-
- 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.