Analysing the Text of the 1952 Speech of Rabbi Emanuel Rabinovich

In a recent article I analysed the back story and the alleged origins of the text of the 1952 speech of one Rabbi Emanuel Rabinovich. (1) My conclusions based on the available facts was that the back story was itself rather incredible and lacked sufficient time between the speech being given and its publication via the (alleged) circumlocutions it went through to get from Rabinovich’s giving it to Eustace Mullins’ writing about it.

I did however point out one glaring textual inconsistency when compared to the back story: that the meeting (which was alleged to having been held on the 12th January 1952) was weirdly being held on a Saturday thus on the jewish Sabbath (or Shabbos). This made the account unlikely, but not totally irreconcilable with an actual meeting. What made it irreconcilable was the fact that there are no references in the text to the fact that it was Shabbos. Had this meeting of rabbis been held on Shabbos then we would expect that this would be explicitly mentioned in the meeting: since performing work on Shabbos would only be viable if jewish lives were at stake (in accordance with the basic halakhic rulings on the issue).

This then allowed us to conclude that the back story was in all likelihood fraudulent, but that doesn’t itself mean the text itself is not of jewish origin: as I have previously demonstrated in relation to the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. In order to understand the validity of the text we need to actually analyse it as otherwise we cannot say whether this is a fraudulent text with an equally fraudulent providence or an actual text with a problematic providence.

To assist the reader in following my argument I have reproduced the text of the speech below and bolded the particular sections that I feel are important.

To wit:

‘A report from Europe carried the following speech of Rabbi Emmanuel Rabinovich before a special meeting of the Emergency Council of European Rabbis in Budapest, Hungary, January 12, 1952:

"Greetings, my children; you have been called here to recapitulate the principal steps of our new program. As you know, we had hoped to have twenty years between wars to consolidate the great gains which we made from World War II, but our increasing numbers in certain vital areas is arousing opposition to us, and we must now work with every means at our disposal to precipitate World War III within five years.

The goal for which we have striven so concertedly for three thousand years is at last within our reach, and because its fulfilment is so apparent, it behoves us to increase our efforts and our caution tenfold. I can safely promise you that before ten years have passed, our race will take its rightful place in the world, with every Jew a king and every Gentile a slave (Applause from the gathering). You remember the success of our propaganda campaign during the 1930's, which aroused anti-American passions in Germany at the same time we were arousing anti-German passions in America, a campaign which culminated in the Second World War. A similar propaganda campaign is now being waged intensively throughout the world. A war fever is being worked up in Russia by an incessant anti-American barrage while a nation-wide anti-Communist scare is sweeping America.

This campaign is forcing all the smaller nations to choose between the partnership of Russia or an alliance with the United States. Our most pressing problem at the moment is to inflame the lagging militaristic spirit of the Americans. The failure of the Universal Military Training Act was a great setback to our plans, but we are assured that a suitable measure will be rushed through Congress immediately after the 1952 elections. The Russians, as well as the Asiatic peoples, are well under control and offer no objections to war, but we must wait to secure the Americans. This we hope to do with the issue of Anti-Semitism, which worked so well in uniting the Americans against Germany. We are counting heavily on reports of anti-Semitic outrages in Russia to whip up indignation in the United States and produce a front of solidarity against the Soviet power.

Simultaneously, to demonstrate to Americans the reality of anti-Semitism, we will advance through new sources large sums of money to outspokenly anti-Semitic elements in America to increase their effectiveness, and we shall stage Anti-Semitic outbreaks in several of their largest cities. This will serve the double purpose of exposing reactionary sectors in America, which then can be silenced, and of welding the United States into a devoted anti-Russian unit. Within five years, this program will achieve its objective, the Third World War, which will surpass in destruction all previous contests. Israel, of course, will remain neutral, and when both sides are devastated and exhausted, we will arbitrate, sending our Control Commissions into all wrecked countries. This war will end for all time our struggle against the Gentiles.

We will openly reveal our identity with the races of Asia and Africa. I can state with assurance that the last generation of white children is now being born. Our Control Commissions will, in the interests of peace and wiping out inter- racial tensions.

Forbid the Whites to mate with Whites. The White Women must cohabit with members of the dark races, the White Men with black women. Thus the White Race will disappear, for the mixing of the dark with the White means the end of the White Man, and our most dangerous enemy will become only a memory.

We shall embark upon an era of ten thousand years of peace and plenty, the Pax Judaica, and our race will rule undisputed over the world. Our superior intelligence will easily enable us to retain mastery over a world of dark peoples.

Question from the gathering: Rabbi Rabinovich, what about the various religions after the Third World War?

Rabinovich: There will be no more religions. Not only would the existence of a priest class remain a constant danger to our rule, but belief in an after-life would give spiritual strength to irreconcilable elements in many countries, and enable them to resist us. We will, however, retain the rituals and customs of Judaism as the mark of our hereditary ruling caste, strengthening our racial laws so that no Jew will be allowed to marry outside our race, nor will any stranger be accepted by us.

We may have to repeat the grim days of World War II, when we were forced to let the Hitlerite bandits sacrifice some of our people, in order that we may have adequate documentation and witnesses to legally justify our trial and execution of the leaders of America and Russia as war criminals, after we have dictated the peace. I am sure you will need little preparation for such a duty, for sacrifice has always been the watchword of our people, and the death of a few thousand lesser Jews in exchange for world leadership is indeed a small price to pay. To convince you of the certainty of that leadership, let me point out to you how we have turned all of the inventions of the White Man into weapons against him. His printing presses and Radios are the mouthpieces of our desires, and his heavy industry manufactures the instruments which he sends out to arm Asia and Africa against him.

Our interests in Washington are greatly extending the Point Four Program for developing industry in backward areas of the world, so that after the industrial plants and cities of Europe and America are destroyed by atomic warfare, the Whites can offer no resistance against the large masses of the dark races, who will maintain an unchallenged technological superiority. And so, with the vision of world victory before you, go back to your countries and intensify your good work, until that approaching day when Israel will reveal herself in all her glorious destiny as the Light of the World."’ (2)

If we take what I have previously pointed above as our starting point - i.e., the lack of mention of the fact that it was Shabbos and we are dealing with a group of rabbis who are performing work on the day on which they are religiously obligated to perform no work - we can make three other general textual observations.

The first is that this isn’t what it claims to be: it isn’t a speech as it is simply too short. The entire text can be read out loud in 2-3 minutes: where-as most speeches are at least 15 minutes long and are usually 45 minutes to an hour long in order to allow the speaker time to make a full presentation.

Also we should note on this point that the structure of the text is more akin to an announcement or possibly a rant given that there is little in the way of rhetorical flourishes and the argument that it is making is - at best - completely incoherent. It contains a lot of sweeping generalities, but only gets into specifics once or twice during the whole short text. When it does get specific it only deals with American current affairs and not the Soviet or European current affairs that would be more expected.

That in itself is suggestive that it is not an authentic text precisely because it displays outright ignorance of the anti-Zionist and anti-intellectual purges sweeping the Soviet Union - and more particularly Hungary - at this time as I covered in my previous article on the back story of this text. That it mentions the failure of the Universal Military Training (and Service) Act (although this was in fact passed in 1951) and the Point Four Program, but doesn’t talk about the treason trials in the USSR or events in the Far East (where the Korean War was raging) as anything other than an aside is suggestive that whoever is the author of the text. They weren’t in Europe - let alone the Soviet bloc - at the time that they wrote it for the priority is the policies of the United States not the destabilization of the entire of Eastern Europe via the new grand purge sweeping Europe initiated by Stalin.

Had they been in either Europe or the Soviet Bloc then we would expect to see a greater priority given to the frightening events there (especially for rabbis) not issues of United States legislation in relation to the draft and foreign aid. This clearly suggests that whoever the author of text actually was: they were American and in North America when they wrote it.

Secondly the rabbi addresses his fellow rabbis as ‘my children’: now while this is common phraseology for Christians - especially in Roman Catholicism - it is distinctly out of place in Judaism precisely because we here have a rabbi addressing rabbis. It is rather like a priest addressing their fellow priests of the same rank as ‘my children’: it is just silly.

We cannot argue that Rabbi Rabinovich was a Tzaddik (i.e., an acknowledged pious and holy man who often lead a small jewish sect or cult), a Rebbe (i.e., a kind of jewish religious leader often associated with jewish mystical groups such as the modern Chasidim) or a Talmid Chacham (i.e., Torah Scholar: one who is deeply learned in halakhah [jewish religious law] as well as skilled in interpreting it correctly), because he doesn’t describe himself or indicate that he is such. Thus he is an ordinary run-of-the-mill rabbi and referring to rabbis of the same rank as you as ‘my children’ - especially among a group of people who pride themselves on their individual learning like the rabbinate - is going to cause not a few arguments to break out and people to leave the room in disgust.

This usage suggests that the author doesn’t really know very much about Judaism, because they are making a very basic mistake in relation to intra-community relations and are doing so in spite of wanting to communicate appropriately and amicably to the rabbis in question.

That the author of this text knows little about Judaism - and probably wasn’t jewish - is further indicated by the use of the ‘3000 years’ timeline. The author is clearly thinking of the Gregorian calendar, which is used as standard in North America and Western Europe. However the jews have their own calendar, which we would expect rabbis to use amongst themselves as they do to this day. In the jewish calendar January 1952 would actually be Tevet 5712: in other words if a religious jew was among other religious jews then they wouldn’t say that they have worked for this goal for ‘3000 years’ but rather would say they have worked for this goal for ‘5500 years’ or ‘nearly 6000 years’ (if they said it at all).

Also the reference to a ‘Pax Judaica’ is severely out of place since it is uses for a Romanism for a concept that the jews already have their own expression for: i.e., the ‘inheritance of Israel’. That the author has once again used a non-jewish term when there was - in fact - a jewish one available strongly suggests that the author is not jewish themselves, but rather is non-jewish with a smattering of knowledge about Judaism.

This is confirmed when we read the section of the text where Rabbi Rabinovich claims that Judaism is an irrelevant superstition and that its own value lies in its ability to keep the jews together as a tribal-cum-racial unit. The sheer absurdity of this statement knows no bounds precisely because this is a rabbi addressing other rabbis: are we supposed to believe they aren’t actually religious jews but rather jewish nihilists pretending to be rabbis?

This is another point where one half expects the room to simply empty of the audience given that Rabbi Rabinovich has now both insulted their intelligence and rabbinic standing (as we saw earlier) yet now he is claiming they don’t believe in Yahweh either and that the point of Judaism is simply to aid ‘the conspiracy’.

As an aside we should also note that this passage also implicitly exonerates the jews from blame, because it necessarily specifies that it isn’t the jews that are the problem but rather these nameless ‘conspirators’ who are pretending to be jews. This passage could have almost been lifted out of the writings of William Guy Carr who claimed just this in his work as I have explained elsewhere by quoting the relevant passages.

Thirdly I would like to bring attention back to the structure of the text in that it is actually mostly a transcript and in spite of two attempts to style it a speech (the audience applause and the question from the floor): it is clearly meant to be read not said. It lacks ideological direction and is a brief ramble about a failure and then some pointless rhetoric about ‘control’ and ‘having it in hand’ as opposed to a coherent presentation of a plan (and the question from the floor is barely even relevant to Rabbi Rabinovich’s presentation).

A good comparative to the speech is ironically the Protocols of Zion, which do actually make a lot of consistent sense as a plan and are quite logically conceived to be put into action. Compare that to the largely aimless warbling of this text and we can see that it is hardly a ‘plan’ or even a ‘speech’, but rather what someone would quickly throw together if they wanted to manufacture some evidence that would enrage people (and especially conservatives) in 1950s America (hence the otherwise pointless question about religions in the new world of the conspirators).

Compare the Protocols of Zion to the speech of Rabbi Rabinovich and you can quickly see which reads like a plan and which does not.

Now where do we end up?

We have ended up with the fact that the author - whoever it was - was an American (or resident in North America at the timing of writing) because of their use of specific information in relation to the United States as well as their use of Christian and Western terminology and phraseology. This latter point also suggests that they were not jewish as they are not using jewish concepts where they are available and indeed use no jewish humour or make any reference to Torah (Written or Oral) parallels or parables to make their point (as we would normally expect).

Further the lack of length and the style of the text suggests that the ‘speech’ was never conceived as such, but rather was always meant as a textual document rather than a transcript of an oral presentation. This means that in effect it was a ‘speech’ that was always meant to be read and it was never meant to be anything other than ‘evidence’ of the jewish role in what the author was against not what the author was actually for.

Essentially then the 1952 speech of Rabbi Emanuel Rabinovich is almost certainly a fraud as it has nothing within the text to suggest it was written or said by a jew or in Europe (let alone by a rabbi in the Soviet Bloc) and a lot suggesting it was written by an American gentile.

Was that American gentile Eustace Mullins?

Very possibly, but it is unlikely that it could ever be proven with sufficient evidence.

References

(1) See my article: https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/eustace-mullins-and-the-story-of

(2) http://www.rense.com/general45/full.htm; cross-checked against William Guy Carr, n.d., [1954], ‘Pawns in the Game’, 1st Edition, GSG: San Pedro, pp. 116-117