It's not hypocrisy at all, it's a consistent position made to advance their imperial interests and white supremacy.

Nerd or geek culture was quite reactionary for a long time now. It's a product of the (predominantly white male) western bourgeoisie and labour aristocrats, and its links to racism and sexism go quite deep.

This 3-page article (page 1, page 2, page 3) does a good job at analyzing these cultural aspects. It's a very interesting read.

Here's an excerpt from the introduction:

As geekdom moves from the cultural fringes into the mainstream, it becomes increasingly difficult for the figure of the geek to maintain the outsider victim status that made him such a sympathetic figure in the first place. Confronted with his cultural centrality and white, masculine privilege—geeks are most frequently represented as white males—the geek seeks a simulated victimhood and even simulated ethnicity in order to justify his existence as a protagonist in a world where an unmarked straight white male protagonist is increasingly passé.

Our investigation proceeds through three core concepts / tropes prevalent in geek-centered visual narratives:

1. "geek melodrama" as a means of rendering geek protagonists sympathetically,
2. white male "geek rage" against women and ethnic minorities for receiving preferential treatment from society, which relates to the geek’s often raced, usually misogynistic implications for contemporary constructions of masculinity, and
3. "simulated ethnicity," our term for how geeks read their sub-cultural identity as a sign of markedness or as a put-upon status equivalent to the markedness of a marginalized identity such as that of a person of color.

We analyze these tropes via an historical survey of some key moments in the rise of geek media dominance: the early-20th century origins of geekdom and its rise as an identifiable subculture in the 1960s, the mainstreaming of geek masculinity in the 1970s and 80s via blockbuster cinema and superhero comics, and the postmodern permutations of geekdom popularized by Generation X cultural producers, including geek/slacker duos in “indie” cinema and alternative comics.

Just to preface this, I'm not arguing against the critique of the reactionary position in this meme, but speaking more generally and trying to round out understanding of the whole philosophical argument. We clearly know that the idealist free will position is inaccurate, but the mechanical determinist position doesn't give us the full picture either.

While our lives are shaped by our material conditions, we should always keep dialectical materialism in mind and not fall into a purely mechanical determinism that becomes a pessimistic or nihilistic fatalism.

From Gramsci:

We can observe how the determinist, fatalist mechanist element has been an immediate ideological “aroma” of Marxism, a form of religion and of stimulation (but like a drug necessitated and historically justified by the “subordinate” character of certain social strata).

When one does not have the initiative in the struggle and the struggle itself is ultimately identified with a series of defeats, mechanical determinism becomes a formidable power of moral resistance, of patient and obstinate perseverance. “I am defeated for the moment but the nature of things is on my side over a long period,” etc. Real will is disguised as an act of faith, a sure rationality of history, a primitive and empirical form of impassioned finalism which appears as a substitute for the predestination, providence, etc., of the confessional religions. We must insist on the fact that even in such a case there exists in reality a strong active will, a direct influence on the “nature of things,” but it is certainly in an implicit and veiled form, ashamed of itself, and so the consciousness of it is contradictory, lacks critical unity, etc. But when the “subordinate” becomes the leader and is responsible for the economic activity of the mass, mechanicalism appears at a certain moment as an imminent danger, there occurs a revision of the whole mode of thinking because there has taken place a change in the social mode of being.

We should always keep in mind that, despite the limitations imposed on us by material conditions and history, we are parts of the whole and not just passive entities being directed by outside forces. Our actions and choices, especially collective ones, do matter and are what shapes our societies.

As Marx puts it:

Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past.

I'm not sure what point you're making here. Russian colonialism doesn't change the importance of settler-colonialism in general and specifically in the US. The USSR was built on a basis of national liberation, and not on the "Great Russian" identity which would be analogous to the US identity here.

Another difference is that the US is entirely settler colonial, a whole country founded solely by settlers, while the Russian empire's colonies were all still tied to the metropolitan core in western Russia. The US was created through a revolt of the most reactionary settlers that wanted autonomy from Britain. The path forward for North America is strictly decolonial.

the basis is capitalist

And also settler-colonial, which is a very important factor when it comes to culture in this sense.

Check out these two twitter threads (thread 1, thread 2) and this article for a different reading of Marx's On the Jewish Question.

I think you're somewhat failing to take into account how much antisemitizam there was in Europe and how prevalent it was, especially in the 19th and 20th centuries. Marx is writing about Jews in Europe in the mid 19th century, and is responding directly to widespread antisemitic rhetoric - "The Jewish Question".

Anticommunists will always misrepresent us and everything we do, we don't need to pander to them in any way. There are plenty of other people that will listen to us and be open to our ideas. Liberals (active political liberals, not the average "apolitical" person in the west) are not a group we can radicalize and we shouldn't focus our efforts on them.

Also, the theory that people are brainwashed by propaganda is not scientific or Marxist and we shouldn't use it. It leads to a dead end in terms of tactics to fight propaganda. Check out the full article I linked above for a Marxist theory of how propaganda works.

The Onion has always had good takes on israel.

https://www.theonion.com/the-onion-calls-on-israel-to-bomb-our-offices-in-case-1846912378

This is no different from “you have agency, you can just not commit crimes” personal responsibility rhetoric we see from the right.

This is the rhetoric on the surface and in form, but in essence it serves to recognize the poor and the racialized as less than fully human, it's an attempt to paint them as not deserving of the full rights enjoyed mostly only by white cishet men. It infantilizes, pathologizes, or paints the others as barbaric savages, etc.

Either we believe people’s material conditions influence their behavior in a way that at least lessens their responsibility or we don’t.

We (Marxists) don't. Material conditions influence behavior and ideology, of course, but we don't justify crime because of that. If we just broadly removed responsibility of individuals because material conditions influence their behavior, we would end up removing responsibility from even the most heinous colonizers and genociders, which we do not do. We do understand how the capitalist system leads to these crimes, but we don't justify them because of it. There is a lot of difference between a poor person doing crime to help feed their family and a well-off westerner being a racist.

We don't justify any and all crimes committed by the poor, even if we recognize the role of material conditions. If a poor person steals to feed their family, we justify it because we hold human life above private property, and we support the class struggles that lead to liberation.

From Hegel's Philosophy of Right quoted in Losurdo:

A man who is starving to death has the absolute right to violate the property of another; he is violating the property of another only in a limited fashion. The right of extreme need (Notrecht) does not imply violating the right of another as such: the interest is directed exclusively to a little piece of bread; one does not treat another as a person without rights.

Us speaking about crime being driven primarily by material conditions is not a justification of it, it's an explanation, a step towards actually dealing with crime in society by addressing its root causes instead of trying to avenge it (like the current capitalist states do).

People in the west are racist and consume racist propaganda willingly, out of rational self-interest. They benefit from it in several different ways (justification of the global order with the west on top, avoidance of state repression, social acceptance, etc.). Part of the reason why they do so is because they aren't actually aware how they can benefit from denouncing the propaganda and becoming socialists, they aren't aware of their class interests and some more long-term, universal ones. This is the point where our counter-propaganda and organizing needs to come in, we cannot just debunk the propaganda, we have to offer a positive alternative that promises people (relatively) immediate material benefits. This article goes into more details.

The ignorance is willful.

Yes, this is just the Marxist understanding of how propaganda actually works. Material conditions influence ideology. These people willingly take in the propaganda because it justifies their dominant position as privileged on a global scale and it allows them to keep profiting off the oppression of the Third world.

A quote from this excellent article:

Westerners aren’t helpless innocents whose minds are injected with atrocity propaganda, science fiction-style; they’re generally smug bourgeois proletarians who intelligently seek out as much racist propaganda as they can get their hands on. This is because it fundamentally makes them feel better about who they are and how they live. The psychic and material costs are rationally worth the benefits.

Also check out this one for another angle into the same phenomenon.

Liberals and conservatives never know anything because they have nothing to build toward

Yes, and it always reminds me of this Walter Rodney quote:

And this was the problem: that bourgeois thought — and indeed socialist thought, when we get down to it — can have a variety of developments or roads and aspects or paths. Bourgeois thought, because of its whimsical nature and because of the way in which it promotes eccentrics, can have any road. Because, after all, when you are not going any place, you can choose any road!

A barrel of oil.

Similar to how Hegel criticized the christian call to "help the poor" because it presupposes a constant existence of poverty in order to feel good about its (ineffective) charity. A quote from Losurdo's Class Struggle:

We are reminded of Hegel’s critical remarks on the Gospel commandment to aid the poor. Losing sight of the fact that it is a ‘conditional precept’, and absolutizing it, Christians also wound up absolutizing poverty, which alone could confer meaning on the norm enjoining aid for the poor. The survival of poverty was a precondition for Christians, or at least some of them, enjoying a sense of moral nobility attendant upon their aid for the poor. The seriousness of help for the poor should instead be measured by its contribution to overcoming poverty as such.