Beware the “Beloved Community”

“Democracy is not a state. It is an act, and each generation must do its part to help build what we called the Beloved Community, a nation and world society at peace with itself.”  Congressman John Lewis, “Together, You Can Redeem the Soul of Our Nation” (2020)

“The first problem of all democracy is to define ‘the people’ who are to be the sovereign body. Sooner or later, this always means some sort of purge of anti-social or non-national elements.” Lord Percy of Newcastle, The Heresy of Democracy (1954)

If a nation aspires to become what congressman Lewis calls a “beloved community,” it must prepare to cross rivers of blood.  If world society aspires to be “at peace with itself,” it must prepare to kill, imprison, or perhaps lobotomize, every man, woman and child who is not at peace with world society.  We should not be deceived by emollient words like “beloved,” “community,” or “peace,” since these are nothing but sly slogans of tyrants, not to mention hideous harbingers of slaughter, exile and the rack.

Congressman Lewis no doubt learned the catchphrase “beloved community” from Martin Luther King, the “civil rights” leader who had no real interest in civil rights. “Our ultimate end,” King wrote, “must be the creation of the beloved community.”*  When King said “beloved community,” he meant a socialist society of enforced equality–this equality being enforced by a dictatorship of the proletariat of color.

King very likely learned the catchphrase “beloved community” from the American philosopher Josiah Royce, who some fifty years before King wrote,

 “the principle of principles in all Christian morals remains this: since you cannot find the universal and beloved community, create it . . . . take steps towards the organization of that coming community.”**

This is, needless to say, rank mendacity, but Royce obviously cribbed the word “beloved” from the New Testament in the hope that he could swindle gullible Christians.  New Testament writers use the name “beloved” to denote the community of Christian believers, and they use this name because they believe the community of Christian believers is uniquely beloved by God.  It is true, as John says in one his letters, that the Christians in this community “ought to love one another,” but John and the other New Testament writers call Christians “beloved” because they are loved, not because they are loving.

In Royce’s hands, however, the phrase “beloved community” is transformed into a churchy name for a socialist state of enforced equality.  It is the deceptive code name for a human society perfected as an ant colony, bee hive, or buffalo herd.  Once multitudinous humanity has been melded into this sort of  “beloved community,” its members will differ no more than two peas in a pod.

 “Think of the closest unity of human souls that you know. . . . a live unity of knowledge and of will, of love and of deed . . .”**

It is not clear by whom Royce’s beloved community would be beloved, although probably not by the unwitting Myrmidons who would find their souls squashed together in this paradise of preachers, puppets and pickpockets.

The twentieth century taught us that there is only one way to create this sort of “beloved community,” and that is by bullying or burying anyone who does not feel or feign the love.  Every recalcitrant individual must be purged, whether by shooting him in the head, sending him to Siberia, or stigmatizing him as a sub-human scoundrel whom not even his mother could love

In other words, every recalcitrant individual must be purged by damning him to hell.

*) Martin Luther King, jr. Papers, quoted in The Martin Luther King, jr., Encyclopedia, ed. Clayborne Carson (1988).

**)Josiah Royce, The Problem of Christianity (1913)

10 thoughts on “Beware the “Beloved Community”

  1. I have no problem with doing this to the likes of Lewis and other communist who use racism to advance their goals.

  2. You always reveal the perfumed scat for what it is — a very valuable service in our age — or any. Your closing line reminds me of Lev Shestov’s famous quote from Potestas Clavium: “‘Scratch’ any European, even if he be a positivist or a materialist, and you will quickly discover a medieval Catholic who holds frantically to his exclusive and inalienable right to open for himself and his neighbor the gates of the kingdom of heaven. The materialists and atheists claim this right quite as much as do the faithful sheep of the great herd of St. Peter’s followers.”

    I tend to agree with this view along the fixed lines that tigers don’t change their stripes. The Calvinists in the M.B.C. and the wokesters across the Charles River; Igbo shamans and our latter day witchdoctors doing their juju in corporate-sponsored struggle sessions; the Gileadites’ shibboleth and the intersectionality lingo in the American media today . . . As on Herbert’s Arrakis, men follow their ancestral memories, whether such passes down by culture or DNA. Our current drama is just another stage production . . . some Cavaliers and Roundheads in the cast, the obligatory appearance of Haman and his well-deserved grisly end, the Gracchi and Catones . . . A couple centuries before Fichte, the Bard had already figured it out.

    • When I read the New Testament, I find the word Repentance looming rather large and the word Revolution not appearing even once.. Jesus himself proposed to revolutionize the world, but he told his followers to change themselves. Ever since then, false prophets professing to speak in his name have given the opposite instructions: remake the world into a place where slobs and sluggards are kings. I admit that the NT gives some support to this inversion when it says that “the last shall be first and the first shall be last,” but I think we should do everything we can to combat the envious and vengeful reading of this line. If the last do indeed become first, it must be because they have changed, not because the world has changed and now recognizes their true value.

      We see this kind of thinking when false prophets say that there would be no blockheads if it were not for bad tests, or there would be no hoodlums if it were not for bad laws, or there would be no paupers if it were not for an unjust economy. I personally doubt that most blockheads, hoodlums and paupers can radically change themselves, but I know it is folly to remake the world with tests that blockheads can pass, laws that hoodlums can obey, and jobs in which paupers can prosper.

      I agree that there is very little new under the sun, and that new ideas are just old ideas with a fresh coat of paint. Resentment is one of the oldest ideas, and the most often repainted.

  3. Beloved Community strikes me as variation of “Greater North American Co-Prosperity Sphere”. We just want to co-prosper together, you know? Sure it might come at the price of a Nanking or two, but small price to pay for greater co-prosperity, right?

Comment

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.