“Diasporist Jews” Are Essentially Scientologists
If you're going to make up nonsense to justify harming Jews, at least admit that you're not a Jew
GUEST POST by Mallory Mosner - Click here to view more of her work or subscribe to her Substack Mallory Mosner
All future stories written by Reuben Salsa (every Thursday, 8 am Auckland time) will be for paid subscribers only. Guest posts will remain free and posted every Sunday (8 am Auckland time).
SUBSCRIBE TODAY! The JPF is fighting antisemitism one numbnut at a time!
For more articles by Jewish authors, subscribe to the JPF on Medium (click on the image below).
“Diasporist Jews” Are Essentially Scientologists
The first time I heard the term “diasporist,” I almost did a spit-take. I know that most anti-Zionists are accustomed to fabricating all kinds of nonsense to justify their bloodthirsty desire to kill and/or displace half the world’s Jewry, but this one is next level.
Much like standing up terror encampments to garner public sympathies for Hamas, the neologizing of a word that conjures immediate connotations of diapers and spores is accomplishing very little for their “cause.”
Pledge your support
But what is their cause? Was it not enough to merely refer to themselves as anti-Zionist “Jews?” I would of course prefer to call them what they are – murderous daddy-issues-laden self-loathing brats. But in their own terms, why have they started referring to themselves as “diasporists,” and wtf does that even mean?
The origin of the diaper sporists
R. B. Kitaj coined the term “diasporist” in his First Diasporist Manifesto, published in 1989. He was an artist and the child of an interfaith couple, though he grew up in a completely secular home with no Jewish education. Only later in his life did he start diving into Jewish practice, inspired in part by learning about his socialist Bundist maternal grandfather in Russia.
His manifesto technically focused primarily on “diasporism” in the specific sense of art, but it had a clear resonance with his contemporaries and with the murderous brats who call themselves “anti-Zionist Jews” long after his death. He wrote in his first manifesto:
“Diasporist art is contradictory at its heart, being both internationalist and particularist. It can be inconsistent, which is a major blasphemy against the logic of much art education, because life in Diaspora is often inconsistent and tense; schismatic contradiction animates each day. To be consistent can mean the painter is settled and at home. All this begins to define the painting mode I call Diasporism. People are always saying the meanings in my pictures refuse to be fixed, to be settled, to be stable: that's Diasporism, which welcomes interesting, creative misreading…”
Kitaj would write a second manifesto years later, but the legacy of his conception of “diasporism” took on a new meaning when his dear friend, famous Jewish writer Philip Roth wrote of it in great detail in his 1993 book Operation Shylock: A Confession.
It was an interesting choice for Roth to name his book after a profoundly antisemitic caricatured Shakespearean villain, as Philip Roth was long considered one of the most antisemitic (self-loathing) writers of his time. Even posthumously, his writing continues to rouse the minds of antisemitic conspiracy theorists.
Despite being a staunch atheist (even leaving strict instructions proscribing any kind of Jewish ceremonies or prayers upon his death), Philip Roth’s speculative fiction took on a life of its own, much like the works of L. Ron Hubbard, which spawned the entire cult of Scientology from his science-fiction writing. Anti-Zionist “Jews” found a cultlike raison d'être for their antisemitism from this unlikely place.
But what the hell even is this dirty diapey spore business?
What exactly IS a “diasporist” according to the murderous lunatics that call themselves “anti-Zionist Jews?” R. B. Kitaj’s response in an unpublished 2006 interview sheds some light on this:
“I think it means an art which a Jew desires to do in order to cleave to what he or she is strongly drawn to in one’s Jewish drama. The more personal this art is, the more universal (human) it can become…. It all depends on what one wants to do with one’s life.”
Furthering the passage previously shared from Kitaj’s manifesto, UCLA professor and founder of the Kitaj archive David Myers noted the following about this “diasporist” ideology:
“Kitaj identified Jewish art less with a political or religious agenda and more with the idea that there was no territorial fixity for the great Jewish cultural creators. Homelessness was a permanent condition but also a precondition to creativity.”
What does all this gobbledygook mean? A few things.
“Diasporism” both blames and condemns Jews to eternal exile, sometimes under the pretense of a tenuous and easily debunked religious doctrine, but usually mainly from an ideologically Socialist or Marxist worldview.
“Diasporism” was born, like much of contemporary antisemitism, out of overly-intellectual boredom and privilege; in the case of Kitaj, who romanticized and linked suffering that is often perceived as requisite for creating interesting or resonant art, eternal homelessness and suffering that “felt” Jewish to him and yielded prolific artwork was enough to decree on some ill-deserved religious or moral grounds that “diasporism” is a virtuous or inevitable destiny.
“Diasporism” is a balm for secular Jews who idolize leftist politics and conflate them with a universalist “anything goes” approach to Judaism, which simultaneously dilutes Jewish identity (and faith) entirely, while sanitizing their exceedingly unjust attempts to victim-blame and gaslight Jews who have suffered in diaspora, and their libelous advocacy to kill and displace the Jews of Israel.
Take a peek at the first post pinned on Instagram by a hilariously stupid, socialist “Diasporist Podcast” account:
The post is rife with the kind of tone-deaf, hyper-privileged and yet self-righteously moralizing nonsense that is so typical of “social justice”-obsessed leftists.
Here’s a very simple question: Should Native Americans simply have “declared a thriving community” and put the “work” in, put the “love” in to override the challenges when white settlers started killing them? I am truly in awe of how seamlessly these bloodthirsty antisemites excuse themselves for the very transgressions (such as victim-blaming) that they proclaim to be united against solely when it comes to Jews.
Let’s break this down in very simple terms. Putting “work in” and putting “love in” when a large faction of people want to kill or torture or persecute you is simply not the panacea that these “manifesting” losers think it is – not for Jews, and not for other people.
Of course, the world would be a far better place if, to our best ability, we could collectively work out our differences through understanding and empathy. But that is not a condition that Jews must singularly adhere to, particularly in contexts where our lives and our wellbeing is at risk. We have a moral and spiritual obligation to defend ourselves – and we do not owe it to any antisemites to merely sit down with smiles and rainbows and hope they finally stop trying to kill us after thousands of years.
How did we get stuck with these crappers?
In order to understand contemporary “diasporists,” it is helpful to take a look at their Bundist predecessors. Bundism was a secularist movement started by Marxist and socialist Eastern European Jews in 1897.
Central to their ideology is the concept of “Doikayt,” which is a Yiddish word that means “hereness” – that Jews are obligated to solve the challenges confronting them in the countries where they are, as opposed to “thereness,” which was understood to be espoused by contemporary Zionism.
Doikayt has also become fodder for ugly pseudo-Judaica from fake “Jews” like the ever dirndl-clad patrilineal half-Jewish rabid antisemite called Jewitches, who cloaks her profitable, murderous anti-Zionism in the euphemism of “Diasporism” to better cash in on the desperation of other lost, anti-Jewish heretics.
The Bundists openly vilified religious Jews, and much like their modern-day anti-Zionist “Jewish” counterparts, their morality was entirely underscored by a universalist and revisionist, secular and social justice-driven approach, as opposed to anything resembling actual Jewish tradition or doctrine.
It should also be noted that Karl Marx, whom idiotic leftists worshipped not only throughout the 20th century but even now, was a truly rabid antisemite, despite technically being Jewish himself. One notable contribution he made to the annals of Nazi propaganda was his essay On the Jewish Question, in which he blames Jews for capitalism and many of the concomitant ills that befell the world because of it.
And frankly, it should also be noted that these anti-Zionist “Jews” are insufferable, and their writings are are almost physically painful to read because they are so nauseatingly sadistic and dense. A little anti-Zionist jester who unironically thinks of himself as religiously Jewish posted to Substack calling October 7th a “quasi-mythical event.” But that is precisely what should be expected from these troglodytes.
Diapeys that stink together, stick together
Other “Jews” that have thrown their hats in with the deluded, self-loathing anti-Zionist antisemites include the Holocaust-denying Neturei Karta, and the child sex-traffickers of the Lev Tahor cult.
In a world where the question of what Judaism is (or is not) is becoming increasingly blurred by assimilation and secularism, it can seem so easy to point to some anti-Zionist cretin speaking Yiddish and lighting Shabbat candles as being equally “Jewish” compared to any reasonable Jewish person whose entire personality doesn’t revolve around annihilating the Jewish homeland and all of its Jewish inhabitants.
I fully reject that notion, and I do not believe these people to possess any valid religious Jewish identity whatsoever, but that is an essay for another time. But make no mistake, while there certainly are a multitude of Jewish perspectives regarding the state of Israel, the contemporary Leftist/Bundist perspective is lacking religious grounding.
The anti-Zionist perspective that forces Jews to simply deal with whatever obstacles they face in the diaspora reminds me of the parable of the drowning man; the man waits and foregoes multiple opportunities for his life to be saved, in the name of waiting for G-d. All the while, he does not see that each of those opportunities is G-d, which he has forsaken.
We have a state of Israel. Israel is in the top half of the oldest countries in the world, since more than half of the world’s 195 countries were created in or after 1948! And regardless, Jews have continuously (albeit painstakingly) remained in the land of Israel for thousands of years. We have a safe haven, an army, a place to come home to – the holiest place in our religion, the place of our ethnogenesis as a people.
But these anti-Zionists prefer a historical revisionist narrative that pretends there was peace before 1948, and which implicitly blames Jews for the Holocaust and for any and every other act of persecution and murder that we have faced in the diaspora – as though we simply didn’t put the “work” or “love” in to make it a better place for us before we were punished. These people really do belong with the Neturei Karta.
Am Yisrael Chai
Just in time for Channukkah (or whatever creepy revisionist Scientology fete the anti-Zionists celebrate this time of year to make their fictional religion fit their fantastical Leftist constructs), we are reminded of the story of Judah and the Maccabees’ miraculous victory over their enemies, including the traitorous, assimilated Hellenized “Jews.”
The fragile house of cards that anti-Zionist “diasporists” rely on to uphold their phony appropriation of Judaism will never hold a candle (pun intended) to the abundant history and continued practice of Jewish ritual and tradition.
They choose to ignore the thousands of times Israel (the promised land) is mentioned in the Torah, the foundational Jewish triangle of life that encompasses am (people), Torah, and eretz (land), and the clear fate that befalls those who are enemies of the Jewish people.
Israel – as a state, and as the physical (and spiritual) Jewish homeland— will outlive the depraved villains whose entire existence hinges on its destruction. And make no mistake, G-d sees every self-proclaimed “Jew” or diaper spore or whatever they identify as, who has made themselves an enemy of the people of Israel. Am yisrael chai!
I appreciate the perspective presented in the article and share your dislike for modern "diasporist" activism. However, I would offer a different view on how historical Jewish political engagement in the Diaspora is framed. The characterisation of labour movements as cult-like or disconnected from Jewish identity does not fully capture their historical role or significance. While I understand that you are referring to the Bund, this critique also extends—perhaps unintentionally—to similar Sephardi organisations such as the Federación de Trabajadores de Salónica. These movements were not abstract ideological experiments but practical responses to real social and economic struggles faced by Jewish communities.
In Salonica, for example, Jewish socialists organised to protect workers' rights, improve conditions, and secure a future for their communities within the societies they lived in. They were deeply rooted in Jewish cultural and linguistic traditions, with Ladino playing a central role in their political and social discourse. Many remained engaged with Jewish communal life while advocating for justice and economic security, demonstrating that political activism and Jewish identity were not mutually exclusive.
More broadly, I would respectfully disagree with the idea that Jewish political engagement in the Diaspora—whether through Sephardi labour movements or the Bund—was somehow less deserving of recognition than Jabotinskian Zionism. While Zionism provided one path for Jewish self-determination, these movements represented another, equally legitimate response to modernity. They sought to empower Jewish communities where they already lived, ensuring their survival and dignity through political action rather than emigration, which was out of reach of many.
Recognising the value of these movements does not diminish Zionism but rather enriches our understanding of the diverse ways in which Jews have sought to shape their own destiny. Their contributions to Jewish history deserve to be acknowledged with the same seriousness and respect as other ideological currents, even if one does not ultimately agree with their conclusions.
If you are interested, I recommend the book Sephardi Jewry by Esther Benbassa. I will get around to publish a review one of these days.
Thank you
I woke up this morning blissfully unaware of the "Diasporism" movement. I appreciate your sharing this article. Being neither a scholar nor an unmoored Jew, I can only offer my opinion that groups that repurpose words to fit their agenda are always suspect.
I agree, whatever these people are, they are not Jews; core Jewish values drive us to pursue justice, or, a just world. Repurposing "diasporism" as a movement whereby we seek justice for those trying to erase us is just insane.