Classic EssaysKevin Alfred Strom

Quotes Without Comment

Introduced by Kevin Alfred Strom (1995)

THERE IS ASTOUNDING information available to the dedicated researcher in our libraries, at least those few that have not yet engaged in the Politically Correct frenzy of selling off or throwing away all books published before 1965. There is even valuable information available on the major news wire services, if one has access to them as we do here, or even hidden away on the back pages of an occasional major newspaper. The problem is that this information, even when its dissemination is vital to the survival of our nation, is not forcefully brought to the attention of our people because of the anti-American bias and control of our major news media. Today I will present to you, without comment, quotations from a wide variety of sources. Decide for yourself their meaning and import in this age of increasing repression and thought control. Decide for yourself if the controlled media have deliberately misinformed you.

First, we have the following report, which was issued by the Associated Press, but its implications have not been emphasized by the controlled media:

World population is growing at the fastest pace ever and virtually all growth is in the Third World, according to a survey released Tuesday by a research group.

The annual survey by the Washington-based Population Reference Bureau, said, “We are at a point where, except for the United States, population growth is essentially a Third World phenomenon.”

The survey predicted world population will reach 5.5 billion by mid-1993, 40 percent of it in China and India. The bureau said population is growing each year by 90 million, roughly the population of Mexico.

Carl Haub, a demographer who worked on the study, said that world population will grow to 8.5 billion by the year 2025, “only if birth rates continue to come down as expected. If they don’t, growth will be even faster.”

Haub said that if it were not for the relatively high U.S. increase (Footnote: The U.S. increase is largely due to immigration and growth among non-Whites. White Americans are failing to reproduce themselves. — Ed.), all growth in the world would be in poor areas.

Europe’s population is virtually stagnant with a growth rate of 0.2 percent a year. “This virtually guarantees population decline by the turn of the century,” Haub said. States of the former Soviet Union have been growing at 0.6 percent. But there was a wide gap between Russia and Ukraine, where population is declining, and the Muslim republics of central Asia, which are growing at more than 2 percent (Footnote: Remember, “Europe’s population” is not the same thing as “population of Europeans.” Population figures for European countries include millions of non-White immigrants and their progeny. The population of Whites in Europe, as in America, has been declining for years.).

The world’s fastest growing area is the poorest: sub-Saharan Africa with a population growth rate of 3 percent a year meaning that population will double in 20 years. Latin America is growing at 1.9 percent.

Asia is growing at a rate of 1.7 percent. But without China, whose strict and controversial birth control program is responsible for a sharp drop in growth to 1.2 percent, Asia’s rate is 2.1 percent.

Next, we quote writer Peter Brimelow in the Miami Herald:

Just as New York City’s government can’t stop muggers but does a great job ticketing young women on Park Avenue for failing to scoop up after their lapdogs, current U.S. immigration policy in effect enforces the law only against those who obey it. Annual legal immigration of some 950,000 — counting 140,000 refugees and the 100,000 granted political asylum — is overwhelmed by the 2 to 3 million illegal entries into the country every year, which result in a net annual increase of perhaps 250,000 illegal aliens. (A cautious estimate — again, no one really knows.)

American liberals, of course, are determinedly, even devoutly, incurious about this subject. You quickly learn not to raise such matters with them at all.

The silence of American conservatives has a more complex cause. To a significant degree, it’s due to sheer ignorance. In the early 1970s, a battle-scarred Goldwater veteran brushed aside my news from the INS waiting rooms. The U.S., he said, was far too big for immigration to have any but the most marginal effect.

When later I showed him a news report that the inflow from the former British West Indies had quintupled during the previous decade, he was astonished. (These numbers add up. By 1973, over 220,000 West Indians lived in the New York area alone. And it was just the beginning. The number of Jamaicans immigrating to the U.S. between 1951 and 1980 amounted to more than a tenth of the island’s population. By 1990, almost another tenth of Jamaica had arrived in the U.S., the highest proportion from any country in the world.)

Very few people can absorb new realities after the age of 21. And conservative leaders now in their fifties spent their formative years in one of the greatest lulls in the history of American immigration — the result of restrictive quota legislation designed to favor Northern Europeans in the 1920s, followed by the Depression and World War II. Amazingly, only about 500,000 legal immigrants entered the U.S. in the whole of the 1930s. (In those days, there was virtually no illegal immigration.) And only about a million entered in the 1940s — including World War II refugees. By contrast, of course, the U.S. accepted over 1.5 million immigrants, counting only legals, in the single year of 1990 alone.

The Great Immigration Lull was ended dramatically by the 1965 Immigration Act. Typical of so many Great Society reforms, it was passed amid much moralizing rhetoric and promptly had exactly the opposite of its advertised effect.

U.S. immigration policy was not transformed without debate. There was a debate. It just bore no relationship to what subsequently happened. In particular, staunch defenders of the national-origins quota system, like the American Legion, allowed themselves to be persuaded that the new legislation really enacted a sort of world-wide quota, no longer skewed toward Northern Europe — a policy easily caricatured as “racist” in the era of the civil-rights movement — but still restricting over-all immigration to the then-current level of around 300,000.

Today, it is astonishing to read the categorical assurances given by supporters of the 1965 Immigration Act. “What the bill will not do,” summarized Immigration Subcommittee chairman Senator Edward Kennedy: “First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same… Secondly, the ethnic mix will not be upset… Contrary to the charges in some quarters, [the bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and deprived nations of Africa and Asia….”

Every one of these assurances has proved false.

Next we hear the words of Sir Francis Galton, from his Hereditary Talent and Character (1865):

Our human civilized stock is far more weakly through congenital imperfection that that of any other species of animals, whether wild or domestic. If the twentieth part of the cost and pains were spent in measures for the improvement of the human race that is spent on the improvement of the breed of horse and cattle, what a galaxy of genius might we not create.

The scientist Charles Darwin said in his book The Descent of Man (1871):

We now know, through the admirable labors of Mr. Galton, that genius tends to be inherited.

Darwin’s colleague, Alfred Russell Wallace, stated in 1872:

In one of my latest conversations with Darwin, he expressed himself very gloomily on the future of humanity, on the ground that in our modern civilization natural selection had no play, and the fittest did not survive.

The great writer and author of Brave New World, Aldous Huxley, wrote in his Brave New World Revisited in 1958:

In this second half of the twentieth century we do nothing systematic about our breeding; but in our random and unregulated way we are not only overpopulating our planet, we are also, it would seem, making sure that these greater numbers shall be of biologically poorer quality.

From the pen of Dr. Alexander Graham Bell, best known for his invention of the telephone and his founding of the National Geographic Society, we read in his 1898 article in The Journal of Heredity:

At the present time considerable alarm has been expressed at the apparently growing disinclination of American women to bear children, and a cry has been raised against what people call race suicide.

From the New York Times of February 11, 1986, we read from an article entitled “Half of U.S. Couples Can’t Have Babies”:

Nearly half of all [white (Footnote: Figures for White couples may actually be higher, since Whites probably choose sterilization more often than non-Whites.)] couples of childbearing age in the United States are physically unable to have children, as Americans increasingly choose sterilization to limit their new families, according to Government statistics.

Next, we quote from President Abraham Lincoln in one of the famous Lincoln-Douglas debates:

I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races — that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to inter-marry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality.

Next from his “Notes for Speeches,” September 1859, Collected Works, Vol 3, p. 399, we read the words of Abraham Lincoln:

Negro equality! Fudge! How long, in the government of a God great enough to make and maintain the Universe, shall there continue knaves to vend, and fools to gulp, so low a piece of demagoguism as this?

From Abraham Lincoln’s “Address on Colonization to a Deputation of Negroes” in Washington, D.C., on August 14, 1862 (Collected Works, Vol. V, p. 371) we read the following:

See our present condition — the country engaged in war! — our White men cutting one another’s throats… and then consider what we know to be truth.

But for your race among us there could not be war, although many men engaged on either side do not care for you one way or the other… It is better for us both, therefore, to be separated….

You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss, but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think your race suffers very greatly, many of them by living among us, while ours suffers from your presence. In a word, we suffer on each side. If this is admitted, it affords a reason at least why we should be separated.

Our next quote without comment is from Thomas Jefferson’s autobiography, first published by his grandson, Thomas Jefferson Randolph in 1829 and again published by special Act of Congress in 1853. I quote from page 51, dated January 6, 1821:

Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people [the Blacks] are to be free; nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government. Nature, habit, opinion have drawn indelible lines of distinction between them. It is still in our power to direct the process of emancipation and deportation, peaceably, and in such slow degree, as that the evil will wear off insensibly, and their place be …filled up by free White laborers. If, on the contrary, it is left to force itself on, human nature must shudder at the prospect held up.

Our next item is from Black Nationalist leader Malcolm X, who said:

Give us some land of our own and let us go for ourselves!

And now this revealing quote from a leading operative of the New World Order and former director of the UN’s World Health Organization, Mr. Brock Chisholm, as printed in USA Magazine for August 12th, 1955:

What people everywhere must do is practice birth control and miscegenation in order to create one race in one world under one government.

Next we hear from Reverend George E. Simons, who as the Superintendent of the Methodist Episcopal Church in Petrograd from 1907 to 1918 was an eyewitness to the Bolshevik Revolution. He testified before the United States Senate and his statement can be found in Volume III of United States Senate Document No. 62, 66th Congress, First Session:

Out of 388 members of the new Russian government, only 16 happened to be Russians. One was an American Black. All the rest, 371, were Jews. Of these 371 Jewish Bolshevik leaders, no less than 265 of them were from the Lower East Side of New York City.

From the Jewish World of February 9, 1883, we read:

The great ideal of Judaism is that the whole world shall be imbued with Jewish teachings, and that in a universal brotherhood of nations — a greater Judaism in fact — all the separate races and religions shall disappear.

In The American Hebrew of September 10, 1920, we read:

The Bolshevist revolution in Russia was the work of Jewish brains, of Jewish dissatisfaction, of Jewish planning, whose goal is to create a new order in the world. What was performed in so excellent a way in Russia … shall also, through the same Jewish mental and physical forces, become a reality all over the world.

In the American Bulletin of May 15, 1935, Rabbi Stephen S. Wise stated:

Some call it Marxism — I call it Judaism.

From the book The Nineteenth Century and After, published in London in November 1923, page 695, author Henry Pearson tells us:

The Bolsheviki have employed every form of cruelty it is possible to devise, and gloat over the sufferings of their victims. The movement is run almost exclusively by Jews. Nearly every commissar is a Jew, and nearly all of them speak English, most of them with an American accent.

Jewish author Dr. Lewis Harap, in the magazine Jewish Life for June 1951, page 20, reveals:

On May 29, 1950… in the Chicago Tribune …three prominent American Jews, Felix Frankfurter, Henry Morgenthau Jr., and Herbert H. Lehman …were called the secret government of the United States and were linked with world communism…. The article was written by Walter Trohan, the Tribune’s top Washington editor.

In an interview with a New York Times reporter on Christmas day, 1921, the great industrialist and patriot Henry Ford stated as follows:

It was the Jews themselves who convinced me of the direct relationship between the international Jew and war. In fact, they went out of their way to convince me. On the peace ship were two very prominent Jews. We had not been at sea 200 miles before they began telling me of the power of the Jewish race, of how they controlled the world through their control of gold, and that the Jew and no one but the Jew could end the war. I was reluctant to believe it but they went into detail to convince me of the means by which the Jews controlled the war, how they had the money, how they had cornered all the basic materials needed to fight the war and all that, and they talked so long and so well that they convinced me. They said, and they believed, that the Jews started the war, that they would continue it as long as they wished, and that until the Jew stopped the war it could not be stopped. I was so disgusted I would have liked to turn the ship back.

Jewish international banker James Paul Warburg in a speech before the United States Senate on February 17, 1950, said:

We shall have World Government, whether or not we like it. The only question is whether World Government will be achieved by conquest or consent.

In a letter written in the last century to Karl Marx, reprinted in La Revue de Paris for June 1, 1928, Jewish writer Baruch Levy stated — and note carefully the phraseology employed:

The Jewish people as a whole will be its own messiah. It will attain world dominion by the dissolution of other races, by the abolition of frontiers, the annihilation of monarchy, and by the establishment of a world republic in which the Jews will everywhere exercise the privilege of citizenship. In this New World Order the children of Israel will furnish all the leaders without encountering opposition.

On October 13th, 1939, the following statement was made by the great aviator and patriot Charles Lindbergh during a nationwide speech over the Mutual Broadcasting System, a part of his effort to prevent the horrible slaughter of World War II:

Our bond with Europe is a bond of race, not of political ideology. It is the European race we must preserve: political progress will follow. Racial strength is vital — politics a luxury. If the White race is ever seriously threatened, it may then be time for us to take our part in its protection: to fight side by side with English, French, and Germans — but not with one against the other for our mutual destruction. Let us not dissipate our strength, or help Europe to dissipate hers in these wars of politics and possession.

With those words of Charles Lindbergh I bring to a close my collection of Quotes Without Comment.

* * *

Source: Free Speech magazine, May 1995

Previous post

Report: Ghislaine Maxwell, Jeffrey Epstein's Procurer, Hiding in "Safe House in Israel"

Next post

Anyone Notice a Pattern Here?

Notify of
Inline Feedback
View all comments
4 January, 2020 6:09 pm

Thank you Kevin. Let’s collect old books. I have used information in them to affect and prevent political “Change….change….change”. If I lived in your country I would volunteer to be an intern in your library.

William White Williams • Chairman, National Alliance
William White Williams • Chairman, National Alliance
Reply to  Truthweed
4 January, 2020 8:10 pm

If our library were in your country, Truthweed, I’d give you a call to come help us. It’s in Tennessee, though, and volunteers to come help us here are few and far between, even with 200,000 visitors per month to National Vanguard. With Dr. Pierce’s personal research collection and the collections of several other notables we have accumulated nearly 30,000 books.


Greetings Will, it would be an honour to work in your library. Perhaps you should charge an enormous membership fee and make it exclusive to qualified and honest academic researchers. Nobody who has not studied at the library will have any prestige or authority. Eventually the public will accept that only your library can be trusted because the others have been corrupted and purged.

(My own little library stored on a 1TB drive has become difficult to access because its indexing cannot handle my 900,000+ files. It will take at least two days for my recovery software to scan the files)

Reply to  Truthweed
5 January, 2020 7:08 pm

Tennessee seems to be a wonderful vacation tourist destination for academics and librarians. I understand Tennessee to be a tourism over-achiever in America. Tourists might like a souvenir ‘Certificate of Contribution’, graded Bronze, Silver or Gold depending on number of days of contribution at your cultural organisation.

Alex Wells
Alex Wells
5 January, 2020 1:25 am

“THERE IS ASTOUNDING information available to the dedicated researcher in our libraries, at least those few that have not yet engaged in the Politically Correct frenzy of selling off or throwing away all books published before 1965.”

I am unaware of libraries engaging in such a practice. Do you have any documentation of this?

Kevin Alfred Strom
Kevin Alfred Strom
Reply to  Alex Wells
5 January, 2020 10:46 am

I spoke personally with a public librarian in Rochester, Minnesota a number of years ago who said that public libraries, with their limited space, “had to” prioritize new editions and new books and sell off or pulp the old (some very popular older books had to be kept, she added). She also indicated to me (she knew nothing of my political views) that “diversity” and “tolerance” would be best served thereby, and that was a good thing.

Alex Wells
Alex Wells
Reply to  Kevin Alfred Strom
5 January, 2020 12:21 pm

So limiting the points of view available to readers served “diversity” and censoring opinions that were inconsistent with her own was an exercise in “tolerance;” I see.

Reply to  Kevin Alfred Strom
12 February, 2021 10:26 pm

Greetings Kevin. It is important to acquire copies of the pre-1965 books to obtain evidence of the now-known propaganda lies and inconvenient truths told in them. I suspect that this is why they are being destroyed.