“La libertad, cuando no hay oportunidades, es un regalo envenenado; y negarse a proporcionar estas oportunidades es un acto criminal.”

“Un sistema de adoctrinamiento que funcione como es debido debe cumplir diversas tareas, algunas bastante delicadas. Uno de sus objetivos son las masas estúpidas e ignorantes. Deberán ser mantenidas en ese estado, distraídas con simplificaciones groseras y de gran fuerza emocional, marginadas y aisladas. En una situación ideal, cada persona debería hallarse sola frente a la pantalla de su televisor, viendo deportes, telenovelas o comedias, privada de estructuras organizativas que permitan a los individuos carentes de recursos descubrir cuáles son sus pensamientos y creencias en interacción con otras personas, formular sus propias preocupaciones y planes y actuar para hacerlos realidad. Llegada esa situación, se les puede permitir ratificar las decisiones tomadas por quienes son mejores que ellos en elecciones celebradas periódicamente, y hasta animarles a hacerlo. La "multitud canallesca" es el blanco apropiado de los medios de comunicación y de un sistema de educación pública encaminado a generar obediencia y formación en las destrezas requeridas, incluida la de repetir lemas patrióticos en ocasiones oportunas.El problema del adoctrinamiento es un tanto distinto para aquellos de quienes se espera que participen en la toma de decisiones serias y en el ejercicio del control: los gestores de las empresas, del Estado y de la cultura, y los sectores culturizados en general. Estas personas deben interiorizar los valores del sistema y compartir las ilusiones necesarias que permitan su funcionamiento en interés de quienes concentran en sus manos el poder y los privilegios. Pero también han de tener cierta comprensión de las realidades del mundo, pues de lo contrario no serán capaces de realizar sus tareas con eficacia. Los medios elitistas y los sitemas educativos deben encontrar la forma de resolver esos dilemas, lo cual constituye una labor nada fácil. Es interesante ver en detalle cómo se lleva a cabo dicha labor, pero se trata de algo que cae fuera de los límites de estas observaciones.”

“Il existe deux ensembles de principes. Les principes de pouvoir et de privilège et les principes de vérité et de justice. Si vous courez après le pouvoir et les privilèges, ce sera toujours au détriment de la vérité et de la justice.”

“The two main criminals are France and the United States. They owe Haiti enormous reparations because of actions going back hundreds of years. If we could ever get to the stage where somebody could say, 'We're sorry we did it,' that would be nice. But if that just assuages guilt, it's just another crime. To become minimally civilized, we would have to say, 'We carried out and benefited from vicious crimes. A large part of the wealth of France comes from the crimes we committed against Haiti, and the United States gained as well. Therefore we are going to pay reparations to the Haitian people.' Then you will see the beginnings of civilization.”

“There are growing domestic social and economic problems, in fact, maybe catastrophes. Nobody in power has any intention of doing anything about them. If you look at the domestic programs of the administrations of the past ten years-I include here the Democratic opposition-there's really no serious proposal about what to do about the severe problems of health, education, homelessness, joblessness, crime, soaring criminal populations, jails, deterioration in the inner cities - the whole raft of problems... In such circumstances you've got to divert the bewildered herd, because if they start noticing this they may not like it, since they're the ones suffering from it. Just having them watch the Superbowl and the sitcoms may not be enough. You have to whip them up into fear of enemies. In the 1930s Hitler whipped them into fear of the Jews and gypsies. You had to crush them to defend yourselves. We have our ways, too. Over the last ten years, every year ot two, some major monster is constructed that we have to defend ourselves against.”

“[Israel's military occupation is] in gross violation of international law and has been from the outset. And that much, at least, is fully recognized, even by the United States, which has overwhelming and, as I said, unilateral responsibility for these crimes. So George Bush No. 1, when he was the U.N. ambassador, back in 1971, he officially reiterated Washington's condemnation of Israel's actions in the occupied territories. He happened to be referring specifically to occupied Jerusalem. In his words, actions in violation of the provisions of international law governing the obligations of an occupying power, namely Israel. He criticized Israel's failure "to acknowledge its obligations under the Fourth Geneva Convention as well as its actions which are contrary to the letter and spirit of this Convention." [...] However, by that time, late 1971, a divergence was developing, between official policy and practice. The fact of the matter is that by then, by late 1971, the United States was already providing the means to implement the violations that Ambassador Bush deplored. [...] on December 5th [2001], there had been an important international conference, called in Switzerland, on the 4th Geneva Convention. Switzerland is the state that's responsible for monitoring and controlling the implementation of them. The European Union all attended, even Britain, which is virtually a U.S. attack dog these days. They attended. A hundred and fourteen countries all together, the parties to the Geneva Convention. They had an official declaration, which condemned the settlements in the occupied territories as illegal, urged Israel to end its breaches of the Geneva Convention, some "grave breaches," including willful killing, torture, unlawful deportation, unlawful depriving of the rights of fair and regular trial, extensive destruction and appropriation of property not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly. Grave breaches of the Geneva Convention, that's a serious term, that means serious war crimes. The United States is one of the high contracting parties to the Geneva Convention, therefore it is obligated, by its domestic law and highest commitments, to prosecute the perpetrators of grave breaches of the conventions. That includes its own leaders. Until the United States prosecutes its own leaders, it is guilty of grave breaches of the Geneva Convention, that means war crimes. And it's worth remembering the context. It is not any old convention. These are the conventions established to criminalize the practices of the Nazis, right after the Second World War. What was the U.S. reaction to the meeting in Geneva? The U.S. boycotted the meeting [..] and that has the usual consequence, it means the meeting is null and void, silence in the media.”

“The number of people killed by the sanctions in Iraq is greater than the total number of people killed by all weapons of mass destruction in all of history.”