Sign into an existing account

**Jewish Factions Hostile to Each Other**

During the Second Temple period (circa 516 BCE–70 CE), several Jewish sects were known to have significant disagreements, sometimes leading to violent conflict:

**Pharisees vs. Sadducees**

Conflict: The Pharisees emphasized strict adherence to the Torah and oral traditions, while the Sadducees, associated with the priestly aristocracy, rejected oral traditions and beliefs like the resurrection of the dead. Their disputes often centered on religious authority and Temple practices.

Nature of Belligerence: Ideological and political rivalry, with the Sadducees dominating Temple leadership and the Pharisees holding sway among the broader population. This led to power struggles within Jewish society.

Outcome: These tensions contributed to disunity, culminating in the destruction of the Second Temple by Rome in 70 CE.

**Essenes vs. Other Sects**

Conflict: The Essenes, an ascetic group often associated with the Qumran community, rejected the Jerusalem priesthood as illegitimate and isolated themselves in the Judean desert. They viewed other Jewish groups, particularly the Sadducees, as corrupt.

Nature of Belligerence: The Essenes’ withdrawal from mainstream Jewish society and their strict purity laws limited direct conflict, but their writings (e.g., Dead Sea Scrolls) show sharp criticism of other Jewish factions.

Outcome: Their isolation meant less direct confrontation, but they were ideologically opposed to the religious establishment.

**Zealots vs. Other Factions**

Conflict: The Zealots advocated armed rebellion against Roman rule and were critical of Jewish groups like the Herodians or Sadducees who cooperated with Rome. They also clashed with more moderate groups like the Pharisees, who sought coexistence.

Nature of Belligerence: The Zealots’ militant stance led to violent clashes, including with other Jews who opposed their revolutionary tactics. Their actions contributed to the Roman destruction of Jerusalem.

Outcome: Their extremism alienated other factions and led to their eventual defeat by Rome.

**Early Christians vs. Other Jewish Sects**

Conflict: Early Christians, initially a Jewish sect, faced opposition from Pharisees, Sadducees, and others due to their belief in Jesus as the Messiah, which most Jews rejected.

Nature of Belligerence: Theological disputes led to social and sometimes physical conflicts, as seen in accounts of early Christian persecution within Jewish communities.

Outcome: This rift eventually led to Christianity’s separation from Judaism.

**Modern Jewish Factions with Tensions**

In contemporary times, Jewish factions often clash over religious observance, Zionism, or political priorities. Below are examples of groups with notable tensions:

**Ultra-Orthodox (Haredi) vs. Secular Jews (Hiloni)**

Conflict: In Israel, Haredi Jews, who prioritize strict religious observance and often live in insular communities, frequently clash with secular Jews over issues like military service exemptions, public Sabbath observance, and state funding for religious institutions. Secular Jews view Haredi exemptions from military service and their influence on public policy as unfair.

Nature of Belligerence: Public protests, political disputes, and social tensions. For example, Haredim have opposed secular policies like public transportation on the Sabbath, while secular Jews criticize Haredi political influence.

Example: Haredi opposition to mandatory military conscription has led to protests and political standoffs in Israel.

**Orthodox (Dati) vs. Reform/Conservative Jews**

Conflict: Orthodox Jews, particularly in Israel, often reject the legitimacy of Reform and Conservative Judaism, viewing their practices as deviations from traditional Halakha (Jewish law). Reform and Conservative Jews advocate for more liberal interpretations, including gender-egalitarian practices and recognition of same-sex relationships, which Orthodox groups oppose.

Nature of Belligerence: Disputes over religious authority, such as control of conversion processes, marriage laws, and access to the Western Wall in Jerusalem. In Israel, the Orthodox Rabbinate’s monopoly on religious matters has led to tensions with non-Orthodox groups.

Example: Conflicts over egalitarian prayer spaces at the Western Wall have led to protests and legal battles.

**Haredi (Ultra-Orthodox) vs. Modern Orthodox**

Conflict: Haredi Jews often criticize Modern Orthodox Jews for their integration into secular society and more lenient interpretations of Halakha. Modern Orthodox Jews, in turn, may view Haredi isolationism as extreme.

Nature of Belligerence: Ideological disputes over Zionism, secular education, and engagement with modernity. Haredim are more likely to reject Zionism or see it as secondary to religious observance, while Modern Orthodox Jews often embrace Zionism as part of their religious identity.

Example: Haredi groups like Satmar may criticize Modern Orthodox support for Israel as a secular state.

**Zionist vs. Anti-Zionist Jews**

Conflict: Zionist Jews support the establishment and maintenance of Israel as a Jewish state, while anti-Zionist Jewish groups, such as Neturei Karta and some ultra-Orthodox sects (e.g., Satmar Hasidim), oppose Zionism, believing a Jewish state should not exist until the Messiah arrives. Secular anti-Zionist groups like Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) criticize Zionism for ethical or political reasons, clashing with Zionist Jews.

Nature of Belligerence: Public demonstrations, mutual accusations of betraying Jewish values, and ideological battles. For instance, Neturei Karta’s public support for Palestinian causes has led to condemnation from Zionist groups.

Example: Neturei Karta’s participation in anti-Israel protests has sparked outrage among Zionist Jews, who view it as aligning with antisemitic narratives.

**Ashkenazi vs. Sephardi/Mizrahi Jews**

Conflict: Historically, Ashkenazi Jews (from Europe) held more power in early Israeli society, leading to tensions with Sephardi (from Spain/Portugal) and Mizrahi (from Middle Eastern/North African countries) Jews, who faced discrimination. While less overt today, cultural and religious differences, such as variations in prayer liturgy or rabbinic authority, can still cause friction.

Nature of Belligerence: Social and political marginalization, with Sephardi/Mizrahi Jews historically advocating for equal representation. Religious disputes also arise, as Sephardi/Mizrahi rabbis may hold more lenient Halakhic positions than Ashkenazi counterparts.

Example: Debates over the authority of Sephardi versus Ashkenazi rabbis in Israel’s religious councils.

**Jewish Paramilitary Groups (Historical)**

Conflict: During the British Mandate period (1920s–1948), Jewish paramilitary groups like Haganah, Irgun, and Lehi had ideological and tactical disagreements. Haganah favored restraint (Havlagah), while Irgun and Lehi pursued aggressive attacks against British and Arab targets. The “Hunting Season” (1944–1945) saw Haganah actively opposing Irgun and Lehi to prevent British retaliation.

Nature of Belligerence: Direct confrontations, including Haganah turning over Irgun and Lehi members to British authorities.

Outcome: Temporary cooperation in the Jewish Resistance Movement (1945–1946), but tensions persisted until Israel’s establishment.

**Autonomism: Ideology of Self-Reliance for Survival and Perfection**

**Historical and Philosophical Foundations**

Autonomism, a system of self-governance and skepticism toward reliance on others, rests on a deep philosophical heritage addressing human fallibility. Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803–1882), a transcendentalist, laid a cornerstone in "Self-Reliance" (1841), arguing that individual intuition surpasses flawed societal norms, warning against conformity’s potential for error.

Diogenes the Cynic (412–323 BCE), a Greek philosopher, lived this principle, dwelling alone in a barrel to reject dependence on others’ unreliable or self-interested ways. Pyrrho (c. 360–270 BCE), founder of Skepticism, pushed doubt of external claims, urging self-verification to avoid mistakes born of others’ ignorance.

Zeno of Citium (c. 334–262 BCE), the Stoic founder, taught self-control and reason, emphasizing mastery of one’s own actions to sidestep external folly. John Locke (1632–1704), an Enlightenment thinker, shaped individualism, tying liberty to self-responsibility and caution toward collective or authoritative errors.
Additional Historical Influences

Further roots enrich Autonomism. Epictetus (50–135 CE), a Stoic, stressed controlling only what lies within one’s power—thoughts, actions—ignoring others’ chaotic flaws. Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778), in "Discourse on Inequality" (1755), critiqued society’s corruption, implying a return to self-sufficient natural living to escape human malice.

Scientifically, early human practices (c. 10,000 BCE) show hunter-gatherers mastering solo skills—tool-making, hunting—to survive without aid, a precursor to self-reliance. Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679), in "Leviathan" (1651), saw humans as naturally selfish, justifying wariness of others’ motives in Autonomism’s framework.

**Etymology and Core Concept**

The term Autonomism blends Greek “autos” (self) and “nomos” (law), forming a doctrine of self-rule. It arises to counter human stupidity—unintentional error—and malice—deliberate harm—positioning the individual as the sole reliable agent of their fate.

**Applications in Contemporary Context**

Autonomism thrives as a guide for survival and perfection in today’s unstable world. Global disruptions—supply chain breakdowns, misinformation, economic shifts—highlight the risks of trusting others’ competence or intent.

For survival, Autonomists act alone: they grow crops to defeat food scarcity, build shelters to bypass shoddy help, and verify data to foil lies. This shields them from floods, power outages, or deceitful schemes, ensuring they endure independently.

**Pursuit of Perfection**

In the art of perfection, Autonomism fuels a solo quest for excellence. Practitioners craft flawless works—a sturdy, precise table; a razor-sharp logical argument—free from others’ sloppy or malicious interference. This disciplined mastery transforms skills into an art, untainted by external limits.

**Symbolism and Guiding Principle**

A lone mountain peak stands as Autonomism’s symbol, reflecting strength, solitude, and unwavering stability. The motto “Solus Rego, Solus Sto” (Latin: “I Rule Alone, I Stand Alone”) drives adherents to govern and sustain themselves.

**Challenges and Strengths**

Challenges persist: total self-reliance strains against modern systems—advanced technology, global trade—where interdependence often rules. Skepticism of others risks isolation, missing rare benefits of collaboration. Yet, Autonomism’s strength lies in empowering survival and mastery, liberating individuals from human error or betrayal.

Michael Douglas is not our guy. He is controlled opposition. But he managed to star in a lot of movies exposing the elite and society flaws.

Falling Down (1993) is one of these useful movies. Man gets divorced by his beloved wife, loses his beloved job. Gets triggered by McDonalds idiotic employees. Has a nervous breakdown and starts havoc.

This movie is useful to understand the mindset of normal people hurt psychologically by recent Covid-19 and woke bullshit.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0106856