By Edward Minton   

    Exectrucity doesn’t exist. There is no such thing, and nobody of earth can ascribe any meaning to the word itself, either. So this at least is answered, and we can go to the next question.

    When I was in my mid-teens I found myself studying physics at a quite elementary level. As part of this I was presented with myriad formula to do with volts and amps and resistance. I was told that electricity came in both static and the other form. I learned these equations and eventually gained an A level pass in the subject. Nevertheless, at the end of this I resolved never to take the least interest in electricity for the rest of my life. This was quite silly and petulant of me, and was not resolved upon as my policy without considerable stress and thwarted endeavour. It was, I thought, thrust upon me by my being denied any sensible answer to what was to me an absolutely basic and essential question.

    What is electricity?

    Though this question is not the one I really want to address in this essay, which will be given later, it was I thought, though simple, both elementary and pertinent enough to deserve an answer. I asked it of both my physics’ Masters several times, of whom one had a PhD in science, my Form Master, and other sundry persons in whom I had some hope.

    Unbelievable as it may be now, and infuriation rises even to think about it again, all I was ever given in response was “Think of it as a flow of water.” In those days it was regarded as being disrespectful to one’s betters to pro-offer any “come backs” I might have in mind, such as, “Well, I would prefer, if it is alright with you, to think of it as a moving conveyor belt full of sausages” or “Would it help me if I envisaged it as a string of Wildebeest streaming across the Serengeti plain?”

    Electricity is neither water, sausages nor wildebeests, so how does thinking of something as what it is not, bear any relevance to what it actually is? It was 8 years after ceasing my formal physics education that I casually asked a friend “What is electricity?”  His answer, “It is a flow of electrons” and this provided the first thing I ever learned about electricity.

    Perhaps I am different to others, but if you ask me to build a brick wall, I find it impossible to build any part of the top of the wall, until I have placed the undergirding bricks. The thing either continually falls down, or demands contortionist antics to sustain it.

    This resolve to “write off” electricity from my understandings was a tortuous and out of character development. Whilst I was yet eight years old, a chance remark denigrating someone who had resolved to “understand all things about all things” brought a contrary response from me. Certainly such an ambition might validly be thought of as, and it is, clearly impossible, over ambitious and involving insuperable egotism, but in a more humble light it has value. Never be afraid of gaining understanding, never step back rejecting valid knowledge with an attitude which says “I don’t want to know!”, because the greatest delight and joy to be known in this life (even to those who thought it was sex, good as it is) is in being fully human, conscious, cognisant, and in being able to come to know and participate in that Service, in which is perfect Freedom.

    Electricity is invisible. The invisible cannot be described in terms of the visible without a measure of misrepresentation. There are two ways that electricity can become visible. One is made available to our senses through man-made metering devices, and the other is through natural phenomena such as lightening (which was not shown to be electricity until Nicola Tesla’s experiments) and other electric arcs.

    The questions that I really want to ask you are “What Is money? What are its properties, powers and potentialities? What is it like to touch, see and feel? Does its control master the human race, or can we master it? Is the innate definition and nature of civilisation and culture, at least potentially, able to be rewritten by rethinking our subservience to the pursuit of money? Whoa, whoo up, surely few things happen with the rapidity of aged cows calmly chewing their cuds whilst lying down under Boab trees?

    The story which induced me to write this essay came from a friend. He became interested in social credit and was attending a lecture on the subject when the penny dropped for him, as he here recalls;

In reading something the other day, I was catapulted back 40 years to that point where I finally grasped the nature of money!


It was at a public meeting in Walcha N.S.W. where Eric was the speaker. An economist and two students from the University of New England had come into the meeting well after Eric had started and sat right at the back.


At the point where Eric was describing how money was turned off during the “depression”, but immediately war was declared there commenced a flow of money for the destruction of people and much of what had been built down the centuries.  There was no shortage of money for this destructive activity.


Before he had his next breath this economics lecturer yelled out from up the back – “Here we go, all you have to do is print more money!”


The speaker looked at the audience in front of him, with a startled look, then raising his head towards the interjector he said – “Well is there some other way of making it visible?”


In the moment of silence that followed, in that one instant, I was able to grasp what money was, after years of confusion.  Like most others I was being paid in notes and coin and could only see money as such, that which had substance which my mind could deal with.  But all of a sudden, alike God I saw it was invisible. Only 2% to 7% is ever made visible by printing or coining it.


Years later at a meeting of Jeremy’s a young woman turned up who was one of the students at Eric’s Walcha meeting.  She told us how all the way from Armidale to Walcha on that day,their lecturer had told them all this Social Credit mob could do was preach printing more money.  But, she said, all the way home there was total silence in her car.


Perhaps he made the same discovery?


All this was brought back to me recently when I had to keep company with a young girl who was waiting to be picked up by a relative to be driven to Wellington to attend her father’s funeral.


It was an awkward moment that I had not had to deal with before.  Stumbling around for conversation, I asked her had she spent much time with her father.  Yes, she replied, right up until I left home to find work.  He was an engineer who had invented and marketed many agricultural machines.  I was in the workshop constantly helping and learning about all sorts of things that are a success, if they adhere to a principle.


“He imbedded in me the importance of always starting from first principles, all success follows from that, just as failure follows non-principles!”


The first principle about our problem is, apart from notes and coin, all other money is totally invisible.  That is where we should start.


With best wishes .....John


    The value of the above is in confronting right at the start, that with money we are dealing with an abstraction; an enumerated invisibility. Even in notes and coins, these are merely representative of a small proportion of our money, and are only a device to make money visible. Taiwanese notes and coins will not be accepted in Portugal, Argentina or Poland, so what is it that makes even visible money acceptable and “real” in one place, and as unacceptable as rubbish elsewhere?


    It is that most intangible and real thing which is part of the human experience; belief, faith, or credence which maketh credit. Here we have an invisibility, the existence of which no man doubts, and which all will accept in exchange for their goods or labour. Many men have doubted an invisible god, two centuries ago most doubted electricity, but money has total adherence in its existence, invisible though it be.


    Once only theologians held that “Man lives by faith.”  Now, can any economist  make any sense of his own discipline, unless he subscribes to the same dictum?


    The other enormous issues relating to money, such as who creates and owns it before loaning it out to people and Governments, with all its other related questions, will be left for now. The whole thing is explored thoroughly at