I haven’t written about the reactionary bigotsphere in a while. I only follow two, hand picked, reactionary bigots- following any more would be redundant as they all draw from the same uninformed prejudices and all express themselves in variations of the same self pitying whine. Neither of them has been all that busy lately and when they have they’ve just repeated the same boring nonsense as usual.
However, local reactionary bigot Richard Carvath- Salford’s one man lunatic fringe- did pop up last night to tell us what he has planned for the next few months. More of the same nonsense mostly, but also-
(4) An article to examine the underlying ethics and philosophy of my strategic and stylistic approach to political activism on the internet. Just why do I write [and generate other web content, e.g. lo-fi videos] in the way that I do? What are the motives behind the method? And what are the objectives? If I refer to ‘what I do that is distinctively me’ as ‘Carvathianism’ – what exactly is Carvathianism? Whilst most people quickly grasp what I stand for – for example, my pro-life stance – why do I manifest my agenda as I do? Carvathianism is essentially a socially conservative approach to engaging with a dumbed-down, pornographised, post-modern British society (and media, and so-called ‘intelligentsia’) by means of counter-intuitive techniques, humour and satire etc. There’s a sense in which what I do is a response to the challenge of communicating Christian socio-political themes to a largely ‘morally and spiritually illiterate’ mainstream audience through the maze of madness and irony that is our post-modern relativistic society. Why do I merge ‘traditional’ journalistic writing conventions with mind-bending (and moral-straightening) wit – with the occasional blunt instrument thrown in for good measure? What is the true depth of my academic engagement with the issues I address – and why present principles in an unorthodox, ‘middle-of-the-road-common-denominator’ manner? Why do I risk being dismissed as a dilettante or a fool because I often deliberately eschew arguing evidence of consequences with secular-humanists on their own terms; why do I sometimes refuse to play ball? Do I really believe that the fallacy of humanist first principles is so self-evident that the ‘evidence’ humanists hold dear on various issues is obviously non sequiter from the shine-through undeniable reality of absolute moral principles, and therefore logically it is unnecesary to engage in ‘reasoning the ridiculous’ with the Richard Dimkins crowd?………..i.e. do I really believe that the truths which underpin my stances are so self-evident and so unassailable that I can credibly stand my modus operandi largely upon the assertion of pure principle alone? When to use statistical and anecdotal evidence – and how? Why use sources sparingly (most of the time)?
Carvathianism? Can anyone pretend to have a grand philosophy just by sticking some suffixes onto their surname? I claim Pattinsonism. I’ll define it later. I’d go the whole, Carvathian, hog, but Pattinsonian used to be my user name on Hotmail.
It goes beyond being a word soup to become a word sludge which says nothing of any substance. There’s mention of humour and satire, but Carvath is only funny in the “we’re laughing at you, not with you” way and, unless he’s Chris Morris’ latest and most bizarre creation, I detect no satire.
I think Carvathianism, based upon the second half of the sludge, comes down to admitting that he can’t provide evidence to support any of his claims (because reality is on the side of “secular-humanists”) but he’s convinced that doesn’t matter because the version of God that exists only inside his head has told him what the “Truth” really is.
It’s all quite dumb, and reading it makes your head hurt. Under the right circumstances trying to follow the looping, folding and tearing illogic of it all might bring on some sort of transcendental experience. However, the bit which made me laugh most was later on, and much shorter.
Marriage is on my agenda.
I feel a little bad every time I mock Carvath. Not because he makes it all too easy, but because there’s obviously something wrong with him. He’s delusional, and the delusions are getting greater. If any of his family are reading this I’d ask them to intervene and get him some help before he becomes more of a risk to himself and others.
Why on earth do you follow the activity of someone you claim to be utterly insignificant? And you’ve actually gone so far as to blog about me several times over – each time saying much the same thing (i.e. how stupid and insignificant I am, etc). You’re obsessed with me, aren’t you Ian? How sad. Help is available. All your obsessional, OTT criticisms of me bear witness to the fact that you are a deeply unhappy man with a self-loathing problem – which you project onto other people. You may not be happy with your life; you may view your life as meaningless and insignificant – but I must point out that’s your life, not my life.
I actively campaign on the things I believe in; I write about the things I’m passionate about; I’ve stood for Parliament and will do so again; I get out and about and lead a fulfilled life and I make an impact. What do you do? Spend your time obsessing about me. It’s pretty obvious that there’s never any balance at all in what you write about me – and certainly no need to refute posts which amount to nothing more than an outpouring of bile. It’s sad to behold you, such a cynical, bitter and disillusioned man (I trust there’s no danger of you committing suicide in despair over the sorry state of your life). I sincerely hope that you will have a profound transformation of your life for the better. My best advice to you is to stop hating yourself and others and to start loving instead. God bless you.
As I said at the top of the post, I only follow you and one other blogger who holds similarly uninformed, bigoted opinions. Rather than wasting my time on several of you I use the two of you as examples of the things people say when they use their religion to justify their prejudices. I’m not obsessing over you, you’re my focus group for dumb.
Besides, I work in the constituency you stood in at the general election, which is how you came to my attention. Since you want to represent an area I spend a lot of time in I figure I have every right to question your opinions and values. If you can’t take a bit of scrutiny from a member of the public then perhaps politics isn’t for you.
You obviously haven’t read any of the other posts on Spinneyhead. If you did you’d see that pointing out your flaws is only a small part of my life. You should read it all some time, I get the impression your normal reading matter is limited in scope and a couple of hours at http://www.spinneyhead.co.uk/ would open your eyes to a wonderful world and expand your mind.
And I do think you need some help. The man you’ve described in your comment sounds more like you than me. Get some help, but not from anyone in your church, I think they may be part of the problem.
http://www.realstreet.co.uk/2011/02/god-is-dead-to-hell-with-god/
Ian, if you let me know when you produce a post of the quality in the Stewart Cowan Realstreet link above I will consider reading your blog. Until then, no thanks.
I’m not interested in futility, hopelessness, misery and death and from what I know of you that’s the only message you preach.
Secular-humanism has nothing worthwhile to offer. Secular-humanists have nothing good to say.
When Jesus transforms your thinking and writing, that’s the day I’ll read your blog.
Try Mia In The Snow- http://www.spinneyhead.co.uk/archives/2010/12/30/fiction-mia-in-the-snow/. I’m biased, of course, but I think it’s a lovely little piece of fiction. It’s full of family values and good neighbourliness, it makes its points lightly and it’s more positive in a few thousand words than Cowan is in a year.
If fiction isn’t your thing, try the photo heavy post about my trip along a section of the Ship Canal, commentary about cycling in Manchester or perhaps a recipe.
I read the Cowan piece and couldn’t find any quality. He’s saying something you want to hear, not something of substance. You’re mixing the two up.
You’re adamant that people who don’t share your views (and it’s not just “secular humanists”, most Christians would find your attitudes reprehensible) don’t have anything worthwhile to say. But you don’t read anything we write, so you don’t really know. I can understand if you’re scared that you’ll find out that we’re kind, decent, moral people and it will shake your belief system to the core. But I’d recommend you try it, for your own good.
I would describe myself as ‘well read’. I read a lot – and from a broad range of sources. Similarly I associate with people of many different cultures and religious/political persuasions. I don’t read fiction any more (although as a child and a teenager I read many classic novels). I will consider looking over your recommended posts some time; whilst it won’t ‘shake my belief system to the core’ I am willing nevertheless to ‘try it for my own good’!
You do have a lot of time to read dont you Richard? You should try getting a job instead of sponging.
Tarquin’s not your real name is it? I’d prefer if my commenters used their real names, if only because I get a lot of comment spam every day and “Tarquin Farquhar” nearly got deleted along with it.
There are dozens of things wrong with Carvath’s opinions and reasoning, all of which should be pointed out to him. Accusing him of sponging is a bit lazy, pick one of his statements and show the weakness in it instead. Otherwise you’re just feeding his smug belief that we don’t have anything to say in reply to him. (Unless he is on benefits but has, in the past, made some narrow minded attack on those who have to claim.)
We all know Carvath’s not going to read anything I suggest to him, or he’s not going to get the point. I’d like to hear what he considers “well read”, a list of the books he’s read in the last few months could be enlightening. I suspect he reads to confirm his prejudices rather than to find stuff out and his library is full of books attacking secularism and science.