‘Real life versions of Q’ (the fictional boffin from the James Bond films) are being offered government money (i.e. really my money) to develop technology to fight groups like al-Qaeda (the possibly fictional terror franchise), according to this bafflingly serious article from the BBC.
I love the idea (described on the Home Office site) of ‘horizon scanning for technical threats’. It dredges up the image of INSTINCT blokes in lab coats swivelling the periscope on the SS CONTEST, looking for ruthless acronyms sailing into view with devices the like of which we cannot begin to fear adequately.
Really, really though. ‘CONTEST’. Who sits thinking up this rubbish?
Presumably people who describe terror threats as a ‘very real danger’, such as blogger Mark Dowe, whose oaty tones outlined the
‘very real danger that such terrorists will gain access to unconventional weapons – chemical, biological and nuclear’
['Outlined' because now Mr Dowe has a very real private setting on his site, possibly to prevent people gaining access to quotable material. Setting aside an examination of the term 'unconventional weapons,' which might be extended to include items such as depleted uranium, say, or passenger jets used as missiles by actual real terrorists, this phrase highlights one of the most alarming tropes in 'the war on terror': the use of rhetorical amplification.
People in public positions (ex-Prime Minister Blair, for example) often say things are 'very real', usually in the sense of there being a 'very real danger', or 'very real threat', or a 'very real chance' of something appalling happening, where what they in fact mean often is 'not at all real'.
What can 'very real' be supposed to suggest? Some things we imagine are real are not real? Fair enough, perhaps. But some things are real, some things are, like, megareal? Pffft. There are, of course, 'terrorists', people who act as though blowing up themselves or other people is a valid way of making a point... armed ideologues are always dangerous. It doesn't make them any more dangerous to suggest they are a very real danger. Stop trying to make it sound worse than it is! If something is already shit, making it sound shitter is not going to help, and in fact the more you insist it is somehow more awful than awful, the less inclined people will be to believe you. Ask a shepherd. Doubleplusungood Alert, is it? I see.
Then there's the serious expression people always get on when they use the phrase, which only compounds the insult. As if they have access to a better version of reality than everyone else, and they can convince you of their unique capacity to sort it all out simply by the subtle and sincere use of intensifiers.
"No, this is VERY real. You thought the Nazis were real? The IRA? ETA? Just playing at reality compared to these guys. They're so real, they're like a kiss on the lips from Slavoj Žižek... with tongues."
How real do you want this? VERY REAL, PLEASE.
Still, you really can't be too careful. In the spirit of innovation, I’m developing a new anti-terror device. Based on a brown paper bag, it’s basically a brown paper bag. Every time you feel full of terror, you breath into it and it makes the fear dissipate.
I am currently brainstorming names for this device, but I believe it has already made a significant contribution to the fight against all those wishing to terrorise me with their fat-fingered throttling of the English language.
Then perhaps when we've all calmed down and put the rocket-propelled nets in the cupboard with the swingball, we can address the very real threat of bombdogs.