Christianity is either something inherent in the very warp and woof of the Universe, or it is just a set of interesting   opinions. To those who 'adapt' the Faith to fit their politics or their economics, it is clearly the latter. I am not denying that some people who call themselves social crediters have fallen into this pit, notably those who have used the name to promote the interests of a political Party, with a certain petty success in Canada and New Zealand. The aim of a Party is 'power and status for us and our group' which is quite incompatible both with Christianity and with Social Credit. It is significant that so-called 'Social Credit Parties' always end by denouncing Douglas and departing further and further from anything resembling Social Credit policy; unless, indeed, as with the former British Party, they have had the integrity to stick to Social Credit and to Douglas and to abandon the Party idea. There is all the difference in the World between changing Christianity to fit the 'realities' of an artificial and man-made World, and changing the World to fit the ultimate reality of the Kingdom of God. Social crediters attempt the latter. They sometimes   stray from the way, which is one reason why they need your help. The social credit This movement has been influencing the World for sixty years. Its effects have been widespread, but unpublicised. One of its gifts to the human mind and at least the English language is the term: the social credit (without Caps.) which is the name of something which exists in all societies but which never had a name before because it was taken for granted. We become aware of it only as we lose it. 'Credit' is another word for 'faith' or 'confidence', so we can also call it the Faith or Confidence which binds any society together - the mutual trust or belief in each other without which fear is substituted for trust as the 'cement' of society. Law and order is a part of it, but only a small part. King Alfred, called The Great, claimed that in his Kingdom of Wessex any woman or child could walk the length and breadth of it without fear of harm, although under the pagan Danes rape, murder and robbery were the commonplaces of the times. But under Alfred Wessex was a Christian Kingdom, and though no society can exist without some social credit, it is at its maximum where the Christian religion is practised, and at its minimum where it is denied and derided. Recent history, both in Britain and in Rhodesia provide grim evidence of this. The social credit is thus a result, or practical _expression_, of real Christianity in Society, one of its most recognisable fruits; and it is the aim and policy of social crediters to increase it… THE LEFT AND THE RIGHT AND THE TRUTH Many people who are repelled or alarmed by the continual drift towards totalitarian socialism have been driven to support what is known as The Right, under the impression that this holds the answer to The Left. To their dismay they soon find that they are wrong. Some things may be slightly better, others much worse, but the general direction is the same. After all those brave words and promises to put things right, it is most discouraging and confusing, and many people just give up all interest in politics and become quite helpless and inactive. Others decide that perhaps The Right was not Right enough, and move to the Extreme Right, only to find that they are in company which, apart from _style_ and language, is scarcely distinguishable from the Extreme Left, with which it enjoys a perpetual game of mutual abuse. Indeed, neither side could do without the other. How can all this be? It is necessary, I suggest, for us to go deeper than the surface of politics as seen in the Party contest, and to realise that the Left-Right confrontation is itself an essential part of a policy of division and conflict - the policy of revolution.  The terms Left and Right in the political sense had a revolutionary origin which is still implicit in their current usage, though now forgotten and lost to view.  After the French Revolution the legislative assemblies in France and elsewhere were seated in a semi-circular arrangement, the more enthusiastic vanguard of the revolution being on the left, the more solid, critical and cautious rearguard on the right-but all were   revolutionaries, or at least had to go along with the revolution. No one opposed to it, even if he survived and was left at large, could take any part in the Government, any more than the Tsarists could now in the USSR, or a pro-Shah party in Iran. That is what revolutions are about: the total elimination of the Ancien Regime and its traditions, making an impassable gulf with the past. Slow revolution In English-speaking world We have now to realise that the World Revolution has in fact become worldwide. Because, in the English-speaking world it is taking place in stages, and more gradually than it did in France, Russia or Iran, and its opponents are merely excluded from effective power or publicity, rather than murdered or imprisoned (but remember Ross McWhirter and Airey Neave!) this does not mean that the above statement does not apply to it. It does! In Britain the critical step was taken under cover of the blood-spilling of the second World War, when a coalition of all parties from Right to Left combined to introduce the Socialist (called   Welfare) State. It should be noted, however, that in Britain this was   somewhat modified by certain elements, perverted indeed, but derived   from the influence exerted by the Social Credit Movement before the War; notably the agricultural subsidies which gave us cheap food for a generation, and the basic insistence that, in a world of technological plenty, no one should be reduced to the extreme forms of monetary poverty, such as were endured by the unemployed in the 1930's. That these have been applied in such a way as to encourage the maximum irresponsibility, frustration, resentment and work-shyness   is very largely the responsibility of the Conservative Party, which, while rejecting Social Credit as a form of alleged 'funny-money socialism' which (they said) would produce these deplorable results, has consistently preferred the irresponsible, inflationary and work-discouraging doles and hand-outs of Socialism to the responsible, work-supplementing, and wealth-related   proposal of the dividend. This has produced a predictable degeneration in the social morale and credit, issuing in the sort of irrational and furious discontent which can be channelled into revolutionary violence; but there is still surviving, in Britain, a tough core of common sense and mutual faith which may well yet save us from the worst extremes of socialist tyranny. The time may even come when we shall thank God for the dogged obstinacy   and 'solidarity' of the British working man, at present suicidally directed against the public (i.e. himself); but it may look rather different when the comrades try to take him over. The greatest danger comes from Conservatives, who seem determined to   consolidate Union power over their members as in the Communist State. The trap of the mass-power game Looking back over nearly half a century I can see quite clearly that our situation is not as bad as it would have been had C. H. Douglas never been born, or if a small number of people had not tried to apply what he taught them. As it turns out he came too late to halt the momentum of events, but what has been won has been time; and the effects have been quite out of proportion to the number of people engaged. If only one per cent of the energy formerly wasted on mere Leftism and now being wasted on mere Rightism were to be directed towards the constructive resolution of the pathogenic Left/Right dialectical conflict, the course of history could have been, and could still be, changed. But so long as people continue to believe that the way to use a small force is to throw it into the mass-power game, they   are deceiving themselves when they imagine that they are exerting any influence over events. Since the point seems so hard to take, let me put it with a different emphasis. There is no 'happy mean' between running and walking to Hell, between Right and Left, Conservative and Labour (let alone Liberal or Social Democrat!); between monstrous   borrowing to keep the economy going with massive hand- outs, and strangling it with monetary restriction; between Tory inflation and Labour inflation; between multinational financial monopolies and State-controlled national monopolies; or between the typical bum's rush of a Labour or Tory Government (but the Tories are worst) to give instant 'recognition' to any gang of Leftist murderers who seize bloody control of a country.  Indeed, when one compares them, it is clear that the Right has done a more competent job of encouraging the World Revolution than the Left, at least in Britain.  The Carrington-Thatcher hand-over of Rhodesia to Marxist control was a thoroughly professional bit of work which would have produced howls if Labour had done it, and so, of course, was the surrender of the nation to the Brussels   oligarchy; while the destruction of effective local government with the creation of gargantuan and remote County bureaucracies, with   Soviet-_style_ appointed tribunals and quangoes (such as Area Health Authorities), was a masterly preparation on the part of the last Conservative Government for the present one's self-righteous demands for cuts in 'socialist bureaucracies' causing the appropriate flog-up of revolutionary fury and resentment! No doubt I shall be told that what the mass media call 'Conservative' or 'Right' is not the 'true' Right, but it is what 999 people out of 1,000 understand by those terms, and in the case of the word 'Right' it is the correct and traditional use of the term, as used also, for instance, of the present Marxist Government of China, which has ousted the former Leftist group, and of the Islamic revolutionaries in Iran, now trying to suppress the Left. The Importance of the correct use of words Many conservatives naturally identify 'Rightism' with something   genuine, an emotional reaction to an over-intellectual Leftism, calling upon an instinctive wisdom and accumulated experience. But this is not the Rightism of the revolution, but that which is appealed to by its verbal propaganda for the purpose of its stifling and betrayal.  A mere matter of words?  Yes!  And   desperately important, as the correct use of words is.  It is a fatal thing to accept the enemy's terms at face value, or to upgrade and idealise them; for that is exactly how the Devil operates. 'Anti-language', or 'the reverse technique in words', i.e. creating a verbal image as a cover for doing the opposite, is now a standard,   indeed a necessary routine in party politics, since it automatically   neutralises the main opposition.  Of course it had to be the party with the patriotic image which could get away with the   betrayal of Britain's national sovereignty.  If it had been done by declared international socialists and anti-patriots they would have been up against the whole patriotic feeling of the nation.  Likewise, if the socialists had handed over Rhodesia to Mugabe the outcry would   have been ten times greater.  With the Tories doing it, the protests have been reduced to impotence.  On the other hand, it has to be the verbal champions of the poor and the 'exploited masses' who persuade them that universal wage slavery is   their proper fate, and indeed, their 'right'; that they should 'demand' with menaces, the loss of their freedom of choice in joining a union; and that any working man who tries to control his own labour is a 'scab'!  Imagine what would be the reaction of the British 'worker' if told by some Conservative boss that his sort existed to be hired underlings, and that he must damn   well knuckle under and join the union, or he would be kicked out! But coming from the champions of 'Labour' it is accepted. This sort of realistic analysis, relating actual policy as expressed in deeds with the use made of words in relation to it, is commonly rejected by those who have swallowed the anti-language at   face value, as 'cynical'; but though these people (e.g. the average patriotic Conservative voter) think of themselves as 'sincere', they lack integrity in so far as they refuse to face the 'deeds'.  If they did so, all the parties would have been forced to fit their policies to their words long ago, or else would have been left high and dry with a mere handful of supporters.  But human nature has its weakness, and it is this which the propagandist and the 'anti-linguist' are expert in exploiting.  It is very important not to help them by copying their misuse of words, however innocently.  This is a mistake which is most serious of all in its   effects when made by Christians of an excessively verbal faith, who are liable to 'sanctify' the lie of 'common ownership' (meaning   State bureaucratic control of resources) by associating it with the genuine community of goods practised in some religious orders under vows of poverty, celibacy and obedience, and which has never survived in the absence of those vows, or when they have been broken. I hope that it will not be thought that I am criticising without   charity or understanding the real aims and feelings of those who deem themselves to be of the Right because those aims and feelings are the power-_base_ which is exploited by the Right Wing of politics.  Indeed, I share them very strongly, as is natural for an elderly man of the academic middle class, brought up in the tradition of Christian patriotism; which is perhaps why I have such a   peculiar loathing for the Conservative Party, whose main function is   to betray just those aims and beliefs.  But I try also to understand   and share the aims and feelings of the Left which are betrayed and   exploited as a power-_base_ by Leftist politicians, such as, for   instance, the real meaning of those perverted terms, ‘equality’ and   ‘social justice’, the correct application of which I am aware of,   because I am a social crediter, and therefore am seeking to religate   (bind back to the reality of action) the Christian religion.  Men are   not equal, and to try to make them so is a gross tyranny as it is a   denial of their unique personality.  But all men, indeed all living   things, equally need the means of living fully.  A man, a flea and a   plant equally need free access to the air, which is given equally to   them all, though they do not use it equally or even in the same way.   But this does not make them equal.  Equality is something we receive,   not something we possess.  The misuse and misunderstanding of this   word has always been disastrous. The Left/Right conflict is a divide and rule strategy….