> answer is too vauge to understand.
>
> insurgent as vocabulary where? what discipline? profession? social
> movement literature? as social movement participants use them? media?
>
That's exactly the point. In common usage these days, I think, "insurgent" implies terrorist opposing our will, power and society. It is obfuscatory because, in common usage (usage strategically set by particular gov't and media talking heads/writing hands), the diversity and specificity of the various uses of the term are bracketed.
>
> state's rights? out of context, i don't understand how to is jargon.
>
Is the problem that you have a specific definition of the word jargon that doesn't jibe with applying it to a short phrase most often used to veil racist, sexist and classist intent? Is jargon different from code, I guess, is the question. I see them as overlapping. Codes and connotations are part and parcel of the strategic situatedness of the use of all jargon as I see it.
>
> what is id, ego, superego an example of? properly used technical
> language or obfuscatory jargon.
>
All three were obfuscatory jargon, I should have been more clear. The Id = The It, The Ego = The I, Superego = The Super I ... the traditional translation only serves to get in the way of everyday English language readers... as it did me the first time.