There’s a dark logic to today

This is a philosophical question. Toodles just finished Dark Logic and wrote [spoilers]:

Really, Jane? Sarah? Laura? MADDERS? Come on, can’t anyone be honest and true? Young, Jenny B, Madeleine….Maddy and retired old lady. Can count on one hand. True to real life.

It’s a reference to those who are not obviously crims but who turn out to be, if not crims, then people who let you down when you thought they were the most loyal people going. It’s been a motif in posts, which in turn sprang from the motif of Dark Logic, which in turn sprang from a quite jaundiced view of people in general today [posts passim], which in turn sprang from experiences.

Let me now divide the people of the world into three:

1. Those obviously malevolent – communists, RINOs, CINOs, Alinskys, Mays, Blairs, the Pope etc.

2. The vast majority who depend for their integrity and behaviour on their upbringing and so, if that upbringing was preaching the Christian virtues and looking down on failure to fly straight, saying that that is a bad thing, then these ordinary citizens will do the same.

But if their culture is as the Millennials’ culture is today, with all the sick things in it, then there is a situation where, while they come down on things like animal cruelty, while they can be kind to friends, they still unthinkingly embrace things which our former culture would reject – e.g. transgender toilets, police loss of all dignity and so on.

One area where this particularly stands out is tattoos on females. There are two on Twitter who follow me – first the French girl. She’s on about love and tolerance and she’s almost emo but … her avatar shows her bare back and it’s scarred and mutilated with purple tattoos which she’d call “artistic”. In my day not so long ago, a woman with tatts was the slapper you found at the wharf pub – no lady would do such things. Actually, you wouldn’t find her because you wouldn’t go there.

Were you to bring the topic up with this delicate French purple flower, you’d be the worst person in the world.

The second follower is one of a group of those who are not necessarily lesbian but they’re into that girls’ club thing where it’s all, “Good morning, my dearest Sarah, love and kisses today,’ and all that, followed by 20 emoticons – you know the sort of girlie thing, not a man’s space.

Lovely people, don’t get me wrong, even if they do half-accept me, but one of them who’d been doing all this luvvy-duvvy stuff a few days back – she posted a picture of herself and her little dog or cat or whatever it was, hugging it.

Fine, say 99% of people, what’s wrong with that? The thing which was wrong was a dirty great tattoo across her neck and shoulders. Fine again for the “modern chav girl” but the one who clicked “like” and “retweet” on Ms Tatts, and therefore I looked at Ms Tatts, was a Russian girl who is supposedly a Christian in all she does – hubby she’s faithful to [I’d say she was], modest, kind, all the good things.

And yet she was fine with Ms Tattoos and when you went into Ms Tattoo’s account, it was full of all the modern trans this and that, as if it were all OK and we’re meant to just accept it as cool and everyone luv everyone and let’s just move on.

Sorry – there’s something really off about that.

3. Lastly, there is the Toodles type who can be a handful in the way any of us can but every choice of phrase, every concern, always points in a certain direction and it’s what I’d call old style Christian, the type you’d see more of in the 50s. Not preachy, not even above reading a salacious [H/T DR for that word, now in my lexicon, LOL] book such as … oh … mine.

And I’d like to point out a sub-type of the era – not religious but just having those values they were brought up with.

There may still be some of these types around and about today but to quote Toodles, “Can count on one hand. True to real life.”

These people really wouldn’t get down and dirty in a vile way, maybe just in a Chaucer way and would not betray you.  They’d share a joke, they’re not hung up but neither are they nauseating sick in the way Doctor Who has become.

Now there are many calling themselves “Christian” who would betray you and do so – Theresa May is one and even Clinton, I see, started setting out her “Christian” stall last night. That’s a different type again, they go into Dante’s lowest circle, as Type One do above. Even Blair pretends he’s Christian, plus the current “Pope”.

Coming back to the second type again, these people are morally and ethically fluid. They are what their culture is at the time, they’re not necessarily evil or good, they just are what they are, what their teachers and books and films have made them.  50 Shades.

And if our times today are dog-eat-dog, sleazy [see any TV, e.g. Game of Thrones. Miley Cyrus etc.], if Muslim murder and rape is quite OK with these times, then these fluid people are examples of it.

In a different era, you might even have trusted them, befriended them but now you know in your heart they’ll let you down.  They’re susceptible to the current culture, at least in part, in their ideas and ethics.

That’s what Dark Logic is about – different perceptions of right and wrong, different views of the world and what is acceptable or not.

4 comments for “There’s a dark logic to today

  1. June 19, 2018 at 17:14

    “In a different era, you might even have trusted them, befriended them but now you know in your heart they’ll let you down.”

    In the current era, a woman’s red flags are boldly and immediately presented, saving us the future heartache.

  2. June 20, 2018 at 02:20

    Fathers should have never stopped teaching the “Door Test,” and societally now, more than ever, we need a “meta-door test.”

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyj2VNVB8qk

    • June 20, 2018 at 04:16

      One of my favourite actors, Chazz Palmentari. A bit typecast.

      Door test doesn’t work today with beep locks but the principle is spot on. And it cuts both ways. If he doesn’t do the usuals like door opening too. And that works the other way too – if she shows no sign of expecting that … and so it goes on.

      My principles of man-woman interaction are:

      1. Little behaviours of mutual respect and concern;
      2. Going out of the way to find things to praise;
      3. Never making a criticism without taking a criticism;
      4. Choosing the less expensive dish on the menu until the more expensive is recommended by the partner;
      5. Eyes which largely stay on the partner when out. Not exclusively, just mainly;
      6. Little treats which never cease.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *