Any Social Crediter who knows his stuff will be able to tell you that while the plan for Social Credit is difficult to get across this is not the real problem. We can describe how the thing would come together to anyone with an attention span more than 15 minutes and a will to know. It seems that the real problem lies in convincing people that human nature could handle it without rending society limb from limb.

   In the main the conception of human nature lacks clarity. Though when I explain that Social Credit proposes that people should be allowed to have more control over their lives by the simplest means (giving them a bit of cash), human nature comes in to sharp relief as something dangerous and to be feared.

   Apparently modern man suffers from a serious case of self-loathing. We see our kind as greedy and sneaky, always trying to climb the rungs at our neighbours’ expense and with no concern for the cost to the world. Adam Smith’s vile maxim is our credo ‘all for me and nothing for anyone else.’ We harbour all sorts of perversions and guilt complexes that propel us to irrational and damaging behaviour. We have no purpose and any claim we make to goodness or morality is only a mechanism for propagating the species. It follows then that the only hope for the world lies in a programme of population control beginning with the poorest people who are obviously the least fit for life.

   To accommodate this dismal view about humanity we need a dismal system of control. Layers and layers of it. But from where do the controllers come? Surely not from the same cesspool of humanity. What is needed is a caste of improved humans.  These planners, reasonably well paid and carefully filtered for loyalty to the control system, or perhaps just indebted, sit around and discuss how everyone else is to live their lives, they attach acronyms to their names and are referred to as ‘honourable.’

   The honourables believing firmly in the dismal view, make it their lives’ purpose to determine everyone elses’ lives’ purposes. Basically they think about the control problem in terms of occupying the waking hours of every person every day. The chief mechanism of control is employment for employment’s sake. This means any non-descript activity that keeps a bad human from exercising evil tendencies for, ideally, eight or more hours a day. The reward for employment is money (don’t get me started) dispensed at weekly, fortnightly or monthly intervals which leads into the next critically important mechanism of control…

   Consumption. This aims to quell any creative urges of the human. The honourables are careful that not enough money shall be made available to provide any lasting, leisured security which would dissolve economics as the primary vehicle of control. The strategy is fairly simple. Importantly, it must be ensured that no dwelling within daily commute of employment shall take less than a married couple’s married life to purchase. Once you have house prices pegged, interest rates, taxation and minimum wage are considered against cost of living to ensure some ‘disposable income’ is available for disposal on the growing stock of unsaleable consumer goods, most of it useless, except as a source of employment for someone. A good dose of materialist philosophy (for the few that care about why), and a bit of advertising to heighten our sense of ‘relative deprivation’ is enough to keep us living from pay cycle to pay cycle at one of the various ‘socio economic levels’ otherwise known as classes.  

   Finally, sedation. After all that consuming and working the human takes to sedation like the proverbial duck. Or, since submersion into the unreal is the objective, perhaps a fish is a more useful simile.  Television, games, rubbish fiction, violence, ‘emotionally potent oversimplifications’ called news, porn, taxed and untaxed drugs, advertising, incessant opinions of the honourables’ appointed spokespeople about what is wrong with society, the universe, economics, other honourables etc.

   The control system doesn’t work as well on individuals as it does on groups. What is true of individuals is not true of groups; that is, they are capable of thought. Thought is anathema to the control system because it can lead into all sorts of places the honourables are not equipped to deal with, it can come from anyone and has the potential to upset the docile herd. The problem is solved by organising non-threatening camps with defined thought agendas not to be deviated from. The task then becomes not how to deal with reality, for that would be dangerously creative, but how a prescribed liberal or democrat or socialist, or modern man or women, or aborigine, or businessman deals with reality.

   So what is the purpose of all this organising? Huxley in the forward to Brave New World predicts that ‘The most important Manhattan Projects of the future will be vast government-sponsored enquiries into what the politicians and the participating scientists will call "the problem of happiness"- in other words, the problem of making people love their servitude.’ And some people do love it. Perhaps it’s about arranging a deal.  We pay homage to the honourables, which they seem to like, in exchange for a loveable, easily accessible servitude. I feel uncomfortable about it. All I know is I won’t eat an egg that roles straight.

Then it came burning hot into my mind, that, whatever he said, and however he flattered, when he got me home to his house he would sell me for a slave.

                                                                                                Bunyan, The Pilgrim’s Progress