Jew World Order

By Professor Revilo P. Oliver
Liberty Bell, June 1991

IN A LETTER to the editor of Liberty Bell, a reader quotes from Alfred J. Kolatach’s The Jewish Book of Why (Middle Village, New York; Jonathan David, 1981):

In England, the Royal House has a long tradition requiring that all male children be circumcised by the Jewish mohel of London.”

The book also extols the expertise of the Yiddish penis-clipper.

The reader was reluctant to believe a statement so disgraceful to British royalty, although it was publicly and even ostentatiously confirmed when a son was born to the present Prince of Wales, and he particularly questioned the “long tradition.” He asks, “How long could that tradition be?”

The reference to a “long tradition” certainly implies that the obscene and disgusting practice (1) was established before the partly Jewish Battenbergs (who changed their name to Mountbatten) married into the Royal Family.

It is possible, of course, that the “long tradition” is just one of the vast number of hoaxes, big and little, with which the Master Race habitually confuses the minds of its stupid goyim. Assuming that it is not, I do not know the answer to the reader’s question, and I do not have time for the necessary research, but, on the understanding that what I shall say is mere conjecture, I will hazard a guess that the “long tradition” of sexually mutilating royal children may have originated with Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, who became the Prince Consort of Queen Victoria in 1840.

Albert was officially the son of Ernest, Duke of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and Duchess Louise, but Ernest was noted for his antipathy to women, and it was rumored at the time that his treasurer, a Jew, had relieved the Duke of the distressing duty of engendering an heir. There was no suggestion of alternate parentage, for it was only after the birth of her two sons, at an interval of fourteen months, that Duchess Louise felt that she had discharged her duty, and no longer had to content herself with an ersatz husband, whom many gallant gentlemen gladly replaced.

Albert grew up to be a young man who seems odd to us. The year before he married Queen Victoria, Albert had a toothache so distressing that, according to his own avowal in an extant letter, he wanted to “sob out his pain in the arms” of his “beloved Thus [his old tutor, Florshütz].”

Despite his womanish longing for consolation in Florshütz’s arms, Albert succeeded brilliantly, not only in captivating the girl, who was barely twenty, but in resolutely making her, of whom he was not even very fond, adore him throughout all the years of their life together.

Although Victoria imagined that she kept the roles of wife and queen separate, and although there is record of a few rare instances when she and Albert disagreed about some policy for a few days, it is clear that Albert so tactfully and subtly used his conjugal ascendancy over his passionately devoted wife that, for all practical purposes, he was in fact, though not in name, the King. So talented was Albert that Victoria’s devotion never waned from the time, after they were engaged but before they were married, when she hated “the abominable, infamous Tories” because they were reluctant to give her dear Albert all the money he wanted and the royal precedence she wanted for him. Victoria doted on her “adored one,” her “Angel,” the “noblest of men,” so long as he lived and even after his death, when a clever swindler enabled her to communicate with her darling’s loving ghost. (2)

The rumor about Albert’s parentage doubtless influenced the members of the British aristocracy who were reluctant to welcome him in 1840, (3) but he must have exhibited traits which seemed to confirm the belief that he was part Jew, (4) for more than half a century after his death the gossip was still so prevalent that Frank Harris had to disclaim an intent to confirm it when he reported that Albert’s eldest son, the late King Edward VII, with whom Harris had been well acquainted, “spoke German like a Bavarian Jew.”

If one were willing to descend to the intellectual level of our contemporary “intellectuals,” one could loudly assert that Albert’s Jewishness was indubitably proved by the “social reforms” and foreign policy (5) to which he discreetly lent the support of his great influence as an uncrowned king, most of which, in their later developments, served the Jewish purpose of undermining Great Britain and our race. Rational observers, however, will remember that many individuals who must have been Anglo-Saxon evinced similar sentimentality.

The best example would be the undisputed fact that it was Prince Albert who prevented Great Britain from consulting her own honor and interests when an act of piracy by a Northern warship gave Britain an ideal opportunity to help the Southern states defend themselves against the invasion and war of aggression that Lincoln had been elected to begin. The late Dr. Peter Peel, whose detailed study of anti-German propaganda in Britain you may remember, (6) commenting on the British failure to take advantage of the Trent affair, recognized that tergiversation as the first symptom of British decline: “There was where we missed the boat,” he said. But even this instance proves nothing. Many an English lunkenhead was ready to sacrifice his nation’s best interests to humanitarian sentimentality.

Prince Albert’s character was abnormal. He was undoubtedly unbalanced; he was superstitious and Puritanic, and was psychotic on the subject of sex, evidently regarding sexual intercourse with women a stern duty that fell upon a husband (a duty that he must have known how to perform manfully), but a mortal sin in all other circumstances. He was Prince Consort and a father of nine children when he learned with horror that his eldest son, the Prince of Wales, then a young man of twenty, had actually had sexual relations with a woman! Albert became hysterical–no milder word is adequate–and, telling his depraved son that he must “hide himself from the sight of God,” fell into such emotional convulsions that Victoria believed her son’s “disgusting conduct” to have been the primary cause of her beloved “Angel’s” death three months later.

Now if Albert was part Jew–remember that even strong suspicions are not proof–he would have had his sons circumcised for obvious reasons. If he was not, his psychosis about sex would have had the same effect, for one of the early arguments for circumcision was a claim that the barbarous operation impeded or prevented sexual desires. It is even possible that his horror that his son had had sexual intercourse with a woman, which so affected Albert that he could not sleep for a fortnight and agitated him for months thereafter, was shock at the discovery that the godly precaution had been ineffectual.

The Victorian Age had a moral climate that was propitious to the adaptation of the barbarous practice by civilized people. The many Marranos, who were considered Englishmen, undoubtedly had performed on their sons the operation that Spinoza considered the only means of maintaining their racial unity, and the many undisguised Jews in England were constantly intriguing and whining for the right, eventually granted them, to enter the Parliament and even the House of Lords. They doubtless suborned propaganda to defend the savage rite that was considered the talisman of their race.

In this they were aided by the “British Israel” craze. (7) Begun in 1822 by a crackpot who was probably the first goy Zionist and declared himself to be the nephew (!) of Yahweh, miraculously born to lead all the Kikes back to Palestine, the hokum so whetted the appetites of British nincompoops that they bought 250,000 copies of just one of the many books devoted to such nonsense, making it the five-star best seller of the day. Fatuous Anglo-Saxons, instead of proudly tracing their ancestry to Hengest and Horsa, wanted to believe they were descendants of a scabrous tribe of freebooters who had invaded Palestine with the help of their ferocious god. I saw years ago a photograph of an elaborately illuminated parchment that set forth every step of a genealogy according to which Queen Victoria was a descendant of a bandit chief named David.

These are the considerations that underlie my guess–and remember that it is no more than a guess–that the sexual mutilation of males in the royal family of Britain began with Prince Albert.

1. On this survival of savagery, see Nicholas Carter’s Routine Circumcision, the Tragic Myth (London, Londinium Press, 1979; available from Liberty Bell Publications, $8.00 + $1.50 postage). Cf. Liberty Bell, October 1980, pp. 1-5; November 1989, pp. 7-10.

2. See Liberty Bell, May 1984, pp. 1 ff.

3. They favored William, Prince of Orange, as a husband for Victoria, who seems to have wanted to emulate her great predecessor, the Virgin Queen–until Albert fascinated her.

4. By our standards. Even if Albert was the son of the Sheeny Treasurer, he would not have been a Jew by orthodox Jewish standards, according to which genuine Jews are produced only by Jewesses, regardless of the race of the father.

5. When he visited Germany in 1859 he was so distressed by “Prussian militarism” that he became ill! He undoubtedly did much to incite the British antagonism to the growing power of Germany with hypocritical denunciation of “militarism” by the nation which frankly (and properly) claimed for its navy absolute dominion over all the oceans of the world.

6. British Public Opinion and the Wars of German Unification, 1864-1871 (College Park, Maryland; International Research Institute, 1981). He notes that although Victoria would not have countenanced a war against Germany, her son, Edward VII, was violently anti-German and was partly responsible for the British alliance with France against Germany which resulted in the First World War.

7. Cf. my ‘Populism’ and ‘Elitism,’ Part I, footnotes 45 and 46.

This article originally appeared in Liberty Bell magazine.