>>7041641You are spot on about the information warfare, but you fail to realize that the only people who can wage information warfare are those who control the resources in a society.
There are two main ways to gain resources in a capitalist economic system. You can work 8 hours a day to create a product or perform a service, and every two weeks a fraction of the value you created is given back to you in the form of a wage. Or you can buy ownership of productive property, let the workers amass profits, and then take most of the profits while paying back as little wages as you can get away with.
The first way is very inefficient considering real wages haven't risen meaningfully since the 70s. But the second way is very efficient and lucrative. You don't have to spend 8 hours a day working. And not only that, when you have excess resources, you can invest it to get more resources, whether it be in new property, or in loyalty from politicians. It's a positive feedback loop.
The point is only the rich and/or powerful can afford to wage information warfare. The wall street billionaire is rich and the authoritarian politician is powerful. What's the solution? Get rid of the rich and powerful. Socialism/communism gets rid of the rich, and anarchism/libertarianism gets rid of the powerful. Combine them, and you get libertarian socialism or anarcho-communism or whatever you want to call it. It's as simple as that.
You use the meme parentheses around globalism, but white and black capitalists support globalism as much as jewish capitalists do, mainly because first-world workers have to compete with third-world workers for wages, which is probably the biggest expense for most businesses. And even if we got a protectionist closed-borders country, it would only strengthen the working class against the capitalists temporarily until the workers can be replaced with automation. ">Muh Globalism" is a red herring. The underlying political and economic systems are the problem.
