Often certain advocates of Social Credit, frustrated in their ability to progress in gaining converts and adherents, look for some way of “modernizing” Douglas’s ideas to bring them “up to date” for purposes of gaining public appeal. Sometimes these proponents of “updating” Social Credit to increase “public acceptance” are sincere, sometimes themselves not clear in their understanding of the meaning and intent of Social Credit policy--and sometimes are agents of disruption intent deliberately upon sabotaging Douglas’s ideas. My response is as follows:
“Why would you want to modify the Social Credit philosophy and policy? Social Credit was an idea whose time had come a century ago, when the evermore capital intensive industrial age was effecting profound economic and social change, and has become more relevant and applicable with the passage of time. You don’t modify something that is fundamentally sound just because people may not understand it. Reality is reality. We simply must educate people in an effort to help them come to an understanding of actuality. We are assisted in this with every replacement of human effort by technology.
“Social Credit, per se, was conceived only a century ago, which is a very short time historically speaking. Press your critics to explain exactly and in detail why they think that you are “out of date.” Perhaps they can tell you why gravity is ‘out of date’. If they concur with what you are saying but claim simultaneously that the ideas you are presenting are dated, then they appear to be suffering from cognitive dissonance. By inducing some confusion in their minds, you may be making some progress in managing to acquire at least some agreement. Social Crediters want to free people from their enslaving delusions—not ‘catch’ them by catering to and reinforcing such delusions.
“We just have to keep honing our abilities to propagate the Social Credit concepts until they begin to gel and the dissonance comes together in clear resolution. I know that the inborn skepticism and/or crass ignorance of many people is frustrating—having spent nearly a lifetime in trying to promote Douglas’s ideas. But one can neither deny nor distort the truth just because people cannot perceive it. We have, of course, had powerful opposition in high places*—but the latter is becoming increasingly discredited and displays perhaps even itself some signs of fracture or incipient disarray.”
*Douglas wrote in the “New Age”, March 28, 1929:
“In this country the Institute of Bankers allocated five million pounds to combat the subversive ideas of ourselves. The large Press Association were expressly instructed that my own name should not be mentioned in the public Press. During the last five years the seed of Social Credit has been driven underground.”
--Eric de Maré, “A Matter of Life or Debt” (Onalaska, WA: Humane World Community Inc., 1991 U.S. Ed., p. 87.)