In 2005, the year before his death, I had the opportunity to learn from a modern-day Founding Father, W. Cleon Skousen.
I, and others, sat before him as we studied the book, The 5000 Year Leap, asked questions and received commentary directly from the principle author of the book, Dr. W. Cleon Skousen. The research that went into the writing of this book was done at the request of past president of the LDS Church, David O. McKay. This research is also what led to other great books: The Making of America and The Majesty of God’s Law. In the forward of The Majesty of God’s Law, Skousen wrote:
“In 1967 a great leader (David O. McKay) whom I admired and loved said that a crisis was coming to America and the legal minds of the nation were not getting ready to deal with it.
“He indicated that the Founding Fathers knew this would happen and they knew what to do about it. He suggested…that I take time to get acquainted with the things the Founders knew…
“So, for over a quarter of a century I have been struggling to put it all together. This book is the result of that labor…”
Previously this same modern-day Prophet, David O. McKay, endorsed Skousen’s book, The Naked Communist, in LDS General Conference (1), and so did another Prophet, Ezra Taft Benson, on multiple occassions. (2) (3) (4). President McKay had also asked Skousen to write the book.
As I studied with W. Cleon Skousen I came to know a man who is filled with Christ-like love for others, and has a dedicated commitment to truth. When I read of others criticizing, mocking and mischaracterizing Skousen, I am very disappointed, especially when this is coming from fellow Latter-day Saints, many of whom have never even read his books, and could not cite one disagreement they have with his teachings.
W. Cleon Skousen researched, understood and taught the principles of Freedom; he was also very knowledgeable on other doctrines of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I’m certainly not saying he was perfect and without fault or error; unfortunately Skousen’s detractors are not concerned with truth and simply jump to false conclusions. Skousen’s detractors also seem to ignore the fact that his books were so well-researched and documented. Skousen also had the assistance of other expert researchers.
In my earlier years of becoming a Constitutionalist, learning the principles of freedom and the proper role of government, I mostly turned to Skousen’s books to find answers to my questions because of the fact that he so often quoted the direct words of the Founding Father’s on the subjects of my questions.
You might ask why I would bother to write a letter defending Skousen’s character? I know the fruits of his labor and they are good fruits. The things Skousen taught will only bring a person to the truth and closer to Christ.
I like to use the saying, “attack the message, not the messenger”. In the case of Skousen, both the message and the messenger are deserving of much respect.
Don’t just take my word for it. I now call in another witness to speak of W. Cleon Skousen’s character and works in life… Thomas S. Monson, President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, a living prophet, seer and revelator.
At the funeral of author W. Cleon Skousen, Thomas S. Monson recited, from memory, a passage found in The First 2,000 Years (by Skousen). President Monson said that he had previously quoted this to a man who had asked about Skousen’s character:
“Often the wisdom of God is foolishness to men, but the greatest single lesson to be learned in mortality is that when God commands and a man obeys, that man will always be right.”
President Monson also said: “Everyone he spoke to, everyone he taught, is closer to Christ than before they met Cleon Skousen.”
Other comments made at Skousen’s funeral by President Monson, who at the time was the first counselor in the First Presidency of the Church:
“He (Cleon Skousen) has lived a wonderful life, extended, look at all these years, but he has never ever deviated.”
“…and the song that Cleon Skousen is hearing: ‘well done thy good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.’”
President Thomas S. Monson went on to read a message from the LDS First Presidency (Gordon B. Hinckley, Thomas S. Monson, James E. Faust) to Skousen’s wife, Jewel. Some excerpts from that letter:
“We were saddened to hear of the passing of… our friend” President Monson then interjected “The Savior used the word Friend…”
“Skousen was indeed an extraordinary man who set a high standard of integrity and achievement…”
“His fierce loyalty to our country and his attempts to protect our freedoms are well-recognized. As he lifted his voice, both in the books he authored and the speeches he delivered, he was a powerful influence for good…”
“His vision and achievements will remain a lasting legacy and blueprint for others to follow…”
After reading the letter, President Monson also said:
“Our lives are better because of him whom we honor.”
Originally published on LatterdayConservative.com
(Listen to audio excerpts of President Thomas S. Monson speaking at W. Cleon Skousen’s funeral)
What a great entry! Thanks so much for producing the information that many of us want, but just aren’t quite able to find all in one place. You make it possible.
Great Article.
Thanks for supporting good, honest and wise men like W. Cleon Skousen.
In a letter “[t]o All Stake Presidents, Bishops, and Branch Presidents in the United States,” the First Presidency of Spencer W. Kimball dictated the following, gingerly-worded order:
“It has come to our attention that in some areas announcements have been made in Church meetings of lectures to be given by those connected with the Freemen Institute. This is to inform you that no announcements should be made in Church meetings of these, or other similar, lectures or events that are not under the sponsorship of the Church.
“This instruction is not intended to express any disapproval of the right of the Freemen Institute and its lecturers to conduct such meetings or of the contents of the lectures. The only purpose is to make certain that neither Church facilities nor Church meetings are used to advertise such events and to avoid any implication that the Church endorses what is said during such lectures.”
(letter from the Office of the First Presidency, Spencer W. Kimball, N. Eldon Tanner, Marion G. Romney, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City, Utah, 15 February 1979)
“This instruction is not intended to express any disapproval of the right of the Freemen Institute and its lecturers to conduct such meetings or of the contents of the lectures.”
Nuff said. The Church is consistent on this. The Church membership has created lore out of this that the church had something against Skousen. I’ve run into this myself with some Church members (who can’t back up why they dislike Skousen only that they’re sure the Church was against him). I also have a copy of the DVD of Skousen’s private funeral mentioned above where President Monson spoke. It was clear that Skousen was in good standing and received glowing support for a life well lived and valuable works produced.
Are you going to go ahead and ignore the fact that in 1979 a letter was sent to every stake president by the first presidency instructing them that Skousen’s organization was not allowed to use church resources to spread their message of fear-mongering and hate.
Skousen was a great and inspirational speaker, but he was way off-base on many issues. Just like the rest of us, not everything he said was inspired or even true. It is our responsibility to discern the difference between truth of evil.
To Paul and Nate, please don’t leap to the wrong conclusions about that 1979 Church statement about the Freeman Institute that you quoted. And I guarantee you, there is nothing about any of this that is “fear mongering and hate,” as you said, Nate.
Before that Church statement was issued, a draft was sent to Skousen (dad). He made one small change and sent it back saying it sounded great to him (copies are in his journal). He supported it 100% because he too was frustrated that a few of his over-zealous friends were promoting his work in an embarrassing and improper way from Church podiums or asking to use Church facilities for seminars. Skousen had no control over that except to continue to urge caution in his monthly newsletters. In “Behind the Scenes” in August 1979, he quoted extensively from the announcement, and then wrote, “As mentioned often in the past, it is the policy of the Freemen Institute to adhere strictly to the policies of any church whose members happen to be sponsoring a Constitutional Seminar.”
The Church must remain nonpartisan. The Church statement was fully supported by dad, and was no effort by the Church to distance itself from Skousen, as some are trying to make this out to be. Skousen’s standing in the Church and his relationship with many of those who wrote the statement and those who have followed, remained close, cordial, and supportive right up to his passing, and even to this day. Does that mean all agree with him on all things? Of course not.
I would appreciate Nate helping me learn more about where Skousen was “way off base.” That comment reflects a lot of the smear campaign going on right now. If you can be more specific, I’ll be happy to show you where facts and truth are being distorted by deceitful people to prove a false conclusion. Reply here, or find me at paulskousen@comcast.net. Thanks everyone. –Paul
Excellent reply Paul to those who are more adept at opening their mouths and inserting a foot, than they are at offering anything of substance.
When a student at B.Y.U. in the late 70s I had the good fortune to sit at the feet of your father and enjoy his lectures on the Book of Mormon and other subjects. I always sat front and center and we got to know one another on a personal level in numerous discussions following the class. I was saddened when I learned of his death.
God bless you and your family and the good name of W. Cleon Skousen.
Truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but, in the end, there it is. ~~ Winston Churchill
Thanks Rick, you bring back some really happy memories of those great days. Turns out one semester of his teachings was in a room rigged with microphones with a recording studio just next door. A couple of students decided to record an entire semester of dad teaching the Old Testament and The Book of Mormon. They’re great! The enthusiasm, the connection, the great understanding … even his voice disappearing and the scritch-scratch on the chalkboard. After they were recorded, the recordings sat, a box of reel-to-reels in somebody’s garage for 30 years. Last year they contacted my brother to see if he’d be interested in having them. Talk about a wonderful time machine back to a great experience at the Y! Harry put them on disk for anybody wanting to hear them again. Contact him at skousen2000.com.
–Paul
I’m not sure I like this article. Just because Skousen was a good man doesn’t mean that he was often wrong, nor does it mean that I shouldn’t say that he was often wrong. Quoting Skousen’s eulogy doesn’t (and shouldn’t) insulate his ideas from criticism.
Hi Jeffrey,
I don’t know that anybody in the family is declaring Skousen was never wrong. None of us have said that, and certainly dad never said that. Criticism when questioning the facts or Skousen’s research is one thing. But criticism in the form of name calling, which most people must resort to nowadays, is just a waste of everybody’s time and reflects on the lazy scholarship of those doing the name calling. The eulogy served its purposes here, no one could say the same things about most of the leadership in DC today, but that helps illustrate a life well lived according to principles well taught. If you yourself have a concern with something he said, I invite you to share it, one at a time so I can answer them, and lets get to the bottom of the reasons why. So many in the blogosphere simply vent but never contribute to move learning and understanding forward. It’s time we made better use of our time in these online venues, and I’m offering part of my day to do just that if you’d like. –Paul
I find it fascinating that detractors Jeffrey, Nate and Paul have not re-appeared to make any more statements or to back up their complaints about Cleon Skousen. Interesting that is. It may seem that their lack of response after being invited to discuss their complaints is in fact an answer in and of itself that their original complaints have no substance!
Dion Wood http://www.QRZ.com/db/KB9QFH and http://www.FaceBook.com/NewZealandAmerican
Hi Dion,
Thank you for that reply. I agree. So much rumor mongering going on, I would really like to help dispel it if such issues could be brought forward. So, like you, I await something specific from the detractors.
Many cheers, –Paul
Amen, my brother in the gospel and in liberty!
WELL, if you want I can issue my complaint about his works. I know nothing of him as a man, but his “5000 Year Leap’ has caused me nothing but Trouble with its fabricated and erroneous History.
Hi Zarove,
Your open-ended statement is exactly what frustrates most other people when it comes to others making attempts at character assassination. I’m guessing you’re not trying to do that to Skousen, I’m guessing you’re frustrated by something you read or heard that doesn’t make sense regarding The Five Thousand Year Leap. Could you please give me an example of “fabricated and erroneous History” and let me try to respond? Thanks, –Paul
Been listening to some of WCS’s talks–they’re great, and he had a very passionate, dynamic speaking style. I’m not familiar enough with his political views to make a judgment, but it sounds like he was firmly grounded in Constitutional principles and was aware enough to recognize when they were being violated. That alone should be enough to earn him our respect.
I have yet to read the book itself, but have read an Article by Skousen online, and heard enough people who praise this book attack me personally as a left Wing progressive Liberal citing this work or Glenn Beck’s work as their source to realise that there is an Egregious Error in some aspects of the Book. I will notify you in detail when I read it but will start with the simple one that’s gotten me into a good deal of Trouble of Late.
I am a Monarchist. I hold to the Principle that rather than have an Elected Head of State, we should have one either selected by Conclave or else chosen by Hereditary Succession.
Skousen would thus classify me as Left Wing, if I understand his works well. Below is a Link to one of them.
http://www.latterdayconservative.com/articles/w-cleon-skousen/what-is-left-what-is-right/
Skousen is completely in error in regards to what Monarchy is, how it Started off, and the History of England and the French revolution.
For one thing, the Historical Monarchies in Europe were not totalitarian, and had never been Totalitarian. The first ever Totalitarian Governments in History were from the 20th Century and were all Republics.
The Ancien Regime in France was also far and removed from being profligate, the monetary problems they had faced were causes by the French assisting in the American Revolution, not in the decadence of the Court of Louise the 16th.
But its even worse when Skousen declared that the Monarchy was Left Wing and the Jacobins Right Wing. This is absurdity, in fact, as the very terms “Right Wing’ and “Left Wing” originated in the French National Assembly and were based on Parliamentarian seating Arrangements with the Kings Opposition on his Left and his Supporters on his Right. The Jacobins were thus the original left Wingers. Those who supported the Monarchy, the Aristocracy, and the Church sat on the Right.
The Jacobins were also not really after Anarchy. The Jacobins were after the creation of a republic which, by its very Nature, would be larger scale than the Monarchy had ever been.
Later in the same Article Skousen says Communism is Left Wing, meaning Monarchy and Communism are the same in terms of which side they fall on, and Traces the Origin of Communism to Monarchy in a way. Skousen defines Monarchy as being all about total State Control, and when they began to be eliminated or removed, the forces seeking a Dominant and Powerful centralised State simply came up with Communism. But, this is not True Either. Communists were the Intellectual heirs to the Enlightenment and to the supposedly Right Wing Jacobins. If you stop and look at the History and read the works of Marx and his Disciples, you soon realise that they were pushing for Revolution on the Inspiration of the 18th century revolutionaries. They did not side with the King, but thought all kings must be overthrown in similar revolutions. The entirety of Communism also rests on the elevation of the Common Man and the creation of a true Social Democracy Free of the Exploitation of the Capitalists on the labourer, with the means of Manufacture and distribution democratically run by the Will of those who work it. They were after total Equality and Democracy, not Aristocracy and Monarchy.
Indeed, the Rights of man, the seminal Document of the French revolution, was held up by Marx and his Followers as a triumph of the Human Spirit, and he often wrote in Praise of the Paris Commune created later as a forerunner of his Ideal Society.
The Philosophy of the Jacobins inspired and directly contributed to the Communist ideology, including its call for World Revolution.
Also, the Communists saw this as Liberation to the Worker, not as the establishment of a Dictatorship.
While Communism inevitably leas to oppression, the (Red) Banner they fly under is still rooted in the Doctrines of the French Revolution, and the American Revolution. They want to make all Men Truly Equal, and to ensure all men’s needs are met by free distribution of all that one could need. “From Each According to his Ability, to Each According to his Need“ was their Motto.
When contrasted, the French Monarchy, while called Absolute, really was Decentralised, with Local Lords having a good deal of say in what happened in their regions, the King needing to differ to them and to the Church, and the Private Citizenry free to live as they pleased by and large. The Monarchy was small and inexpensive to maintain and exercised little direct control over the populace, for it had no Grand Visions to reshape it.
Seeing Monarchy described as Totalitarian is bad enough, seeing it described as Left Wing, and made in essence the same as Communism however is intolerable and I find it deplorable.
Monarchy is the Opposite of Communism. It is about Trusting the Divine Providence of God, rather than looking to Man, and it is about Tradition, not Revolution. About standing firm in ones Loyalty, and about preserving ones History. It is about Family Values and Moral Devotion.
Clearly Communists were not so included.
So, to finish and recap, Communism is Left Wing, but Monarchy is Right Wing. The Right Wing began in order to Support Monarchy, in fact. Communism said not descend from Monarchy, nor do the two share the same Root. The supposedly Right Wing Jacobins created the Left Wing Communists. Monarchy is not Totalitarianism, and it is often the safeguard for freedom.
That is the trouble his Englishman now living in Tennessee Faces. As an old Style Conservative I’m seen as a Liberal progressive for standing up for Tradition, all on the basis of an erroneous History.
Two last things.
1: As I am a Monarchist I am also Right Wing, so it is irritatign to be called a Left Winger. It becomes even worse when Im told how I must have supportd Obama or Abortion Rights or other things I really oppose.
2: I can explain in much fuirther detsil the History, Monarchist Theory, or anythgin else I hit upon above. But it was already a ong post and want this tobe digestible.
I am so very sorry to everyone for how long this has grown! Thank you for enduring it …
SKOUSEN REPLIES TO SAROVE. My comments are in [[[triple brackets]]], and sorry for my typos, it’s late.
I have yet to read the book itself, but have read an Article by Skousen online, and heard enough people who praise this book attack me personally as a left Wing progressive Liberal citing this work or Glenn Beck’s work as their source to realise that there is an Egregious Error in some aspects of the Book. I will notify you in detail when I read it but will start with the simple one that’s gotten me into a good deal of Trouble of Late.
I am a Monarchist. I hold to the Principle that rather than have an Elected Head of State, we should have one either selected by Conclave or else chosen by Hereditary Succession.
[[[A Monarchist …That means you believe in Ruler’s Law with all power in the monarch to dictate and rule as he sees fit. By definition, a monarchy is outside the control of checks and balances. The king giveth and the king taketh away. The only way you can have a monarchy that isn’t all powerful is to obligate and chain him down to constitutional control. But then, that’s what we call a President. And if such a monarch is chosen by a Conclave or Hereditary Succession, what if he’s a bum? What if he’s another tyrant, a Stalin or Louis XIV? How do we throw him out? Is that really what you mean?]]]
Skousen would thus classify me as Left Wing, if I understand his works well. Below is a Link to one of them.
[[[If you believe all power in the government and no individual rights, or at least all rights vested and no unalienable rights, then yes, that’s where you are.]]]
http://www.latterdayconservative.com/articles/w-cleon-skousen/what-is-left-what-is-right/
Skousen is completely in error in regards to what Monarchy is, how it Started off, and the History of England and the French revolution.
For one thing, the Historical Monarchies in Europe were not totalitarian, and had never been Totalitarian. The first ever Totalitarian Governments in History were from the 20th Century and were all Republics.
[[[ I believe the problem here is how you define totalitarian. If you mean a political authority that exercises absolute and centralized control, then I do not agree with your statement. The whole feudal system through the medieval ages and up into the gradual piecing together of France was nothing but totalitarian, first on the local level with the Lords, and then on the national level as the French state came together. The monarchy ruled all, the nobility enjoyed the spoils, and the poor working class, the commoners who numbered 25 million at the time of the French Revolution, were oppressed, controlled, manipulated and abused by the central government. The feudal lords were subservient to the French monarchy and the nobility. The money and labor flowed up to the King. Yes, there were the Privileges previously arranged for some of the districts that joined (promises and arrangements to entice them into the confederacy), but subservience remained to the monarch. The whole point of the French Revolution was the demand by commoners to control their futures and abolish the totalitarian control that had existed since 1200 and before. It wasn’t starvation that drove them, it was slavery that drove them. Many of them owned their own land by 1789. Jefferson visited the peasantry in 1787 and reported they looked healthy and happy. What the people wanted to throw off was the totalitarian power that oppressed them. They got close with their Declaration of the Rights of Man, but blew it when they retained the monarchy and then allowed the National Assembly to be usurped, setting the stage for Emperor Napoleon to take over. Are you perhaps defining totalitarian in another way than did Skousen?]]]
The Ancien Regime in France was also far and removed from being profligate, the monetary problems they had faced were causes by the French assisting in the American Revolution, not in the decadence of the Court of Louise the 16th.
[[[Their monetary problems were not because of the American Revolution, they were made WORSE by the Revolution. Yes, when Necker and Calonne came in as finance ministers, they had that huge 113 million livres debt from helping the Americans, but that wasn’t the real problem so much as how to pay for it. Remember that’s what Necker and Caloone were hired to do, figure out how to pay off that debt? It cost both of them their jobs. Louis XVI tried to handle it himself but the parlement wouldn’t cooperate in letting the king force some reforms. Remember Necker and Caloone both wrestled with how to correct the profligate abuses of the Ancien Regime? The monarchy was already spending today’s equivalent of more than $120-$150 million a year on his personal household, and at least that same amount on pensions for his ministers and appointed clergy. The hated taille was the great mystery at the time, that tax that kept sucking the prosperity out of everybody and no one knew where it went. The Ancien Regime was the very epitome of profligate and had been for centuries. How else could the monarchs afford their dozen palaces, his military retinue of 9,000 soldiers, his household of 4,000, his 1,8oo horses, and poor Marie Antoinette who bawled on bended knee for help for her new princess baby and they compromised on EIGHTY PEOPLE to make sure the baby’s diapers were changed and she got burped as needed. If that isn’t profligate, then nothing is! ]]]
But its even worse when Skousen declared that the Monarchy was Left Wing and the Jacobins Right Wing. This is absurdity, in fact, as the very terms “Right Wing’ and “Left Wing” originated in the French National Assembly and were based on Parliamentarian seating Arrangements with the Kings Opposition on his Left and his Supporters on his Right. The Jacobins were thus the original left Wingers. Those who supported the Monarchy, the Aristocracy, and the Church sat on the Right.
[[[Skousen makes that very point about right and left wing being patterned after Parliamentarian seating arrangements … that’s in his The Five Thousand Year Leap. Based on the sliding scale he created in his article and his book, left wing is Ruler’s Law, Right Wing is People’s Law, extreme right is anarchy. The fact he uses modern terms to teach about the distinctions of the Jacobins' place in the Revolution is meant to help people understand which side they stood. They were not quite Republicans, but they certainly were in favor of limiting the king’s power to little more than that of a president in a republic.]]]
The Jacobins were also not really after Anarchy. The Jacobins were after the creation of a republic which, by its very Nature, would be larger scale than the Monarchy had ever been.
[[[Skousen never says they were for Anarchy. They were right wing, not extreme right (anarchists)]]]
Later in the same Article Skousen says Communism is Left Wing, meaning Monarchy and Communism are the same in terms of which side they fall on, and Traces the Origin of Communism to Monarchy in a way. Skousen defines Monarchy as being all about total State Control, and when they began to be eliminated or removed, the forces seeking a Dominant and Powerful centralised State simply came up with Communism.
[[[I’m not sure I see where you’re getting that from Skousen’s article. “Coming up with Communism” to have a “dominant and powerful centralized State” isn’t what happens. A powerful centralized State IS communism/socialism, that’s its very definition. The principles of tyranny are the same in a Monarch as they are in a Communist dictatorship. The ruler can be a person or a group, the end result is just the same: dictatorship and absolute control, ALL power in the ruler, no checks by the people.]]]
But, this is not True Either. Communists were the Intellectual heirs to the Enlightenment and to the supposedly Right Wing Jacobins.
[[[what exactly do you mean “intellectual heirs”? Communism/socialism are formulas for societal regulation, and economic control, and they've been around since Sumer and Egypt and the Chinese dynasties. Those ideas weren't invented with the French Revolution….]]]
If you stop and look at the History and read the works of Marx and his Disciples, you soon realise that they were pushing for Revolution on the Inspiration of the 18th century revolutionaries.
[[[I’ll take issue with that too. The commoners pushed for abolishment of the shreds of feudalism that still remained. They were sick and tired of land owners and Lords hijacking their produce and goods to pay for a system that was already dust in the wind. The peasantry didn’t have to take it any more, they were standing on their own feet, no longer subservient to the Lords. They wanted the King to make the break official. They made progress but when the nobility and clergy ganged up against them, that’s when they pushed for a complete abolishment of the Monarchy. Marx wanted to take it a step further. He wanted a new ruling class to take over, the communistic rulers who would abolish the state, religion and the family. The Jacobins didn’t want that at all, just a king as an executive who was controlled by law.]]]
They did not side with the King, but thought all kings must be overthrown in similar revolutions. The entirety of Communism also rests on the elevation of the Common Man and the creation of a true Social Democracy Free of the Exploitation of the Capitalists on the labourer, with the means of Manufacture and distribution democratically run by the Will of those who work it. They were after total Equality and Democracy, not Aristocracy and Monarchy.
[[[This statement is a good rehearsal of what Marxists advocate, but you state it as if you really believe it. Democracy in the work place is a blatant violation of the rights of property of the business owner, the idea he dreamed up all on his own and through hard work built it up so it would provide jobs to the workers and give him a profit whereby he could do more things... like give to the poor. Property is the very essence of a person’s existence. Take that away and you make him a slave, or worse: a ghost. If you really thing communism, socialism, democratic socialism, Christian socialism, Ecosocialism, or any of the others are somehow benevolent solutions to our problems, then we need more time and space than this site to get that resolved. That’s what the whole book, the Five Thousand Year Leap demonstrates---socialism is a failure. It always has been, it always will be. And 6,000 years of those murderous experiments prove it a failure. Marx didn’t invent anything new, he recycled the same old junk of prior centuries. The heretics tried it, the Essenses tried it, Pharoah tried it, Wang tried it, Inca tried it----all failures. Freedom of choice, property, association, equality of rights, of defense, of compassion, of failure, these are the unalienable rights that socialism must destroy in order to exist … if that’s what you want, you’ve got an awfully bloody fight ahead of you, and you won’t win.]]]
Indeed, the Rights of man, the seminal Document of the French revolution, was held up by Marx and his Followers as a triumph of the Human Spirit, and he often wrote in Praise of the Paris Commune created later as a forerunner of his Ideal Society.
[[[I have gone through that Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, approved by the National Assembly of France, August 26, 1789, and every statement can be traced to the US Declaration of Independence or the Constitution, in particular the Bill of Rights. If Marx loved this document, then there is hope for Karl. Problem is, those elements in the Declaration also include this phrase, “…under the auspices of the Supreme Being, ….” What does Marx say about that? We already know. HE is that supreme being. Such a declaration is not enforceable without freedom under liberty. Why? Because it promotes power from the bottom up----and that’s what our Constitution is all about. The French didn’t have those pieces yet, and without them, socialism must rear its ugly head again and coerce or restrain with force. Bad stuff.]]]
The Philosophy of the Jacobins inspired and directly contributed to the Communist ideology, including its call for World Revolution.
[[[But the Jacobins didn’t want another totalitarian government to replace the monarchy….they wanted to limit his powers.]]]
Also, the Communists saw this as Liberation to the Worker, not as the establishment of a Dictatorship.
[[[Liberation of the Worker is what we do in America! It’s great, you should try it!]]]
While Communism inevitably leas to oppression, the (Red) Banner they fly under is still rooted in the Doctrines of the French Revolution, and the American Revolution. They want to make all Men Truly Equal, and to ensure all men’s needs are met by free distribution of all that one could need. “From Each According to his Ability, to Each According to his Need“ was their Motto.
[[[Free distribution of “all that one could need” means you go with a gun and a tank and a guy with tall black boots who come to your shop and STEALS your product and shares it with others. That demolishes incentive to produce, and before you know it you’ve got another Jamestown or Plymouth with all the industrious refusing to be slaves to others, and nobody plants the farm, nobody builds the fort, and you have to depend on the Indians for the main course to celebrate your Thanksgiving before winter comes and dozens more of you starve to death. That what your Utopian scheme will bring to you., nothing more----it’s already been tried and didn’t work.]]]
When contrasted, the French Monarchy, while called Absolute, really was Decentralised, with Local Lords having a good deal of say in what happened in their regions, the King needing to differ to them and to the Church, and the Private Citizenry free to live as they pleased by and large. The Monarchy was small and inexpensive to maintain and exercised little direct control over the populace, for it had no Grand Visions to reshape it.
[[[ To my earlier cited stats---the monarchy was spending money like it was water. It killed prosperity. The monarchy wasn’t small and inexpensive. Did you see what I wrote: 4000 people in his household, a dozen residences staffed at ALL times, poor baby needing EIGHTY people? All supported by the taille, the salt tax, all the rest, and you would call that little direct control? Sorry my friend, you’re not citing history.]]]
Seeing Monarchy described as Totalitarian is bad enough, seeing it described as Left Wing, and made in essence the same as Communism however is intolerable and I find it deplorable.
[[[I’m sorry you think ruthless and bloodthirsty power-mongering ultra controlling tyranny is okay, I don’t want to live in your world, it’s mean and ugly.]]]
Monarchy is the Opposite of Communism. It is about Trusting the Divine Providence of God, rather than looking to Man, and it is about Tradition, not Revolution. About standing firm in ones Loyalty, and about preserving ones History. It is about Family Values and Moral Devotion.
[[[Oh my, what do I say to this? My friend, you are contradicting yourself with every other word. Have you not read what Marx wants to do with family values? And tradition? And history? He wants it all GONE. He says so all over his writings. The theme is repeated over and over and over: NO state, NO religion, NO family, No Haves, No Have Nots, all things in common, all things regulated, no family structure to pass along value, history, traditon … Marx said that, not me. You can read those quotes in another Skousen book, The Naked Communist, and those quotes are not out of context either.]]]
Clearly Communists were not so included.
So, to finish and recap, Communism is Left Wing, but Monarchy is Right Wing. The Right Wing began in order to Support Monarchy, in fact. Communism said not descend from Monarchy, nor do the two share the same Root. The supposedly Right Wing Jacobins created the Left Wing Communists. Monarchy is not Totalitarianism, and it is often the safeguard for freedom.
That is the trouble his Englishman now living in Tennessee Faces. As an old Style Conservative I’m seen as a Liberal progressive for standing up for Tradition, all on the basis of an erroneous History.
[[[I have said enough. Thank you for taking so much time to convey those messages. You really owe it to yourself to read The Five Thousand Year Leap, and then listen to the founders debate these very principles in Madison’s debates of the Convention, and then Skousen’s Making of America. It’s a wonderful breath of fresh air. Today’s failings in Capitalism are due to intrusions of socialism into our structure. Abolish those and we’re back to prosperity again. Thanks for the fun exchange, --Paul]]]
oops, sorry, got interrupted when a last lingering thought hit me. Using that scale of Ruler’s Law on the left, Anarchy on the right, a monarchy is the same as communism because it is all powerful. It must be or it can’t do what it wants. And to achieve all powerfulness, it must go the same route as Marx does with the destruction of all things, a change in society, the abolition of the old way to make room for the new, no one to question or stop the authority. It’s the problem of a righteous king that the Lord tried to dissuade Israel from adopting when Saul was finally chosen. That’s why I lump monarchy with communism. But I had a much better way of saying it and now I forgot. I hate it when that happens. My comments are all made with a friendly grin, not ad homonym attacks, just having fun engaging in an exchange, so please correct me where I’m wrong, I have much to learn and this helps.
The next post is long. I trid to keep it short, but it went logn anyeay, yet did not cover all the ground I wanted siffciently.
If you’d be so lind as to heo this by narrowing an approach, why not ask me, ader this, exaclty ejhat I beelive rather than just say “You are a Monarhcist so beeliv ein Rulers law so must support COmmunism”.
Why not get ot know my perspecitve rather than assume it?
The sum poitns I make are thse, below is the main post.
1: Monarhcy is not Communism. Feudalism is not Totalitarianism. I provide a link to show this.
2: Louise the 16th was not a Tyrant.
3: I beleive in property Rights.
4: You say all the Jacobsn wanted was to remove the Monarhcy, not Fsmily and Religion. You are wrong. I provide Links.
5: Monarhcy can be Limited an dnot be a Presedent.
6: Explainign Communism doenst make me a Communist. I do not liek COmmunism.
That shoudl be appanet as I am a Monarhcist, but for soem reason sint.
Also, if you want to seriously talk to me, I will tell you about how to deal with a bad King and my ideas of Government.
But lets not say “A Tyrant like Louis the 16th or Stalin”.
Stalin was not a Monarch, Communism is not Monarchy.
And Louis was not a Tyrant.
Also, I posted the above long form befoe proper editing.
Some thigns are miswritten. EG, I said Ropispierre was to a Simpel farmer, I means was not a Simple Farmer.
Mild mistakes exist in the text, which I hope are overlooked.
Two more points I couldn’t fit in.
1: The Bill of Rights in America came from 1791. The Rights of Man came from 1789.
So, no. The Rights of Man is not base don anything from the US Bill of Rights. It precedes it by 2 Years.
2: Jamestown was not a Socialist Community. It was operated by Shareholders who looked forward to earning a profit.
The idea that Jamestown was Socialist makes no sense at all.
Oh and just to make sure I was correct, I c on Marie Antoinette. She was not a huge tax Burden and actually lived quiet cheaply on the Taxpayer.
The overall tax Burden of the Individual Household was only about 2%-5% of their income. Contrasted to the Republic, this is far less. The Republic of France under Roppispierre had a tax Buren of 10%-15% percent. In Today’s Republic its between 30% and 50%.
Simply focusing on how many Servants she had and saying “See, the Monarchy was expensive’ is silly. How much it costs to the Tax Payer is more important than how much it costs on the ledger books.
Besides, the Servants didn’t change Diapers and burp the baby. They were there to ensure he Dauphin’s Safety, and to make certain all needs were met by his Mother, who like today’s president can’t just go out in Public. They were more Akin to the Secret Service or White House Staff than they were an extravagance.
So please stop trying to attack the Monarchy with half Truths.
Louise the 16th did not go about France beheading any and every Political Rival, and had he been so brutal the Anti-Christian Jacobins would never have seized Power in the first place.
Speaking of which, the Jacobins also wanted the State to ensure the existence of people, thus demanded Social programmes to offer free food for the poor, and sought to Punish Hoarders who kept too many goods and thus denied them distribution equally to all.
So it appears the Jacobins wanted Equal Stuff, not just Equal Rights.
This may be off topic, but I’m not sure where else I might be able to address this question.
I haven’t read the whole book, The First 2000 Years, but in reading the section in the back entitled, “Why was the Atonement Necessary?” I found it quite interesting. What troubles me is that I have not been able to find any general authorities addressing the atonement in the way Skousen did and it seems that if this interpretation were correct, there would be more talks along a similar thought process on such an important topic. I think he made some brilliant connections, but I remain in doubt. I’m wondering if anyone has any information on whether any general authorities have addressed Skousen’s thoughts on the atonement directly?