back to article Spanish village called 'Kill the Jews' mulls rebranding exercise

Residents in the Spanish village of Castrillo* Matajudíos (Castrillo Kill the Jews) will vote on Saturday on whether it's time to change the name of their small hamlet in the province of Burgos to something a little less offensive. Castrillo Matajudios as seen on Street View A sign of the old times: Castrillo Matajudíos as …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. T. F. M. Reader

    14th century?

    I saw this reported elsewhere a few days ago and decided to see what spin El Reg [sic!] would put on the story. Not bad, overall, more details (I'd say, amusing, were it not for the context) than in mainstream British press. Much experience in Barrio Humedo, Lester?

    However, it does seem that a 3 day calendar mistake by Co-op Bank is really not a big deal for your editors, at least under the influence of limonada: "until the Jews were expelled from Spain in the 14th century"- surely you mean the 15th century, eh? 1492, maybe?

    Or were the good people of Castrillo Matajudíos really a century ahead of times?

    1. Jim 59

      Re: 14th century?

      Hi Register you have come close to commemorating Good Friday by publishing a story that could, to an unsympathetic eye, appear designed to provoke sectarian divisions in order to generate clicks. Being a long term fan of both Haines and El Reg, I know this is the last thing you would want to do. I hope your advertisers see it in the same way.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: 14th century? @Jim 59

        I'm sure the advertisers, like most of us, see Good Friday as nothing more than a day off work.

    2. P. Lee
      FAIL

      Re: 14th century?

      > Or were the good people of Castrillo Matajudíos really a century ahead of times?

      Not the council it would seem, having picked the Sabbath for the election day, when all good Jews would be at the synagogue and would not go to vote.

  2. frank ly

    Village?

    "Spanish Village...", "... their small hamlet ..."

    Is it a village or a hamlet? Note: If it doesn't have a pub/bar, it's only a hamlet.

    1. Lester Haines (Written by Reg staff) Gold badge

      Re: Village?

      If I ever get down to that neck of the woods, I'll report back on its bar status.

      1. Robin

        Re: Village?

        I've lived in Spain for five years and I've yet to encounter anywhere that doesn't have a bar. Maybe I need to explore more!

        1. Mephistro
          Angel

          Re: Village?

          ...and I've yet to encounter anywhere that doesn't have a bar. Maybe I need to explore more!

          I'd suggest you to try with Spanish cemeteries. Remarkably few of them have a bar inside, and some of them don't even have one in a 20 meters radius!

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Village? @Robin

          You need to get out more, there are plenty of villages that don't have bars.

          As for Castrillo Matajudios, I passed within 5Km of there about 8 times last week but as I was on holiday and left all technology behind wasn't aware of this thread. However I generally pass nearby two or three times a month so might stop off.

    2. Rob Crawford

      Re: Village?

      Actually in the UK it's the lack of a church that defines a hamlet.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Village?

        Which is interesting only because just a few years ago the Council discovered that our area, St. Peter's, doesn't have a church because it was demolished many years ago. So they've now taken it off our official address without assigning a new name. We are now an anonymous hamlet surrounded by other hamlets that actually have names.

        1. frank ly

          @Rob Crawford Re: Village?

          As a teetotal non-believer, I always get confused about the church/pub thing. As far as I can see, they are both places where people go to worship, take part in rituals and celebrate something. You're probably right.

          1. phil dude
            Coat

            Re: @Rob Crawford Village?

            Al murray probably explained it in one of his sermons.....

            P.

          2. Otto is a bear.

            Re: @Rob Crawford Village?

            As a drinker and a believer, I'd like to say, I get confused as well, but drinking is mandatory in my faith.

      2. Paul Hovnanian Silver badge

        Re: Village?

        "lack of a church"

        You worship in your way, I'll do so in mine. Cheers.

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Village?

        > Actually in the UK it's the lack of a church that defines a hamlet.

        Same thing.

      4. hplasm
        Happy

        Re: Village?

        Isn't a hamlet a baconated piglet?

  3. Getriebe

    No Bar!!

    The very concept of a Spanish collection of houses without a bar is a defect against God!

    Of course it has a bar.

    Where I go in Spain, in the mountains in the north, I often roll up to a village with a church, about 6 house some cows and about 8 inhabitants. But it does have a bar.

    Mota, a hill, mmmm, a bit of an exaggeration - maybe a small rise in the ground.

    1. Ivan Headache

      Re: No Bar!!

      And at least a half-dozen shoe shops.

      1. Michael Habel

        Re: No Bar!!

        And at least a half-dozen shoe shops...

        Thanks now I'll have the 11'th fit in my head all day...

        Shoe Event Horizon

        The foundation of the Shoe Event Horizon theory is that when depressed, people tend to look down, and when they look down, they see their shoes. To cheer themselves up, they might buy themselves a new pair. Thus, in a generally depressed society, demand for shoes will rise.

        In the critical condition, demand for shoes rises faster than the capacity to make good quality footwear. As shoe quality decreases, the demand increases further because shoes wear out faster and need to be replaced more often; as the demand for shoes increases, cheap mass production causes shoe quality to drop even more. What results is a spiral of increasing shoe demand and decreasing shoe quality. Eventually, this destabilizes the economy to the point where it is "no longer economically viable to build anything other than shoe shops", and planetary society collapses.

        This was likely what led to the downfall of Planet Kepler 186F...

    2. joeW

      Re: No Bar!!

      I grew up in rural Ireland. The village consisted of 6 houses and 3 pubs.

      Sadly, that ratio was skewed by the building boom of the early '00s. There's now 12 houses and 3 pubs - still no shop or church.

  4. Dan 55 Silver badge
    Mushroom

    Hopefully El Reg will continue the theme and publish an article about Matamoros ("Kill the arabs" or "arab killer") in Mexico. Matamoros is also a Spanish last name.

    Can't be seen to show favouritism, after all.

    1. Number6

      Only if the place decides to consider changing its name.

      Perhaps the Austrian town of Fucking would also consider changing its name to stop amused Brits from stealing their town signs.

      1. Mephistro
        Coat

        @ Number6

        "Perhaps the Austrian town of Fucking would also consider changing its name to stop amused Brits from stealing their town signs."

        They are already doing that!. They're going to change the name to 'Screwing".

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      >Matamoros is also a Spanish last name

      Mujeriego is surname that always amuses me. Great boasting rights amongst your mates but I would have thought a hell of a problem when trying to get a date.

  5. Winkypop Silver badge
    Facepalm

    This message brought to you by religion

    Because what harm could it cause?

    1. Vociferous

      Re: This message brought to you by religion

      The inofficial motto of all successful religions has at some point in history been "Travel to Exotic Lands, Meet Unusual People, Forcibly Convert or Kill Them".

      1. JDX Gold badge

        Re: This message brought to you by religion

        Presumably since Christianity and many other religions actually originated in the East, by "exotic lands" you mean Europe?

        1. Tromos

          @JDX Re: This message brought to you by religion

          The clue is in the root "exo" meaning away from or out. While most reg readers would undoubtedly class expansive white sand beaches with palm trees as exotic, to an inhabitant of Tahiti it would be something like East Grinstead.

      2. Peter Simpson 1
        Devil

        Re: This message brought to you by religion

        And, if you can't afford to travel, choose from among your neighbors, and torture/kill them. Extra points for selecting those of differing beliefs and/or skin color. Make sure to remind them that if they convert to your religion, you'll still kill them, but they'll go to heaven.

        // it's not the "religion" part, it's the "organized" part that's the problem.

        1. Jim 59

          Re: This message brought to you by religion

          it's not the "religion" part, it's the "organized" part that's the problem.

          Darned right. Which is why I went to the disorganised church today. First off, half the congregation were facing the wrong way, then the priest started off reading his dry cleaning list before the PA system broke down, people were bumping into each other on roller skates, somebody was throwing confetti for some reason and then a big bag of flour fell onto--

          1. h4rm0ny
            Thumb Up

            Re: This message brought to you by religion

            >>"Darned right. Which is why I went to the disorganised church today. First off, half the congregation were facing the wrong way, then the priest started off fnordreading his dry cleaning list before the PA system broke down, people were bumping into each other on roller skates, somebody was throwing confetti for some reason and then a big bag of flour fell onto--"

            Ah, I see you are another Discordian. Hail Eris!

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: This message brought to you by religion

        > The inofficial motto of

        While an atheist, I am sufficiently well acquainted with a number of Abrahamic religions (and have a passing and very rusty academic knowledge of pre-Abrahamic polytheist Middle Eastern and Indo-European creeds) to confidently assert that the statement above is patently false.

        As for people showing inter-group hostility, the poster above has provided us with a good example of that being a general, primitive, behavioural characteristic. Besides, a belief system is a belief system regardless of what you call it. You can even call it atheism and there will always be a twat who thinks subscribing to that is somehow better than the rest.

        Make your choice, then live and let live.

        Yours,

        A somewhat tolerant atheist.

        1. Vociferous

          Re: This message brought to you by religion

          > While an atheist, I am sufficiently well acquainted with a number of Abrahamic religions (and have a passing and very rusty academic knowledge of pre-Abrahamic polytheist Middle Eastern and Indo-European creeds) to confidently assert that the statement above is patently false.

          Could you provide me with some examples of these religions which are successful and have never gone through a "convert the heathens by the sword" phase?

    2. Don Jefe

      @ Winkypoop

      Blaming death and destruction on religion is like blaming poor people for your not being rich, government for stifling business or Jews for the plague. It's Humans who are the problem.

      The moment you say it's 'religion' you're giving credence to the idea that a supernatural being is in fact taking away the free will of the Humans every God is supposed to have given free will to. That's what religion is you know, or at least a HUGE component of them all. It's a god giving Humans free will and 'testing' them by seeing how well they can manage having the ability to reason and plan instead of acting instinctively.

      You'd know that if you actually participated in or studied any religion before embarrassing yourself by popping off with shit you are obviously completely unknowledgeable about. Blaming anything other than people for any act perpetrated by people is cowardly at best and dangerously stupid at worst.

      Regardless of how a person 'believes' about religion not a single one of them supports the idea that Humans aren't responsible for their own actions. So much so that they all have special penalties for acting 'against Man' and using their god to hide behind. The same people that commit atrocities in the name of god are nothing more than the 'other team' of ignorant asshats no different than someone blaming religion for the actions of others. It's pure fucking premeditated ignorance, and that's the problem.

      Ignorance. Willful premeditated ignorance and acting on it with absolutely no fucking idea what they're/you're talking about. So thanks, jackass. Thanks for adding your own special brand of uselessness to the world. Your mindset of emotionally driven intellectual vapidity is absolutely no different than the people killing innocents in the name of god. I suggest you consider that over the weekend. Who do you want to be? Right now you're in the same camp as the people celebrating successful necromancy and the domination of Earth by an undead Semitic tradesmen by ritually hiding chocolate in brightly colored plastic eggs and cannibalism and ghost worship; horribly misguided and totally out of your depth.

      1. Grikath

        @ Don Jefe

        Yes, ultimate it's always humans.

        Problem is in the big, fat Institution called "religion" that poisons said humans' minds since whenever the first paddo-tripper invented the Sky Fairy.

        I suggest you get off your high horse, and study some medieval european history. It's got Religion in it, in rather large doses. Especially the more bloody bits. And the stuff that still shows the scars after 6 centuries have past.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: @ Don Jefe - @Grikath

          Then your medieval history books are very out of date. Nowadays, historians look at the economics and the political networks that resulted in the European wars. Follow the money and the family alliances.

          Religion is a convenient label and a way of getting people into a place where they can be indoctrinated by politicians. If, for instance, you really think that Ian Paisley did what he did because of his Protestantism, you are pretty naive. Religion in Northern Ireland is purely used to provide a post hoc justification for the oppression of one group of people by another.

          1. P. Lee

            Re: @ Don Jefe - @Grikath

            > Religion in Northern Ireland is purely used to provide a post hoc justification for the oppression of one group of people by another.

            +5 To Insight

            Constantine was already at war before his "conversion." Europeans were quite happily killing each other long before they were "Christian." Christianity was used as a justification in Europe for the wars the rulers indulged in despite Jesus himself is quoted as saying, "My kingdom isn't of this world" when asked if he was angling to be the next king of Israel. Trying to "take the holy land" in his name seems to have missed the point somewhat.

            Despite the "christian" appellation taken Bush, Blair & co, there is nothing Christ-like in their Middle Eastern adventuring or their domestic policies - it's just the politics of greed.

            Of course some religions do have violence written into their DNA - either through their theology or the behaviour of their founders. Other religions have gods who behave like people with super-powers. They don't really engender better behaviour nor do they offer any hope of justice, mercy or an answer to the problem of death.

            It appears to me that the focus on the word of God drove literacy in Europe - initially among the monks/monasteries then universities, driving maths, science (history), unraveling the mysteries - which gave us far more efficient ways of killing each other. It turns out we are all tainted by badness - no-one is perfect. What we need is someone to demonstrate how to beat death and give us a compelling logical reason to be nice to each other. That sounds like a worthy goal.

          2. Terry 6 Silver badge

            Re: @ Don Jefe - @Grikath

            'fraid so.

            If you look at medievil pogroms there's a sequence that runs;

            Christians not allowed to lend money for interest, make the Jews lend money instead, avoid paying back the loans, whip up the mob, hand out the burning torches, no need to pay back the loan.

        2. Jim 59

          Re: @ Don Jefe

          To all those blaming "religion" for all badness, you might as well blame shoes. Shoes have been present at every atrocity, and have enabled every evil act, have they not ? Failing that, perhaps blame science, which gave us the hydrogen bomb. Or blame engineering, without which we would not have the machine gun, tank, warship, or Exocete missile. No. We fall to evil becuase we are human beings, that's all. Accept it, and stop trying to pass all the blame to some vague external agency.

          1. nemo omnibus

            Re: @ Don Jefe

            You neglect to mention the evils of sandals....

            Having said that, I have never heard of a war being started because of a "my shoes are better than yours" mentality.

            We are talking about human beings and human wars so anyone saying that it is human beings that are the root cause are correct. However even human beings need an excuse, real or imagined.

            So I would re-phrase the comments about religion and say that religion has been the excuse for a lot of bloodshed in human history. The light that needs to be spread is the realization that religion is just that, an excuse. If we take away an excuse, of course another one will come along but take away all excuses and then, just maybe, people will stop - I live in hope.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: @ Winkypoop @Don Jefe

        Three downvotes so far for a post which, if a little intemperate, is spot on.

        If it wasn't religion, it would be football. Or skin colour. Or the pronunciation of shibboleth. In my case, I am totally unprejudiced against all human beings other than those mindless bastards who drive Audis.

        At bottom it comes down to our evolution as a social animal which congregates into small tribes which compete with others for resources. How do you recognise the others? What, those idiots who put pigeon feathers in their penis shields instead of duck feathers, like all normal people?

        Look at the Anglican church. All shades of sanity from the nice Guardian-reading ladies in the WI collecting money for relief of Syrian refugees, to demented Ugandans who want to kill all gay people and Muslims. It isn't the religion; its the progressiveness or backwardness of your upbringing.

        Which brings me neatly to the present case; living in a village called "Kill the Jews" suggests to me people who don't get out a lot and probably wouldn't know anti-Semitism if it parked its Tigers on the lawn and started handing out copies of Mein Kampf, rather than rabid anti-Semites who regret the passing of the last Pope. But really someone from outside should have leaned on them years ago.

        1. TheVogon

          Re: @ Winkypoop @Don Jefe

          "I am totally unprejudiced against all human beings other than those mindless bastards who drive Audis."

          What's wrong with the Royal Family?

          1. hplasm
            Alien

            Re: @ Winkypoop @Don Jefe

            "What's wrong with the Royal Family?"

            That's a whole new kettle of worms.

      3. Winkypop Silver badge
        Facepalm

        @ Don Jefe

        S L O W

        H A N D C L A P.....

        Oh the irony...

      4. Michael Habel

        Re: @ Winkypoop

        Blaming death and destruction on religion is like blaming poor people for your not being rich, government for stifling business or Jews for the plague. It's Humans who are the problem.

        A once great comedian once said...

        Hey, if you read history, you realize that God is one of the leading causes of death. Has been for thousands of years. Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Christians all taking turns killing each other 'cause God told them it was a good idea. The sword of God, the blood of the lamb, vengeance is mine. Millions of dead motherf**kers. Millions of dead motherf**kers all because they gave the wrong answer to the God question. 'You believe in God?' 'No.' Boom. Dead. 'You believe in God?' 'Yes.' 'You believe in my God? 'No.' Boom. Dead. 'My God has a bigger dick than your God!'

        --George Carlin...

        He was of course very much onto something with this!

      5. ItsNotMe
        Pint

        @Don Jefe

        My...my...my...haven't we gotten our knickers in a bunch.

        "Religion"...that wonderful institution where people pay homage to a made-up entity who "lives" somewhere up in the sky. No one has actually ever seen this "god" or "allah" or whatever, but not a problem...because their ancestors have been doing this for millennia...so there just has to be something to it. Right? OK...whatever............................

        1. This post has been deleted by its author

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: @Arnaut the less

            "String Theory. The Multiverse. So far, made up entities that may or may not exist. Just saying."

            The glaring difference is that these are theoretical frameworks with active efforts to prove or disprove their validity, not beliefs. Physicists know that there may one day be results from the LHC or a similar project which will effectively disprove their theorem. This will cause them to discard theories they have been working on rather than say, massacre the researchers who documented the evidence as apostates. At least you'd hope so.

            "Confucianism, Buddhism and Taoism have an awful lot of adherents and really have no equivalent to the Middle Eastern "god". Buddha is not a God or a son of God, just someone who was enlightened and saw through the illusion of the physical appearance of the universe. "

            While not a religion as such Confucianism is tied up with Chinese Pantheism (Tian), and Taoism is as well (albeit a different pantheon). As such their underpinning are religious in nature, and influence their reasoning. Equally while modern Buddhism does not worship the Buddha as such does not mean it was always so. The classical Buddhist scriptures clearly ascribe to him aspects of the divine.

            "It is interesting to try to understand why the Yahwist religions were attached to such a collection of bloody conquerors, but quite wrong to think that they are even typical of religions."

            Buddhism is not generally associated with violence, but there's a long history of it there too. The big difference appears to have been the export of violence, whereas Buddhism generally kept its violence at home, often in reaction to the popularity of older religions (Bon in Tibet) or against co-existence with newer ones appearing in the area (particularly Islam). Not so different in terms of the end result.

        2. Don Jefe

          Re: @ItsNotMe

          My 'knickers are in a bunch' because people like you are responsible for many of the deaths caused 'by religion' because they don't even read what they're responding to. Lot of short fused closet theologians obviously need to go back into the closet and brush up on both your secular and religious history.

          If you had botherd to read before prematurely pontificating you would have seen that I wasn't defending religion, by a long shot, but eviscerating the idiots that gather under a flag they don't understand and then foist the resultant destruction, and blame, onto anybody but themselves.

          My ancestors were killing Englishmen before the Englishmen decided to call themselves Englishmen. How many Englishmen have I killed? My Grandfather probably killed a few, by proxy, but he was engineering landmines, so it wasn't personal (I'm fairly sure he didn't like anybody). Nor do I wear a kilt when I get up every morning and switch on the machines and greet my staff, both capable of building the most advanced weapons known to man, but use those things to make zero weapons, won't do it, no matter the loss. So nope, seems I can't blame my ancestors for my actions either. Over 1100 years of violent warmongers produces me, but I have free will, just as every other Human does, so I get to determine what I do, why and when, nobody else.

          As I said in my earlier post, past the third sentence, so you obviously never got that far, all people have free will as well. Unfortunately, far too many are too cowardly to express it and just hop on the first bandwagon that doesn't cast them out. Just like you not to put too fine a point in it. Rushing in to claim your seat on the 'blame train' bound for nowhere. You made that decision (I'm going to blame your parents for not teaching you to read) and you're obviously fine with practicing the same delusional behavior as the 'religious' because you're blaming a god you claim not to believe in, ancestors you've never met, and the Jews, anybody, but the people your god supposedly endowed with free will.

          Make no fucking mistake about it. If you're blaming religion, instead of individuals, for the destruction caused 'by religion' then you're acknowledging their god has control over them and therefore acknowledging a god I'm sure you claim to deny, but because you didn't read the fine print on the back of the Atheism train ticket before you followed your herd you've got no fucking idea how to do that correctly either.

          So, just so we're clear, when I say you're a fucking idiot that's me saying that. Just me, when you respond, or downvote me or feel even more foolish than you normally do who are you going to blame for that? A god you don't believe in, but controls others? Your ancestors? Your parents? The Irish, Jews, French, the Pikeys? Me? Or are you going to blame yourself for being a fucking idiot? If it's anybody but yourself you're wrong, think on it and try again.

          1. The Grinning Duck
            Unhappy

            @Don Jefe - Unravel thy knickers, please.

            Blimey.

            Yes, yes, it's individuals that gather under banners and do 'orrible things to other individuals gathered under different (presumably less fancy) banners. Same old in-group/out-group gubbins and silly that's been going on since banners were first invented. And your point is?

            Well, your point appears to be that some banners are in no way to blame for anything, and should be left alone. Not really how it works, though, is it? People, as you pointed out do gather under banners. It's human nature. I do, and so do you. I'm guessing you'd like to think you don't, but you do. You are showing every sign of doing so in what you're writing here. There's ostensibly nothing wrong with banners. I like heavy metal music, they like Justin Beiber. Oh, they're so silly. But no harm, no foul, I've got a bunch of people with whom it's really easy to start a conversation, and so do they. And we can all harmlessly roll our eyes at each other, all safe in the knowledge that the other group has it wrong. Yes, it's daft, but it appears to be an inescapable part of human nature; we will seek and find our in-group, and by definition be less cool and groovy to our out-group.

            The problem isn't that we gather under banners per se; it's that some banners are overwhelmingly more problematic than others when it comes to the treatment of the out-group. You can write a big list of the banners which are really, really harmful. You'd have Nationalism on there, Race would probably have to make an appearance, as would Sexuality and possibly Football. But make no fucking mistake (ahem), Religion would be on there too.

            The way civilisation copes with all these potentially harmful banners is to attempt to domesticate them, calm them down, blur the boundaries and have as many banners as possible so that an individual has numerous banners under which to gather, and thus numerous out-groups to scowl at. The more banners you're under, the more likely it is that someone in one of your out-groups is also in one of your in-groups. It's blurry, messy, confusing, and as a result people are less likely to stab each other in the face. Groovy.

            Religion, to its (dis)credit has the extra-special sauce of offering extra-special in-group benefits even after death, and extra-nasty warrants against the out-group(s). It also has a history of fighting tooth and nail against letting its followers gather under too many banners. Religion, to put it bluntly, has not enjoyed the process of being civilised.

            I'm not suggesting that religion is the biggest problem, but it is a problem. What individuals do is, I agree, their responsibility. But the idea that an individual doing something shitty like flying a plane into a building hasn't been dramatically influenced by religion is a little myopic. Is that individual still responsible? Yes. Should the religion also shoulder some responsibility? Most assuredly Yes. Were there a bunch of other reasons like economics and politics? Yes. Is it all sorts of complicated? Well, yeah.

            You can call people short sighted idiots all you like. You can pretend that every man is an island, and you can keep glibly pointing to free will as if it were some magic shield warding off all influence. You can, hilariously enough, attempt to say that calling out the problems religion has caused is admitting that god is real. You can, apparently do this without seeing that ideas do matter, do have power, and can incite all sorts of shit without actually being correct.

            You are free to do all of that. But, naturally enough, other people can look at what you've written and see it as obscurantism. I certainly did.

            But hey, at least I didn't call you a fucking idiot, eh?

            1. Don Jefe

              Re: @Don Jefe - Unravel thy knickers, please.

              I'll grant you, you didn't deserve the fucking idiot. The evil spirit living in the curry I had for dinner last night deserves that. I've been up since 4AM and even my hand quilted toilet paper isn't soft enough at this point. It's real shame hog oilers went out of fashion. I would have one installed in my throne room if I could find an actual old one that matched my decor.

              In seriousness, you didn't deserve that, and I offer my apologies. My problems shouldn't be yours and I know better. I don't have time to respond to your, much better mannered than mine post, but I will do so this evening. Again, apologies.

              1. The Grinning Duck
                Pint

                @Don Jefe's Unraveled Knickers

                (That title is way weirder than I thought it would be)

                Jolly nice and thoroughly civilised apology accepted.

                Though, of course, you didn't call me an idiot. @ItsNotMe took the brunt of that outburst, and well, ItsNotMe, ummm, is not me (this is getting very complicated, very quickly).

                Anyhoo. Glad we're all happy friends again, and hopefully @ItsNotMe will join us in a conciliatory pint while we work on the real issue. Which, if I've understood my own post correctly, is possibly Justin Beiber.

          2. Vociferous

            Re: @ItsNotMe

            That's a lot of words to say that people kill each other over causes.

            It's also disingenious. That there are also other causes people kill each other over doesn't mean that they're not killing each other over religion.

            The thing with religion is that it's completely subjective, there is no objective right or wrong in spiritual beliefs. This means that you have only two options when it comes to convincing other people that your invisible friend is the One True Invisible Friend: propaganda and force.

            This is somewhat unique among causes people kill for. Even e.g. communism and libertarianism can be shown to be inferior ideologies by the fact that they invariably fail when applied to reality -- but religions aren't subject to real-world effects. There's only propaganda and force.

            To this one can add the extreme dedication of Believers.

            In short, religion is the WORST of all causes which lead to violence and killing.

            1. h4rm0ny

              Re: @ItsNotMe

              >>"It's also disingenious. That there are also other causes people kill each other over doesn't mean that they're not killing each other over religion."

              It's not meant to show that. The point was that it shows religion can be a post-fact justification / excuse for killing. And that has often been the case. Far, far more so than otherwise. You'd have to be mad to think the Crusades were actually about one group engaging in a massive continent-wide war effort because some other people followed a slight variant on the same religious beliefs, rather than being about land and plunder which is what really drove them.

              >>"The thing with religion is that it's completely subjective, there is no objective right or wrong in spiritual beliefs. This means that you have only two options when it comes to convincing other people that your invisible friend is the One True Invisible Friend: propaganda and force."

              Or the omitted possibility in the above - not convincing them. Also, persuasion is legitimate. It is force that is the problem.

              >>"This is somewhat unique among causes people kill for. Even e.g. communism and libertarianism can be shown to be inferior ideologies by the fact that they invariably fail when applied to reality "

              Please do show the proof that either of these "invariably fail." My point is not that they don't, but that there is no "proof" of such. No more that there is proof that the USA's republic will invariably last. Or any other variation. If your logic is along the lines of "USSR failed, therefore Communisim invariably fails", you're committing grave errors of logic.

              1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                FAIL

                Re: h4rm0ny Re: @ItsNotMe

                "....If your logic is along the lines of "USSR failed, therefore Communisim invariably fails", you're committing grave errors of logic." It always amuses me that Lefties are so dead set on not admitting the USSR was a complete failure, that somehow it would all have been a true Workers Paradise if not for the evil, conniving capitalists. Please do supply an example of a single Communist regime that has survived and prospered without adopting capitalistic trappings.

                1. h4rm0ny

                  Re: h4rm0ny @ItsNotMe

                  >>"....If your logic is along the lines of "USSR failed, therefore Communisim invariably fails", you're committing grave errors of logic." It always amuses me that Lefties are so dead set on not admitting the USSR was a complete failure"

                  First off, I'm mostly fairly Right Wing. Secondly, you've plainly misunderstood what I wrote which was not at all "USSR did not fail", but pointing the flawed logic in arguments such as "USSR failed, therefore communism must fail". It's just an inverse of the rock that protects you from crocodiles, principle. Got bitten by a crocodile? Must have been the rock you were carrying.

                  >>"Please do supply an example of a single Communist regime that has survived and prospered without adopting capitalistic trappings."

                  This question follows from your misunderstanding of my post. Though by declaring yourself as representative for the Right and making flawed arguments, you bizarrely put me in the position of opposing a viewpoint I would normally side with. So let me ask you for examples of a purely capitalistic society that has no Left-Wing / socialist trappings? Silly question, isn't it?

  6. i like crisps
    Meh

    SOUNDS LIKE A GREAT VACATION SPOT...

    Yours faithfully

    E. Cartman.

  7. volsano

    The pressure will also be on a lot of place names around the world. For starters, I'm looking at you, Kilkenny.

    1. All names Taken
      Paris Hilton

      kenny is innocent

      Kenny didn't do it?

      1. Don Jefe

        Re: kenny is innocent

        We've little unincorporated villages here called Kilfish, Kiltrout (which I'm quite nearly certain is a joke directed at Kilfish, but the, presumably hilarious, story has been lost to time), Kilrex and a Kilroy. We've no Killeshandra, which I suspect is indicative that all the Shandras were successfully exterminated which is reinforced by the fact I've never met a Shandra.

    2. zb

      OMG! They killed Kenny!

    3. hplasm
      Coat

      Ah Kilkenny-

      To be renamed 'South Park'...

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "Not exactly attractive to the Israeli tourist demographic"

    Many Israelis are not Jewish.

    And many non-Israelis are Jewish.

    Conflation of Israel and Jews is not particularly consequential in this circumstance, but is very harmful in others.

    /Pedant

    1. Don Jefe

      Re: "Not exactly attractive to the Israeli tourist demographic"

      You're correct. Again, ignorance causes as much, of more, heartache and destruction than unabashed greed or true hatred. The argument that stopped me from hoping for an improvement was about Israelis and Jews. This girl was furious that I had made some clever remark about Jesus being a Jew and she screamed at me that Jesus was an Israeli, most certainly not a Jew. Jews killed Jesus... I also learned that Semites are all Jews and that the Three Kings (Wise Men to her) found Baby Jesus by following the brightest star in the sky, the North Star.

      I knew then that the oldest versions of the Pandora's Box story were correct and Hope was indeed an evil that was trapped in the box with all the other bad stuff.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: "Not exactly attractive to the Israeli tourist demographic"

        As a student, I made the mistake of attending a meeting of CICCU (Cambridge inter-collegiate Christian Union, so called because of the more appropriate initials of Cambridge University Christian Union) and observing in reply to a comment from someone else that Jesus was of artisanal origins, light brown and Jewish. At this point I discovered that for the members of CICCU he was white, upper middle class and of Protestant views.

        We all make mistakes in our first term.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: "Not exactly attractive to the Israeli tourist demographic"

          > At this point I discovered that for the members of CICCU he was white, upper middle class and of Protestant views.

          Oh, that was Jesús, the Spanish immigrant who did quite well in the stock market before marrying a local lass from a conservative family.

          And that, my friend, is how wars start.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: "Not exactly attractive to the Israeli tourist demographic"

        > she screamed at me that Jesus was an Israeli,

        Can't blame you for not stopping to explain to this lady the difference between Israeli and Israelite.

      3. hamcheeseandonion
        Pint

        Re: "Not exactly attractive to the Israeli tourist demographic"

        Don Jefe - I've refrained, so far, from commenting on your posts on this subject, but now you've done it!

        You've confirmed my suspicion that you are the sanest person on this site. The last part, especially, nearly made my lips curl upwards.

        I've always thought** that what was left in Pandora's Box was the most sly, sneaky, pernicious evil of them all, and the rest were just a distraction - classic infiltration techique, send in a bunch of minor league agents to keep the Plod busy, whilst the real threat walks in to a smile and a welcome.

        (** then again, i'm well known for being a miserable old git with a heavily jaundiced view of our species)

        have a pint sir

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: "Not exactly attractive to the Israeli tourist demographic"

      Looking in Google Earth, can't see the Israeli^W tourist demographic going anywhere near the place regardless of what it's called.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: "Not exactly attractive to the Israeli tourist demographic"

      Worth noting that the Israelis were voted the worlds worst tourists...

    4. Tromos

      Re: "Not exactly attractive to the Israeli tourist demographic"

      While agreeing that conflation of Israel and Jews is generally undesirable, I don't believe there was any in this case. The word 'demographic' makes all the difference. The phrase is equivalent to: "Not exactly attractive to a group of people comprising approximately 3 Jewish persons for every non-Jewish person."

      /Hyperpedant

      1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge

        Re: "Not exactly attractive to the Israeli tourist demographic"

        Conflation of Israel and Jews is not particularly consequential in this circumstance, but is very harmful in others.

        You may want to tell that to the Israeli government and legislature who like to conflate the two, forcefully if need be.

        State. Religion.

        1. h4rm0ny

          Re: "Not exactly attractive to the Israeli tourist demographic"

          >>"You may want to tell that to the Israeli government and legislature who like to conflate the two, forcefully if need be."

          Oh we do, believe me. The nastiest bit of PR the Israeli government and its supporters pull (and there have been some nasty ones) is the endless attempts to conflate Jewish with Israeli. They do it for two reasons - firstly, to deflect criticism by casting it as anti-Semitism. Secondly, to pressure Jewish people into supporting them by trying to make Jewish people feel like traitors or letting the side down for not supporting Zionism.

          There are plenty of Jews who are fiercely critical of Israel's foreign policy, practicing Jews and non-practicing. But the Zionist lobby is extremely loud and likes to pretend that they speak for all Jewish people.

          1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
            Stop

            Re: h4m0ny Re: "Not exactly attractive to the Israeli tourist demographic"

            ".....The nastiest bit of PR the Israeli government and its supporters pull (and there have been some nasty ones) is the endless attempts to conflate Jewish with Israeli...." I see that it upsets you that there should be one (and only one) Jewish state in the World. Do you complain at all about the 57 Islamic states where followers of all other religions are second-class citizens? I bet not.

            1. h4rm0ny

              Re: h4m0ny "Not exactly attractive to the Israeli tourist demographic"

              >>"I see that it upsets you that there should be one (and only one) Jewish state in the World. Do you complain at all about the 57 Islamic states where followers of all other religions are second-class citizens? I bet not."

              You are very fond of making up positions for people you disagree with. First I'm a "leftie" (I'm not, I'm quite Right Wing). Now apparently I'm pro-Islam somehow. I'm not. I dislike the religion - it's intrinsically linked to misogyny, enshrines homophobia as a religious ideal and practices unnecessary and probably harmful surgical operations on infants who cannot give consent. I despise the religion for these reasons. You're way off the mark, habitually so. Whenever you can't find a good avenue of attack on someone, I've noticed you immediately jump to characterising your opponent. Apparently you have a head full of stereotypes and the moment someone says something that matches something in one of them you think you know everything about everyone.

              >>" I see that it upsets you that there should be one (and only one) Jewish state in the World"

              It bothers me when any country sets ethnic or religious criteria for its citizens / immigrants. Israel was founded on such a policy making it unique in the modern world as far as I'm aware. If there are Islamic states that have the same history of entrance criteria then I feel toward them exactly the same. Which are they, btw? I am curious. But that's not what I was objecting to as you are well aware - I was objecting to the way the Israeli lobby try to conflate Jewish and Israeli as a deliberate attempt to deflect criticism or garner support. Which is undeniable by anyone with half a brain. You didn't even try to address that point which was the only thing in my post. You just attacked for some supposed double-standard you just made up.

              1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                Facepalm

                Re: h4m0ny "Not exactly attractive to the Israeli tourist demographic"

                "You are very fond of making up positions for people you disagree with...." Well, that's what happens when you post idiotic rubbish, people are going to assume you are an idiot.

                ".....It bothers me when any country sets ethnic or religious criteria for its citizens / immigrants. Israel was founded on such a policy making it unique in the modern world as far as I'm aware....." You really need to get a lot more aware. For starters, the exact same rights granted to the state of a Israel - control of immigration - are the same sovereign rights granted to all UN members, namely control of borders and entry. And yet Muslims can travel to Israel. Travel by Jews, especially Israelis, to Islamic states is another matter, with many Middle Eastern countries having laws denying entry to Isreali citizens and often barring entry to even UK and US passport holders with Jewish names. Immigration to most Islamic states for Israeli citizens is impossible by the laws of those Islamic states. Ownership of property in many Islamic states is barred to Jews, despite those Islamic states paying lip-service to UN charters.

                ".....If there are Islamic states that have the same history of entrance criteria then I feel toward them exactly the same....." Secondly, the same right of border and entry control were offered to the Palestinian Arabs as part of the UN Partition Plan, but they rejected them when they rejected the UN Partition plan. Whilst Israel allowed Arabs to stay in Israel after 1948 and become Israeli citizens, the Arab states ejected their Jews and passed laws in many areas making it illegal to sell land to Jews (enacted in Transjordan even before the 1948 war). The Fakestinians currently have laws against Jews buying land in the West Bank, and harass and even murder Arabs that sell their land to Jews in Israel or Israeli-controlled areas. Other Islamic countries such as Malaysia and Indonesia have strict controls on Jews (in the latter, Judaism is not even a recognized religion). Just try gaining entry to Saudi, The Lebanon or Syria with an Israeli stamp in your passport, you'll have fun!

                ".....I was objecting to the way the Israeli lobby try to conflate Jewish and Israeli as a deliberate attempt to deflect criticism or garner support......" They don't, you simply cannot see that for them they simply see Israel as a central part of the Jewish identity. It's a bit like complaining about English people saying they call themselves English because they come from England and identify themselves historically with that part of the World. For them, Israel is the historic land of their people, full-stop. Do you object to Roman Catholics because their religion grew out of Rome and they consider the Vatican their holy city?

                ".....Which is undeniable by anyone with half a brain....." Why? Please do explain why is unreasonable for the Jews to have a state with a Jewish identity? As I posted, 57 Islamic states with much greater restrictions on other religions than the Israelis impose on non-Jews, and you even admit you don't like many of Islam's practices, so why single out Israel?

                ".....You didn't even try to address that point which was the only thing in my post...." Because you have simply stated your position as fact without any supporting argument, then added that anyone that would disagree with you must have 'half a brain'. Belief in a viewpoint without any evidence to support it is simply an act of faith or emotion. Since you have not provided any evidence to support why you consider it 'unreasonable' for the Jews to call Israel a Jewish state, I would have to assume either you have no real argument other than some ingrained and emotional (and therefore spoonfed) belief, or that plus some form of prejudice against Jews. Do you complain as much about the Roman Catholic controls of the Vatican City or Roman Catholic 'lobbying'? Christianity in Israel has a growing population (as does Islam in Arab Israelis) because the Israelis grant equal rights to all their citizens, yet Christianity in all the neighbouring Arab states - indeed in ALL the Islamic states - is declining due to persecution. Mosques and churches in Israel are protected by law, yet mosques and synagogues in Islamic states are regularly attacked and destroyed, often with the approval of the Islamic authorities. By comparison, are you sure the Jews are doing such a bad job that you want to protect their calling Israel the Jewish homeland?

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Porno, Nigeria was already wiped of the map completely !

    https://maps.google.com/maps?q=porno+village&oe=UTF-8&ie=UTF-8&ei=MQdRU9_aB4nbPOrYgIAO&ved=0CAoQ_AU

    1. Don Jefe

      God, that must have been such a messy job. It's a wonder the map isn't all stuck together. Must be printed on Tyvek.

  10. BlueGreen

    anti semitism question

    I have never understood why historically[*] jews got such a hard time. I know people need something to hate but why so consistently jews? What did they do so long ago that earned them 2 millenia (or more) of utter bile? I'd really like to know.

    [*] I do mean historically, so ignoring any current events.

    1. Boris the Cockroach Silver badge

      Re: anti semitism question

      Its all to do with the christain church banning christians from charging interest on loans.

      So the only place to get a loan was from a jewish money lender.

      Now of course what would happen is King John the slimy would take out a loan to pay for his war again king phillip the bastard.

      Unexpectedly king phillip wins so theres no loot to pay the loans back.

      So lets mis quote the bible, join forces with the church who dont really like any other religions in their patch and kick out the jews.

      And of course you can seize all their goods and default on paying the loans back....

      1. BlueGreen

        Re: anti semitism question

        @Boris the Cockroach

        AFAIU, the christian (catholic?) church banned jews from doing virtually bugger all else except doing what was considered dirty: loaning money. So jews had to do it to survive.

        But the church deliberately did this *because* jews were a disliked minority at the time, so the anti semitism seems to precede this.

        (edit: but thanks for the reply)

        1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
          Boffin

          Re: Boring Green Re: anti semitism question

          ".....AFAIU, the christian (catholic?) church banned jews from doing virtually bugger all else except doing what was considered dirty: loaning money....." Partially correct. The main grudge against Jews goes back to the crucifixion of Christ, the Christians blaming the Jews for getting JC turned into a pincushion in the first place (neatly ignoring that the Romans were continually breaking up cults and killing their leaders as they saw them a threat to Roman peace in the area). Christians have always seen the Jews as 'competition' for ownership of the Holy Lands, and they tell their version with old JC throwing the moneylenders out of the temple as a way of portraying the Jews as moneygrubbing and less-than-holy, then top it off by accusing the Jewish priests of selling JC out to the Romans (it's more likely the Romans were already keeping on eye on what they saw as just another troublemaker). Further invective against the Jewish is heaped on by St Peter's gospel, by stating that the Jewish priests bribed the crowds to ask for the release of Barrabas rather than JC, 'forcing' Pontius Pilate to crucify old JC to appease the Jews. The reality was Pilate didn't give a fig for Jewish opinion, there being two rebellions caused by his insensitivity to the Jews, to such a point that Emperor Tiberius officially rebuked him for needlessly antagonizing them. The Roman Catholic Church later used the story to justify pogroms, the ghettos and the seizing of Jewish assets. Even as late as the last century the Catholics were persecuting Jews (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Jews#Christian_antisemitism).

          I met some Irish soldiers doing duty with UNIFIL in the Eighties, they were genuinely surprised by how mistrusting the Israelis were of them because the Irish simply didn't know the history of their own country's and religion's attacks on Jews. It's not something that's taught in schools in Europe or the US, probably because we'd rather gloss over the way our forebears persecuted the Jews. It would help a lot of people to understand the defensiveness of the Israelis if they knew a bit more history.

          1. BlueGreen

            Re: Boring Green anti semitism question @Matt Bryant

            Thanks Matt, very interesting. I'll follow up your link in detail this eve. But I still don't understand the main paradox (to me) of this: if christians blame jews for nailing up their 133T prophet, why is the fact that jesus was a jew himself not count for anything? It doesn't make sense[*]

            [*] Not that humans in general do

          2. Michael Habel

            Re: Boring Green anti semitism question

            It's not something that's taught in schools in Europe or the US, probably because we'd rather gloss over the way our forebears persecuted the Jews. It would help a lot of people to understand the defensiveness of the Israelis if they knew a bit more history.

            Sure it is... Its called WWII and, the Germans were the bad guys Gee... I thought you'd lot would have at least agreed on that pont. Even though it was Briton that declared war on Germany in both instances. (e.g. WW I & II)...

          3. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Piffle

            If you look back in history far enough, you’ll find an excuse to hate almost everyone, If Israelis are mistrusting it is racialism, plain and simple. Blaming religion for the persecution of the Jews is as simplistic as saying “they’re all jealous because we’re god’s chosen people”.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Piffle

              "If Israelis are mistrusting it is racialism"

              Firstly - way to go inventing a new word -

              Secondly - neither Israelis nor Jews are a 'race' - for instance there are black Ethiopian Jews - so whatever it might be - it isn't racism.

              1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
                Trollface

                Re: Piffle

                Firstly - way to go inventing a new word

                Not at all. IIRC, in that "Hitler hiding in a resort in Folkstone" Monty Python skit, the words were "I am not a racialist ... ABER ..."

                @Don Jefe:

                I don't want this to come off wrong, but I think 'the Jews' may have history's worst case of Inerphalangeal Arthrodesis (fused knuckles) and it results in a pointing finger always extended outward. I realize and group of people is going to be comprised of all sorts, but people have hated the Jews since before Romulus and Remus found a hill with good drainage to set their tent on.

                Unfortunately you are Not Entirely Wrong and I also laughed. When one pretends to be "part of" some ethno-religious cult of not entirely clean pedigree it is of some use to reflect on oneself. I hear I am am partly Jewish, so I may Abraham forgive me!

          4. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Boring Green anti semitism question - a few observations

            The Bar-abbas story is garbled: Bar-abbas, Son of the Father, is what Jesus had already called himself.

            They weren't moneylenders but money changers; they were charging too high a conversion rate on their exchange of Roman coin into Temple coin with which sacrifices were bought. You can view this in modern terms as the ruling classes (Scribes and Pharisees) supporting a corrupt banking class from which they benefited financially. Jesus did a better job than Occupy, so the desire of the ruling classes to get rid of him was obvious. Pontius didn't care for Jewish opinion; it would be just like him to let someone like Jesus stir things up a bit to remind the Sanhedrin who was really boss.

            In short, I think you have your post hoc and your propter hoc confused. Anti-Semitism isn't caused by the death of Jesus (even assuming it happened more or less as the Bible version); instead, the Biblical version (which wasn't even finally agreed till the 400s AD) was written retrospectively to justify existing anti-Semitism.

            Why? Because Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire, the cult of Jesus being grafted on to Roman polytheism with Jesus getting conflated with Mithra, the minor deities being repurposed as angels (e.g. Mercury = Gabriel), and the cult of virginity getting superimposed. And the Romans had previous with the Jews; the wars of the last half of the 1st century AD, and ing at Masada in 73AD. Titus had been so infuriated with the refusal of the Jews to see sense, resulting in very destructive wars, that he refused to accept a triumphal wreath and said he was just the agent of Juppiter's wrath against the Jews. When the synthesis took place, Roman anti-Semitism and Christian competitiveness combined to construct an anti-Jewish narrartive in the NT.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: anti semitism question

        "And of course you can seize all their goods and default on paying the loans back...."

        plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose: http://www.positivemoney.org/issues/debt/

      3. Elmer Phud

        Re: anti semitism question

        "Now of course what would happen is King John the slimy would take out a loan to pay for his war again king phillip the bastard."

        And, of course when things go bad and the money people say you're a bad risk due over-enthusiastic bloodlust leading to a dramatic drop in the popularity ratings and won't cough up any more dosh --

        It sure ain't the fault of the ratings loser (sorry, this t'internet -- should be looser) but the fault of the now overnight devious and scheming Jews.

      4. Terry 6 Silver badge

        Re: anti semitism question

        See my comment above.

    2. captain veg Silver badge

      Re: anti semitism question

      "The Jews are an unfortunate people. They have suffered greatly at the hands of governments, leaders and other peoples since ancient times. Why? Because this is the will of God. "

      Muammar Gadafi · The White Book, further thoughts, 2002

      http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2004/mar/25/libya.foreignpolicy

      -A.

    3. Vincent Ballard

      Re: anti semitism question

      @BlueGreen, it's a difficult question to answer definitively. What follows is quoted from "Rome and Jerusalem", by Martin Goodman, ISBN 978-0-1402-9127-8, and serves at least to indicate that there are several factors which could be at play.

      "Much has been written on the origins of antisemitism in classical antiquity. Hatred of the Jews has been traced by some to Egypt in the third century BCE, by others to the propaganda against the Jews produced by Antiochus Epiphanes in the second century BCE. Some have emphasized the resentment aroused in neighbouring Greek cities by the expansionist policies of the Hasmonaeans in Judaea, others the separateness of Jewish communities in the diaspora which made Jews distinctive and therefore vulnerable as scapegoats. There has been much discussion of the differences between theological roots of Christian anti-Judaism, based on the assertion that the Jewish covenant with God is rendered obsolete by the new covenant of Christ, and the less focused anti-Jewish comments to be found in pagan Greek and Latin authors. It is not my purpose to dispute the value of any of these discussions, which all have their merits, but to emphasize something which has not received the attention it deserves.

      ...

      "Revolt broke out in Jerusalem in 66 CE, sparked not by Jewish revulsion against Roman imperialism as a whole but in reaction to maladministration by an individual low-grade governor. The initial Roman response was little more than a police action, a show of force, but it escalated in response to the disaster suffered by Cestius Gallus in his incompetent withdrawal after he had almost conquered the city. His loss of the equivalent of a complete legion at the hands of the inhabitants of an established province of the empire was without precedent and could not be kept quiet. Punitive action was required before other subjects of Rome tried to follow suit.

      "But the punitive action planned in 66 CE escalated much further in 70, into an intensive siege of Jerusalem and the eventual destruction of the city. ... The total defeat of the Jews was needed to provide [Vespasian] with the aura of a victorious general which might justify his rise to power. ... Once [Vespasian and his son Titus] had established their power on the back of the defeat of the Jews, it was not in the interest of most subsequent emperors to tamper with the image so carefully constructed."

    4. Don Jefe

      Re: anti semitism question

      I don't want this to come off wrong, but I think 'the Jews' may have history's worst case of Inerphalangeal Arthrodesis (fused knuckles) and it results in a pointing finger always extended outward. I realize and group of people is going to be comprised of all sorts, but people have hated the Jews since before Romulus and Remus found a hill with good drainage to set their tent on.

      There's a bad habit that's reflected in all of their historical writings; hell Josephus probably liked the smell of even his worst farts. There's never anything wrong with what they're doing, people just gang up on them: But ask yourself why people use the term anti-Semite when referring to Jewish people. The Jews are the smallest group of Semitic people, but why do they get to be the Semites? If the Jews are the Semites what does that make all the other Semites? Semimites? semites?

      I think that last sentence kind of highlights a lot of their problems throughout history. This habit of not only excluding majorities, but excluding anyone isn't going to play well with any audience and they've been doing it since before Joseph got his ass kicked for dressing like a fairy. Thousands and thousands and thousands of years. That's a long fucking time to be lording (ha!) your 'God given' backstage pass over everybody else.

      It's pretty easy to see why some liberal union worker coming along and calling shenanigans would piss people off. It's like replacing Jacob's Ladder with Jacob's Elevator and not even checking ID at the door. Everybody gets to come and there's no 'Park Pass' to get you in first? Fuck that. Nail that guy to a tree and let's go do wine cask stands before sundown.

      Come on! They me be 'God's chosen people', but this is round 2. Remember, their God already cast them out and only took them back after many beards had been pulled and many robes rent and they stopped being dicks. They also forever lost their original 'above all' status for all time. Never again could any of the children of Israel claim to be above even the lowest Gentile. It's all there, in the Bible, Torah and reams of extremely boring Torah supporting documents.

      Remember, this is the same people who could only find one solitary Samaritan who wasn't a complete cocksucker? Even through the Samaritans were one of their largest trading partners, when they weren't warring, there was only one lone guy who would help another Human out? That's simply not reasonable.

      I give zero fucks about any 'group' of people. I'll assess individuals on their own merits (even help a wounded Jew on the road :) and it really isn't fair the Jews catch so much shit, but if the Jewish People, as a whole, were on my staff I would suggest they listen to their god and turn down the arrogance and superiority. Sometimes it's necessary to remind people of their place, Heads of State, children and staff all need to be occasionally reminded not to be dicks, but if you do it all the time you've become a dick yourself.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: anti semitism question

        Quite right. The Jews shouldn't go around pretending to be God's chosen people when that's the English - sorry, now replaced by Republican WASPS and Mormons.

        Unfortunately the loudest part of the Jewish community is often the most atypical. The Covenant doesn't imply Jewish superiority, it implies that God has a special relationship like that of the US and the UK, i.e. periodically the US has an idea and the UK gets its ass kicked as a result. For many Jews, being Jewish is seen as being a kind of punishment for something their ancestors did, but they are stuck with the consequences. If you get rich, it may be because God is thinking of doing another Job and you're about to end up on a dunghill.

        In Germany, Jews assimilated. They were patriotic Germans. They enlisted with enthusiasm in 1914. King Ludwig II of Bavaria tried to get Wagner to see the stupidity of his anti-Semitism. Hassidic Jews still wear the clothes of the successful Polish merchant class that they joined.

        The Jews don't have a problem throughout history. They have a religion which places heavy emphasis on education, literacy and debate. This tends to make them successful, and when times get difficult people resent that. But nothing German or Polish Jews did went any way at all to justify the Shoah, and even if 1st century AD Jewish intransigence went some way to explaining the Golah, that has nothing to do with medieval anti-Semitism.

        Suggesting that the Jewish people as a whole exhibit arrogance and superiority is as idiotically* anti-Semitic as suggesting that David Cameron and Piers Morgan's existence implies that the English as a whole are full of arrogance and superiority. I've generally agreed with many of your posts, but on this one I think you're completely out of order.

        *Not a word I normally use but you are very free with flinging it at other people, so have one of them back.

      2. Matt Bryant Silver badge
        Facepalm

        Re: Don Jefe Re: anti semitism question

        Whilst you accuse Judaism of arrogance, of thinking they are 'special', you fail to grasp that is actually a good thing - I am constantly approached by members of other religions that want to make me 'special' by conversion to their brand of sky fairy, but I have never once been told by any of the many Jews that I have met that the 'answer to all my problems' is to become Jewish. I find the constant insistence by those other religions that they and their god(s) alone can make me 'special' far more arrogant than the Jewish idea that I'm screwed by not being born one of them.

      3. Mooseman Silver badge

        Re: anti semitism question

        There I was thinking you weren't an idiot. My mistake, clearly. Centuries of persecution and murder of a people is justified because of a few bible quotes? The whole jewish race is arrogant and superior? Really? Based on a few cherry picked items from the bible?

        You can't mix your biblical metaphors with real life - your whole samaritan thing is simply stupid. You're saying that because a simple story in the bible says they found one good Samaritan then the whole people is condemned as unreasonable. You confuse historical with religious writings.

        Anti Semitism? Who says the jews created that phrase?

        you'd even help a wounded jew on the road. Wow, what a liberal hero you must be.

    5. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: anti semitism question

      Jews are very unpopular in most non Christian parts of the world too, so that's not the whole reason. More likely it's also because of the Jewish view of Gentiles as inferior and excluded from being Jewish, and from their 'revenge as part of a religion' eye for an eye etc. philosophy as contrasted with turn the other cheek from a different set of fairy tales...

      1. Don Jefe

        Re: anti semitism question

        Those aren't fairly tales. That's the mixing of philosophies of social interaction and the black management of prophecy. Social interaction philosophies can't be judged out outside of the immediate point in time in which they were formulated. They are the practical result of social morals which are subject to change at any point and that's why I can't waterboard smarmy neighbors in this country anymore.

        But prophecy, is truly the blackest of social management practices. As close to evil as you can get. All you need is a single individual with an overdeveloped gift of persuasion (and no ethics) and a single powerful person with debilitating existensial dread and presto self fulfillo! You've got entire nations living in fear (or hope) of the future and are willing to do anything to get on the not dead side of the equation they are unwillingly constructing.

        So it's pretty easy to see how a guy shows up and seems to fit all the criteria and genealogy for your thousand year old prophecy but instead of being a kipha puppet (no socks and sandals, that's crucial) and delivering righteous ocular trauma says 'fuck, was that supposed to hurt' and moving your long awaited kingdom on Earth to a much further away place would piss people off. By far the best thing to do is call it a research error and tack the troublesome person to a tree. Otherwise all the benefits that are always responsible for making a small core set of prophecy advocates super rich, on the backs of others, look really stupid and unnecessary.

        The fairy tales are completely different and deal with flaming swords hiding a mystical garden, magic luggage, talking asses, pillars of smoke and fire, alien rape, necromancy and zombies. It's important to distinguish between the social management guidelines and fairy tales because if you don't then it gets very confusing and could conceivably lead to a situation in which politics and magic are mixed in caustic ways that might very well result in 2,000+ years of strife and misunderstanding.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: anti semitism question

          "Those aren't fairly tales"

          Those rules are largely claimed as being passed directly from 'god' to man. That's a fairy tale to those of more limited gullibility....

    6. BlueGreen

      Re: anti semitism question @All

      Thanks to everyone for the comprehensive and thoughtful answers.

  11. Heathroi
    Big Brother

    While religion is not entirely necessary to begin chopping people into little bloody bits, (although it has been know to assist ) a State of some sort definitely is essential.

  12. All names Taken
    Happy

    In one of the shops in our high street is a cushion. It's in the window, on display.

    It has words on the cushion and they go a bit like this:

    Women are not meant to be understood, they are meant to be spoilt.

  13. phil dude
    Boffin

    the answer is in the question @Bluegreen

    Labels are the problem. When you can be "cast" because of your parents perceived beliefs or organisational affiliation, it makes it very difficult to be treated as a normal human.

    I thinking of Mel Brooks "History of the world part I" right now.

    P.

  14. Gene Cash Silver badge
    IT Angle

    And to bring it back around to IT, my wi-fi has been named "Kill All Atheists" for years. Nobody's ever said anything.

    1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge

      There are no atheists in the IT foxholes.

  15. Paul Hovnanian Silver badge

    They can have Fucking, Austria when they pry it out of my cold, dead hands.

  16. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    @Paul Hovnanian

    That's more or less what Kurt Schuschnigg said in 1938. Amazingly, he survived WW2, but it was a very close thing.

  17. JustNiz

    >>> Castrillo* Matajudíos (Castrillo Kill the Jews) will vote on Saturday on whether it's time to change the name of their small hamlet in the province of Burgos to something a little less offensive.

    Yeah they should definately drop the Castrillo part. It might offend anyone called Castrillo.

  18. All names Taken
    Paris Hilton

    Going to the darkside?

    If so, do it properly?

    (Only 160 kg)

    http://www.yamaha-motor.eu/uk/products/motorcycles/mt/mt-07.aspx

    (Note: dear moderators there are no pecuniary interests in this post - I am merely a potential customer of an MT-07 for which I will probably have to pay full costs anyway )

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Going to the darkside?

      "develop linear torque" (from the website)

      Yamaha have developed a motorcycle which completely rearranges spacetime around itself. That's the dark side all right.

  19. Don Jefe

    In Between

    It's good that the town is named this way, and it's good that somebody got around to deciding it might be offensive. But they're so late with the change it's kind of offensive to change it now. I'm getting hints of misguided tourism efforts. It's surely not the case than people just woke up and decided to change the name of the village they've always lived in.

    If nothing else, the fact such a place exists is kind of a good reminder that things have gotten out of hand in the past and can do so again. I'm not one to advocate for showing grammar school kids Holocaust photos, but little cultural oddities like this are what tie the events of tomorrow to the events of the past. It's important. Besides, things like this help prevent the revisionist histories so popular on the West.

  20. Fink-Nottle

    Welcome to Castrillo Matalosamericanos

    (twinned with Tehran)

  21. Big Al
    Mushroom

    Matamoros

    While this is all very wonderful, politically correct and generally fluffy, don't expect any changes to take account of Muslim sensibilities.

    Saint James Matamoros, 'the Moor-slayer', is patron saint of Spain, and is also commemorated in, for example, the name of the city of Matamoros, Mexico (next door to Brownsville, Texas).

    1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
      FAIL

      Re: Big Al Re: Matamoros

      "While this is all very wonderful, politically correct and generally fluffy, don't expect any changes to take account of Muslim sensibilities....." Big difference - the Jews didn't invade the Iberian Peninsula and attempt to forcibly convert all the Christians in the area to Judaism. The Diaspora also didn't force the European kingdoms to almost bankrupt themselves fighting to expel them as they had to do with the Moors in the Reconquista.

  22. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    i think you missed the point

    the artical was promoting health!

    The un healthy action of eating chocloate eggs and lazing around in large groups hearing some body talk about peace and love, verses a ritual of getting licoured up and going out and beating up on a minority group of your choice, which is exercise and stress relive, much healther tho you may not belive that in the morning.

    Counting the lumps and bruses, multiplying that by the degree of hangover you will be able to work out how much of a good time you had ang checking face book will probly help bring back some of that lost memory.

    As for the name change may be change it to "kill all insert minority group of your choice" and we can keep relogion out of it.

  23. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    IT angle?

    Where is it? Aha! I found it! How to get a bunch of opionated people to leave comments on an online forum. Something about Jews will do.

  24. chris lively

    Question about the actual story: why doesn't the mayor have the balls to just change the name himself? Seems like something he ought to be empowered to do.

    Or at least just have a list of 5 different names and ask people to vote on which one they like ( with the current name not being a choice)?

  25. Robert Baker
    Big Brother

    What about all the other potentially offensive place names out there?

    Wetwang, Les Arses, Nether Wallop, Pratts Bottom (those three could be twinned)... the list goes ever on and on.

  26. Anonymous Coward
    Childcatcher

    Enough, please

    Just face it; People are just no good, most can't stand to admit/use their constrained free will and will slope sholder it on to any convenient belief system (not just religions listen to Unix users) and so those who should know better, but are vile, use the system for their own gain - and being psycos if that involves hurting others then so much the better. All you have to do is convince people the "other" is not really human and the slaughter can commence.

    As for names, yes perhaps that hamlet should change its name, its almost as bad as Staines Wetwang etc - but that's their choice - if they want to take it. Ridicule might help,

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like