Cultists speak a language that the non-believers will never understand.
It is of the same origin as idioglossia or “twin language” that twins may develop when language skills are delayed in development.
This should not be confused with Rovian or Clintonian cant that is carefully constructed to be the mirror image of what is being said; e.g., peace means war, “I am for you” means “I am for big corporations,” Democrat means Republican, etc. A Tim Russert or Chris Matthews may not understand Rovianspeak but intelligent people with normal language skills do.
Eric Hoffer’s seminal The True Believer was the first to demonstrate the true nature of cults. Unfortunately Hoffer restricted his study of cults to esoterica of a limited number of cults like the Communist Party and the Roman Catholic Church. Eric failed to mention exoterica to be swallowed up whole by the Tim Russerts and Chris Matthews of the MSM.
When Pope John invited the “separated brethren” to partake in Vatican II he was careful to use exoteric language unlike Vatican I that let the cat out of the bag by issuing invitations to heretics, schismatics, apostates, atheists, agnostics, fallen Catholics and other such foreign cultists.
Unlike Hillary, when Obama says he is for peace, he means he is for peace not war. When Obama says he is for the middle class, he perhaps even means he is for the middle class despite the widespread corruption of the language by Clintonianspeak.
Scary, huh?
Not hard to see why Democrats would be getting upset with Obama.
“I will not tell you what you want to hear; I will tell you what you need to know,” declared Obama. The horror that reined outside the Obama cult from this nearly Truman-like bluntness sent shock waves through not only the MSM but the blogs.
Obama better stop that. Pope John would have never put language like that in a papal bull. After all Pope John wanted to convert the heretics, not inform the masses. There is some danger that even Tim Russert and Chris Matthews will catch on. Not likely but possible.
Best, Terry
7 comments
Skip to comment form
Exactly. Thanks for the great example. I wouldn’t be too concerned about Pumpkinhead or Tweety catching on, though. They would both approve of your essay, I’m sure, though they might take issue with your spelling of glossolalia. Best Terry. 😉
for such a winger!
just kidding about the winger thing… but do like the essay
That’s the most worn out sentence in the history of politics. Up there with, “You won’t always agree with me but you’ll always know where I stand.”
This is not to slam Obama, it’s just to say that when everyone makes a claim, the claim lacks value. It’s sort of like when a country says it is acting militarily for “good reasons”. Every one who engages in military action says that, so the claim lacks value.
Will Obama actually tell us what we need to know? We need to know how bad, how illegal, how historic the Bush years were. We need to know that we need to be off hydrocarbons soon. We need to know that the Iraqi people don’t want us in their country.