Cleon Skousen

This last week I happened across an article by Brian R. Mecham which contained Thomas S. Monson’s comments at the funeral of W. Cleon Skousen in January 2006.1 At the time of the funeral, Thomas S. Monson served as the First Counselor in the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

W Cleon Skousen So, as I read Mr. Mecham’s article and listened to some audio excerpts from President Monson’s funeral address, I wondered why such a man should be pilloried as Mr. Skousen has been of late in the media.2

Mr. Skousen rose to national prominence with the publication of The Naked Communist which was originally published in 1958 at the request of David O. McKay3, then the President of the LDS Church. The book quickly became a national bestseller despite never being reviewed by the New York Times, the New York Herald Tribune or the Saturday Review.

According to Earl Taylor, Jr. the following is an excerpt of how Mr. Skousen came to write this book,

Shortly after we moved to Utah in 1952 and joined the faculty of Brigham Young University, I was asked to give talks on the threat of Communism as I encountered it in the FBI. There were two of us who specialized in this subject and we were the only ones allowed to speak on Communism in case Mr. Hoover could not take the talks himself.

As time went by I noticed that nearly every time the newspapers advertised that I would speak on Communism in Salt Lake City, David O. McKay would be in the audience. In due time he wrote to Ernest L. Wilkinson, the BYU president, and suggested that a text on Communism should be written by the heads of departments at BYU with myself serving as chairman of the committee.

We held a few meetings but Dr. Richard D. Poll of the History Department as well as the Dean of Economics and several other heads of departments seemed to know nothing about the core problem. They were not reading the bi-partisan reports of the Congressional hearings and they had not studied Marxist philosophy and tactics sufficiently to understand the reports published by these committees.

Finally the members of the committee recommended to President Wilkinson that I be given the assignment of researching and writing the book so I didn’t have to spend all the time in our meetings trying to explain to them what the latest Communist developments were. That’s how I got the assignment to write the text on Communism.

About two years later, after the text was finished, I sent it to several people who had spent years studying Communism and asked for their suggestions. They sent back warm commendations but very few suggestions. I then took the manuscript to President Wilkinson and learned to my amazement that the faculty would not support him in having a text on Communism published by the University. They suggested that I publish it. Of course, I had no money to do that since I had taken quite a severe cut in salary to accept my position at the Y.

Nevertheless, President McKay told me to go ahead and he would back me up. However, a series of unexpected financial blessings came to us so I was able to print 5,000 copies without asking him for help. The art work for the book was done by the well-known artist and friend, Arnold Friberg, while the layout and editing was done by another good friend, Keith Eddington, who also became a well-known artist and editor. Thomas S. Monson was in charge of Publisher’s Press and President McKay encouraged him to go ahead and print the book. To this day, he continually reminds me that he printed my first national best-seller.4

The article goes on to explain how Mr. Skousen wrote The Naked Capitalist5 and contains references to Dr. Carroll Quigley’s Tragedy and Hope. For additional information, see W. Cleon Skousen – Biography.


  1. An Open Letter to Latter-day Saint Detractors of W. Cleon Skousen and His Works“. 22 Oct 2009. Latter-Day Conservative. 15 Nov 2009.
  2. See, for example, Zaitchik, Alexander. “Meet the Man Who Changed Glen Beck’s Life”. 16 Sep 2009. Salon. 15 Nov 2009. See also, Kristine. “Skousen in Dialogue”. 16 Sep 2000. Common Consent. 15 Nov 2009.
  3. Mecham. “W. Cleon Skousen Is Asked to Write the Naked Communist”. Nov 1998. Latter-Day Conservative. 15 Nov 2009.
  4. Ibid.
  5. The premise for The Naked Capitalist corroborates Antony Sutton’s work – see Skull and Bones. See also Hugh W. Nibley’s observations about the technology agreements between the Allies and Axis powers in IG Farben and Hugh Nibley.

Tags: , , ,

  1. ZAROVE’s avatar

    Greg, I would not be opposed to a Theocracy, as, like Monarchy, I think such Governance is unjustly Villanised.

    Sue Maxwell, I’m sorry but Thomas Jefferson was a Radical Revolutionary inspired by Liberalism. His chief inspiration was John Locke. While Locke was a Christian, so were all of his opponents, and Locke write specifically against Robert Filmer, a Monarchist whose entire basis or Monarchy starts at Adam, and appeals to God.

    Jefferson was himself rather adamant in his idea that bloody Revolution was the best way to go and for radical wealth redistribution for its time was a good government policy. While Skousen says he believed in Divine Law or Anglo-Saxon law, he didn’t. He believed that no Law should be passed permanently and even opposed the United States Constitution when it came along saying that no Constitution can be binding and should be replaced every 20 years.

    If he were alive today he’d most likely be a Liberal.

    That said, we can’t “look at England”. England ceased to be an independent Nation in 1701. You mean “Look at the United Kingdom”. One thing that bothers me is how people think “England” is a nation in and of itself these days, or how America broke from “England” in 1776.

    That said, “England” owns no one. The United Kingdom has about 13 overseas territories, while America has 9. Puerto Rico being a famous one but America also owns such places like half of the Virgin islands, or the San Marino Islands.

    Also, the statement “Monarchy always expands” is not True. Monarchies don’t always expand. For most of the History of England its been more or less stable. However, before 1701 the actual power of the Crown diminished rather than increased for the previous 150 Years. The Civil War between Cromwell’s Roundheads and the forces of King Charles itself ensured parliamentary Supremacy, and in fact abolished the Monarchy for a republic, that was a tyranny.

    Even after restoration, the King was essentially considered beneath Parliament. This fact is now absolute after the deposition of James the Second and instalment of William of Orange and Mary his Wife.

    So I’m not sure what you mean by “Monarchies always expand”.

    If you mean territorially, this is not so, and even if it was so how do you really use this as a complaint when most nations try to acquire more Land? How do you think America grew beyond the original 13 States? America is much larger now than it was in 1789 when the Constitution was passed. How is that really any different from the British Empire I presume you spoke of, except the Empire allowed more Regional Autonomy? I mean, if Monarchies always expand and thus are proven bad, isn’t American Style Republicanism just as bad?

    The Western Expansion was also facilitated by direct Armed conflict, Political subterfuge, and the removal of Natives form their Land. I’m suppose to think Monarchies always expand and this is bad but America owns no one and is good?

    America was more expansionist than the British!

    Mind you, I don’t mind expansionism per se, but if that’s a flaw to Monarchy its not cured by Republicanism.

    If you mean Monarchies tend to expand in Power over the people they Reign over, this is balderdash. Most Monarchies in History have operated along Traditional Relationships are in general [I]didn’t[/I] try to expand their power base beyond the Traditional Role of the Monarch.

    In general, Republics have been far, far more likely to pass laws limiting Traditional Freedoms, to seize or regular private businesses or even private land used for homes, to impose standards of conduct on the masses, and to impose high taxes to facilitate welfare.

    We may think of Monarchy as Tyranny, and Tyranny as High Taxes and Government imposed conformity, but the Taxation to generate massive social programmes and the seizure of Land and regulation of Business comes from a since of trying to create Equality, and is inherently elated to the Philosophy of the Revolutionaries and Enlightenment. There’s a Reason why we see greater taxes and Government Regulations in Republics than in Monarchies.

    Of course you will look to the Modern UK, please spare me. The Modern UK is not a Welfare State because it’s a Monarchy, this a Welfare State because the Monarchy is a Figurehead with no power than Politicians scheme to get rid of as we speak. In 1997 they “Reformed” the House of Lords to get rid of the Hereditary peers and thus allowed the Labour Party to select Politicians to replace them.

    No, it’s not Traditional Aristocracy and Monarchy that composes the modern UK’s problems, it’s the Socialistic Impulse and a drive for greater Democracy. The whole of their thinking is to create Equality, and obviously Egalitarianism can’t exist in an Aristocracy.

    Democracy never focuses on God and his Laws, it focuses on man and his whims. Monarchy does, or at least can, focus on God and there has been a Traditional link between Throne and Altar. There has also been a greater Tradition of respecting Land Rights and individual Freedom in Monarchy than in a Republic.

    Though I do agree that in the end the Righteousness of those involved will be more important than the overall form of Government. However, I don’t limit this to just our Leaders, but all in society as well.

  2. sue maxwell’s avatar

    Greg- That is exactly what I am talking about. Commandments, statutes, judgements and ordinances, as well as the testimonies. To me it is so very clear because I read that part of the OT for years; I think it gave me a sense of structure that I didn’t get in my home. Then reading a book added to my knowledge and then Skoussen’s book amplified it.

    So if you read the scriptures carefully and cross reference you find out the when it says that the law of Moses was cancelled or fulfilled you have to see the verses that say that the law, contained in the ordinances, were fulfilled, as they were the sacrificial laws that He fulfilled by his eternal sacrifice.

    Even with Kings you need law. With a judicial system you need laws. And in the Millenium there will be law because not everyone will be righteous. I suspect that, even in the time after Christ visted the Nephites and they lived after the manner of happiness, there was law, also; they may have been righteous enough to not need it, but it was still there. Without law, there can be no sin, and without sin, etc……as Lehi says.

    I just get so distressed in Gospel Doctrine to hear people saying the law of Moses is canceled , as they do not know what they are talking about because they do not read the Old Testament and especially the legal part.

    I may not have read the right article, so I will go back and look for that title. Sue

  3. sue maxwell’s avatar

    I just read the right article and if you combine it with his article on commandments, statutes and judgements it is very clear. Thanks for these to really good articles. Sue

  4. Greg’s avatar

    Thanks Sue. Interesting that the “law of carnal commandments” were added to the gospel under the law of Moses, huh?

  5. sue maxwell’s avatar

    I disagree with you about Jefferson- totally!!!

    Greg- commandments are for personal life
    statutes- laws to govern the nation
    judgements- making judgements based upon the case
    ordinances- sacrificial laws for forgiveness, etc
    testimonies- often monuments as reminders, or declarations by the Lord
    sanitation laws- very excellent code; if they had been remembered, many women would not have died at childbirth when doctors went from morgues to delivery without washing hands
    health laws- what is healthy to eat and what is a scavenger and should be left alone ( by the way there is a reference to these laws in the Word of Wisdon footnotes)
    war laws- killing during war was different from murder; anyone afraid to go to war wasn’t to go and you had to be a certain age
    Capital punishment applied to many broken laws with the option of being banished from Israel

    The punishment fit the crime and the victim was repaid and the offender learned from his error.

    In case of killing by error there were cities of refuge to which one could escape and get a fair trial.

  6. ZAROVE’s avatar

    Sue Maxwell, you may disagree with me on Jefferson, but that won’t change the fact that I’m right about him, and would be willing to prove it. I know it’s a lost cause a you’d likely not listen, as you want Jefferson to share your beliefs, but he didn’t.

    Skousen cherry picked quotes form him to crate an image of him that supported his Thesis, but if you read his whole works you realise that he was not quiet the way Skousen said he was. As with he Bible, people will quote it out of context, both historical and actual, in order to support some claim they make regarding it.

    The Same is true of Jefferson.

    But I would be willing to prove everything I said of him and more, including that he did not have a particularly strong Moral Character either. But why bother unless asked? Its not like you’d be willing to listen, as you need to instead project your own beliefs and values back onto him as a hero, so nothing say will dissuade you.

    I will ask this though: Why should Monarchists today be seen as left Wingers, as Skousen said?

    In general, Monarchists are Small Government Conservatives who believe in personal Liberty and Traditional Moral Values, and yet due to the whole “Liberal Neo-Monarchist” routine, inspired by Skousen, Monarchists are now placed In the same category as Communists, who are their exact opposite.

    American “Conservatives” who use that line then proceed to make the same Anti-Monarchy arguments the Socialists in Europe make, meaning real Conservatives in Europe have no support from America. The Americans are basically Liberals to them.

    It also doesn’t help those of us who live in America.

  7. sue maxwell’s avatar

    Have you read The Read Thomas Jefferson by Allison, Maxwell, Cook, and Skoussen.? It is written based upon original records and not using an interpretive approache or secondary references. And are you familiar with George Whythe Universty, named after his mentor? It might help you to read that book by them and talk the owners and administrators there who know more about Thomas Jefferson than the majority of people in this country. They also wrote books about Washington and Franklin.

    It has nothing to do with what I want to believe but what I know to be the truth about him, which is information that has been twisted to misinform people.

  8. sue maxwell’s avatar

    The Real Thomas Jefferson, I mean. Sue

  9. ZAROVE’s avatar

    Anythinkg by Skousen I tend to avoid after reading “The 5000 Year Leap”, and pars of “The Making Of America”. I don’t base my critisism off others, I read them personal;ly. I may rvisit him to find the soruces of soem claims, but I have no Faith in Skousens reliability.

    That said, why read “The Real Thomas Jefferson’ when I can just read the works of Thomas Jefferson? Which, by the way, I have. I don’t need others to tell me what he beelivd when I can read his own words written by himself, and ost of his works are now available online.

    I’m of coruse not sayign he’s exaclty like todays Liberals, b ut he had a lot mroe in common wihtthem than many seem to want to realise, much like many today call Liberals Neo-Monarchists even though Monarchists have much more in common with COnservatives, and inf act are themaelves Conservatives.

    That claim, by the way, also seems to origionalre with Skousen, and is one I as a Monarchist myself am most harmed by since I am now pegged as a Liberal progressive thanks to the reintroduction of “The 5000 Year Leap” to general audiences.

    Jefferson was a complex man, whose views on paper did not always reflect his own behaviour, and whose views werenot always consistent. Like most men, h made mistakes, changes his mind, and had ideas which seemed at odds with other ideas.

    Oh, he also held Ideas that woudl seem to contradict but don’t. The reason for this is the 200 odd yearsbetween his time and ours, and our tendancy to think asociatively. We often think X alway goes with Y and never with Z, and then see Jeerson promote both X and Z and think he contradicts. This is because in his time the association did not exist.

    Still, wile Jefferson was overall agaisnt direct taxation of American Citesens, the Taxes that were raised, such as Port Taxes on Imports, were to be gradiated in Jeffersons Mind so that only the Wealthy wudl pay them, thus the poor farmer woudl nto pay one cent rom his earnings yet see his Children Educated and th Land developed. That was unquestionably his view.

    Just as it was his View that Revolution was good and always Justified, and “As nessisary in the Political World as Thunderstorms in Nature” (Paraphrased quote, not direct).

    I’ve always been averse to thinking of any man as so great that we make idols of them, and fear we do this with America’s Founders. We act as i they were perect, and projec upon them our own Values, Hopes, and Asperations. We assume they stood for all the thignsd we stood for and let them embody our beleifs and thus use their names to lend credibility for our own views. We also all too foen fail to really leqarn who they actually were, what they did, and what they ebelived. We ignroe the fact that they lived in a different world. We then unquestionably follow thier lead.

    I think this a great error.

    Even the prophets werenot perect. Balam sinned, and nearly was killed, jeremiah lost his Tem;er, Elijah said he alone followed God and was rebuked, Peter, who knew Jesus personally, denied him Three Times, and even Joseph Smith had commited Sin and was repremanded for it.

    Those are prophets of God. America’s Foundign Fathers were Politicians., How much mroe can they be lead astray? How much mroe will they fall into temptation?

    I reject any view of them that see’s them as other thsn Men, or tha tries to make them Avatars for our own modern Political beleifs.

  10. sue maxwell’s avatar

    We are literal Israelites. You can read McConkie and Millet to learn more about that. Israel rejected God as King, against his will. The Kings led the people into idolatry so that it was necessary for Him to stop their wickedness, and disperse the Northern Kingdom of Israel first, and then the Southern Kingdom of Judah. They were dispersed through all nations that the blood of Abraham would be mixed within the entire world. Elder McConkie said that there are few people who do not have this blood in them by this time. And that if you are adopted your patriarchal blessing will say so.

    In all of the scriptures there are few righteous kings. In fact, the Kingsmen, in Captain Moroni’s time, were put down and punished for their crimes and their elitism. We hear of few Kings in the Book of Mormon, only several righteous ones and then Noah, who was horrifying and corrupt.

    If you know the scriptures, you know that this land is a land of destiny. It was prophesied that the descendants of Laman would be overcome by us when we came from Europe. It was necessary to establish a Republic, a government that allowed moral agency to be exercised, so that people could choose between right and wrong, and that the Restoration of the Church could take place.

    While the Old Testament says that the Scepter shall not depart from Judah until Shiloh come, many believe that that refers to the British monarchy which traces their lineage back to King Zedikiah of Judah.

    As far as this country goes, George Washington refused to be King as he knew what Kings do. For you to say that you are a Monarchist, goes against all that the scriptures teach us.

    Your words say alot about you. I do not criticize you, but I merely point out history and scripture. When I talked about expansionism, I meant that we are the only country that does not take over others during war, and we subsidize them when we win so they can get back on their feet. This entire nation was meant to be established as it was, and now, we are in the process of losing it due to our general wickedness and our lack of understanding of what this Nation is all about and what the original principles were that were used to establish it.

    “The Real Thomas Jefferson” is based upon original documents, includes them, and includes those of others who knew him. It also includes many of his words, as does each book mentioned.

    The best book I have read was written by Brigadeer General William H. Wilbur, whom I met, in which he researched and wrote about the upbringing of Washington. It is called “The Making of George Washington” and is the only book written about his childhood. After David McCollough spoke here, I wrote and told him about this book as it was obvious he didn’t know much about Washington’s childhood. He thanked me and he purchased it.
    Washington was considered to be the greatest man in a 1000 year period of history. Most people are unaware of the fact that he had a major influence on the type of governement that was formed. He did it through personal discussion in between sessions of the Convention.

    Every man who signed the Declaration of Independence sacrificed more than most realized- most lost all. They were true to their pledge and they paid the price. How many of us are willing to pay the price to maintain the freedom of this nation from dictatiorship, from the changing of it Constitutional laws and from the corruption that exists today?

    General Wilbur wrote that book because he said “The world needs Washington again.” A prophet of the Lord asked Cleon Skousen to write those books. I respect that man and am thankful for what he revealed that so few understand.

  11. ZAROVE’s avatar

    Sue, I hear the argument a lot that Monarchy is bad because most Kings are corrupt a lot. The problem is, most elected Presidents are no better. We pretend they are, but hey aren’t. Our own society has become highly corrupt, and as much as we like to imagine its less corrupt than Ancient Israel, its really not.

    For every good president there has been a bad one.

    The only reason it may seem otherwise is because we live in very different times than either the Ancient Israelites or the Nephite Culture. We live in a society that is ultimately Saturated with Christianity, and has been for the last 1700 Years. By that token, Historically there is far less call to become pagan like the surrounding Countries. The Surrounding Countries in Europe were all Christian Culturally, and America was Christian Culturally. Subsequently the Kings of Europe in the Middle Ages never took their nations into Idolatry. Even the worst of them retained a Christian Culture and Christian outlook.

    That began to change in Europe in the 18th century with the Enlightenment, but the Enlightenment was hardly a Monarichal resurgence. The Enlightenment was explicitly Republican. Its our modern Age of Democracy that goes hand in hand with removal of God from the Public Square and the removal of God from personal lives, and the elevation of man, just as its our Modern Democratic Age, based on the Enlightenment, that asks us to recreate all of Human Culture, that seeks to redefine our Morality, and that has ushered in al manner of Evils. This did not happen in Monarichal Europe.

    Its also foolish to think that only in a Republic can Moral Agency be exercised. This is one thing I find odd about Americans. Americans think that if we live in a Monarchy we can have no personal Liberty. Somehow, the mere fact that a Nation has a King means that the Nation lacks Personal Freedom to act on ones own. Most Monarchies did not encroach on personal Liberty Historically, and allowed one to run ones own affairs to a far greater extent than have most Republics throughout History, and in a way America is alone in both being a republic that allows personal Liberty and in being a republic that is not Anticlerical.

    That’s the problem I have.

    America is the only Republic whose founders were not opposed to Christianity. Benito Juarez in Mexico hated the Catholic Church and wanted it removed, and he was not a Friend to Protestants. (No record of his feeling toward LDS, but I’m pretty sure its not better.)

    The French Revolution was initiated by the Jacobins who wanted to purge all society of Christianity, and even went so far as to create a new calendar and a ten day week to end the existence of a Sabbath.

    The Soviet Union was created by killing Tzar Nicolas but was also explicitly interested in removing Christianity which lead to the persecution of the Eastern orthodox.

    In fact, none of the republics wanted Christianity to continue, they all wanted basically an Atheistic and Humanistic society to replace it.

    Also, each was rather more interested in collectivism, which undermines personal Liberty rather than grant it.

    Meanwhile, the supposedly oppressive Kings always allowed personal Liberty, and this included King George the Third.

    The American republic is pretty well the only Republic founded that has made republicanism work, and that’s mainly because America’s Founders basically created an Elected Monarchy and then immediately prevented the Government from taking too much power, and actually listened to those limits.

    Also, Washington did not refuse to become King because he knee what Kings do. He refused to become King because he was Sterile and had no Heir. That’s not quiet the same thing.

    Also, America nearly imported the House of Stuart to become King except it was headed up by Devout Catholics and there was still a lot of Anti-Catholicism, and quiet frankly America’s Founding Fathers were not as solidly Anti-Monarchist as we may think. With the exception of Jefferson, most of them were pretty ambivalent to what sort of Government would work best. Likewise, even Jefferson was not one to just outright hate all Monarchies.

    None blamed Monarchy in and of itself with a Los of Personal Liberty and none thought that the mere fact hat America was a republic would lead it to freedom. They understood rather the opposite, that it was just as easy for the American Republican Government to become oppressive. Hence why they limited its actual powers.

    Therefore, one can conclude safely that they believed a Government with clear limitations operating in a system of Checks and balances was best, not necessarily that a Republic was best. While Jefferson, following Locke’s Philosophy, certainly did Favour a Republic and eventually won the Public Debate, thus ensuring future Americans would be Republicans, and eventually convincing the rest, he also hung in his Hall of Heroes a portrait of the Absolute Monarch of France, King Louis the 16th. Yes this contradicts his happiness at the Revolution there, he sometimes contradicted himself.

    But that’s the trouble you see, America’s Founders were not unanimous in declaring Monarchy as an evil or unjustified form of Government, and none really claimed that Monarchy by nature was oppressive.

    If we study History, we also don’t find what you claim, that Kings always act in an oppressive manner. We see the opposite. Most of the Time Kings don’t act at all oppressive and even where they have, their oppression has always been far less than most Republics have been.

    And given the overbearing nature of most Republics that have ever existed, and even how America’s own Republican Government has always extended its power and ability to regulate us, I just don’t see how you can say Washington refused to become King because he w what kings do with a Straight Face. You act as if by becoming a King Washington would immediately have become a despot with absolute power who crushed everyone under his Thumb, which is surely not the case. It wasn’t even the Case of George the Third. In fact, outside of Revolutionary War Propaganda, King George the Third was a Beloved king who really wasn’t a Tyrant.

    Today’s society is not run on Monarchy, and yet the Government has far Greater Regulatory ability, and impose much higher Taxation, than any absolute Monarchy in History. This is only matched by Constitutional Monarchies in which the Crown has no real Power, who themselves boast of being Democracies and which are described as “Crown Republics”. So forgive me for not seeing the obvious Truth that a Monarchy is oppressive and Kings always act in a fashion that shows tyrannical leanings or oppression. Forgive me for not seeing Republicanism as if it always means Freedom and Liberty and Free Moral Agency being Promoted.

    Speaking of Morality, in an age of rampant sexual licence like today, not to mention same sex marriage, abortion on Demand, and how 40% of all births are out of wedlock, and in an age when people become increasingly lazy, indolent, and willing to insult, as well as self centred, one can also ask how we can reasonably argue that Republicanism leads to a better Moral society.

    Its whole Philosophy has lead to Moral Relativism.

  12. Greg’s avatar

    Sue / Zarove – You’re certainly covering a lot of ground discussing this topic. Maybe we can bring it back to how it relates to Cleon Skousen and the views expressed in his works.

    Just an idea…

  13. ZAROVE’s avatar

    You are correct, but as I said I am a Monarchist, and thus I dislike how Skousen mischaracterizes us as Left Wing, or as always advocating Totalitarianism. Most Monarchist are actually Small Government Conservatives, not Big Government Liberals.

    But I also have problems with how Skousen misrepresents Americas Founders via selective quotation. However, I can save this for another Future Post, rather than deposit everything all at once.

  14. sue maxwell’s avatar

    Skousen talks about all of these things as a background to understand his writings. What Zarove is saying is filled with half truths and is misleading and I would rather not get into any deep discussions about this anymore as I am opposed to contention. I like The Making of American and The Majesty of God’s Law and The 5000 Year Leap. It is what we are all about, and I am wondering just why all of the revolutions took place in Europe and people came here to experience freedom from tyranny and religion, if these Monarchs were so wonderful. For me the discussion is ended, as we come from two different places. I fully support Cleone Skoussen, and a Republic, and know that Washington was against having a King. I have read his own words on the subject.

  15. ZAROVE’s avatar

    Sue, saying my post are filled with half Truths is basically calling me a Liar, and yet you follow up with how you fully support Skousen, whose books are themselves proven to be filled with Half Truths.

    That means you do believe in contention. Anything I say now will “Prove” that I’m the Troublemaker. After all, we all “Know” I’m willing to lie and distort History, unlike you or Skousen, right?

    You don’t come off as avoiding contention at all, you come off as issuing cheap insult but trying to mask it.

    By the way, you haven’t read Washington’s thoughts on it. You’ve read Skousen quote Washington selectively. This is the same tactic Atheists use to prove Washington was not really a Christian, and neither was John Adams or Thomas Jefferson.

    Given the amount of materials they wrote, one can prove virtually anything from them, and if you superimpose a preconceived conclusion onto them, and also filter their worlds though the Mythic version of American History we tend to learn about, then of course what I’m saying will come off as odd, or perhaps dishonest.

    But what I’m saying is that the Mythic version isn’t the Truth. Take the whole “People came over for Religious freedom, if the Monarchs were great why would they do that?” question. Had it ever dawned on you that the original settlers never dreamed of founding a Nation that was explicitly separate from those Monarchs? In fact, the vast majority of settlements came over for a variety of reasons unrelated to Religion. Jamestown, which Skousen claims was Socialistic, when it wasn’t, came over to make a quick pound by finding Gold deposits. It was founded by a Corporation and its settlers were shareholders whose primary interest was making a profit off natural resources. The Jamestown colony is actually older than the Pilgrims settlement we hear about every Thanksgiving. The settlers of Jamestown were so averse to the Monarchy that they named the Town in Honour of the then ruling Monarch James the Sixth of Scotland, First of England.

    If you then chart the vast majority of other settlements, such as any that were founded in Virginia, you soon discover that they were principally settled because of cheap land, that was perfect for farming, and to dip their hands in the rich agricultural business, especially Tobacco.

    As to the Pilgrims themselves, even they didn‘t hate the Monarchy. In fact, the whole “Religious persecution drove them to America” myth is not accurate. England had long ago adopted Religious Toleration, in fact they passed a specific Bill about it under Queen Elizabeth.

    If not a Catholic, you were fine. While I don’t really like the idea of Catholics being discriminated against, they had far more Freedom in England than anywhere else, and England allowed Nonconformist Churches to exist in equality to the State Church, which no one was forced into being a member of.

    Worse still, the Pilgrims didn’t leave England for America, they left Holland for America. The reason? Because they didn’t want their Children growing up being Dutch. They wanted them to preserve their British Identities and Culture. THAT’S why they came to America.

    If you dare read what I posted. Or is that also “Half truths” and Skousen the only honest voice?

    If so, how do you explain the Mayflower Compact?

    If they opposed Monarchy, would they not denounce it? Or at least not mention it in the founding document they used in their own settlement.

    So below is the Mayflower Compact.

    “ IN THE NAME OF GOD, AMEN. We, whose names are underwritten, the Loyal Subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, &c. Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and Country, a Voyage to plant the first Colony in the northern Parts of Virginia; Do by these Presents, solemnly and mutually, in the Presence of God and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick, for our better Ordering and Preservation, and Furtherance of the Ends aforesaid: And by Virtue hereof do enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions, and Officers, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general Good of the Colony; unto which we promise all due Submission and Obedience. IN WITNESS whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names at Cape-Cod the eleventh of November, in the Reign of our Sovereign Lord King James, of England, France, and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth, Anno Domini; 1620.”

    Does the above sound like they absolutely hate Monarchy?

    The Pilgrims were Loyal to their King. They were Monarchists. The Pilgrims did not flee monarchism, and really didn’t leave the Religious Persecution we dream up. Its not like everyone was forced to become Members of the Church of England, and the only time specific Religious beliefs were imposed on the English since the reformation was under the Republic of England.

    By the way, the 29th of May was made into a Holiday, Oak Apple Day, because of this Restoration.

    “”Parliament had ordered the 29 of May, the King’s birthday, to be for ever kept as a day of thanksgiving for our redemption from tyranny and the King’s return to his Government, he entering London that day.””

    I’m sorry that this doesn’t conform to the vision of History you prefer to believe, but it remains True, and this Englishman won’t forget his History just because Americans like to think of it very differently.

    In fact, whole the English laws were more strict than the Dutch, the Italian Laws were far more strict than the English, and the Italian City-States were mainly Republics.

    So was the USSR, whose laws were by far more Strict. Or France under the Jacobins. Or Germany under Hitler.

    As to General Washington’s views of Monarchy, “The 5000 Year Leap“ quotes him out of context as saying Monarchists should be removed from public offices, but in context its really discussing Loyalists who want to undo the Revolution. In those instances, “Monarchist’ doesn’t mean Theoretical Monarchists who just happen to believe Monarchy is better than Republicanism, it means explicitly those still Loyal to King George and the Throne of Great Britain.

    Even the old fable of him turning down the crown wasn’t really True.

    Not that you will read it. It may as well be that he was Sterile.

    Still, It should seem he was not so averse as you depict him.

    As to those Revolutions across all Europe, that’s a disingenuous argument. Just what Revolutions are you talking about? Other than America, the only other 18th or early 19th Century Revolt was France.

    The French Revolution began mainly because the Jacobins had become devout followers of the new Philosophical beliefs of the Enlightenment and decided to take advantage of an Economic downturn to try to reshape all of society.

    Though it is Ironic because Americas opposed the French Revolution and Governor Morris even said “ I oppose your Democracy because I support Freedom’, an later, upon the Restoration of the House of Bourbon to the Throne after Napoleon, the same Governor Morris, who was an American Founding Father, said “The Bourbons are back on the Throne, Freedom has returned to France”.

    These words fly in the face of the idea Americans have now that all of America’s Founding fathers objected to Monarchy on Principal and saw all Monarchs as Tyrants.

    I know you won’t believe this but, America’s Founders did not see the French Revolution as a Great Good, but as a Great Evil.

    So did the French.

    The French Revolution may be Lionised by someone like you who hast studied it, but its not like they kicked out the King and then inaugurated a Grand era of Freedom and Prosperity. The French Revolution lead directly to the Reign of Terror in which citizens literally were killed in the Streets in order to create Political Conformity.

    The Reign of Terror tore down Churches and killed Priests or Peasants who still attended Mass. They raped women who refused to give into Free Love. They destroyed anyone still fond o the king. Then they turned on each other and purges the Party of any dissent, and rival factions made war upon each other. This only ended when napoleon Seized Power. Napoleon would go on to become Emperor.

    All other Revolutions have gotten started by Revolutionaries buying into the Rhetoric of Revolution and following the same philosophy, and the vast majority were created by killing not only the Kings, but the Peasants as well who didn’t go along with it.

    I know the myth will be that all the Kings of Europe were Tyrants who gave no Freedom and the people rose up to overthrow them and give themselves Liberty, but unless your willing to say the Soviet Union was Free, then the whole argument falls flat.

    Also, asking why the Revolutions happened ignores the fact that men have Fought and Died for Monarchy too. Look at Spain. Look at England. Look at France. One can just as reasonably ask, if Monarchy is so brutal and oppressive and always denies us our Freedom, why would so many willingly die for it? Why would so many demand a Restoration of it?

    Even today in places like Portugal, Serbia, or Russia Monarchists are mobilised to bring about a Restoration of what which was Lost.

    It doesn’t seem that its always True that the people prefer a republic and always rise up against a King, but ever seek to live under one.

    By the way, how can you reject all Monarchy and follow Jesus as King of Kings and Lord of Lords?

    Before accusing someone of telling Half Truths and being misleading, perhaps you should purchase a History book by a credible historian, or check the original sources Skousen quotes. You’ll begin to see why the Historical information he presents is guilty of what you just accused me of. He misleads his reader with fragmented Quotations and biased interpretation, and he tells half Truths, and Even outright Lies.

    I’ve presented evidence now. Will you ignore it?

    Why believe Skousen over the words of the Pilgrims themselves? Or Washington? Or those who survived the French Revolution?

  16. sue maxwell’s avatar

    I have spent the day reading all about you on the net, and have also read most of your extensive posts in order to better understand you and your views as a Monarchist.
    I have also read the history of American Monarchists, organized in 1943 who would rid our country of a Republic.
    I have 8 pages of direct quotes from Jefferson and Washington about the dangers of Monarchy and its threats to a Republic. Jefferson expressed even greater fear than Washington did of the Monarchists and the dangers they did and would pose to the Republic- the type of goverment they and many others gave their lives, fortunes and blood for. They created a Republic based upon a pure Constitution. It is no longer the same as it was, and it is being distorted and desecrated. This is Memorial Day weekend, and a good weekend to honor the people who not only set up this country, but those of our ancestors who made sacrifices to come here and begin a new life of freedom.

    All of your remarks center around your belief in Monarcym so that is why I am making one more remark about what you are saying. I will not ansdiscuss it any more.

    Nor will I take up tons of space copying all of the quotes I have, and they are direct quotes to other people about their views- all footnoted. But I will tell you what George Washington said when Colonel Lewis Nicola suggested that Washington should become King: ” No occurrence in the course of the war has given me more painful sensations than your information of there being such ideas existing in the army……and[these] I view with abhorrence and reprehend with severity…….[Such ideas were] big with the greatest mischiefs that can befall my country…..You could not have found a person to whom your schemes are more disagreeable……….If you have any regard for your country, concern for yourself or posterity, or respect for me,…..banish these thoughts from your mind, and never communicate, as from yourself or anyone else, a sentiment of the like nature.” This occurred at a time when the army was discouraged, but he was absolutely floored that they would even consider such an atrocity, after giving their blood to rid themselves of the reprehensible treatement of the English government.

    You would do better to not assume where I or others get their information, or what their beliefs are before they are stated. In regards to my remarks it would have been better if you had quoted the Declaration of Independence rather than The Mayflower Compact.

    The matter is closed as I am not a Monarchist. If that is your choice, that is your choice, but it has no place in my political or religous beliefs.

  17. Steven Montgomery’s avatar

    My comment (above) was meant for Sue and Zarove, somehow that got left off the comment. Thanks.

  18. sue maxwell’s avatar

    Steve- that is an excellent article. Thank you so much for sending it. Sue

  19. Doug’s avatar

    One thing to think about in regard to the Mayflower Compact. Has anyone ever worked at a job they ended up not liking? Did you immediately leave when you found it disagreeable to you? Or did you stay on until you found other gainful employment? If you stayed on, does that mean you agreed with everything your employer did or stood for? Is it possible that some or all of those seeking to travel on the Mayflower would say whatever they had to in order to get passage to the Americas? Just a thought. Just because things are written about someone, or even by someone (especially someone that was afraid of the repercussions of eventually being discovered), it may not represent their true feelings.

  20. ZAROVE’s avatar

    AT the same Time you have no evidence that their True Feelings ran in the direction of hating the King, much less Monarchy in general.

    If you like to Imagine them as Republicans hating Monarchy but pretendign to likre it just for passage to the New World, I certainly can’t stiop you, but like both Skousens, you woudl be engaged not in real History but Fantasy. Just like its Fantasy to present the French revolutionaries as not hatign Christianity and having no intention of crushign it, or the King of france a an awful bully who forced then to revolt. Just like its Fantasy to Imagine Monarchy as Left Wing with Large Government when most Monarchies have had much smaller Governments than most republics. Just like its a fantasy to think of Communists as beleivign in “Rulers Law” rather than “Peoples law” and comign form a radically different Philosophical system than America’s own founders. In fact, its the ehole ocncept of “Peopels Law’ that Communism ultimatley is derived from and the reason I poppose Democracy or Republicanism in Favour of Monarhcism, because Republicanism inevitably leads to COllectivism, not individualism, and to an erosion of CUlture, the Arts, and even faith in God as the focus is on “The people” and not God and Natural law. It breeds only an arrogancy of Mob COmplacency and eventual tyranny.

    The fact is, everything we have from the Mayflower COmpact to the writtings of Bradford and all successive writers frm the period that imediatley follows suggests hat they were Monarchists who accepted God’s Divine Order as Monarchy, which follows Christian tradition. The idea that God hates Monarhcy and wanted Israel to be a republic simply doens’t appear in the Hisorical record before Thomas Paine, a man who incidentlaly later said the Bible was filled with myth and absurdity.

    Meanwhile, Christian trsdition says Jesus is our King, not our Duly Elected President, and most, if not all Church Fathers and later writers from Augustine to Jonathan Edwards to Samuel Seasbury all asserted with confidence that Monarchy is the superior form of Government and most in Keepign with Christian Principals. Only a handful like Milton or Locke toyed with he Idea of a Christian Republic, and that wss in the 1600′s.

    While Locke was himself a Puritain like the Pilgrims, it seems bradrfords commitments lay in the Traditional Theology of the Puritains and they settled Plymoth in 1620, which is before Lockes Time in the 1650′s and 1660′s. He wasn’t even Born till 1632, 12 years after thePlymot Settlemet.

    So exaclty where woudlk they get their Republicanism or Animosity toward the King dfrom?

    If you say the Bible, the Bible says to Honour the King, and is explicitly a Monarchist collection, validwatign the Rule of ings even in 1 Samuel Chgapter 8. God was himself King of Israel, the sin beign rejection the true King for an inferior pretender, and replacing God with Man.

    Republicanism replaces even the focus of Authority in law from God and says that if enough men agree somehting becomes Right.

    Is that very Christian?

    Why shoudl we assume the Pilgrims held a fundamentally diffeent view about Monarchy than other Christians of the Era? What real evidence is their?

    Speculation cna be fun but engagign in Speculation to make a provision in Hisotry for a preference then actign as ifthis is solid often leads to Grave Error.

  21. ZAROVE’s avatar

    One last thing:

    If the Mayflower COmpact was only written by peopel who didn’t be.elive in Monarchy, but said they did to get passage to the New World, woudln’t they have had to write it before the left England? It was written in the New World thogh, on Plymouth.

    Worse still, if they did nit approve of the British Monarchy why bother with it? After all, they set sail from Holand to the New World, not England, for the express purpose of preserving their British and specifically English Identities.

    Does that really align with a Republican beleif System?

  22. ZAROVE’s avatar

    Oh, and SUe, my own last comment did not get through but I will ask, why shoudl I care what either Jefferson or Washignton said about Monarhcism? My ancestors were Loyalists, and one even fought agaisnt Washington.

    They had obvious reasons to fight agaisnt Monarchists based on, you know, creatign a Republic.

    That harldy proves them right, and you cna’t just hold them up and expect to win on an argument by Authority.

    Why shoudl I care?

    Also, Jefferson did not fight for “A Pure COnstitution”. They coudln’t have as the COnstitution came about in 1788. By the way THomas Jefferson actually opposed the Constitution.

    He was also in France when it was Ratified.

  23. Doug’s avatar


    You certainly have a lot of knowledge and references. And I applaud you for your effort in research and learning. However, we all now that history is lost, filled in from memory years later, written by the winner, etc. All history is subject, and therefore, to a certain extent, fantasy. We can pore over documents for a lifetime. In the end you can only get the truth from God (via the Holy Ghost).

    There is a difference in being led by a king and being led by a prophet of God. God is the head of the church and the creator of the world. A society cannot be run correctly without Him at the head, whether it be a monarch, republic, democracy, etc.

    If you read the Old Testament, God was rejected (and his prophets), so he appointed Israel a king because they asked for one. However he warned against having a king. This can all be found in 1 Samuel Chapter 8.

    The problem with any leadership besides God or men of God, is that you may get some good and some bad. God will not let a prophet lead you astray.

  24. jandarable’s avatar

    Greg, thankyou for this article on Cleon Skousen.

    I want to say how much I admire Cleon Skousen. Long before my husband joined the lds church, he met Mr. Skousen who came to speak at the police academy graduation where my husband was ‘valedictorian’ so he was also speaking, thus met/visited with Mr. Skousen. He has utmost respect for Mr. Skousen.
    I can’t even imagine this good man telling/writing anything not true or half true. He was a man of solid integrity and prayerfully did his research. If David O. McKay believed in him, I’ll take that as a sign of trust and good character also.
    We dearly appreciate Mr, Skousen’s writings and learn a great deal from them continuously.

  25. Greg’s avatar

    You’re welcome jandarable.

· 1 · 2

Leave a Reply