All stand for the National Anthem
In one of his books, a fictionalisation of his illustrious
family's history, Péter Esterházy comments on standing up when the National
Anthem is played on television: “The National Anthem lifts us out of our
everyday lives, raises us into the timelessness of eternity, while television
takes us nowhere.” By which he, or the character to whom the words are
ascribed, means that, when considered precisely as a symbol of the nation, a
National Anthem should inspire in its hearers a feeling of patriotic pride, a
dedication to duty, and a selfless love for one's fellow-countrymen. It should place the individual in relation to
the nation, which is a forum in which the virtues developed are exercised. Patriotism is in itself a real virtue which
St. Thomas classifies as a species of justice whereby we demonstrate our
gratitude for the fellowship of the community and all the benefits of
citizenship, and recognise our community as a wider family, the milieu into
which it has pleased divine providence to place us. The routine mockery and denigration of
patriotism and patriots by the BBC, certain other media outlets and elements of
the political class indicates not merely their adherence to the revolutionary
values of chaos and disorder, but also real rejection of divine goodness and a
hatred of the holy in its everyday expression.
Patriotism is a species of piety, the virtue enjoined by the fourth
commandment, and it detractors almost invariably oppose religious piety as well
as the love of country that is an extension of filial or familial love. These opponents of patriotism are
untrustworthy and dishonest without exception.
Of course, there have been historical situations in which a
people found itself alienated from some political regime or other, and looked
to some more local loyalty as the basis of its patriotic fervour. There have also been nations that have failed
their people; indeed, a nation state may be judged very strictly according to
its effectiveness as a vehicle for individual and collective human development,
as St. John Paul II said: “The history of the nation deserves to be adequately
appraised in the light of its contribution to the development of man and
humanity, to intellect, heart and conscience.”
Those are, however, rare and extraordinary situations. Ordinarily speaking, to stand for or sing the
National Anthem and to honour the flag are the simplest of gestures, so simple
as almost to be reflex actions. The
rejection of anthem and flag are not simple acts of political protest in
opposition to the Government of the day; it is, rather, a profound rejection of
the nation, the people, or at the very least, of the current political
expression of the people, the State as currently constituted. It is, then, a statement of disloyalty, a
statement to those who remain loyal that they are held in contempt by those who
choose this mark of rejection. Yes, in
the extreme such a gesture may well be justified, when the flag was that of the
Spanish Republic, the Derg's Ethiopia, the Soviet Union or the anthem that of
East Germany.
Readers are well aware that I do not write in a vacuum, or
about hypothetical matters, but in the context of the high profile American
protest undertaken in the first instance by sporting figures led by Colin
Kaepernick and later by entertainers in support of the Black Lives Matter
campaign. Needless to say, the
individuals involved enjoy far more than the basic benefits of citizenship,
their fame and vast fortunes are derived solely from the opportunities their
lives in America make available to them.
When celebrities choose to participate in such protests they manifest
their contempt for the people who made them rich and famous, and their arrogant
belief that they are above gratitude, patriotism or fellow-feeling with their
local communities.
It is also worth looking closely at the campaign to which
they have chosen to attach themselves.
The media routinely present Black Lives Matter as being a group that
formed itself spontaneously from the friends and relatives of black people
killed by the police, the clear implication of the name being that their
opponents believe black lives do not matter.
The truth, however, is that the campaign is organised over social media
by individuals connected with the Black Liberation Collective, which regards
itself as a latterday reincarnation of the Black Panther Party and
movement. It is insurrectionary and
revolutionary in its ideals, but talks about use of Gandhian non-violence as a
tactic. The use of protests in a
sporting arena is a deliberate harking back to the 1960s, recalling the
clenched fist salutes at the Mexico City Olympics. The objective is to precipitate a
polarisation of society around racial identity in which people of colour
separate themselves from white communities and seek self-determinatioin funded
by reparations for historic wrongs committed by the colonising or slave-owning
powers. So far, efforts to extend the
movement beyond North America have met with only limited success although it is
certainly to be found, on university campuses across the United Kingdom and
Western Europe, and its rhetoric is routinely employed by student activists
inspired (I might almost say 'radicalised') by material posted on the internet.
There is a very long history going back decades, at least to
the pro-Soviet campaigners of the inter-War years, of celebrity support for
radical causes – remember the Redgraves and Hanoi Jane? These people are so accustomed to adulation
that they really believe they are better than the rest of us, and simple
patriotic decency is beneath them. They
succumb to the lure of radicalism because it flatters their vanity; the
revolutionaries allow them to think that they can save the world by embracing
their cause. The moneymen who own
sporting franchises, record labels and movie studios support them because they
bring in the cash. This has taken place
in the current dispute as owners have spoken out in favour of protesting NFL
stars, putting profit before principles in a thoroughly contemptible
fashion. Until they are prepared to tell
the celebrities where they get off and fire these false Messiahs, it behoves
every decent, God-fearing, patriotic believer in a free society to boycott
everything they have to offer. Do not go
to the games, the films or the gigs starring these people or produced by the
same companies. Do not buy the products
they endorse or others from the same manufacturers. Show them the contempt that they show
you. Use your buying power to demand the
bosses say: “You're fired!”. Stand by
President Trump as he fights this battle on behalf of us all. Back him in both new and traditional media if
moderators and editors will let you.
Péter Esterházy's words that “television takes us nowhere”
are very true. It must be noted that
people seldom show respect for broadcasts of the National Anthem, even on
occasions when it is broadcast in earnest, as opposed to when it is used in
whole or in part in the course of a drama or comedy, such as on flag days, at
the close of HM The Queen's Christmas address, or during relays from concerts
and sporting events. The radio and
television are merely part of the furniture, and people relate to them as such,
they have them on whilst they go about whatever they happen to be doing, so
they do not treat a broadcast of the National Anthem as the real thing. Yet the National Anthem is always the real
thing, a priest saying Mass anywhere is always the real thing, prayer is always
the real thing; anything that “raises us into the timelessness of eternity” and
places before us the eternal verities of being, goodness, truth and beauty is
always the real thing because these are the things of God. The National Anthem speaks to us of virtue,
and virtue manifests goodness; always, therefore, stand for it, and thank God
for an earthly homeland that reflects, in some poor measure, our heavenly
true Patria.
No comments:
Post a Comment