Why is it that we're so vocabulary-challenged when it comes to Jєωιѕн people? I presume this Rabbi doesn't consider himself to be part of the problem, and yet he doesn't have any real effective way to distinguish between himself and the Jєωs he's speaking of through most of this video. The only distinction he makes is that those who were hated by Hitler, etc were those who'd sinned.

If my memory of my High School reading of Chaim Potok's The Chosen is accurate (and if ever you needed proof that I was educated in the NYC public school system, look no further), the "religious" Jєωs in the story referred to secular Jєωs by the contemptuous term "Apikorsim," which was an Hebraicization of the word "Epicurean." That having been said, I have never encountered this word outside of that novel.

While I'm sure Jєωs do have their own internecine disputes, I find the popular image of Jєωs as divided and quarrelsome among themselves (thus the expression "Two Jєωs; three opinions") to be overblown and exaggerated, and popular precisely because it suits the Jєωs' agenda to have the gentiles believe that the Chosen People can't agree with each other on anything ("so how could we ever agree to conspire with each other on anything, you silly goys!"). 

the "religious" Jєωs in the story referred to secular Jєωs by the contemptuous term "Apikorsim," which was an Hebraicization of the word "Epicurean."

So according to Wikipedia, secular/non-political joos are looked down upon while “religious” joos would be very active in politics?  That’s what I gather.  
.
Except “religious joos” like Ben Shapiro are admitted gnostics, who believe that politics is the way to somehow have God’s kingdom on earth.  In all other aspects of life, God is absent.  
.
So would this mean that secular joos are extreme non-religious/non-political, Shapiro is the moderate middle, and zionists are on the other extreme, non-religious/super-political (meaning, they want a kingdom on earth but God has nothing to do with it)?  Sounds like very little difference between them.

Epicureanism - Epicurus believed that the greatest good was to seek modest, sustainable pleasure in the form of a state of ataraxia(tranquility and freedom from fear) and aponia (the absence of bodily pain) through knowledge of the workings of the world and limiting desires.  The combination of these two states constitutes happiness in its highest form. Correspondingly, Epicurus and his followers shunned politics because it could lead to frustrations and ambitions which can directly conflict with the Epicurean pursuit for peace of mind and virtues.^[1]
Although Epicureanism is a form of hedonism insofar as it declares pleasure to be its sole intrinsic goal, the concept that the absence of pain and fear constitutes the greatest pleasure, and its advocacy of a simple life, make it very different from "hedonism" as colloquially understood.
Epicureanism flourished in the Late Hellenistic era and during the Roman era, and many Epicurean communities were established, such as those in Antiochia, Alexandria, Rhodes, and Herculaneum. By the late 3rd Century CE Epicureanism all but died out, being opposed by other philosophies (mainly Neoplatonism) that were now in the ascendant. Interest in Epicureanism was resurrected in the Age of Enlightenment and continues in the modern era.

Thanks very much for the citation, though I probably should have been more clear in my post that I had never encountered the Hebraicized form of the word - Apikorsim - outside of the novel.

I'm curious as to whether this term has any actual use among Jєωs, or if it is a wholecloth invention of Potok's. I used to listen to the Saturday night hasidic programming on the WMCA AM station in New York, which did prove very enlightening in many respects, but I never heard them use the word "Apikorsim."

I agree, it's all the same in the end. The religious ones await the coming of the Anti-Christ to kill all the enemies of "Israel," and enslave all the goyim, and the secular ones believe in "Tikun Olam" which essentially means that they view themselves as the collective embodiment of what their "Moschiach" represents, and thus they work actively themselves for the same goal - destruction of their enemies, enslavement of the goyim.

Amazing knowledge.   Much appreciated.

Why is it that we're so vocabulary-challenged when it comes to Jєωιѕн people? I presume this Rabbi doesn't consider himself to be part of the problem, and yet he doesn't have any real effective way to distinguish between himself and the Jєωs he's speaking of through most of this video. The only distinction he makes is that those who were hated by Hitler, etc were those who'd sinned.

I recall having the impression that he was of the "Torah" Jєω camp.  There are some Jєωs who are non- and even anti- Zionist and believe that the disapora of the Jєωs was punishment for their sins.