One of the most famous catch phrases, which escaped from being converted into a quote and literally became a slogan, actually has an ancient history. At rallies and in all kinds of rhetorical disputes, you can hear a fiery appeal: "He who is not with us is against us!", And we are so used to hearing this phrase that we regard it literally as folk art. However, it has nothing to do with proverbs and sayings. The history of this expression is more respectable and, in a sense, refined.
The biblical origin of the phrase
People with an inquiring mind may be interested in who said this phrase and why it is so widely dispersed in the world. There are semantic analogues of this expression in many languages, so we can talk about world popularity. Initially, this statement sounded differently, and although both versions have come down to us - both basic and interpreted - this one is used more: “He who is not with us is against us.” The author, however, had in mind only himself, not extending the meaning of what was said to a certain community.
The original version can be read in Matthew, chapter 12, verse 30. Jesus said: “He who is not with me is against me; and he who does not gather with me scatters. ” Does this mean that he meant that all people who did not immediately believe were his enemies?
Explanations from the author of the catch phrase
Of course, it is impossible to interview Jesus and clarify exactly what he had in mind. Usually the phrase "who is not with us is against us" is used in the meaning "to sit aside does not work, there is no neutrality, you think that you are neutral, but you are already our enemies." Nevertheless, if you carefully study the biblical story, to which the phrase uttered by Jesus refers, you can also find his words addressed to the disciples: "Do not forbid him who is not against you, he is for you." How can one interpret this duality, because it seems as if the author of the expression is clearly contrary to himself?
Perhaps Jesus had in mind strict specifics and really believed that attitudes toward God and attitudes toward his disciples are two different things, and many roads lead to God. Therefore, initially the meaning of the expression was not as radical as after a more modern interpretation.
Use of the Bible in Propaganda Rhetoric
Why does this phrase have such an influence, because it is not in vain that many radical movements are so eager to quote the phrase “he who is not with us is against us”? The Bible is considered by default an authoritative source of truths, as European thinking has historically developed. The unquestioned authority to which the speaker refers in his speech gives weight to his arguments.
After the triumphal procession of Christianity in Europe, the Bible was used as a source of justification for almost anything. Faith is actually a powerful weapon, and it was very difficult to find people who would dare to argue with words from a book inspired by God himself. However, this does not mean that the speaker himself must be a believer.
Vladimir Lenin or Max Stirner?
Most often, this expression is attributed to Vladimir Ulyanov, better known as Lenin, the ideological leader of the October Revolution that occurred in the Russian Empire at the beginning of the last century. The addressee was a party of Social Democrats who did not support the idea of a revolutionary seizure of power. Not surprisingly, the phrase was quoted and literally crammed by heart. Why does the phrase “who is not with us, is against us” in Latin sound much more impressive? Qui non est nobiscum, adversus nos est ...
Perhaps Lenin devoted a lot of time to the study of the works of the philosopher and anarchist Max Stirner. It is he who is credited with authorship of this interpretation of the biblical passage. It remains to find out who said this first, but everything is very simple: Stirner died in 1856, and Lenin was born only in 1870.
Spontaneous expression propagation
A gaudy and capacious phrase that clearly emphasizes and forces listeners to take the “right” side. Perhaps this was enough to turn the expression "who is not with us is against us" into a real slogan of the Bolsheviks. The slogans took root well on the fertile ground of mass illiteracy of the proletariat, but the speakers preferred not to spread about the biblical origin of the expression. Although, most likely, they simply did not know the Bible in such detail to draw any parallels.
The temptation to use a good expression, backed up by a rich history, wakes up from time to time from different speakers, but it sounds quite radical. It is not surprising that today the phrase is regarded as aggressive and implacable.
The relevance of applying phrases with different emotional colors
What does a person look like who, in the heat of a felt speech, casts the phrase “who is not with us is against us”? Now this expression can only hopelessly spoil the impression, and instead of the allies whom the politician expects to receive in this manner, he will receive a flurry of criticism.
Modern European society is trying to adhere to a policy of tolerance, providing people with a fairly wide range of rights and freedoms. So such a sharp contrast of the unambiguous Good to the incontrovertible Evil causes, at best, a sarcastic reaction. Nevertheless, one has to admit that radical statements find their fans, and then the political situation begins to heat up.
Often in conversation, this phrase is mentioned with distinctly mocking intonations - when someone begins to defend their rightness too ardently, contrasting different groups of people and expressing value judgments. Indeed, a speaker who is just too upset understands that he is going too far and becomes like Lenin, who is broadcasting from an armored car about the need for a world revolution as the tension subsides. Of course, this applies only to adequate people who are able to correctly assess the mood of the audience and adjust the direction of statements.
Now, speech adorned with such radical slogans is unlikely to be taken seriously, therefore speechwriters are trying to compose balanced texts in which erroneous or ambiguous interpretations are not allowed and (if possible) there is no radical rhetoric and categorical appeals.