A Response to @Shmoeski on X: Zionism, National Socialism, and the Myth of Individualism in Statist Ideologies
To everyone,
I recently found myself in a debate with @shmoeski
on X, where I laid out my anti-state, far-right stance—a position I didn’t think required a genius to understand. Apparently, I was wrong. The discussion veered into Zionism, National Socialism, and a tossed-off meme about Hitler, which @shmoeski seems to think supports some individualistic streak in his ideology. Let’s unpack this for everyone’s benefit, because the confusion here is symptomatic of a broader misunderstanding about collectivism, individualism, and the statist ideologies that dominate modern discourse.
Zionism: Collectivism Masquerading as Destiny
At its core, Zionism is a collectivist, statist, and idealist project. It’s not about individual liberty or self-determination—it’s about a unified group, acting as a single entity, exerting control over a specific piece of land: Israel. Zionists operate as a collective, bound by a shared vision that elevates the state above the individual. This isn’t a radical observation; it’s just what Zionism is. The state becomes the mechanism for realizing an idealized destiny, and the individual is subsumed into that machine. My views—rooted in rejecting state authority and collectivist dogma—stand in direct opposition to this. Zionism, like its ideological cousins, is a far-left, statist framework, no matter how it’s dressed up.
The Statist Triumvirate: Zionism, National Socialism, and Marxism
I lump Zionism together with National Socialism and Marxism for a reason: all three are cut from the same cloth. They’re far-left in their essence—not in the shallow, partisan sense of modern politics, but in their foundational reliance on the state as the ultimate arbiter of human life. Each demands the individual surrender their autonomy to a collective ideal, whether it’s a racial hierarchy, or a classless utopia. The state is their tool, and collectivism is their fuel. My anti-state stance rejects all of them outright.
@Shmoeski’s Meme and the Hitler Misadventure
Now, @shmoeski brought up Hitler, tossing out a meme that I assume was meant to dunk on me—like I’d be flustered by a cherry-picked quote. If you’re going to invoke Mein Kampf in a debate, at least read it first. The meme presumably references Hitler’s attempt to distance National Socialism from Marxism by gesturing toward “individual initiative” or some such nonsense. It’s a flimsy prop, and it collapses under scrutiny.
Hitler wasn’t an individualist. He couldn’t have been—not with the system he built. National Socialism was a collectivist beast, just with different branding than Marxism. Sure, Marxism denies the individual’s existence entirely, reducing people to cogs in a class struggle. But National Socialism didn’t elevate the individual either—it hitched everyone to the wagon of racial unity and state power. @Shmoeski seems to think there’s some individualistic thread in Hitler’s ideology worth defending. Let’s test that.
Two Questions for the “Individualist” National Socialist
How do you collectivize the masses under a racial state if you value individualism? If Hitler truly prized individual liberty, there’s no way he could’ve unified the German people—or any people—into the lockstep machine he created. Individualism breeds competition, dissent, and diversity of thought. It’s chaos to a statist. Aryans, under a truly individualist system, would’ve been pitted against each other—vying for power, resources, even genetic superiority. How do you forge a “master race” out of that? You don’t. Hitler’s racial state required conformity, not individuality. His nod to “individual initiative” in Mein Kampf was a sham—a rhetorical trick to dodge Marxism’s shadow while building his own collectivist nightmare.
What about private property? Hitler’s defenders love to point to his supposed support for property rights as proof of his individualism. Read the fine print—or better yet, look at what he did. The German Constitution’s protections for private property were gutted under National Socialism. Ownership became conditional—you could “own” something until the state decided otherwise. Property wasn’t private; it was shared with the state, which held ultimate control. Aryans who stepped out of line saw their land, businesses, or wealth seized or nationalized to serve National Socialist goals. That’s not private ownership by any definition—it’s state domination with extra steps. Hitler lied in Mein Kampf, just as Marxists lie about “collective ownership.” Both rejected true private property; both made it a tool of the state.
The Deception @Shmoeski
Bought Into
Here’s the kicker: @shmoeski’s meme betrays a deeper issue. He’s fallen for Hitler’s sleight of hand, assuming National Socialism had some pro-individual, pro-property core because of a few vague lines in a book. Modern National Socialists do this all the time—defending a myth without cracking the spine of Mein Kampf or studying the Third Reich’s reality. Individualism and collectivism are oil and water; you can’t mix them. Hitler picked his side, and it wasn’t the individual’s.
Closing Thoughts
My anti-state, far-right position isn’t hard to grasp: I reject the state as a legitimate authority over the individual, and I see collectivism—whether Zionist, National Socialist, or Marxist—as its lifeblood. @Shmoeski’s attempt to paint Hitler as some misunderstood individualist doesn’t hold water. The evidence is in the history, not the memes. If you’re going to debate me, at least bring something sharper than a screenshot and a smirk.
To everyone: think for yourselves. Read the source material. And don’t let anyone—me, @shmoeski,@Dograptors or a dead dictator—tell you what to believe without proving it.
