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.