenschen." It's a way of dehumanizing and demonizing a race or class and thereby putting all the blame for one's sorrows on that group.

But it is also a way of giving and receiving "jolts"—the kind of stimulus that makes the online world so addictive. Flame wars and porn sites are obvious sources of jolts, but you can get a jolt just by seeing your name on the screen, or watching a window open. Like any addiction, the threshold soon rises and addicts need stronger and stronger jolts just to get the original thrill. In the Rottweilers' case, the jolt consists of ever more exaggerated language used in dealing with ever more intense triumphs and outrages.

At the same time, by categorizing their critics as "idiots" they flatter themselves with the jolt of telling themselves that they're smart, not a group of cranks on the fringe but the happy few, the elite who understand the true nature of reality.

In this respect they're a lot like the neo-Nazi groups that flourished on the Web in the mid-1990s, although those guys tried to present a more reasonable public face. (The communists in the 1930s and 40s also worked hard on seeming reasonable and merely "progressive.") The neo-Nazis were on the Web to recruit, not to drive people away. (See my 1996 article "Nazis on the Net" for details.) The Rottweilers, though, seem to expect kindred souls to find them and to like them just as they are.

Politically, of course, they haven't a hope of influencing public policy or gaining widespread support. If they even think about it, they probably don't care. They actually don't seem very interested or experienced in the outside world, domestic or foreign; its purpose is chiefly to provide outrageous or triumphant incidents to trigger their jolts, which they can then exchange with one another for still more jolts. As the Rottweilers' subhead puts it, it's good if I hurt your feelings: I gave you a jolt, and it gives me a jolt to know how you reacted.

Well, as our local dog trainer puts it, by the time a dog is four or five years old, if it barks all the time the barking has become a self-rewarding, addictive activity. The Rottweilers love to bark.

Comments

[Billmon]

Politically, of course, they haven't a hope of influencing public policy or gaining widespread support.

Sort of like that tiny fringe political party in Bavaria a few decades back. What was its name? Social Nationalists? National Socialists? Something like that.

I wonder whatever became of them?

[Mary]

Very interesting point about the neo-Nazis trying to appear reasonable whereas this gang is very happy being as extreme as they can be.

There is definitely a lot of truth that anger can become addictive and these guys seem to have succumbed. (I worry sometimes that my own anger over what the mafia now running our government is doing. I fear that my anger is getting in the way of my ability to sell possible solutions to non-partisans because I'm so angry with the Bushcos.)

[The Yeti]

Would you say that the language at the Rottweiler is more or less abusive than that on Indymedia? Daily Kos? Eschaton?

There are people on the Rottweiler comments that do exactly what you are talking about when it comes to abusive language.

When you try to make the Nazi comparison, are you concerned that you are fueling the same type of people on the opposite of Misha's political axis?

I know dozens of "progressives" who get a very thrilling "jolt" when they get to call conservatives Nazis.

Also, can you draw a distinction between the genuine outrage of concerned citizens and the vile-spewings of neo-Nazis?

[Crawford Kilian]

The Yeti asks:
"Would you say that the language at the Rottweiler is more or less abusive than that on Indymedia? Daily Kos? Eschaton?"
CK:
The Rottweiler is much more abusive, especially in its reliance on obscene language. I hadn't looked at Indymedia before you asked, and while I find it visually horrible, the language is routine for an advocacy site. Same for Daily Kos and Eschaton, neither of which I usually read.

"There are people on the Rottweiler comments that do exactly what you are talking about when it comes to abusive language."
CK:
I wouldn't be surprised at all. The abusive language, as I suggested in my original post, is a form of addictive, jolt-hungry behaviour. Such behaviour extends across the political spectrum. When people engage in online flame wars with their political opponents, the politics is the least of their concerns. They're behaving like co-dependents, trading jolts.

"When you try to make the Nazi comparison, are you concerned that you are fueling the same type of people on the opposite of Misha's political axis?"
CK:
I took some pains to compare the Rottie rhetoric with that of the Stalinists as well as the Nazis, inasmuch as all three rhetorics boil down to the demonization of a race, class or nationality as the source of the evil in the world.

One would think, after the experience of the 20th century with such rhetorics, that they would have fallen out of favour in the 21st. But they clearly retain strong psychological appeal, or we wouldn't see such language on political Web sites.

"I know dozens of 'progressives' who get a very thrilling "jolt" when they get to call conservatives Nazis."
CK:
I know such persons also. The sensation of moral, intellectual, cultural and spiritual superiority is highly addictive, and not confined to the political right, left or center.

"Also, can you draw a distinction between the genuine outrage of concerned citizens and the vile-spewings of neo-Nazis?"
CK:
As I suggested in my original post, a strong enough emotion validates itself and becomes self-rewarding, like a dog that gets a bang out of barking.

Neo-Nazis, I'm sure, consider themselves concerned citizens who wish only the best for other citizens of the same race and culture. Communists think they're serving the workers' best interests, even if those workers are too dim to realize it. The road to hell is an eight-lane freeway paved with the very best of intentions.

On his own site, The Yeti suggests that I may have missed the ironic component in the Rotties' posts, perhaps because I don't understand irony.

Well, I know that the word comes from the Greek "eiron," meaning a man who is more than he seems. The opposite is the "alazon" or braggart soldier, who is much less than he appears. In one of my novels I named my villain "Allison" for just that reason.

Odysseus in rags, home from Troy, is the first ironic figure, unrecognized as king until he takes his revenge. To suggest that the Rotties are writing ironically, and actually subverting the surface meaning of their rhetoric, is interesting but unpersuasive.

I would have to assume, then, that the Rottie attacks on the French, Palestinians, et al. are actually attacks on the Bush government's policies and actions; that the obscene terms are subtle ridicule against the mentality of Bush's supporters. Could the Rotties' abuse of the Palestinians actually be a savagely ironic attack on Israel?

Well, maybe. But even Jonathan Swift, in his famously ironic "Modest Proposal," couldn't keep a straight face through the whole essay. Eventually he lost his composure and started lambasting the British with not a scrap of irony. The Rotties are far more consistent.

In my experience, funny people are deeply depressed, and angry people are deeply frightened. Irony is a form of humor, relishing both the incongruity and the sadness of the gap between language and reality. Hence its appeal to writers who have suffered depression.

The Rotties, with their obscene language, their hyperbole, their pretend-names, and their demonized opponents, seem to be awfully frightened people--braggart soldiers who are much less brave they seem.

I draw this conclusion not because I disagree with their politics, but because their rhetoric itself is so full of fear.

And rather than fall into co-dependency myself with the Rotties, I hereby leave the subject.

[The Yeti]

I was just being snarky.

[Apollyon]

I’m an avid reader of The Rott™ and do engage in the rhetoric you mentioned. However your analysis is pure drivel. I won’t debunk your assertions line by line but instead will give you my overall take.

When we use terms like “paleostinians” it is a broad bush that is meant as a descriptor of the fanatics, Islamofascists and Mohammedan cultists within them. Sure there are some “good” paleostinians, that I can assure you. And being a Jew who lived in Israel for a while I can attest to it. The language we use does not diminish the point we’re making unless of course you’re looking for any reason to disregard the message, which is something you attempted by comparing us to Nazis. Nazis also drank water; does that make you a nazi? Leftists demonize conservatives and republicans; does this make them Nazis? Considering you’re more than twice my age you seem to have discredited the theory that wisdom comes with age. As an immigrant from the USSR both my grandfathers fought in the Red Army against the nazis. I know what the nazis have done and for you to even compare the rhetoric at The Rottweiler with nazi rhetoric is asinine at best.

You seem to be caught up on your “jolts” theory. Let me clear it up a little. One of the many reasons we use “jolt” style rhetoric is to make it entertaining for us while expressing our point. Again, the language doesn’t diminish the point but those like you will use it as a copout to avoid the message. Of course we could say: “Dear chap, thos Islamic radicals just decapitated someone”. Or we could say: “Those filthy primitive Mohammedan cultist goat fornicators just sawed someone’s head off.” I prefer the latter and that’s why I read The Rott.

You seem to try and convince yourself that we are a marginal group unable to sway public opinion or gain support. It would be pretty narcissistic of me to assume that The Rott and its readers/writers could sway public opinion since only about 1-2% of the population reads blogs. But I guess it depends on WHICH 1-2% reads those blogs. The Rottweiler recently celebrated a unique visitor count of 5 million. Some of the commenters on that blog write op-ed’s for local and national newspapers/magazines, many are influential in their communities and many are current/former military as well as police, fire, homeland security, political activists, teachers, entrepreneurs, doctors, attorneys, and so on. Many read and enjoy The Rott not in spite of its language but because of it and the excellent insight provided by the host and those commenting.

Our views ARE the mainstream and MILLIONS espouse those views. The Rott was one of the first to come out against Harriet Miers and we know how that turned out. The Rott was against the Dubai ports deal and we also know how that turned out. The Rott has long been against illegal aliens who break our immigration laws and we know see congress, and to some extent El Presidente Bushito, try and address this hemorrhage which has only been brought to the forefront because of people like those who read the Rott and raised hell with their representatives.

Your analysis was something I’d expect from one of these babbling leftist ignoramuses fresh out of our universities. Maybe instead of concentrating on the language over there try and concentrate on the point being made and feel free to engage in a debate, especially if you don’t agree with something being said. Unlike leftists “free thinking” [yeah right] blogs you won’t get banned or have your comments deleted for having a dissenting view.

[Juno888]

I’m an avid reader of The Rott™ and do engage in the rhetoric you mentioned. However your analysis is pure drivel. I won’t debunk your assertions line by line but instead will give you my overall take.