Talk:W. Cleon Skousen

The "fascism is different from communism" line
Taken from Wikipedia article on fascism.

"The Manifesto supported the creation of an eight-hour work day for all workers, a minimum wage, worker representation in industrial management, equal confidence in labour unions as in industrial executives and public servants, reorganization of the transportation sector, revision of the draft law on invalidity insurance, reduction of the retirement age from 65 to 55, a strong progressive tax on capital, confiscation of the property of religious institutions and abolishment of bishoprics, and revision of military contracts to allow the government to seize 85% of their profits"

They may have spoken in different terminologies, owing to the fact that people in central and western Europe were so frightened of communism that they would not have tolerated a regime which just called itself communist, but no, there was no discernible difference. Except for the fact that communism killed waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more people. This is not to say that if fascism continued that it wouldn't have done the same. In any case, the idea that authoritarianism of communism and fascism meet at one end of the spectrum, and that the real political division is not left and right, but total anarchy versus total authority, is not an idea which originated with radical john birch Mormons like this guy. It is widely accepted by serious mainstream political scientists as valid (karl popper for instance). Burkean (talk) 04:04, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Unreadable
I try to understand the second, LONG section of this article and it is just incomprehensible. Can anyone who knows anything about these materials chop it down into a much smaller, understandable section? Trying to decipher it caused my eyes to glaze over. Tinact (talk) 02:32, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It’s already divided into five fairly short paragraphs and a numbered list, so it’s hardly a wall of text:
 * The first paragraph details the background of the 5000 year title, specifically that it refers to a Young Earth creationist timeline and the book’s relation to the Reagan revolution.
 * The second addresses Skousen’s nonsensical (re)definition of the political spectrum.
 * The third concerns his “US was founded as a Christian state” bunk and leads into his 28 principles (the numbered list).
 * The fourth assesses the content of the list and impact of the book in general.
 * The minuscule fifth specifically criticises his view that religion is integral to democracy.
 * So, what exactly do you find hard to understand in this structure?
 * Is it because you think that each paragraph needs a subheading that explicitly sums up its content?
 * Do you find the text within each paragraph difficult to understand?
 * Do you want to pair down the whole thing and axe some of the content?
 * Is it because you think we need to more clearly emphasise Skousen’s attempt to redefine the political spectrum? (It is mainly thanks to good old Cleon that we now have to explain to certain segments of the US populace that, yes, the Nazis were indeed a far right party; something that pretty much everyone else everywhere else agree on)
 * In short, what exactly is so incomprehensible about this half an A4 page of text? ScepticWombat (talk) 05:07, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Only the final paragraph could be considered "short". Does a book written by the article subject really require this much coverage? This is not the place for a book report. I think its significance could be summed up in one medium-length paragraph. OR separate the coverage of this book into its own article. It overwhelms this bio. Tinact (talk) 03:18, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Eh, you do realise that the main reason we have an article on Skousen at all, is because he was the author of this particular book, right? Even though it was basically through its (re)discovery and promotion by Glenn Beck that its particular threefold wingnut pseudohistory (YEC, the US's foundation as a Christian nation and the silly redefinition of the political spectrum)was catapulted into the popular discourse. It's not that Skousen's life is especially relevant or interesting in and of itself. ScepticWombat (talk) 13:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)