Holocaust Studies: Worse Than Auschwitz

Published by

Clarissa

December 3, 2015

Rabbi Aviezer Pilz knows what’s worse than Auschwitz and was happy to share the insight. In the Rabbi’s opinion, educating women is worse than burning Jews in furnaces.

Rabbi Nosson Zochovsky advanced the idea that if women are paid good wages for working, that’s a tragedy in and of itself. He didn’t mention if it’s as big a tragedy as the Holocaust, but given that he had no objection to Pilz’s idea, I’d guess he’s fully on board.

All of these religious fanatics are the same, people. All of them. They are all motivated by a single idea, a single feeling: their extreme hatred of women. There is nothing else that interests them. It matters absolutely nothing what holy book they wave at people to pretend that they are interested in anything but hating women. One such freak beats a 14-year-old girl just because he feels like it, another one shoots up a clinic, and Rabbis Pilz and Zochovsky shit on the memory of the greatest tragedy experienced by their people just so that they can express their hatred of women.

Here is the link, if you want to see the rantings of these crazies for yourself.

Rate this:

10 responses to “Holocaust Studies: Worse Than Auschwitz”

Michael Blekhman

December 3, 2015

In fact, that ‘Rabbi’ has nothing to do with faith. Deep in his heart, he is a Hitler fan. Kirche, kinder, kuechen – that’s what the guys like those “Rabbis’ as well as fascists believe.

LikeLike

Reply
1. Clarissa
  
  December 3, 2015
  
  Exactly. And that’s why he trivializes the Holocaust in this way.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  1. Michael Blekhman
    
    December 3, 2015
    
    Absolutely! Comparing Holocaust to having equal rights in the society is more than disgusting. It’s an absolutely totalitarian approach. The guy should say Sieg heil instead of Amen at the end of his every speech.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
matt

December 3, 2015

Two factors of agreement. And one slight difference of opinion.

The major factor isn’t the religion per se, but primarily the culture around it that helps moderate it from becoming too dominant legally, politically, socially
The attitude toward women is key in most messed up extemeists

I differ in the following:

Its not the per se “hatred of women” but moreso the view that women should be subservient. Perhaps you call that hatred, and I definitely think that its bull shit to relegate women to subservient status, but most religious fanatics don’t hate women who like them and put them on a pedastal etc. It may merely be a semantical difference, but I think that nuance is slightly important and noticable.

LikeLike

Reply
1. Clarissa
  
  December 3, 2015
  “Its not the per se “hatred of women” but moreso the view that women should be subservient. Perhaps you call that hatred”
  
  Yes, that’s what I call hatred. Because the need to dictate people’s behavior is a form of aggression. Any control is a form of aggression, even if it masks behind words of love and care.
  
  LikeLike
  Reply
  1. matt
    
    December 3, 2015
    
    Yeah, I think we are pretty much in 100% agree on the substance, I guess just a little difference in wording.
    
    Question for your take: Isn’t the hijab de facto proof of intolerance? Unless a woman wears it 100% of her own volition then by default would that fall into your hatred of women definiton? My understanding (happy to be proved wrong) is vast majority of muslim women around the world wear it. So by transference that would be sort of saying as currently practiced islam is more hateful than christianity.
    
    As a deist I have no affinity for either religion, but curious if / where you might disagree with the logic about the hijab in this context.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
    1. Clarissa
      
      December 3, 2015
      
      “Isn’t the hijab de facto proof of intolerance? Unless a woman wears it 100% of her own volition then by default would that fall into your hatred of women definiton?”
      
      Of course, this is a deeply woman-hating practice. And there are mullahs who agree with me on this and have even declared fatwas on the evil thing. As for “100% voluntary”, there is no such thing. Choices are not made in a vacuum.
      
      “So by transference that would be sort of saying as currently practiced islam is more hateful than christianity.”
      
      Do you know how many forms of Christianity cover women up in a way that is almost identical to the hijab? Many. One example is Orthodox Russian Christianity. This is a Christian denomination that actually borrowed its women’s head coverings directly from Islam.
      
      There is a difference between religious practice and faith. The problem with the holy books is that anybody can interpret them any way they want. If the intent is to find justification for persecuting women (or for eating pink ants while hanging upside down from a chandelier every Wednesday), it can be found in absolutely any book ever published.
      
      LikeLike
      
      Reply
      1. matt
        
        December 3, 2015
        
        To clarify mainstream christianity in the US. Whereas mainstreem Islam still has hijab as a very big component.
        
        And of course nothing is “100% voluntary”.. should have used the term “mostly voluntary, or as free as possible”
        
        LikeLike
        
        Reply
        
        Clarissa
        
        December 3, 2015
        
        I believe that all forms of female shrouding should be banned in all civilized countries.
        
        LikeLike
        
        Reply
bwcarey

December 3, 2015

fine point, and to the point, there are many men who can’t but try control women, i guess it’s caused they were reared that way, time for change, if they believed in old scriptures, they’d realise that Jesus hung out with women, i wonder why!

LikeLike

Reply

Clarissa's Blog