Étienne Chouard : le problème du vol monétaire et de la Constitution

Pour voir l'intégralité de l'entretien : http://www.sylvaindurain.fr/chouard/

- Another thing that we were stolen, it is the currency.

So, I'm going to read an extremely known sentence for you:

"Give me control of a nation's currency and I laugh

at whom makes its laws." This is Rothschild who said that.

- So I read it that a lot, I haven't sourced it;

I didn't go to verify. I would have to find the book of Rothschild.

It would be good to find the source to be sure that he said it.

It needs to be verified because on the web, there is all the same...

There is still a lot of... lies lying around.

Therefore we have to watch the quotations. I... I take it back because ...

I find it plausible but at the same time, I'm suspicious, I pay attention.

I would like... I would like to source it. We really need to find...

- It is in "Secrets of the Federal Reserve."

- 0K, but that's Mullins who says...

Be aware that Mullins was anti-Semitic, in any event that he has become anti-Semitic.

I think, I don't know if he was when he wrote his book.

But the fact that he is anti-Semitic or he became

has to drive us to caution with regard to the quotations which he makes of Rothschild.

I... I don't say that it is false, I say that it's necessary to distrust, it's necessary to cross-check.

Needs to look... But it is enough to find the books of Rothschild

or reports in newspapers of what he said ...

Sources must be found, what, that's it.

- Thus my question was: "how the drawing lots

can allow us to recover our monetary independence?

- Great question. The... Money creation...

The right of public money creation,

The monopoly of monetary creation by the public power

is the only way to go to recover

our political sovereignty. We must first recover monetary sovereignty

so that... we may have a chance to recover the real political sovereignty.

One who holds the currency, holds political power, that's for sure;

May Rothschild have said it or not, anyway, that's for sure.

And in my opinion... the universal suffrage, that is...

Renunciation, our renunciation, the renunciation of the people

to exert itself political power

and the abandonment of political power to the rich

through the financing of election campaigns.

This representative government

makes it possible for bankers total surrender by the States

of money creation, which is what happened everywhere

and their absolute control over 100% of political power.

And therefore it is the representative government

which makes this whole shit possible.

It is... For me, cause of the causes, it is this iniquitous constitution.

This constitution that is found everywhere, all the constitutions of the world,

except that of Athens, are built like that, on representative government.

And... in all these constitutions, there are all the procedures...

and absence of control of elected representatives, the legal rules

that protect the notables... There's a whole network of iniquitous rules

that are in the constitutions ... and we can't understand, I think ...

because it is in all countries and at all times, so there is still

a... a common core, there is still a common force.

And it's not a conspiracy. These people have not come to an agreement,

they have not spoken, it's not that at all.

What makes that all these Constitutions are so bad

for the people and always so good for "people's representatives",

in quotation marks, which are actually ... the servants of the rich, the political servants,

the political puppets of the rich.

How is it that all the constitutions of the world

come to plutocratic oligarchies?

This is obviously not a conspiracy. It would be stupid to even think about, that's not it.

The common cause and the cause of causes... The primary cause,

making all this shit possible...

is... Who writes the Constitutions?

It is the poor quality of the process of writing the constitution

And this poor quality, it comes from the indifference of the people,

the ignorance of the people, the laziness of the people,

from... the negligence of the people. This is because we don't give a damn about the Constitution

and the process of writing the constitution, it is because instead...

Instead of writing the constitution ourselves or paying attention to what...

those who write the Constitution to be disinterested,

don't write rules for themselves.

Instead of doing that, we let the Constitutions be written by... elected officials,

or by the ministers, or by the men of parties.

If people are writing rules for themselves,

they don't write the rules for the public interest.

And that's the rule, that's the explanation, I think.

And formulating a problem is half the solution.

Having understood this, I think, basically, between us, despite the...

... the threats that the elected representatives are certainly going to wear against us

and the rich which make them elected. They are going to hate us,

they will speak ill of us, they will, they will try to discredit us,

they are going to try to make us dirty, to say that we are I don't know which...

... submarine of I do not know who.

In spite of these slanders, we will have between us...

... we do that the main part...

.. we understand and we do understand other people that the main part

takes place at the time of the process of writing the constitution.

Because our best protection against abuse of power, it is the Constitution,

provided... provided that those who write it

do not write the rules for themselves and they are not judges and judged.

So it must not be men of parties.

So here, so I think, a disinterested assembly

it can not be done except by drawing lots.

If it is made by election...

... who will nominate candidates?

Parties?

So they will impose their candidates?

Well, if our parliamentarians find themselves writing the constitution,

you can well imagine that the Constitution that they are going to write,

it will be the same as today, we shall not go out of it.

Therefore, an elected constituent assembly won't fix any problem.

I repeat, my deep, well-argued conviction...

I ask only to be denied, if I'm wrong, let it be shown to me.

And no one succeeded for now. Yet they try, huh.

They argue a lot, huh. It's very interesting,

controversy is fascinating; from leftists, rightists,

many people try to show that my idea of drawing lots is not...

... is irrelevant, but they're wrong, here, their arguments are not strong.

I think that as long as people...

... judge and judged, at the same time judge and judged, will write the constitution,

we shall not go out from this muck-up.

This is because politicians write the rules for themselves

that they become the prey of the richest, thus bankers,

and that it comes after a few dozen, few hundred years,

after 200 years, we arrive at the strict government of banks, we are there, now.

If you don't see this, you are blind, anyway.

And thus the drawing lots appear to be the only solution. Then, that frightens people.

We say ourselves: "drawing lots of a constituent Assembly? You will...

... you will draw lots of incompetent people."

We frighten people with that.

And I think that's hogwash.

I think that there is no need to be competent to write a constitution.

I think anyone in two weeks of discussions, thoughts, exchanges,

will understand that...

... a constitution serves to protect everyone against the abuse of power.

That, I think anyone can understand,

no need to be a genius to understand this:

that to protect against abuse of power, we must control the powers.

And not every five years, the powers must be controlled every day.

that popular initiative must be a real popular independent initiative.

That there must be initiatives of popular referendums

which can short-circuit institutions.

Any normally intelligent individual; it is sure that somebody...

... a simple-minded or a patient, OK, no, but I speak about normal people.

So the multitude. Anyone normally constituted

is able to understand that... to weaken the powers...

... that to protect us from powers, it is necessary to weaken them,

that to weaken them, it is necessary to divide them.

Anyone can understand the division of powers.

All those who think about the problem fall on the division of powers,

on accountability, on the non multiple office-holding,

the non multiple office-holding. Anyone who falls on it naturally.

No need to be competent for that. And the constituent assembly randomly chosen

have highlighted these... I don't know. It should perhaps be ten... ten principles.

Maybe even not, five would be enough.

After that, it can let write the rules by lawyers

so that it is well-written. And then verify that this is really what was meant.

And if we are a hundred to think about it,

if lawyers are trying to deceive us, there are two or three

who are going to notice the trickery, and then who will call us ... alert us.

So I think either way it will not be perfect, but it will be much better

than a constituent assembly made up of people who cheat,

because they write for themselves, because they have a personal interest

against the public interest; in this occurrence.

I don't say that... I don't say that the elected representatives always have -it is in no way what I say-

I'm not saying that politicians always have an interest contrary to the public interest.

It is not at all what I say. I say that elected officials and party men

have, at the time of the process of writing the constitution, that is to say at the time to write the rules

which are going to bother them when they are going to exercise the power.

Huh, at that time, in the process of writing the constitution, they have a personal interest

contrary to the public interest. And therefore, like in any trial

where we reject a judge...

... who is of the family of the victim or the family of the defendant,

this judge, we dismizz. We say: "No, but you cannot judge, you're judge and judged,

you... we dismiss you. We will put in another. And it doesn't mean you are dishonest:

it means just for this case then, for this particular work,

you can not do. "Well, elected officials and party members, governments,

all professional politicians should be put away,

not because they are corrupt or perverse, not at all,

but just because it is not them who have to write the constitution.

It is not up to them to write the text they should fear.

And so that's why the draw is... I think the only procedure

that will allow us to recover money creation.

This is because... We shall get back money creation

only if we get back the process of writing the constitution, that is...

... the control of the text which is the only one which can protect us... durably.

And I see no other way than to randomly select the Constituent Assembly.

So, to reassure people, I can, we can imagine to amend the draw...

... to...

... how to say, to...

... to fit out it; to fit out the draw so that it less frightens us.

One could, for example, organize a free election before the draw,

an election without candidate: each of us could...

... appoint one, two, three, the number should be considered,

one, two, three people he considers to be honest,

people who would do well for the constitution,

people who would do the job well.

People, I would say, I would try to choose people...

... who are able to listen to others without becoming angry,

who can change their mind,

people who read a little.

I think it would be better if we took people

who can still read; to read mementos, summaries,

the explanations that will be given to them about the constituent assembly, but hey,

others may consider that it is not useful.

Thus everyone is going to decide on these criteria. I... It seems to me that it would be good

there is in the constituent assembly people who are able

to reconcile points of view, who pacify an assembly,

who act as ambassadors, matchmakers, people who...

... who reconcile those who have just quarrelled.

So it would be nice to have people like that in the constituent assembly.

There might be people who have already thought about the constitution.

Not necessarily, not necessarily in my opinion, so then everyone is going to appoint freely,

to elect, without parties, non-professional politicians.

There should be a prohibition. We can elect whoever we want but...

It could be prohibited, I think we should ban political professionals.

And then... Well, but that can be discussed that, perhaps there may be

few professional politicians who hang in there, eh,

in the constituent assembly.

I think it's dangerous because the professional politicians speak well.

This is... They are speakers, good speakers

and a good speaker can deceive an assembly, eh.

Well, there it is easy to say "the political professionals

are not allowed in the ... in the Constituent Assembly."

You can elect who you want, but not pros, whatever.

And then perhaps we could also put away the...

... all television speakers, all well-known people ...

... to avoid the bias of media: people who don't know who to appoint,

and then nominate someone who they see every day on TV.

Well, you can ... It is not required to eliminate. Well, need to think about it.

Do we put a filter or not on these free elections?

Needs to be thought about. I have no ... I have no fixed ideas on this.

But in any case we would designate, in this case, this proposal

we would appoint...

... people who are not candidates and that we find brave;

that we find nice... freely. We appoint them freely.

And it is among these people that we would draw lots.

That...

And then there are people who will be nominated several times and who will...

... who are recognized around them as having these qualities,

who will be nominated several times, freely, without being ...

They are not even candidates, so they can refuse.

Maybe they will refuse, too bad.

But we don't need that all agree: we will have so many people ...

Well, they refuse, too bad; we shall take others.

There are plenty of good people on ... There are plenty of good people on Earth, plenty, plenty, plenty.

So, if there are some who do not want, well it is not required.

We shall do without them.

We could as well, I had the idea recently in a conference whilst discussing with people,

We could as well do as they do in the...

... in the martial art competitions : we do a lot of rounds.

We win, we win, we loose, we loose, we win, we win , we loose.

And each time, there are points,

we win points, not points, points, not points.

And what will do the rules, there are rule, I guess it's in judo, I don't know,

or in karate, I don't remember, which....

... we take off the best performance and the worst....

... because we consider they are accidents.

We take off the worst, but we also take off the best.

And we keep the... the other performances.

And we could do that, we could... The ones who are...

very often freely designated, the ones that are often elected:

we could say it is a media effect: they, they should be the people who are always in TV

or that we saw a lot on the internet or...

These ones, we won't allow them in the Constituent.

It seems like they are professionals... We can't admit them in the Constituent.

And there are the ones that are never nominated, once or twice...

I don't know, we could take the fifth which have been nominated very often,

we don't take them, and the fifth which have not been nominated, or very few times,

we won't take them either. And we would take the third fifth in the middle,

which have been quite enough, but not too much, fairly enough...

... designated freely by the others.

And that's there, in the middle of these people that we would draw lots.

This would give you an uninteressed assembly

as you have never seen on Hearth... never.

This process... I am formal, in the actual state of my reflexion anyway,

I am sure it would give an assembly which would write

the first real democracy.... Athenes was a real democraty;

but furthermore, the one we would make, us, today,

would be... At the opposite of what was doing Athenes, it would integrate women,

there wouldn't be slaves, it would surely give rights to the foreigners;

not necessarily all the rights but some political rights to the foreigners,

and finally there is a lot....

.... of wrong or bad sides in the athenian democracy

which were part of the time, and that would be anachronical to misjudge today...

... which are not necessary, so some sides of it we wouldn't reproduce.

And we could do today a real modern democracy, but a democracy:

I don't speak of the representative government which is a treason.

I speak about a real democracy

with local assemblies in every city.

In 36 000 cities, 36 000 local assemblies

in which people would decide themselves for their businesses.

And rises to national level, only the Assembly of federation of the cities....

There could be two or three steps, you know;

we need to think of the number of steps which would be necessary

to reach the national level. But which wouldn't delegate, the citizen would not delegate

only the mini, mini, minimum. Only.

We wouldn't let others than ourselves vote

only what can not be voted by us.

But, for school, we could decide by ourselves,

Maybe to a part of the school we could considerate that it would be nice if

there was a common program which would be decided by a federal assembly...

It needs to be discussed. It needs to be discussed what we give to the federal assembly.

But it's not, it's not impossible at all; it is completely...

It is not utopian. We need to stop letting others

write the constitution for us.

- So, I would have two questions after that.

First, they are two questions which I'm wondering personally, it is :

Does the people want to get their freedom back? That's the first question

- This is not sure at all.

- And the second question is : the fact that we are in a society

where... It is very materialist, there is a lot of TV,

we are very much brainwashed.

Our desires wouldn't be, in the end... to have a bigger TV,

to have ... more things, more beautiful, bigger?

Is it not too late in fact? This is the question.

- Well, I am fighting because I believe it is not too late.

But maybe I am wrong. It is true that it perhaps is too late, I know that.

There is a very beautiful quote from Rousseau which I don't remember by heart, but....

A sentence where he says that....

Once someone has been a slave, he doesn't want to get out of this state,

he starts liking his state of slavery and...

... he doesn't want anymore, he doesn't even imagine what would be freedom.

When I am upset, I think this is true.

And then, when I am happy, I think not but...

Look at what happened, in 2005, you open the windows to humans...

They are all closed for now.

You can vote left, right, you can protest, rant and rave,

get in the street by the million, it doesn't change nothing, nothing ever.

So it is... this is completely demotivating. I think, this is what shuts down people.

It is the fact that the institutions are closed.

Open institutions would give people the wish of doing politics,

because when you do politics , it allows to change the world. It allows...

It would show that all these people who looks extinguish

are in fact ambers smoldering. And you remember in 2005, they said :

"Don't go bother people with the european Constitution.

The Constitution, a dusty and boring text,

everybody will be annoyed, they will not... care about it."

Look, we were hundreds of thousand peeling article by article.

Because there was going to be a referendum; they had open the windows.

And we knew that we could change something: we could say "yes", we could say "no".

And we believes that if we said "no", it would change.

Yes, we got raped a few years later

by our own "representative" between brackets, absolute traitors, traitors.

Traitors who enforced by parliamentary means

everything that had been refused by referendum. This is....

One day, they should pay the bill. These people will have to be judged.

If we don't arrive too late : they will maybe be dead. It will be that late that...

But it's really treason, this.

To enforce by parliamentary means what we refused by referendum,

when it was exactly the same texte, strictly.

It can be proved article by article.

Article by article. And the activists who have done the job. A real hard job :

they took every aticle of the Lisbon treaty, everyone, one by one,

There were hundreds and hundreds, you know.

And they found them in the treaty of 2005. They are the same, the same,

the same words, in another order, loose, but everything is there.

It is scientifically proved, conclusively.

Treason, treason what happened in 2008 too.

Included the socialists, you know. The socialists by abstaining....

It's really chafouins, huh. It really. They really are hypocrits, huh.

Hypocritical bastard, huh. Because they....

They participated actively to the treason when they did this.

Without assuming their betrayal. It is unforgivable. It is unforgivable.

And us, we are so nice, we forget.

So... You are right : it is true that we forget, that we are nice

and that, in the end, we are very materialists; we are happy with our destiny....

... as long as we have bread and games, huh; it's an old story...

I hope not. So, what is possible anyway, is that...

... the rich are so greedy...

and they are insatiable. You need to read Thorstein Veblen, here,

who studies ostentatious consumption,

the manners of rich people are childish manners, like in the school yard.

Who has the biggest one, you know.

It is neverending. The one with the biggest car,

the one with the biggest toy, the more... And it is neverending, it is ostentatious rivalry.

When we are adult, we thing : "it's a childish behavious."

But it is exactly the rich's behavious;

Riche people work like that, like kids.

And Velben show it very well.

So... They are insatiable: they will never stop robbing us, stealing us.

However they have, they have moutains of gold. It is never enough.

There is an african saying : "More evil there is, more Evil wants"

We shouldn't wait for them to stop wanting : it's neverending.

What we need, is to put a limit.

We grease only the squeaky axle.

As we say nothing, they go, thoroughly, thoroughly.

They destroy everything there, they break everything. Everything our parents try to build.

All the program of the National Council of the Resistance : the pensions, the social security,

the public services, everything... We are going to loose it all if we don't step accross.

Everything we are doing at the moment is...

Bad protests where we... Well I am in the protests but...

We laugh, we are... We sing, we are not scary.

We are a few; everytime the same person, it is always the same

who goes in the street. It's always the same banners.

We are pathetic, we are so nice.

- So in fact, how... - We cannot scare them, huh.

- How can we concretely succeed to... to what you suggest?

- Well, my idea... And I think we can play it.

But, I think if you are right when you say :

" perhaps the people does not want to be free"

If you are right, here, my idea will not work

But if you are wrong, and if the people, in fact, starts to be so mistreated

that he aspires to be free, he will look out for a solution...

I, what I see in my conferences is... people eyes shining,

there is something new, here.

Understanding what is democracy.... There are...

... hundreds of books on democracy. really, there are lots,

lots of books on democracy and always on the wrong one pratically.

Except few books on Athenes, we speak about democracy

talking about representative government. It is the same in the media.

In the medias, when we talk about democracy, it is never...

We never speak about democracy; we talk about representative government.

So....

Here, when I talk in my conferences of democracy

and I talk about somehting really... new.

Well... new, very old in fact but....

... original... never, we never describe democracy like that.

There is Rancière, some philosophes... There is Castoriadis.

Important people, specialists but who have no....

no mediatic space: we don't hear them in TV...

Most of the people talk about democracy....

and do not open any window, they let us in the trap

of the representative government. And me, in my conferences,

I talk about real democracy... I say we need to make a strike of the word democracy,

to stop calling "democracy" a representative government,

we have to call it "representative government", that's all.

and that we....

So, it's my idea, it's a suggestion, but you know, I will not do anything alone.

I need others to be with me. It's necessary for the thing to be understood,

It needs the idea to be simple and strong so that it can circulate to everyone.

It needs us to get viral; we should have a viral activity,

that each one of us, we contaminate one another at first.

Despite the slander of the elected, despite all the bad things they'll tell us, the elected,

the richs and all the fascists of all kinds.

Fascists, even the fascists that call them self antifascists"...

Well, despite them all, we should pass the word on.

To establish a social justice.

To reestablish, to establish a proper prosperity because we will have taken back the control

of monetary creation and of rights' production.

Which means we will take back control over the Constitution...

... by this simple idea that it isn't to the men in power

to write the rules and so everything that count, what count most...

and we stop dividing on : "For me, it's about ecology",

"for me, it is about justice in the companies", "for me, it is about unemployment", "for me it is...."

We stop to have each one our pet subject. We start thinking "the cause of all causes

of all that mess, these social injustices, is...

It is necessary that they stop to right themselves the Constitution.

It is necessary that the constituant Assembly would be disinteressed. So Assembly should be drawn"

Drawn from non candidate or drawn simply;

but drawn. If we manage to concentrate on this...

... and to become viral. It means that... Well, it's understood,

but it is not enough to understand, we need to explain it to

5, 10, 20 people... more... We do what we can to explain to others.

Because it is easy to understand. It is a simple and strong idea.

If you look for the problem at the base, you look for the evil roots,

You take the evil at its roots, you look for the cause of all causes and you end up on...

"But who wrote these iniquitious rules?"

And you end up on the Constitution and the constituant process,

so who wrote, who participate to the constituant Assembly.

And then you realise : "But here it is ! From here comes all the shit!"

So, problem identified, problem formulated, problem solved, at least half of it.

Now we just need to set up the solution for the cause of all causes.

And if we do that between us, if we pass on the word...

How long does it take for us to be millions?

If anyone of us appoint , manage to convince two people.

Not only convince them that the cause of causes

is the bad quality of the constituant process

and the fact that the politics are the ones writing the Constitution...

So, in fact, the solution is... A constituant Assembly

that is not composed by politics : which would be disinteressed.

It needs to be anybody who is part of the Constituant.

Not only he understood, but he managed to pass on the virus,

which means, he has understood that he needed to start explaining to others.

We need to explain two things : 1) Where is the cause of causes

therefore, the solution; and 2) That the solution is to pass it on.

There are two things, and if you don't reproduce you die : the virus, the idea dies.

If we manage to pass the message like this, with these two points: 1) The simple idea

and 2) It is our role to reproduce without staying passive.

Which means we need to manage to convince.

Then, at the beginning, there will be resistancies, people will not...

They won't believe us, there will be objections.

Well, I'll go back to look the conferences, the discussions,

and then, after some discussions, I'll get better at convincing.

I become a good virus.

A nice virus, a virus of social justice.

A virus is not only bad, you know.

Me, I imagine a positive virus. A virus....

of concord...

... of social justice.

and it looks like that to me... So, if everyone of us manages to convince two,

well... it depends how long it takes. If... two, they take one week

to convince two, then they stop... It is not going to be very quick.

But if anyone... convince three or four people every week.

So, in one month, he convinced a dozen of people.

or ten. If every month he manages to convince ten people,

And ten people which become themselves viruses,

It can go very very fast. We will quickly be millions. It's an idea...

I think it can change everything in a pacific way.

They won't let it do face to face, but if we are millions...

... wanting one simple thing without dividing....

without treating us mutually, one and an another of fascists,

focusing on the essential, forgetting the quarrels about details.

We will see then, when real democracy is put in place...

We will see the details : what will we do about abortion?

What will we do about nuclear? What about GMO?

What we do about... We will see it all point by point in our popular assembly.

With a real universal suffrage... with referendums if we want to.

But the time to reestablish democracy, we need to focus on the essential :

honnest constituant process, disinterested.

If we manage to do that... If we are millions to want it, it will happen.

It would be enough to get out in the street, by millions, it will happen.

They won't shoot in... They won't shoot...

They won't shoot on millions of people.

It seems doable to me that thing, and it's original, and it can work.