50 books explained

41. The Naked Communist by W. Cleon Skousen

Cleon Skousen is one of my favorite authors. This book is about, as you can tell by the title, communism. The naked part comes because, as he explains in his introduction, he wants to expose the evils of communism, or break it down so anyone can see it for what it is. At first my siblings would question why it was about a naked person. It's not.

In this book Skousen starts out with a basic history about communism. I won't go into detail here, as you can find this information elsewhere. I grew up being told communism was evil, how Karl Marx was not a righteous person. I have heard that communism and the Law of Consecration have a lot in common.

Communism seeks at its heart to promote social equality. Karl Marx didn't like capitalism, which was the prevailing economical system in his day. He believed it favored the wealthy, which it does. He wanted to create a system where everyone would be equal, where no one would be socially or economically above anyone else. No one would individually own property. Everything was to be owned in common. He obviously didn't see anything wrong with taking from the rich and giving to the poor. The government was only to be in place long enough to enforce this equality.

But Marx failed to see, or he chose to ignore, basic human nature. Once a man gains a little power over another, the natural tendency is to increase that power for self-gratification. Doctrine and Covenants 121:39 states: "We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion."

Because of this, any time a people have overthrown whatever type of government they were previously under, and established a communist one in its' place, communism has failed to progress like Marx said it would. Once property rights had been abolished, then paradise was supposed to insue. No more government. But look at Russia, China, North Korea. They still have communist government, many years later. Communism is a failed economical/political solution to the worlds problems.

32. The Thousand Years War by Richard Maybury

This is another Richard Maybury classic. Following his other books Whatever Happened to Penny Candy? and Whatever Happened to Justice?, this is his best book yet. In this book he discusses why the United States currently military personnel in the Middle East. The book is so titled because he claims that the West, meaning Western Europe and now the United States, has been constantly at war with Muslims since the Crusades.

In the year 1095 Pope Urban II sanctioned an army invading Jerusalem, freeing it from Muslim control. Jerusalem is sacred to 3 major world religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Thus, Pope Urban II wanted this site to be reserved for Christians. There were a series of invading armies sent from Europe, with varied successes. In the end, Jerusalem ended up staying in control of the Muslims.

Maybury makes the point in this book that Muslims don't forgive or forget very easily. They remember the crusades. They didn't like enemies invading what they consider their holy land.

How do the crusades influence today's politics? Well, ever since the crusades Europe and the Muslim countries in the Middle East have been in a state of a quasi war. During the late middle ages Muslim pirate would capture European vessels unless the rulers paid them bribes. Many ships were lost because the kings and queens refused to pay the pirates. The Europeans soon found it was cheaper and easier to just pay the ransom rather than bother with rescue efforts.

In 1801 the US ships started to ply the Mediterranean Sea, trading with nations in that part of the world. Well, the pirates from North Africa captured several American ship. Thomas Jefferson, who was known for maintaining a small government, sent the US navy to North Africa to free the American prisoners. They did so, and the Americans forces the North African pirates to sign a treaty saying that Americans could trade in the Mediterranean Sea without interference from pirates.

Well, this began a tradition for the US: that we would send armed forces to protect our interests worldwide. Since that time we have sent forces in both world wars, to Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq and Afghanistan. Our forces currently in the Middle East were not sent there to protect our freedom, but to protect national interests.

Most Muslims don't like the US. It's not very hard to see why. The US government has a habit of setting up governments in the Middle East that the people don't want. Many times the US backs a dictator just so we can get their oil. In Iraq we set up a democracy. If the common people had WANTED a democracy I'm sure they would fight a bloody revolution, just like Americans did, to achieve it. If they truly wanted freedom they would take whatever steps were necessary to gain it. Why do we, as Americans, feel the need to poke the power of our military where it does not belong?

So our nation is in Iraq and Afghanistan to fight for our freedom. I find this hard to believe. What freedoms are being threatened on the other side of the world? Al Qaeda, a terrorist organization, is said to be the target of this war. How do you identify who is a member of Al Qaeda, and who is not? To eliminate this group you would have to find them.

Maybury makes this point quite clear in the book. He says that to achieve the goal of eliminating terrorists we would have to eliminate millions of people. He claims the Arabs are in a state of guerrilla warfare. This means they don't find in organized groups; they get into small bands and harass the enemy. It is next to impossible to defeat such an enemy.

Maybury suggests that we leave the Middle East alone. Why do we need to be the world police and make people like us? If someone came into the US and set up a dictator that nobody like how would we react? I'd react like the Muslims: I would hate the country or nation that created the dictatorship. Why should we expect the Muslims to be different?