Because Waitrose Eats Your Soul
And so, again, we visit the pages of the Guardian, where Felicity Lawrence looks forward to the downfall of big supermarkets. You know, those dark, forbidding entities that have “marched across our food and shopping landscape,” casting shadows so vast and terrifying that “it seemed there was no part of our consuming lives they did not want to capture.”
Tightening her moral corset, she says,
People are in revolt against Big Retail… The fall of this empire looks as though it will be fast… It is hard to mourn.
It seems I’d missed these dramatic events, this fall of empire and popular revolt. Perhaps, like many others, I was busy buying groceries at a reasonable price in a pleasant, airy supermarket with polite and helpful staff. But apparently the “supermarket model” is not only accompanied by “social destruction,” it’s also a “colossal market failure.” And so we – that’s thee and me – will somehow find both the time and enthusiasm for “smaller baskets” and “more frequent provisioning,” several times a week from righteous local suppliers – where they exist, that is, and regardless of the weather and any scheduling commitments. Their prices may be higher and their supplies less varied and reliable, but at least their moral aura will meet Guardianista standards. And so never again will dark forces “make us buy things we never intended to buy.” Never again will we be seduced by discounted biscuits and that sinful Pot Noodle.
As is the custom at Kings Place, Ms Lawrence then goes on to tell us what it is “we” think:
We don’t want the illusion of “choice” that 30-40,000 lines offer, especially when so many of them are just variations on the same theme of highly processed fats, sugars, and salt disguised by additives.
That’s all supermarkets sell, obviously. Damn their glowing eyes. And even if it wasn’t, we mortals have no ability to make decisions regarding how we spend our money. We, it seems, just drift down those supermarket aisles, no shopping list in hand, scooping things at random into our baskets. Yes, dear reader, we all shop by poundage and volume. Didn’t you know?
If Ms Lawrence’s pieties sound familiar, you may be thinking of Friday’s column by Deborah Orr, who told the nation – or the tiny part of it that reads the Guardian unironically – that the big supermarkets are “in trouble” because they’re,
viewed as having helped to impoverish town centres and are now looking horribly antisocial.
You see, the entire nation – not just a subset of well-heeled Guardianistas – is raging against the convenience of the local supermarket, where cheap food is plentiful and easy to find. Instead, says Ms Orr, we’re all spending our weekends in joyful protest at the nearest out-of-town farmers’ market, where securing a week’s food shopping is a more ambitious task and generally more expensive. And we’re doing this because – yes, because – “people don’t have as much money to spend.” This is what we’re all doing, apparently. Just like her.
Update, via the comments:
The Observer’s Joanna Blythman, who was evidently handed the same article template, is also very fond of the presumptuous “we,” a term she uses repeatedly. She too just knows how “we” feel, thanks to her uncanny mental powers. And amazingly, we all agree with her. Apparently, the nation’s shoppers are no longer interested in convenience or price, or the cost of their time – despite her own article suggesting the opposite – and “we” now favour the “creative independent retail sector,” by which she means, “farmers markets, box schemes, bread clubs [and] food co-ops.” You see, paying more for food and spending much longer finding it, filling our otherwise empty afternoons with more frequent trips and smaller baskets, is “increasingly shrewd and practical.”
As Jen quips in the comments,
More people are shopping at big cheapo supermarkets Aldi and Lidl which ‘proves’ everyone wants to shop at farmers’ markets where food is more expensive. #ObserverLogic.
And on the subject of those legendary farmers’ markets, of which so many Guardianistas speak, commenter Lancastrian Oik steers us to this.
“I think the fungal quality of men like that”
For a moment I thought you were talking about a stereotyped diseased ridden outgroup like Gypsies or the Jews. I was about to object. Thank Gaia there’s a stereotyped diseased ridden outgroup we can irrationally hate.
I think the Great White Male they are talking about is personified by Farage.
But does anyone interviewed actually say that or even mention him? No. Instead, their comments are sweeping, and ostentatiously so. It’s signalling, after all. Hence the air of in-group conceit.
It reminds me of Jonathan Miller’s description of people who voted Conservative as “typhoid,” and his comments about the “idiocy” of bourgeois suburbanites, those idiots, the ones whose taxes pay for arts subsidies to loftier souls like Jonathan Miller. And it reminds me of Mary Warnock’s famous raging against Thatcher’s blouse, or rather, its suburban, lower-middle class connotations. It’s much the same dynamic.
“Thank Gaia there’s a stereotyped diseased ridden outgroup we can irrationally hate.”
Irrationally? Pfft. The ‘fungal’ was referring to the DH Lawrence poem, by the way.
Not entirely clear from the context I have to say.
like a fungus, living on the remains of a bygone life
sucking his life out of the dead leaves of greater life than his own
That makes all the difference doesn’t it. Likening the out group to disease is SO different to describing it as parasitic.
Irrationally? Pfft.
Do I take it that that means you genuinely hate them, and that same hatred is rational?
So that’s hatred; hatred of men of a specific ethnic group, whom, because of their demeanour, dress sense and your own pre-conceived notions as to the nature of their pre-conceived notions, it’s OK (being empirically rational) to hate?
Sheesh.
Right, I’m outta here for the evening. The latest batch of ephemera will materialise just after midnight. Play nicely. No spitting.
“it isn’t actually war, its a debate, and treating one like the other makes you look like a bit of a pillock”
Oh, there’s a debate?
You mean like the mob of topless feminists in Argentina who attempted to ‘debate’ the abortion issue by trying to storm a cathedral, then assaulting the men barring their way, spray painting the eyes and crotches, performing lewd sexual acts in front of them while screaming obscenities like a coven of distempered harpies?
Or feminist ‘professor’ Mireille Miller-Young who tried to debate the same issue by assaulting a teenage pro life activist and wrecking her sign?
Like the mob chanting ‘hail Satan’ outside a Texan abortion clinic who were intending to hurl jars of urine and feces before the cops confiscated them?
Perhaps you were thinking of the screeching hordes who gathered to condemn the defendants in the Duke rape case simply because they were white jocks, and continued lying about their guilt long after it became clear that the entire case was a hoax?
Yeah, there’s some real rational, cool headed, disinterested, facts-driven civilized debating going on right there. Anyone who sees any undue hostility from feminists must be some kind of pillock.
Yes, that’s why they are much maligned – it isn’t actually war, its a debate, and treating one like the other makes you look like a bit of a pillock.
What is it, exactly, that is just a debate?. Is Feminism just about polite debates?. That’s news to me. You could try telling that to those who are publicly labeled woman haters, creeps and rape supporters, for not seeing things the right way and for having an incorrect word-view. Incorrect meaning it doesn’t align precisely with Feminist dogmas.
Those of us who are adults know there is no literal war, and those few who genuinely hate their ideological opponents and passionately describe contested issues in terms of conspiracies, and their battles waged, aren’t just there for formal debate. Ok?. Further, while I’m not an MRA I’ve seen them in action often enough to know that what transpires between them and your average Feminist scold could hardly be called debate.
Yes, but is her child gender-normative? Because we may have to fix that:
Hopefully bleacher seats or an internet feed or something to allow mass viewing will be set up so that one and all can watch the wannabe administrators as all the student’s biology—
—-not sexual preference, not cultural influence, not baseball vs interesting matters, but biology—
—kicks in, and then the wannabe admins then have to explain that even though the students are all just blobs, some of the blobs seem to have some occurrence about once a month . . .
…some of the blobs seem to have some occurrence about once a month…
Blobs on the blob?
Blobs on the blob?
Yeah, that too—Albeit I seem to recall that faking with toilet paper is a longstanding favorite . . . which will then drag the vehemently denied reality right back out into the open again . . . !
Back to supermarkets.
Here’s Julie Burchill being brilliant about Tesco:
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2007/dec/19/tesco.supermarkets
“Do I take it that that means you genuinely hate them, and that same hatred is rational?”
I think hatiing UKIP is entirely rational if you hate the things they stand for (bigotry in general, racism in particular).
“Oh, there’s a debate?”
Yes, there’s a debate. If you think it’s a war I think you are teensy bit hysterical.
It’s worth pointing out, again, that Farage and UKIP aren’t mentioned anywhere in the article. Despite some jibes at “alpha males” and “middle-class white men” in particular, the bulk of the comments seem aimed at an entire notional class of white men, to which all manner of sins and supposed sins are casually assigned, as if self-evident. Apparently, this vast category of mankind should “end up in a zoo” or embrace extinction. It’s the woolliest of posturing.
“I think hatiing UKIP is entirely rational if you hate the things they stand for (bigotry in general, racism in particular).”
Don’t be disingenuous. I know that’s like asking gravity to stop working, but nevertheless.
It was you who introduced the notion of “the Farage male”.
And (leaving aside your disingenuousness for the sake of debate) if you hate UKIP as a whole because of “bigotry in general (and) racism in particular“, do you also extend your “rational” hatred to, say, Islam, based on similar criteria?
Just asking, like.
I looked up all the contributors to that New Statesman piece on Wikipedia. Out of 17, at least 10 went to Oxford or Cambridge, and at least 8 were privately educated. Every single one of them is part of the establishment. When they talk about the middle classes, they’re looking down. This is what passes for the left these days – the aristocracy sneering at the staff.
“And (leaving aside your disingenuousness for the sake of debate) if you hate UKIP as a whole because of “bigotry in general (and) racism in particular”, do you also extend your “rational” hatred to, say, Islam, based on similar criteria?”
Nothing disingenuous about it, I hate UKIP because it is a party of bigotry and racism. Islam is a different sort of thing. Of course it is, like Christianity, brimming with bigotry in its books and some of its doctrines and manifestations, but it isn’t a party. I don’t know why you think the things are alike.
And that’s how you square the circle?
Only one specific kind of ideological movement is worthy of hatred, the political party?
That’s ridiculous. Really, really ridiculous
“Only one specific kind of ideological movement is worthy of hatred, the political party?”
Islam isn’t even an ‘ideological movement’. You could choose any number of ideological movements within Islam (or Christianity) that are hateworthy, though. But I still don’t get why hating UKIP should require some sort of Islamic ideology test.
Troll, feed, don’t, the.
A little word puzzle, there.
Smudger- yes, of course.
Sometimes I just feel the need to get down and get all forensic.
Agree really I myself can’t help . sickness , sometimes a it’s
nice we all . if could though agree be It would
Islam is a political ideology first and foremost, with religious sanction. Anyone who would equate the bigotry and hatred inherent in Islam with Christianity is either a liar or a fool.
It’s a strange world where Tony Parsons and Julie Burchill appear to be the only sensible commentators.
Minnow chooses to attack the UKIP because, being generally civilized folk, they make for a soft target. It’s got nothing to do with principles or beliefs, it is to do with which provides the easiest avenue for self-righteous posturing which is at the same time entirely safe. It’s the equivalent of putting “likes Thai food” in a dating profile: an unimaginative cop-out.
Same bollocks (again) in the Observer.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/26/supermarkets-reign-is-over-hail-the-independents
More people are shopping at big cheapo supermarkets Aldi and Lidl which ‘proves’ everyone wants to shop at farmers’ markets where food is more expensive. #ObserverLogic.
More people are shopping at big cheapo supermarkets Aldi and Lidl which ‘proves’ everyone wants to shop at farmers’ markets where food is more expensive. #ObserverLogic.
Heh. It’s as if they’re all using the same template. I notice Ms Blythman is also very fond of the presumptuous “we,” a term she uses repeatedly. She just knows how “we” feel, thanks to her uncanny mental powers. And amazingly, we all agree with her. Apparently, the entire nation is no longer interested in convenience or price, or the cost of their time, despite her own article suggesting otherwise, and everyone is itching to spend their afternoons using “farmers markets, box schemes, bread clubs [and] food co-ops.” Because paying more for food and spending much longer finding it, time few of us have, is “increasingly shrewd and practical.”
I hate UKIP because it is a party of bigotry and racism. Islam is a different sort of thing
In no way creating dubious distinctions to suit your progressive world-view, then.
The charge of “bigotry” we can ignore, as anyone can call each other bigots if they disagree. But “a party of racism”. What does that mean, exactly? Are all the members KKK members? Or did a UKIP member once display a slight fear of change to their world once?
Of course we know that anyone who wants to control immigration is going to be called racist/xenophobe by certain progressives, but that is more or less just name-calling. My point is that “a party of racism” is pure politics-speak, and designed specifically to obstruct understanding and stifle debate. I hope this might get through to whoever goes by the name of Minnow
(incidentally, my mother – a hard-working immigrant – also believes that UKIP contains nasties. I don’t know. Farage doesn’t seem to seethe with hatred, though some of UKIPs other members & supporters may be an odd lot. But I think it’s foolish to denounce everyone who shows concern over immigration as racists. There is such a thing as love for your own culture and values, and it is not the same thing as hatred for others’. Though I expect I’d have trouble getting that into some people’s heads..)