Ruskin on the British ban on ‘best friends’ in elementary schools

24 Mar

See here for Ruskin’s comment on the original Sun story.

Ruskin sagely notes:

The Modernist intellectuals and our current elite would prefer us to be isolated individuals; broken of communal solidarity, common morality, self-sacrificing relationships, and mutual understanding. All are qualities reserved for our age of rampant individualism, secularism, and progress. One may not be capable of foreseeing the next insane idea to be thought up by the Modernists, but upon showing itself none of us are entirely surprised.


Yet there are more sinister underlying influences I suspect. It is close friendship which strengthens the character and loss of a close friend which toughens a child to future heartaches. These young friendships are critical in developing a mature, loving adult capable of forming long lasting relationships with their future spouse. But maybe this is their reason for doing so. Just as they advocate for open sexual relations with large amounts of people, so too they are advocating for the abolition of discriminatory, exclusive special bonds between children.

Just so; as in Aldous Huxley’s ‘Brave New World’, best to break any but the most superficial of relations between people, making sex not a means for couple to deepen their relationship with each other, but as a mere form of entertainment, a diversion, which doesn’t actually increase intimacy between people, outside of its proper context.  Along with that, discourage true friendships: if you can do it when children are young, they won’t learn the pattern for future life.  There’ll be no more “You and me against the world”, i.e. against the State, and the Brave New World Order.  Everyone will be forced to get in line…  (The clones in the sci-fi movie “The Island” were forbidden from forming close friendships, too.  Life imitates fiction…)


24 responses to “Ruskin on the British ban on ‘best friends’ in elementary schools

  1. Svar

    March 24, 2012 at 10:47 am

    What the fuck? I remember when I was a small child going to school in the MidWest and later on Texas. I never had to deal with any of this fucked up shit. Does the Queen know about this?

    Homeschooling or Private/Parochial school FTW.

  2. Will S.

    March 24, 2012 at 10:56 am

    The Queen is a constitutional monarch, so alas, not in a position to do anything… A good argument for absolute monarchy. 😉

    “Homeschooling or Private/Parochial school FTW.”


  3. Svar

    March 24, 2012 at 11:29 am

    I know, I was joking about the Queen. I support absolute monarchy and Divine Right as well. Constitutional Monarchy can work if the non-monarchist leader is someone like Antonio Oliveira de Salazar or Franco Franscisco.

  4. Will S.

    March 24, 2012 at 11:32 am

    “Constitutional Monarchy can work if the non-monarchist leader is someone like Antonio Oliveira de Salazar or Franco Franscisco.”

    Hear, hear! (Though, sadly, Portugal remains a republic, but thanks to Francisco Franco, Spain has returned to being a monarchy, and best of all, the Commies are dead, as they should be.)

  5. joycalyn

    March 24, 2012 at 11:40 am

    There is absolutely nobody stupider (may I call them evil?) than a government school official.

    Anthony Esolen wrote about the disastrous loss of male friendships due to homosexuality.

    “On three great bonds of love do all cultures depend: the love between man and woman in marriage; the love between a mother and her child; and the camaraderie among men, a bond that used to be strong enough to move mountains. The first two have suffered greatly; the third has almost ceased to exist.”

    It has looked to me for years that if you divide the men the civilization will fall.

  6. Will S.

    March 24, 2012 at 11:48 am

    @ joycalyn: Sure you may; they are stupid and evil…

    Esolen is right; ’tis a shame…

    Civilization is falling, indeed, right before our eyes…

  7. Svar

    March 24, 2012 at 11:49 am

    @ Will

    Franco was a fucking lion. He absolutely slaughtered the commieshits. Those bastards were burning churches, killing priests and monks, and raping nuns; they deserved to die. Thanks to Franco, they were not able to do in Spain what they did in Russia.


    I don’t know, Joycalyn. It does seem that male camaraderie does still exist. Maybe it’s just limited to young men nowadays.

  8. Will S.

    March 24, 2012 at 11:51 am

    @ Svar: re: Franco, exactly!

    re: male camaraderie: Yes, it still does exist, but it’s less plentiful than in yesteryear, and it is in danger. And its diminishment has already had a huge negative impact on our society, alas…

  9. Svar

    March 24, 2012 at 12:01 pm

    I read a good part of the article. If male “camaraderie” means sharing a bed with another guy or holding his hand, screw that! As for Abe Lincoln, even if he wasn’t gay, he was still a huge fag.

    I thought male camaraderie meant stuff like drinking, joking, and telling stories. As well as the implication that we have one another’s backs.

  10. Svar

    March 24, 2012 at 12:04 pm

    You know, the author has a point. If I was friends with a much older unrelated man, people would be suspicious of him. That is unfortunate.

  11. Will S.

    March 24, 2012 at 12:07 pm

    It is.

    I’m friends IRL with a guy not that many years older than you; I’m sure there are messed-up people out there who see us hanging out together, and are suspicious. Sad, that.

  12. Svar

    March 24, 2012 at 12:16 pm

    Yes, Will. I was thinking of you and the other men at Patriactionary whom I email.

    I finished the article. I will admit, I repulsed at the thought of sharing a bed with another man or holding his hand, but I thought that was a normal heterosexual reaction. I’m as straight as an arrow so it’s not that I’m afraid that I’m a secret homo. It’s just that I find it to be strange. There still is a sense of loyalty amongst male friends, however. But once again, it’s implicit, I just can’t imagine any of us gushing over one another; we don’t even gush over women!

    Good article, Joycalyn.

  13. joycalyn

    March 24, 2012 at 1:06 pm

    I think specific expressions of male camaraderie will be largely cultural. The sharing a bed or holding hands – I agree – weird, yuck. But, my son and his friends (since you mentioned young men) are quite physical with each other. None of them are the least afraid of being thought homo; in fact, they joke about it, calling each other names, acting prissy to get a laugh, etc. This is less since my son is married now, but he and his friends constantly wrestled around. Physicality was a big part of his bonding with other boys. We didn’t have him in an atmosphere where homosexuality would have ever been suspected, though, and certainly not a place where it would be nurtured and encouraged.

  14. Svar

    March 24, 2012 at 1:36 pm

    Joycalyn, my friends and I are quite physical as well(we still play-fight or do stupid stuff like purple nurples) and yes, we do act prissy or faggish to get some laughs.

    That being said, we’re not affectionate towards one another like the examples Esolen used. We don’t talk about about how much we love one another or anything fruity like that.

    That said, I think male camaraderie is dead between young men and older men due to suspicions of homosexual behavior. It’s kind of similar to why most men stay away from unrelated children as well.

  15. Will S.

    March 24, 2012 at 5:46 pm

    In the Indian sub-continent, straight men will hold hands with each other, drape their arms over each others’ shoulders, and the like. It’s culturally determined, how affection is displayed.

  16. Branden Sullivan

    March 24, 2012 at 6:53 pm

    Thanks, Will, for mentioning my post.

    You know, the more I think about the current news reports pouring out of Great Britain the more it makes me think of a book I read several months back. It was called ‘The Road Ahead; America’s Creeping Revolution’ by John T. Flynn. In it he explained that there were two forms of Socialism which developed by the 1920s; Russian Socialism and British Socialism. One proudly publicly boasted, proclaiming itself to be Communist; the other boasted behind closed doors of its Socialism, but in public made sure never to use the word.

    Perhaps it is the case that one has been quashed, not by Capitalism/Christianity but rather by its own kin.


  17. Will S.

    March 24, 2012 at 7:25 pm

    @ Hey Ruskin, cheers. 🙂

    “Perhaps it is the case that one has been quashed, not by Capitalism/Christianity but rather by its own kin.”

    For sure; left/liberalism has been victorious, where both national socialism and communism failed…

    The question is, how long is the status quo sustainable?

  18. Mark Slater

    March 25, 2012 at 2:51 am

    “So far, I have lamented the attenuation of male friendships, which suffer under a terrible pincers attack: The libertinism of our day thrusts boys and girls together long before they are intellectually and emotionally ready for it, and at the same time the defiant promotion of homosexuality makes the natural and once powerful friendships among boys virtually impossible.”
    — from the article (thank you very much, Jocalyn)

    As Western culture becomes becomes more pagan, everything (even the innocence of genuine friendship) seems the more perverted and corrupt. The difference between Christianity and Paganism appears to be growing ever more distinct.

    Brenden said: “One proudly publicly boasted, proclaiming itself to be Communist; the other boasted behind closed doors of its Socialism, but in public made sure never to use the word.”

    So which is worse: the “Naked Communist” of Cleon Skousen or the sneakier kind? The latter goes by many names; Socialism, the Green Movement, Affordable Healthcare, Anti-racism, Gender Equality, and many others of which I’m sure my friends at Patriactionary are well familiar.

  19. Mark Slater

    March 25, 2012 at 2:55 am

    “Joycalyn” and “Branden”

  20. Will S.

    March 25, 2012 at 7:12 am

    @ Mark: I think the sneakier kind is worse.

    You know the boiling frog analogy? Drop a frog into boiling water, and it will notice and jump out immediately. Put a frog in room temp water, slowly increase the temp, the frog won’t notice the change, and will boil to death.

    We are the frogs in the pot, slowly being boiled, without realizing it.

    At least the Soviet people knew they were being boiled.

  21. Cranberry

    March 26, 2012 at 3:53 pm

    As Western culture becomes becomes more pagan, everything (even the innocence of genuine friendship) seems the more perverted and corrupt. The difference between Christianity and Paganism appears to be growing ever more distinct.

    I know that C.S. Lewis has pointed out that there are truths even in Pagan religions, and Dante Alleghieri placed Pagan scholars and philosophers on high for their almost-grasp of the principles of Christianity. What I wonder is, are we using the word “pagan” correctly? Are pagans even using the word correctly?

    I visited a few pagan/wiccan forums recently to read about fasting, to see if ritual fasting was done in the short- or long-term as a means of physical and spiritual purification. One of the more amusing responses was “no, pagans do whatever they want, it’s a self-created faith and you don’t have to fast if you don’t want to – why would the goddess want you to starve?”

    Ah…so we have a “self-created, DIY, anything goes faith” in paganism? Historically, I don’t think this was the case. Pagan religions were fairly scholarly, rigid, and well-defined before the coming of the Word. Their priests observed the heavens and the seasons, and had rites for planting, harvest, fertility, marriage, burial, fasting, healing, and maintaining communal wholeness. It was not perfect, but it was not at all anything goes or do it yourself. Greek and Roman pagan societies were well ordered and had pantheic religion to promote social and moral cohesion, which paved the way for a reception (albeit a challenging one) to the word of Jesus.

    I think it is this “DIY” attitude towards life, morality, spirituality, and religion that is most harmful. The hamsters don’t live only in the female sexual brain. Everywhere, and for every and any reason, someone is willing to come up with a spin and a justification for taking the easy way of life and not having any principles. Pagans also practiced human and infant sacrifice and had many superstitions which have been overcome by the more rational and compassionate Christianity, I understand this. But I think even modern, self-proclaimed “pagans” have it all wrong when they use the term. They are just children, unwilling to take up the burden of living justly and doing the hard work of cultivating a wise life. They insult Pagans when they use the word 😉

  22. Will S.

    March 26, 2012 at 4:14 pm

    @ Cranberry: Exactly. Wiccanism is of course a very modern, DIY religion; it indeed has nothing to do with the true paganism of yore, which, for its many faults, had more truth in it than any modern invented false faiths do.

  23. Svar

    March 26, 2012 at 5:55 pm

    @ Cranberry

    Haha, you sound like me. I definitely agree. However, paganism is dead; Oden, Zeus, Thor…. All dead. I remember reading the comments to one of Thomas Fleming’s articles on neo-paganism and one commenter said(rough paraphrase): “Neo-Pagans are on the same level as grown men who start believing in the Tooth Fairy again.”


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s