It’s often veiled/subtle about its explicit vs. implicit messages, with layers of indirection and lots of wry humor, though the surface meaning of the text is straightforward. Which is why it’s great for the careers of modern political philosophers who can spend years combing through it for clues.

Oh hey, linked at the bottom of the OP: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1971/11/04/a-special-supplem...