As BenSix at Back Towards the Locus observes:

Our earnestness and energy is not, in many cases, produced by events but applied to them when it befits our whims and prejudices

Back to school, busy planning, getting to know the classes, etc, I’m not making as much time to post here as I’d like. However, BTTL and the article by Norman Geras to which he linked prompted a surge of energy and earnestness. Couldn’t just ignore it, as I normally do. Wound me right up, did Norm.

At some point, I will revisit/republish here the things I wrote 10 years ago against the impending wars in Afghanistan, then Iraq… maybe I’ll revisit the notes made in the years since, detailing feelings of profound misery, about the intransigence of the UK/US governments, the constant feeling that any second now someone was going to blow some shit up somewhere, then a news story noting that they had. Feelings of desolation, anger, frustration, alienation, rage or guilt (as Peter Thomas once narrated). This fading notion that instead of a springboard to constant conflict, the horrible attacks on the US in September 2001 could have been an opportunity to do things differently, better. Wasted years.

Yet war apologists and writers like Geras maintain this air of personal affront, aggrieved common sensibilities, which sounds more and more peevish as years go by, as their arguments for conflict ring more and more hollow, as things can only get worser. With his little digest, Geras merely lists straw man after slouching straw man. Citing human rights in defence of what we did to Fallujah is at best tasteless. The curiously contorted idea that democracy is crucial yet starts and finishes at the ballot box – point 5… MASSIVE global demonstrations, and “they” didn’t listen. One would expect some sort of acknowledgement, at least, but against urgent representations, logic, compassion and fact our governments went to war anyway. “Why should they go out to fight? They leave that up to the poor,” as Black Sabbath observed.

I can’t believe an actual Professor actually considers the facile points or arguments addressed in his piece as worthy of mention. That it was published as an “11 for 9/11” kind of anniversary belch, a pop bullshit Greatest Moans, an excuse for tossing off some beermat opinions, just makes it worse, somehow. Geras using a solemn occasion as a crucible for more simplistic yet potent logomancy, the sort that has sustained just over a decade of war and global tension. It is an insult to everyone’s intelligence.

Gah. GAH!

‘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. But no, stop the giggling! It’s really real! There is (01-2015: or was, excuse the archived link) a Home Office unit called, Bondishly, INSTINCT! They have a strategy for it and everything… called CONTEST. 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’

[past tense ‘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 to distort reality.

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. What they mean is genuine. It is not just one of your nebulous chances, it has a kind of concreteness that makes spending money on weapons and so forth very really necessary. 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 is of course the implication that when people say ‘real’, and especially ‘very real’, they in fact mean ‘not at all real’.

Very real danger. As we continue to see, there are ‘terrorists’, people who act as though killing 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 just 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 an INSTINCTive 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.