I suppose we have all been through the agonizing process of explaining a joke we wish we hadn’t told to a person who doesn’t GET it. There is no possibility it will be funny after an explanation.
The last sentence is important. A joke must be gotten quickly or not at all. We don’t know exactly what humor is, but we do know the connection has to be immediate.
If you are doing political analysis, there are an endless numbers of endless clues which make an instant chain. If a person refers to “THE National Review” he is not a regular conservative, if a person refers to “a socialist country” he is a Marxist.
When I hear a speech, I don’t hear what other people hear. This is one of the reasons. If a person can hear “politically correct” and not understand its Marxist nature, he is as out of it as a person who hears a Communist country referred to as “a socialist state” and doesn’t INSTANTLY understand the person is speaking in Marxese.
I am bad at giving examples, but these appear all the time. I can very often tell you what a person’s political views are by his language. We all know where a person who uses “undocumented aliens” stands.
It can be amusing. I saw a discussion the other day about race relationships and “the South African Americans.”
No one should get away with saying “mixing the races,” but we will have to push the Mantra until it is understood that “THE races” only refers to getting rid of one race. “Mixing THE races” is as instant an identification of an anti-white as “socialist country” is of a Marxist or “undocumented workers” is of an open border advocate.
Note that you will hear as many conservatives using the term “mixing THE races” as you will leftists.
Knowing all these cues is part of being a professional political analyst. But it also makes it very hard to talk to people outside the field. It is like one having to explain one joke after another, after another and on and on.
When an economist reads a speech by the Pope about how “the land produces abundant food in the world” he simply stops reading. If an economist wrote that The Immaculate Conception had to do with Children’s’ Hospital, I doubt His Holiness would read any farther.
“The land,” by itself, would produced food for a few hundred thousand hunter-gatherers, like it used to.
The Curia knows that. They are saying something they know to be untrue.
In laymen’s terms, they’re lying. I seldom use that word, because liars use it all the time. In fact, you can tell how much a liar a person is by how often he uses that word, as you can tell who regards hatred alone as a motive for human action by counting the number of times they use the word “hate.”
“Hate” is not a special word for a hater and “liar” is not a special word to a habitual liar. Others use such words only when they mean it.
But simply using the word “the land produces” is a lie. One may assumed that everything else in the document based on that is an INTENTIONAL untruth, or else the Curia has the average IQ of a thermometer reading when one is freezing water.
You may want to give some examples of how a person’s words identify him this way in the Comments.
#1 by backbaygrouch on 07/27/2010 - 8:16 am
Fascist. Anyone who calls another a fascist is a Leftist. No one else uses the smear word. Further, the charge is almost always spurious. The target is likely a conservative, a White, or even worse, a BUGser.
#2 by BGLass on 07/27/2010 - 9:02 am
Only whites talk about “retirement.” Retirement means trying to go someplace white where you are allowed to say what you really think and feel. Mr. Whitaker has earned his right to a “good retirement” where he can be white, or at least even whiter than before. Growth and age are often about the power to be white. It’s a free speech issue.
When Mexicans talk about retirement, they are talking about taking their American money and going back to their real home which is in Mexico. Blacks never talk about retirement, not really. They might talk about pensions. But they are never endlessly researching for A PLACE TO GO. All their lifelong vacations are NOT secretly research for where they can feel ok in the world as blacks, or as Mexicans, or as jews, or whatever.
Truly generational American whites do not have a homeland to go to every six months, the way NY jews go to Israel. If they were here before 1945, (ousted during Stalin, as opposed to Hitler), then they go to Florida, instead of Israel. This to them says they are ‘assimilated.” It does not get more American than Florida, although they could go to San Diego. Retirement convo, by contrast, with whites is like talking about a “good school district.”
But that’s whites. Talking about retirement, or good school districts, or saying something enthusiastic about the South or Appalachia, or REALLY cold weather and skiing and how much you enjoy it— is all just a way of saying one wants a crypto white friend.
I overheard one convo about weather, the recollection of which can still crack me up. Two blonde-blues, one about twenty, the other sixty— gabbing about loving cold weather for a solid half hour, enthusing and beaming about the wonders of snow, and hot cocoa and the fire, and how the colder, the better, the skis, and then of course, there’s the Christmas decorating, and etc. By the end, they were euphoric. On their toes, leaning forward, eyes shiny, skin glowing. They could have been on some great drug. You had to be there.
Versus multi-cultural, diverse, progressive, rights, hate lingo. If nothing else, gentile whites are just more fun.
#3 by Dave on 07/27/2010 - 9:55 am
It never occurs to most people that the spontaneous notions they hold about morality and fairness are fundamentally wrong.
The real world is profoundly different than what most of us think it is and far more insidious and dangerous. There is arithmetic that nobody talks about because it is so subtle and tricky.
Even when I hear a term such as “Americanism”, it causes my internal guardian to awaken, but not in a defense sense, for who so ever utters this term is a preposterous fool.
Nevertheless, the term makes an insidious claim upon its hearer regarding the world, its moral order, charging duty and responsibility, and demanding payment.
We have to learn to hear accurately. We cannot be blind to being assaulted. We have to have sensitivity to the bogus nature of moral claims and be on guard.
It is a basic tenet of street smarts that you are responsible for the plight of no stranger, REGARDLESS of circumstances. I can smell a hustle a mile away. I try to terminate things before they begin by initiating the confrontation well in advance of when it was expected.
Slowness in reaction is a serious shortcoming of the middle-class. Predators accurately interpret that slowness as weakness. It is a behavior of avoidance, as most moral behaviors are.
Read that last sentence carefully. You have an ear for the subtlety of the real world. And at least you have some sort of chance of coping with its trickery.
What if the encounter is not a hustle? Who in the hell made YOU responsible for another’s plight? Do you really understand what is going on?
Let me give you an example: The actor Sean Penn, who is heavily involved in relief efforts in Haiti, said recently, “The Catholic Church owns much of the Haitian countryside, and has made no effort whatsoever to open it up to Port au Prince’s homeless”.
Sean Penn, a celebrity Mommy Professor, thinks he has a claim on the Catholic Church. Who in the HELL gave him the right to make that claim?
Why do people succumb to preposterous hustles of this nature?
Better ask the question, it is an important one.
#4 by BGLass on 07/27/2010 - 10:16 am
“…Slowness in reaction is a serious shortcoming of the middle-class. Predators accurately interpret that slowness as weakness. It is a behavior of avoidance, as most moral behaviors are…”
Minor point, but avoidance can be avoidance FOR NOW. Information can be collected, false alliances communicated, an enemy put off guard; conventional morality need not underlie it and it can be strategical. Slowness in reaction can be very useful. And slow reactors can turn on a dime. The swift visceral punch can just be hot-headed and weak in its way, imo. Pick your battles and all that.
#5 by Simmons on 07/27/2010 - 10:17 am
Mommy Prof. gives them a script. Maybe decades ago the left had a central locus, but nowadays even the anti-white cult is small with the adage “miles wide an inch deep” being a good descriptor.
Anyway these cults induct their emotional cripples with guilt and fear, gives the average doofus a sentence or two of rhetoric to repeat and sends them out into a world which is rapidly becoming less tolerant of privileged white children with emotional baggage.
Semi amusing acecdote, at the oildrum site about two years ago one of the principle posters gave Jim Jones’ last speech where he also let it be known that he did drugs with one of the “mixers” back in the day. Thirty plus years this doofus lived before his diabetes sent him to his personal hell, everyday a tortorous lie.
Anyway if you run up against a doofus, just skip all preliminaries and ask them to repeat their script in bullet point fashion, and ask this person which cult they belong to and how large a demographic slice is it.
#6 by Dick_Whitman on 07/28/2010 - 1:27 pm
When a White person says “I’m not a racist,..but”_______(fill in the blank)
They’re admitting that they live in an anti-white tyranny where free speech is regulated and shaped by anti-whites.
The White person may disagree with open borders and must qualify their displeasure with “I’m not a racist, but” before they can express the fact that they want secure borders.
The “I’m not a racist, but” comes out in a Tourettes like manner, which is the result of classical conditioning in the media and schools.
Anti-racism = anti-white