I'm afraid that I'll forget to tell you, so I'll just tell you now; even if it's not

the moment, it's alright. It hasn't been long since I'm in politics.

It's been 5 or 6 years, so I'm the new guy. I see the friends that I've been making in politics.

All these people that I meet from the left, center or right,

All these people, they fight for the greater good. They're good people

who seek the common interest, to best satisfy the common interest. They all fight against social injustice.

They come from of all (political) sides... for example, some fight for Global Zero (nuclear weapons).

For them, it's the most important. It's top priority, we're going to die! We have to fight against it.

So that's what's most important for them. And for them, the guy who fights corruption,

or the corruption of elected representatives, but who is for nuclear technology, he's the devil!

It's a bit clumsy but alright. At the same time, others who fight against

the destruction of schools. It's horrible, school are being destroyed, teachers put aside,

hospitals are being all over the country, the country side is becoming a (clinical) desert

Farmers are being ill treated. The country side is literally becoming a desert

and they are fighting on the subjet. Ok, Great! Others fight for the

money and the creation of money and consider, they are right, that money creation is

really important. That is that we have abandonned money creation, we have impoverish ourselves,

all becomes hard for us because we are becoming poorer. We have put in place a scarity

that is chocking us. They are fighting on that subjet. They consider it essential. What I would like

to tell you, is that I look at all this. I take part in the debats, I share them;

It's not at all contradictory what I am about to say, it's complementary. It's seems to me that all these social struggles

are solely fighting on "the branches", the consequences.

Ecological catastrophy, it's not a cause - you know, 'Look for the root of causes'

The ecological catastrophy, it's only made possible because of our political impotency. I am sure

that if you ask people around you, even non-political people, they will tell you:

"We should try to solve this problem. We should try to resist. We are all ready to resist,

but we have no means to resist, we are politically powerless" And you will see

that this policital impotency, so this is a cause. So to me it seems smarter to fight

on this impotency than on the ecological catastrophy, the corruption of our representatives, work injustice

in the companies, that extravagant "lordly" ownership on the people who work.

It's a reason to fight, but it's just a consequence

It's not the cause. The issues on water, and the ownership of water by multinationals,

it's extravagant, we have to fight against it. But again, it's just consequences. And for all that, it seems to me that the cause... And after that,

we should climb higher because the cause itself has yet another cause and that he has also another root.

You have to find the root of causes. If we manage to escalate, if we manage to find

a common cause, and to find from it the cause that makes it possible,

and so on. We manage to find something that is central to all these social injustices

and that is determining, that dertermins. I mean that if it exists, the social injustices are possible,

and that if it doesn't exist, they will no longer be possible or they will be limited, then we have found

something of very important because, at the same time, we have found the mean to really solve the problem;

because you are not on ecology, you are on our political impotency,

and you've made the link. 
If you fight less directly for ecology but more against our political impotency,

you are still fighting for ecology. It's not incompatible ; we can fight

on both fronts. But if now you are fighting against political impotency, because you have managed to realise the link

you have then realised that if the multinational companies can hog so much

while we are seeing them doing it. And we protest, and that's all we can do, since we have no political power.

If you make the link and that you tell yourselves "OK, I'm looking for the root of causes and I'm building up

against this root." You will realise that the guy who has done the same intellectual work than you: he works like...

... the two Pinçon-Charlot, he works on corruption... that the lifestyle of the rich

and the way the rich manage to gather so much political power to

finally be able to influence the making of laws and how favorably they are voted. So all this work on corruption of

a groupe of resistants, added to their work - but it's very important to understand that they are fighting

the consequences - but if they also start to fight against political impotency.

And then you have the nuclear networks, etc. You will have all the resistants there

who will say: "But finally, if we had political power, we would be able to resist!"

Whereas all their lives... I see these old, these old resistants. They are much more valorous than I.

They have spent their whole lives resisting while I was minding my own business.

And they went on markets, giving out leaflets. Leaflets ! They had other things to do

on a Wednesday than go on a market, but every Wednesday they went, giving out leaflets,

organising meetings. They were fighters and they have that feeling that it's not bringing anything.

They have the gut feeling that the score of our elected representatives that we want to see up there are becoming lower

So when they hear me, when I say: "Wait, there's something better we can do here! If instead of fighting

and splitting up because there are so many branches of social injustice that branch out of

our political impotency, there are so many different consequences. Each of us

who puts so much energy forth... We aren't many, ey; the guys who do politics, what's that ?

It's 1% of the population. 2-3% it's not much. But if we are divided

because each of us is fighting against consequences that are sincerly serious. And what he thinks serious, him,

well it won't be what the next guy thinks is seriously worrysome.

Not only are we just fighting the consequences, meaning that even if we manage to solve

the problem, we won't have solved all the others. And it'll grow back

because the root of the problem is still there. You cut the branch but it will carry on growing. So if you take

the problem by its' root, if we were radical, by taking the issue at its' root, instead of cutting

the branches, we take care of the root, and we get two birds with one stone. We have found

the root of causes and we will be rid of all problems ! We even get three with one stone

because in reality, since we have all made intellectual investigation by telling ourselves:

"Let's take things logically, let's fight against the root

like that we will have gotten all problems in one go, and we will have taken care of our political impotency."

Where is our political impotency programmed ? I will come back to it later on,

but you see me coming because we have already talked about it a little. With it, thirdly, we

will be united ! There is a real stake here ! It's just a great idea, I beleive,

to take the problem at its' root. I know, you're going to say, "Chouard, you're a nice guy,

but it's your whim ! There ! Him, his whim, it's nuclear weapons. That guy, his wim is industrial corruption

and you, it's the Constitution. Yes, well alright, maybe, it's true. It's maybe true that it's a whim.

But it seems to me that it's logical. To me, I completly share the whim, that is of the priority of each;

I beleive them to be beautiful these priorities. The guy fighting over money creation (debt money),

he's working hard, clearing the way, he makes us understand what we could put there instead.

When we'll have reconquered money creation, his work will be really useful.

By the way, André-Jacques, we always talk about him, he agrees with me. He's actually integrated

my piece of the puzzle like I have integrated his, and we become stronger. He hasn't become poorer because of it

by giving me his idea and I haven't become poorer by giving him mine. That's what's great with ideas,

it's that when we give them, we don't become poorer, we are mutually becoming richer. But what I want to say,

is by concentrating on the root of causes, by applying the advice of Hippocrates, and by looking for

the root of causes, all, with each of our actual priorities, by integrating the fact that... finally

it's true that what stops us from getting rid of

social injustices, is that we all, execpt our elected representatives and those who buy them off,

we are politically powerless. Really, it's crucial

to make social injustice possible and to keep it going on, living on and on.

It's not because it's been that way for 200 years and even 2500 years,

it's not because it has been that way for thousand of years that it will always be that way!

It's a question of conscience. I have the dinstinct impression that we are in prehistorical politics here.

That we are like children. Alright, maybe not children, at least unconscious, we haven't tought things through,

but it's not a reason why we won't find a solution ! In my opinion, with the accumulated experience,

with a Guillemin who explains. You can put things back in order, in the right place.

And maybe, through modern tools that we didn't have before

because they didn't have TV, they didn't have Internet.

Internet is real important ! Internet is a technique, a piece of metal,

but a piece of metal that gives us something that we have never had in the whole human history.

Remember... out of all the human evolution... the invention of the pressing machine

the invention of printing, it enabled the people, as a folk, to read and to discover knowledge

therefore to progress, to make giant leapls in learning. We learn faster

because of printing, because we have the power to read, but we could only read

what other had already written. And others...that was the elite. Elite in the sens,

with or without quotes, that could be a true elite, good people.

But we only had the right to read. Because to be able to write, you needed a VIP ticket

that wasn't for us : for us, the masses. With Internet... it's probably as important

than printing. In my eyes, it's really plausible. We don't know if they will

maybe shut Internet down, but with it, we have the People, the normal folk. The 99% with Internet

get access to writing. And therefore to short-circuit the elite, and eventually.

eventually the olgiarchic elite. That means to capture power and to use it for their own purpose,

and for their interest against the common good. And so Internet, in that sens, is a tool

an extraordinary tool to form ourselves, to self-educate, to educate the people ! And short-circuit

our elites. By creating our own experts on this, experts on that and by teaching ourselves...

It's incredible the number of things that has taught me André-Jacques, the work of André-Jacques Holbecq.

I will show you his book; he has written many. This really good book,

a good starting page, you'll see... He asked me to do it, it's great,

I was proud. It's a really great book. A little book

- easy to read - on the debt. And so André-Jacques

the work he has done on money has made me move forward so much and without Internet

I would have never discovered him. ...So where was I ? I was talking about

Hippocrates... I will take my notes, I made a small thread to follow. It's not a large thread, mind you...

We should talk about... Well we have to start to set the word "Democracy" back in it's place

We have to maybe put it correctly in it's set. So I'll start by chopping down... the election

before talking about Athenian democracy. I will try to talk quickly about Athenian democracy,

because, in truth, I can last on hour on that, maybe two on Athenian democray, but I shouldn't here.

What we need, as I said, is that you can tell me what scares you in this.

I will be able to reassure afterwards. The Election: why ? How come ... ah yes,

now I have it, I found the thread again... How come that in every Constitution in the World is organised

the impotency of the People ? Don't think of this as a conspiracy. The impotency of the people is written down

in these Constitutions, because the people who wrote them - all over the world,

at all stages of history -, those who have written the Constitution, they were all professionals

of politics : parlementarians, ministers, judges, people of party, that is

people who can project themselves in the future and that know that they will soon be in power

that they are now institutionalising. And that's really important ! I read a lot

of Aristotle at Castoriadis, all the panel, all that... I don't read all but I read those

who talk about power, abuse of power, of resistance to abuse of power.

And in the literature that I have found for now, I haven't found this central idea.

That's "chouardesc" (NT: that's him). At least, to make something central,

to make it the back bone, something that will liberate us,

that I found "chouardesc. I try to find something to support, to lean on some figures.

There'd be a great man who said it, that would help. But I can't find it.

At least I have logic on my side. I say that all the Constitutions of the world program

our political impotency : so they don't write down citizens' initiative referendum

they don't write down the seperation of powers, they don't program the accounting transparency, short office terms

non-renewable, don't program respecting blank votes, and so on.

You can count the principles with two hands, maybe even one hand. There aren't 10 great principles

that you need, so it's easy to understand. We'll come back to it when we'll talk about

Democracy, but you just can't find those great protections for people against power, you won't find

institutionalising power of the people in all those Constitutions, because those who write them

have a personal interest in the fact that it's Not written in the Constitution. That's my explanation.

With one thought, an important thought that I need to add, these people

are not corrupt, they aren't horrid... Well maybe they are horrid

and corrupt as well, but ... Even good people, an honest parlementarian,

when he is going to write a Constitution, he is in the situation that we must all know

We must all know this expression, they are in conflict of interest. That doesn't mean

that they are rotten/corrupt, not at all! I'm not saying that. Conflict of interest means that, in that specific moment,

in that precise situation, not elsewhere, there, in that situation, when they are writing

a Constitution, they have a personal interest that is going to pollute the possibility of justice, to distance themselves

and their detachment in regards to the common good. A little bit like... and this is an important image...

for when you'll have to debate outside, if you'll help me

make this idea viral. We must carry this idea otherwise we won't get anywhere.

If I'm the only one saying it, it's like...wasting our time. It's interesting, it's amusing,

but... we won't change anything. But if we start carrying this idea, all of us, we're going to change something.

It will be like a snow ball, something that can really change everything.

But you need to all become viruses. Well...not viruses, maybe more like white blood cells

There are many expressions... and I'm forgetting my thread. What was I saying before ?

- Conflict of Interest - Conflict of intest, yes, thank you. A judge... you'll understand...

When you'll have to explain, you could use this image

that's really expressive : Take a judge, a virtous judge ; I'm not talking about a horrid, or political, or crooked one.

I'm talking about a good judge. Someone... that you've made sure to make completly independent

To make sure that he is, you made sure he didn't need money, that he wasn't under any kind of external pressure

You've made him independent so that he had all possible conditions to be a fair judge

And he is effectivly a fair judge. More so, he knows shame, he has a sens of what it the common good,

he makes efforts: there, a good judge. This guy, in his role, and in the planning of the court

comes across his own child who's in a case. The child can be either a victim or an accused.

No matter. There, his child is there. Everyone on eath will understand that there is a conflict of interest

in that specific moment. That means that this judge, he's really good, but just for this case,

we're going to challenge his authority. That doesn't mean that we'll dishonor him, that doesn't mean he's a crook,

that he is a bad judge. It doesn't mean that at all. It means that in this case,

this judge can not give justice. He's a judge and jury at the same time. He is in a conflict of interest. So, for that case,

we will, you, judge, you very good judge, we will set you aside and place another one. We will put someone else,

and then you'll take your job as judge again. Do you understand where I am getting at ?

Conflict of interest doesn't mean corruption. It's a situation that we, as a whole, must know.

We must be very watchful. Anglo-saxons know better this concept of conflic of interest

than we, French, do. We, we're almost illiterate, we have no clue what it is ;

or at least not well enough. And on this debat tonight, it's very Very important.

So let's come back: when you're about to write... remember, you've understood,

the people, the powers that write the law to sooth the people

and to which the people submit themselves, the power that come as a benefit but can be dangerous, like double-edged sword

It's the same people, they are both beneficial and harmful ; and so we place above them

a superior text that they must fear ; they must fear the Constitution !

I am at risk to be punished, to be cast away, I, citizen, will be punished by what is in this text.

They must fear the Constitution ! It must weaken them, this text.

Do you understand that those writing the Constitution, even if they are virtuous, sweet, nice

that they are good people, just when they are about to write that text, if it is them that we place to write the text

that they must fear as futur men in power... You see the conflict of interest ? And that, I'm the only one defending this position

It's surprising isn't it ? It seems to me that we should be more.

I wish I would no longer remain the only one pointing to this conflict and that we become many saying: "Hang on a minute"

Next time that we do what happened in Tunesia. They didn't say it in Tunesia, they didn't think it through before and they elected a Constitutional Assembly.

They elected amongst imposed candidates by the parties. Imposed by who ? The political parties.

They're the same ! Imagine : You have a Constitutional Assembly today.

Who do you want amongst the candidates ? Who will you have ?

You'll have the right wing who'll put forward their candidates and the left wing who'll present theirs.

And the press will go on about it, talking about Dassault, of Lagardère, etc...

And Bouygues or Bolloré, you'll see the TV channels, who are friends with all those guys

who'll just keep talking about the candidates of political parties. They'll be elected ! So you'll have professionals

of politics who are going to write the Constitution that they should fear. And it's like that everywhere

in the world. - And in Iceland ? - In Iceland too. A little less though. In Iceland,

there was a random draw between the two previous chambers, but chamber nonetheless. So they were politicians

that put in place the regime, at least the procedure that happened in Iceland. It started with two chambers

that were randomnly drawn. The first draw to say : what do we want ? And they said : we'll

make another random draw chamber who'll say exactly what's in the Constitution and after that

there will be another chamber that will be elected and who will write the Constitution. And that's what happened.

So there was a second chamber randomnly drawn who said: "We would like that there be this and that

in the Constitution" That's not bad ey ? It's not a bad starter but it's not the cure for all.

It's not what I was talking about earlier on. We could dream of better I'm sure.

If we imposed a constitutional process that would be correct, it would be a lot better

than in Iceland, I beleive. Because, in fact, they had the Constitutional Assembly afterwards.

So it was a free election, better than the elections

that we are used to. We're used to elections where we don't

get to choose the set of candidates we have, and so we're left with, excuse me for saying so,

imposed candidates who have interests contrary to the greater good. That are judge & jury at the same time.

When it comes to electing Constituant Members, if the parties

are imposing on us candidates, we'll end up with... 100% of the Constitutional Assembly that will be

in Conflict of Interest. In Iceland, it didn't quite happen that way,

because they had a free election. They had a trucker who went candidate, so anyone

could be representative. But since it was an election, it's more the local leaders that were elected,

and they're not very revolutionary. They won't just change everything and keep to what they know.

So they'll just end up probably...Well we'll see, I hope they prove me wrong. It's interesting

what's going on: The Constitution in Iceland is actually

interacting with it's people via social neworks.

They aren't many, they are 370 000 in Iceland, so

they actually manage to do it and people write to the Members of the Constitutional Assemble to tell tem:

"Think about this, think about that" So it's quite interactive and it's really interesting what's going on.