Responding to @openparadigm's response, again, point x point this time.

Ideoligies are important because the cultural norms of a population define the possible manipulations that they are vulnerable to.

I agree, cultural norms and traditions, and even mythology are subject to manipulation and studied for psy-warfare. I think any ideology can be used and has been/ is being used for enslavement.

The Elites, Deep State, CFR, Wall Street, Mainstream Media or as I like to call them, people-herders (which doesn't have to be a pejorative) are happy with any ideology that leads to mass enslavement be it Clerical-fascism, Marxism, National Socialism.

Agreed. Except we should add capitalism, particularly neoliberalism, whatever people call "democracy" in the hundreds of different countries in the world that consider themselves democracies, that works too.

Yes there is a lot of wealth concentrated in few hands but that wealth isn't kept as big pile of gold in a big vault so they can swim in it.

What are they doing with it? Investing for more unequally distributed wealth. Trickle-down economics is an old joke. Concentrated wealth moves around to create more concentrated wealth, there's no reason to believe the number of beneficiaries of that wealth will increase when all statistics claim it's always concentrating itself more and more.

It's mostly giant companies that employ most of us in one way or another.
A good book by leftist's is "Economics for People Who Hate Capitalism" this book gives a more balanced view of "the concentration of wealth".

I'm sure "most of us" are not employed by giant companies where I live, but perhaps it is true about where you live. But actually no, I found this:

"According to the Census Bureau and the Small Business Administration, about 60 million Americans worked for small businesses in 2006. This is about 51 percent of the private, nonfarm U.S. workforce. They define small businesses as private firms having fewer than 500 employees.Jul 17, 2009" (HERE)

Still, the working conditions are what matters the most, in my opinion. Depending on the education you can afford, which is tied-up to how well you live in general terms, you can get a decent job with good working conditions, as in not exploited, underpaid, having to work many jobs IF you can find them. I think there is enough information today to be almost sure things are not getting better as in more options opening up to everyone but the opposite.

The ideology of Cultural Marxism is however the greatest threat to us, it teaches us that our enemies and competitors can do no wrong because "oppression" and we can do nothing good because "privilege". This leaves a lot of westerners running around self-flagellating and thinking the only way to be virtuous is to hate themselves, hate their societies and hate anyone who has done anything of substance..

This is a whole different subject, which I actually like better. If "Cultural Marxism" teaches that, well then, what a shitty ideology. I'm looking for a definition of "Cultural Marxism" so we can speak in the same language:

"cultural marxism
A social and political movement that promotes unreason and irrationality through the guise of various 'causes', often promoted by so-called 'social justice warriors'. These causes and their proponents are often contradictory and are almost never rooted in fact. Indeed, true argument or discussion with proponents of these causes is almost impossible, as most attempts at discourse descend quickly into shouting, name-calling and chanting of slogans". (from HERE)

Sounds really weak! I don't subscribe to that at all, but if one does he would obviously deny it... Other definitions considered the term part conspiracy theory, as in: "people are undermining our society with leftist rhetoric for the love of destroying it"...

Anyway... let's agree about some terms, otherwise it's impossible to have a rational conversation.

Cultural Marxism

*Adding to the definition above, this one below is from RationalWiki

Cultural Marxism generally refers to one of two things:

"First — extremely rarely — "Cultural Marxism" refers to the general application of the Frankfurt School's Marxist ideology to the social sciences.
Second — in common usage in the wild — "Cultural Marxism" is a snarl word used to paint anyone with progressive tendencies as a secret Communist. The term alludes to a conspiracy theory in which sinister left-wingers have infiltrated media, academia, and science and are engaged in a decades-long plot to undermine Western culture. Some variants of the conspiracy alleges that basically all of modern social liberalism is, in fact, a Communist front group".

Sinister left-wingers infiltrating media, academia, and science sounds pretty much as what you're referring to...
correct me if wrong.

Let's say there is an infiltration of leftist everywhere in moder society, or more realistically, let's say there are leftist everywhere just because they find that belief-system better.

The question is:

Are they -by any chance- a bigger, more influential force than those opposing them?

My view: not in a million years.

Socialism is threatening to wealth-hoarding Power. A non-socialist left is not left, is fake left. In that sense, if you consider democrats "left" or the New York Times "left", you are fooling yourself, they are the establishment and their representatives, they are all for money and domination, they are one of the faces of the empire.

I think some people hold a view of the left that is absurd, as in everything not-conservative = left. The United States are so far to the right, specially since Reagan, that I'm sure for some people everything centrist or even center-right sounds "socialist", "marxist" or "leftist".

That's basically it. Here's an example of what I'm talking about: https://steemit.com/conspiracy/@docdelux/the-propaganda-of-the-stranger-things-dont-kill-the-messenger

That is an example of how many people in America use the term "left". The author talks about the DNC being "far left"... the same DNC that rigged the elections against the only politician resembling leftist values in the US, B. Sanders... the same DNC working for HRC, the Queen of Chaos, Hillary "We came, we saw, he died..." Clinton, subservient of Wall Street and taking money from every establishment sources not only in the US but abroad.

The New York Times

What's a Liberal?

Again RationalWiki:

"A liberal tends to champion liberty, individual rights and equality, although it depends on what measures are being taken to realize those rights. Due to this, liberalism can fall under many branches, some even self-contradictory; for instance, classical liberalism favors limiting government action to promote individual rights while social or modern liberalism (a.k.a. progressivism) tends to favor government action to protect individuals. Unlike conservatism, its traditional political opposite, liberalism may be against the status quo, favoring changes to what liberals perceive as a better society".

In my opinion liberals are hypocrites. In Latinamerica they fill their mouths with the same rightist rhetoric heared everywhere, in the guise of The End of History, Francis Fukuyama Trilateral Comission propaganda: we are so lucky to live in this times of democracy, freedom, etc. We are so lucky we all have the same rights and opportunities BS...

Everything a liberal stands for exist IF YOU HAVE MONEY. and only then. Freedom to have health/education/culture, yes of course! if you have money, that doesn't apply to the majority of human beings in the world, only them. Liberals are often well-off, so everthing is ok. They don't want to hear about anything outside how great times we are living, and you need to make a huge effort not to see exactly how deeply rotten our times are, they keep all that off sight.

Continuing

Compare the national media outrage over the Charlottesville vehicle attack to the truck ramming in New York a week or so before.
Was CAIR's website taken down after the terror attack like stormfront was? Was the Telegram app (which we are told terrorist use to communicate) removed from the google store like GAB was?
Or was zero action taken except for calls not to hate Uzbeks?
Yes the story of the man kidnapped and tortured was widely seen but it took over a week for the media to call it what it was a hate crime.
Here are some mainstream media pundits denying the racial hate involved in this crime even after the suspects were charged with a hate crime.

I won't argue they are doing exactly what you say, their work is to divide people. Some of them will say that, some of them will oppose, they cater to different audiences that must be reinforced in their opposing views.

This news article is about their online communications that detailed their commitment to jihad. The only thing they got wrong was the messages being in the open when in fact they were private messages. Still jihadis whether or not they had their Isis merit badges before the attack they certainly got them after.

That's not the point. The point is there is an agenda, which is rather simple. If a country is going to be spending billions or trillions invading the Middle East, you must show your citizens there's a reason why, there's an inminent danger to fight. That and only that is the reason they are quickly to call "Isis ties". The reason is not racism, at least not as the reason, directly.

I think San Bernardino could very likely be another false flag, considering the many controversies surrounding it. Even in the case they don't find direct proof of "Isis ties", Isis itself many times claim responsability, because in the end Muslim extremism have always worked very closely with American intelligence agencies. That is a historical very well documented fact. This is a GREAT essay to read all you need about it, if you want a glimpse at the rotten heart of the Empire, that is...

I never called Christianity a religion of peace so not to sure why you brought it up but since you did and I think your talking about the crusades which were not wars of conquest but wars of liberation from the Muslim oppressors.

Here are a few snippets of times the media downplayed the Islamic nature of attacks

One might forgive Obama’s caution if it was not for the fact that this is this is part of a long pattern of playing down acts of terror. This is the same president who called the 2009 Christmas Day bomber an “isolated extremist”; whose administration insisted that the Fort Hood, Tex., shooter (who killed U.S. troops while shouting “Allahu Akbar!” and was in direct contact with al-Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki) had committed “workplace violence”; whose administration blamed the Benghazi, Libya, attacks on an “Internet video”; who dismissed the Islamic State as the “JV team”; and who declared that the attack by Islamic radicals on a kosher supermarket in Paris was a random shooting.

"Liberation from the Muslim oppressors" sounds too much like Bush jr. to me. That's the kind of discourse leaders use to incite the masses when they need to invade some place.

About your quote about Obama. Let me ask you, if Obama talked any other way, would he conquer the bleeding hearts of all those liberals? Of course not. They are led to think they are modern, open-minded, cosmopolitan, etc. Obama will talk like Obama, and bomb Third-world countries like every other US President, whatever the rhetoric, that's another miracle of propaganda: people will only hear the words, they won't show the deeds: the dead civilians, that's why Killary can pass for a "feminist", having participated in wars that killed and maimed hundreds of women and their children.

After any terrorist attack, why is the first instinct of liberals to downplay it?

I don't know, but what do they accomplish? Less bombs? the military-industrial complex/ Deep-State is being unmasked? The fact muslim terrorism is in big part the direct consequence of state terrorism in the Middle East is being revealed by these liberals downplaying terror? What do they achieve? There's a force going the other way that is way stronger, that's my perspective.

If they didn't downplay it, what would happen? More war and intervention? war being approved more easily because public opinion is more favorable to intervention to "stop terror"? I really don't understand where that rationalization is supposed to be going.

That’s the liberal spin playbook: Deny it’s terrorism, deny it’s Muslim, call it insanity, and finally call it a rogue act.

I'm pretty sure there is a consensus around the world that most acts you mentioned (with muslims involved) are acts of terrorism. So the liberals failed big time. Why talk about their failure so much? What's the damage being done to society? (That's what I fail to understand from your arguments, I guess).

War against who is the real question.

Exactly. War against who? the people, that's my answer. Normal, regular citizens everywhere in the world, and who is waging the war? Power. the Establishment. It's a rightist establishment, founded on free-market liberalism, there is a lot of "leftist-sounding" rhetoric that is harmless to them, while putting out a sense of plurality. they love it.

Finally... I wanted to come back to what you wrote, here:

The ideology of Cultural Marxism is however the greatest threat to us, it teaches us that our enemies and competitors can do no wrong because "oppression" and we can do nothing good because "privilege". This leaves a lot of westerners running around self-flagellating and thinking the only way to be virtuous is to hate themselves, hate their societies and hate anyone who has done anything of substance..

Who exactly is "us"? Why identify ourselves so strongly with our race/ traditions/ societies/ the time we live in/ country... that's all BS, pride is BS. We are human beings, that's it, the poor bastard blowing up himself once wanted exactly what you want today. By putting yourself all those tags you are OPPOSING everything and everyone else. And then you convince yourself (I mean anyone, not you personally) you are different, somehow they are not human beings who just want to live in peace with their children. They are extraterrestrials with different brains and no soul, for some reason they hate you and are willing to die because they hate you? That's childish, certain circumstances can lead men, any men, to blow themselves up (or whatever act of murdering lunacy), despite religion or race.

And now I'm very, very tired...