Is "goy" a slur?'. As you can see here he concludes it is:
https://x.com/Tracking_Power/status/1997742333324853338
I met Rahmeh's mother briefly recently in Bristol. She struck me a a very impressive and formidable woman.
Now I hear her remarks to the police, I am only confirmed in that judgement.
Goyim, she said.
Many comrades may not know the meaning of that word, or its role in Jewish supremacist ideology.
Here is the Collins Dictionary definition.
It says the term is 'often' derogatory. While it is claimed by some that the Hebrew Bible uses the term in a non-derogatory way, it is plain that in general usage, in Yiddish, it is a racial slur for non-Jews.
This is even admitted in the Jewish press. Here is Andrew Silow-Carrol in an article posted by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency in 2019, titled 'Is "goy" a slur?'. As you can see here he concludes it is:
'I have a hard time seeing “goy” as anything but offensive. In my day job I often find it necessary to distinguish between Jews and non-Jews, as in “What it’s like to be a non-Jewish counselor at a Jewish summer camp” or “In Moscow, a non-Jewish physicist recalls helping build the Soviet Union’s only yeshiva.”
But the word “goy” has too much historical and linguistic baggage to be used as casually as “non-Jew” or “gentile.” It starts with the obvious slurs – like “goyishe kopf,” or gentile brains, which suggests (generously) a dullard, or “shikker iz a goy,” a gentile is a drunkard. “Goyishe naches” describes the kinds of things that a Jew mockingly presumes only a gentile would enjoy, like hunting, sailing and eating white bread."'
Obviously, the extent to which this perspective suffuses all of modern Judaism is a matter for debate and empirical research.
However, if we pay attention to the way in which such matters are discussed in the Jewish community it can be enlightening.
Chabad is an ultra-Zionist genocidal cult which is very much of the opinion that the Goyim are not fully human. Their standard theological work - The Tanya - notes, according to the Jewish Chronicle: ‘the souls of the nations of the world derive from the impure kelipot, which contain no good whatsoever'. The 'nations of the world' are the Goyim.
In 2008 a row erupted about the teaching of the Tanya at Hampstead Garden Suburb Synagogue which is a United Synagogue member. United Synagogue is the largest Synagogue movement in the UK and is often described as 'Central Orthodox'. This distinguishes it from - for example - Reform Judaism which is more liberal and 'Ultra orthodox Judaism' which includes Hasidic sects like Chabad. All three groups are of course Zionist and thus racists of one sort or another.
So, it is interesting that they dropped the lesson; that they had considered it appropriate in the first place and that a debate for and against was published in the Jewish Chronicle.
One of the most erudite of critics of the perspectives of Jewish supremacists was Israel Shahak. He recounts many such examples of genocidal racism in the doctrine of various parts of practical Judaism. In a three part article first published on the website of Matzpen the "Israeli Socialist Organisation", they go into chapter and verse about the widespread views of Jewish supremacists on the superiority of the Jews. He even has a passage on Chabad where he notes of The Tanya:
"According to this book, all non-Jews are totally satanic creatures ‘in whom there is absolutely nothing good’. Even a non-Jewish embryo is qualitatively different from a Jewish one. The very existence of a non-Jew is ‘inessential’, whereas all of creation was created solely for the sake of the Jews."
In an appendix Shahak lists a large number of what he calls "Talmudic and rabbinical laws against gentiles". Many of these are very shocking and would require a much longer post. I will, therefore, cite only one of the egregious examples, which has a palpable relevance to the atrocities being committed by the Zionist regime in the present. Here is a four paragraph extract:
"According to the Jewish religion, murder of a Jew is a capital offence and one of the three most heinous sins (the other two being idolatry and adultery). Jewish religious courts and secular authorities are commanded to punish, even beyond the limits of the ordinary administration of justice, anyone guilty of murdering a Jew. A Jew who indirectly causes the death of another Jew is, however, only guilty of what talmudic law calls a sin against the ‘laws of Heaven’, to be punished by God rather than by man.
When the victim is a Gentile, the position is quite different. A Jew who murders a Gentile is guilty only of a sin against the laws of Heaven, not punishable by a court. To cause indirectly the death of a Gentile is no sin at all.
Thus, one of the two most important commentators on the Shulhan ‘Arukh explains that when it comes to a Gentile, ‘one must not lift one’s hand to harm him, but one may harm him indirectly, for instance by removing a ladder after he had fallen into a crevice… there is no prohibition here, because it was not done directly.’ He points out, however, that an act leading indirectly to a Gentile’s death is forbidden if it may cause the spread of hostility towards Jews.
A Gentile murderer who happens to be under Jewish jurisdiction must be executed whether the victim was Jewish or not. However, if the victim was Gentile and the murderer converts to Judaism, he is not punished."
As Shahak goes on to state: "All this has a direct and practical relevance to the realities of the State of Israel. Although the state’s criminal laws make no distinction between Jew and Gentile, such distinction is certainly made by Orthodox rabbis, who in guiding their flock follow the Halakhah. Of special importance is the advice they give to religious soldiers. Since even the minimal interdiction against murdering a Gentile outright applies only to ‘Gentiles with whom we [the Jews] are not at war’, various rabbinical commentators in the past drew the logical conclusion that in wartime all Gentiles belonging to a hostile population may, or even should, be killed. Since 1973 this doctrine is being publicly propagated for the guidance of religious Israeli soldiers."
Although this was first published in 1981 it could easily have been written about the current genocide.
It's not just Amalek!
To read more have a look at Shahak's writings and books. Link below.
posted by Satish Sharma at
03:40
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home