My response to @homerus's response to my response to his article

Pic Credit

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

Like @everettmickey says in his comment on my post, any ideology that leads to enslavement will do.
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.
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.
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".
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..
The news article that you cite on the Bataclan attack perfectly illustrates my point, yes they covered the attack but they made no mention of men's genitals cut off and stuffed down their throats(looking into this further I found this story to be not well substantiated, only a second hand account available)

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.

NBC News correspondent Ron Mott and CNN political commentator Symone Sanders have both gone on the air and claimed that they believe the suspects were simply acting out of stupidity, rather than racism.

Speaking during a panel discussion Wednesday night, Sanders argued that the suspects’ actions were the result of a hate-filled election season — and that the media should be blaming President-elect Trump for stirring up anger and hostility in people across the country.

But Sanders said she believes the attack — in which the four accused suspects yelled “f–k Donald Trump” and “f–k white people” — was being completely mislabeled.

“That is not a hate crime,” she said. “Hate crimes are because of a person’s racial ethnicity, their religion, their gender, a disability, it isn’t your political leanings, because someone doesn’t like your political leanings and they do something bad to you, that is not a hate crime.”

https://nypost.com/2017/01/05/news-commentators-defend-facebook-hate-crime-video/

In the example below the NYT was really quick to call "Isis"... that's because of the "agenda". They retracted soon before, there was no proof of Isis ties but it was repeated by other news media around the world anyway... the magic of propaganda!

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.

The New York Times reported on Sunday that Ms. Malik had talked openly about jihad on social media before she applied for a visa to come to the United States. Mr. Comey on Wednesday said he wanted to “clarify” that while such remarks were made online, they were “direct private messages” and not easily accessed. The F.B.I. has been able to obtain them in recent days.

“We can see from our investigation that in late 2013, before there is a physical meeting of these two people resulting in their engagement and then journey to the United States, they are communicating online, showing signs in that communication of their joint commitment to jihad and to martyrdom,” Mr. Comey said. “Those communications are direct, private messages. So far, in this investigation, we have found no evidence of posting on social media.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/17/us/san-bernardino-attackers-discussed-jihad-in-private-messages-fbi-says.html

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.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-disturbing-pattern-of-playing-down-islamic-terror/2015/07/20/1181bcbc-2ee3-11e5-8353-1215475949f4_story.html?utm_term=.e75c795039c1

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

Ezra Levant

Their first reflex is to deny that it’s terrorism at all. Nidal Hasan, a Muslim U.S. soldier, shot 13 fellow soldiers to death at Fort Hood while shouting, “Allahu Akbar.” Yet the Pentagon declared the attack “workplace violence,” not terrorism.
The next liberal reflex is to deny that an attacker is Muslim. Last month there was a terrorist-style beheading in Oklahoma City. Media reports called the suspect “Alton Nolen.” Which was the name his mother gave him. As opposed to the name he took for himself after he converted to Islam: Jah'Keem Yisrael. Media showed old pictures of him dressed as a factory worker, rather than his own Facebook pictures showing him in flowing Muslim robes and head-coverings.
The third liberal reflex is to say a terrorist attack was just the act of a madman. That was the early spin in Canada for last week’s terrorist murders. Clearly Michael Zehaf-Bibeau was insane, they said.
The fourth liberal line of defence is to say the attacker is a lone wolf. And indeed, the terrorists listed above committed their murders by themselves. But Nidal was in e-mail contact with al-Qaida; the Canadian terrorists communicated with
other extremists, including by Twitter. This weekend the RCMP announced Zehaf-Bibeau had “numerous” other interactions that they are investigating.

The attacking terrorist may have been a lone wolf. But each was part of a larger wolf pack.

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

http://www.lfpress.com/2014/10/27/why-liberals-downplay-terrorism

the world media then follows and spread the fake news that are indispensable for war.

War against who is the real question.