What makes shit like this so appealing and easily digestible to disillusioned white men?

Lack of education really. They understand that there's something beyond what they learned in school and a lot of times they're looking in the right places but have a complete lack of understanding due to not really having a heavy grasp on complex historical and philosophical concepts.

Because the #WokeLeft agrees with the SJWs on everything, they just wish the SJWs would make more of an effort to talk about Marx and class

Emotional appeal, superficial analysis that confirms existing bias.

source?

always gets me
should've been NKVD and it would make more sense but the Holla Forumsack doesn't know history anyway

History rhymes.

Tell me more about that Japanese hood culture.

His ass

I'm pretty sure that's someone subtly mocking Holla Forums/

Yeah. It's called alienation. And a reactionary knee-jerk response to it.

american culture is anti-intellectual. there's something very comforting about thinking that what actual, famous thinkers are saying is something as stupid as "KILL WHITEY" and "DESTROY CULTSHUR BY BRINGING GAYS". it's comforting to imagine there is no depth whatsoever to your opponents, that you can just reduce their ideas to something so dumb, that there's nothing you could possibly have to read or think about more than a second.

Except that happened in every industrialized country, but the retarded bullshit in OP's pic only happens in the U.S.

This meme is so strong exactly because american culture is intellectual, in a truly anti-intellectual culture, this whining would be absent.

Cultures don't form an homogenous blocks, you have people aware of shortcomings of the cultural environment they grew up with and some of thoses people can produce intellectual work that is can be part of the American culture, doesn't change the fact the dominant trend is anti-intellectual.

American culture is hideously anti-intellectual. Freethinking in America has died before the god of institutional authority.

Americans grow up with the anti-intellectual meme, it's a staple of comedy, movies, the internet and politics. In actual anti-intellectual cultures, you have none of this whining. You see the dominant trend as anti-intellectual because a persecution complex is constitutive to intellectualism, the more you have of it, the more people will whine about anti-intellectualism.

I wanted to expand a little but I couldn't find my words.
First, it's not that it is "intellectual", it's just that in a developed country you're always gonna have people educated and aware enough that they can criticize their country. That's not surprising.
There are a ton of little things that pop up constantly in american culture, that tend to go in a anti-intellectual direction. The words "smug" and "pretentious" are always used against people, like it's relevant (which it isn't in the contect of a debate), "good old common sense" is constantly appealed to, you have very small things like sentences beginning with "seems to me that…". In comic books there are countless villains that are supposedly hyper-intelligent, whereas superheroes are basically jocks. It permeates the culture.
Of course there are academics, that's not the point. (although there's also this : youtube.com/watch?v=NK0Y9j_CGgM)
not an argument

If anti-intellectualism consists of intelligent comic book villains and people not taking it well when intellectual appeals are worn like an ill-fitting fedora, then you're only proving my point.

Some of us have the capacity to convey meaning through language while not presuming the other to be opposition against whom only a bastardization of the classical argumentation form is conceivable as means of communication. Even if you do not grasp this, you should have the intellectual capacity to avoid repeating this little tick when encountering people who do.

the only point you've made amounts to "there are intellectuals, therefore it's not an anti-intellectual culture". you don't need a war-torn country filled with warlords or something to say there is an anti-intellectual aspect in a given culture. talking about culture is talking about the general attitude of a large part of a population, the fact that there is a different minority in the group does not invalidate mentioning an aspect shared by majority.

...

If an anti-intellectual culture is one in which you feel like a bad guy because Magneto is portrayed as a genius in the X-men comics, then I can't argue with that, I don't decide what you mean when using a certain term. I can only state that intellectualism attracts what every low-effort status enhancer attracts; idiots.

The fact that leftists have really, really bad objections to it.
It's basically how most people who populate the right/far right turn rightwards in the first place.
For example, the overwhelming majority of leftists can't argue against HBD claims at all: they'll repeat mantras like "more variation within that between" or "it's povertyyyyy!" or shit like that which gets refuted in like 5 minutes. Then, the person who is questioning this issue starts to think "wait a minute, I managed to refute those objections in 5 minutes, how come they're using those arguments? Might it be the case that they don't have even just one decent objection at all?"

The fact you feel the need to jump to whatever caricature you have in mind to even begin to approach the subject is precisely what's at hand.
Also "intellectualism" is not a thing. Nobody praises "intellectual" subjects in general without context. When people talk about a subject, say history, they go in details and talk about a specific period; and when le evil fedoras behave in an annoying way, they're just being annoying. They don't use the word "intellectualism" or identify with it.

...

Except it's true. The Western Marxists were intellectuals based in Frankfurt and were primarily Jewish. Critical theory did just that: it spawned political correctness and the 'equality of the oppressed in the face of oppressors' narrative.

No, it didn't. Show me evidence proving otherwise. Hard difficulty setting: no JPG infographics and no Blogspots.

It's common knowledge.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_theory
It's deliberately vague, too.
Very open-ended, which speaks to the lens that is critical theory. It's really just a tool utilized in many cultural studies.
Here: The core concepts of critical theory are as follows:

That critical social theory should be directed at the totality of society in its historical specificity (i.e. how it came to be configured at a specific point in time), and
That critical theory should improve understanding of society by integrating all the major social sciences, including geography, economics, sociology, history, political science, anthropology, and psychology.

Also: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_theory#Subfields
Or the original wiki entry: archive.is/YzkIS.
My favorite example: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory
Hard mode: no arbitrary dissociation or 'my version of critical theory…'

I know its a hard pill for leftards to swallow but jews really are part of the upper class that control everything.

Jews are like 2 percent of the countries population but dominate entertainment, law, business, politics.
Am i supposed to sit here and pretend that shits normal just not to offend moshe goldbergstein?

This is a majority christian country, even black nationalists are critical of jews.

Okay, you still reading?

Well, yeah jews are part of the problem, but so are wasps and arabs and other rich fuckers.

Finding a blog of someone that claimed to read a bunch of stuff and then cites "studies" funded by the Pioneer Foundation of American Renaissance that all "refute" what actual, real science says isn't that hard.

Or Am Ren or whoever*

Because, while it leaves out many other factors, everything it says is completely true.

The Frankfurt School's shift from Germany to the US was literally built into the nucleus of what would later become the CIA:
foreignaffairs.com/reviews/review-essay/frankfurt-school-war

Perfect example of what was talking about.

Hitler wasn't even German

>>>/tg/320419 be poli/tg/entlemen if you visit, please

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_motive
If NASA tells you something about space, it isn't wrong because the government says so, whatever the motivations may be. Unless you can demonstrate inaccuracies, appealing to possible motivations is not a counter-argument.

Nah brainlet, the source matters and you and your dumb racecuck friends can try and weasel out of that fact by torturing whatever fallacies you also fail to understand, but that won't change the fact that the blogs and racist "think" tanks you retards cite are garbage used by people too stupid to understand the science anyway.

So you have no evidence then. Fuck off back to Holla Forums

Dismissing claims based on the source is illogical. Something isn't wrong because a political enemy or government agency says so. That isn't how logical discourse works.

Well, considering how Wikipedia is top ten Alexa, it actually is common knowledge.
Citing the theorists themselves and what they have to say on the matter they coined is not evidence? One would think they would be the main people to ask to elaborate.
It's almost as if dismissing entire fields of cultural studies, like gender studies, black feminism, or queer theory is the denial OF the evidence you're asking for, but that's just me.

In America there is no left wing so right wingers are the only people giving answers to young people's questions

Define left wing.

What Horkheimer understood as "critical theory" is different from what is often referred to as critical theory today. You're partly right in blaming post-colonialism, gender studies, etc for political correctness but you provide no evidence showing that this was an organic evolution of the thought of Benjamin, Adorno or Horkheimer.

Then where did it come from? A what point did these people, who literally called themselves "cultural Marxists", part ways with the predecessors of the insane harpies in postmodern critical studies departments?

Citing Wikipedia is frowned upon because that's what clueless people who couldn't be bothered to do their own research do.
You did not engage "what they have to say", you merely copypasted a quote and extrapolated that this was the source of contemporary political correctness.
Show me evidence that critical theory as conceived by the Frankfurt School "caused" political correctness.

"Muh evil commies" has huge cultural background radiation, as does "muh jews" (even non-antisemites i know, basically normal people, have a sort of laughing "but they do control everything don't they?" to it.) which is easy to play off.

There's also the appeal of being an edgy shithead.

Oh, and keep in mind that I am open to any plausible explanation for where these people came from, and any characterization of their relationship to authentic leftism.

Stranger things have happened, like the fact that you can play Degrees of Kevin Bacon between Vladmir Lenin and George Bush.

It's because "intelligence" has become so fetishised by society.
Retards want to appear intelligent and rational by coming up with this shit.
Anyone with an actual education knows it's bollocks.
So you see these idiots talk about things like cultural marxism and communism without even knowing what those things are.
I mean they consider Molyneux a philosopher which says it all.

They wouldn't trust anything Wikipedia says anyway.

I've heard Brazilians are getting on the muh Cultural Marxism train as well.

It's not a matter of motive, it's a matter of methodology.
Racialists are severly lacking in it.
And before you go further, it had been discussed at large here, Holla Forumsyps kept spamming the same threads with the same link and same infographics, while ignoring or dismissing every counterargument. The spam reached such proportion at some point we even got a worldfilter out of it.

The post-Marxist politics of the American New Left of the '60s, which shifted their focus away from class and towards identity. Class was very much central to the critical theory of Horkheimer.

That's exactly what I'm asking you to prove: What's the relationship between the Frankfurt School and the political correctness of identity politics?

They rarely referred to themselves as "cultural Marxists".

Incorrect, They can trust Wikipedia whenever it fit their narrative, they can't when it doesn't.
But this mindset does not only concern Holla Forums

That every speck of the neologism soup (postmodernism, critical theory, deconstruction, social construct, oppressions, etc.) common to the plague infesting the humanities can be traced to them.

True enough, but the fact that some did begs the question of why this faded away.

Yeah, basically

Even MPC the conservative forum has a post which explains why the cultral margsism meme is fucking dumb and gay.
mpcdot.com/forums/topic/8767-culturally-appropriating-the-frankfurt-school/

...

...

...

...

...

...

Sure. Theories and concepts evolve over time. That is not to say that the concept has been utilized as a lens to analyze culture/its effects upon agents and that, this extension, has spawned political correctness.
I've already done that, if you bothered to read the wiki entries before noticing it said "wikipedia", then dismissing the source because you dislike wikipedia. If you are the same guy who did that here, that is:
That's exactly what it was: the evolution and extension of the lens of analysis to extend/apply it to different aspects of culture/different agents. It does not have to be concerned primarily with a Marxist examination of capitalism, simply inequality within a culture.

Calling people clueless is dismissive and irrational: it does not attempt to actually address the points raised within. Dislike the wiki's info because it's inaccurate, come up with a better retort than "you are clueless". Attacking my character and using it to dismiss the argument is an ad hominem attack.
No, the quote was concerned with critical theory. The subsequent subfields I linked to demonstrate its evolution as a concept.
I did, you dismissed it with an ad hominem attack. The entire premise is that critical theory has extended itself into various other branches of cultural analysis. Again, it’s common knowledge that I demonstrated above. Critical race theory is an entire subfield dedicated to the examination of cultural structures in various environments and the impacts it has had (in an effort to amend them for whatever reason). Wrongthink contrary to the racial egalitarian narrative is ‘politically incorrect’.

Then critique the methodology. “This is a bad source because the government is evil” isn’t a critique of the methodology.
Lacking in methodology? Well, what is the claim and how is it lacking in methodology?
Well, if the counter-arguments follow your suit of calling everything racist, then they are not counter-arguments at all: they are emotional outbursts at disagreements.

Ironically enough, it's the fact that it literally makes little to no sense that attracts them. They mistake the lack of meaning for deep meaning, and since a few separated bits of info seem to make sense (whether for anyone or just for them), they assume everything must be right.

If you’re the same guy who criticized me for copy-pasting info from Wikipedia as being “clueless”, I’d just like to point out the glaring hypocrisy of copy-pasting a post from a forum in response. At least Wikipedia can be edited and amended, this is set-in-stone. 
It’s also interesting that you have not read what you reference thoroughly. The argument is exactly what I am making: concepts evolve over time and they can be applied to different environments/time periods in different ways. Critical theory has been, as the user says, “
All of this is accurate so far, setting out the terms and the relevance.
Who has done this? Who has blamed Adorno for critical racial theory? Or gender studies? Or queer theory? Or black feminism? When have I asserted this? Again, see:

I’ve made my position quite clear and deliberately avoided the conflation of “Adorno and Gramsci were feminists”. I challenge you to find a quotation where I have claimed such a thing. Your own forum post you extend to me (as you believe me to be a conservative) refutes this notion (one that I am not making). It makes it clear that they “develop[ed] critical discourses to dismantle existing power structures”. My entire premise is that, from their work and the ‘lens’ of critical theory, subfields have popped up utilizing the same lens for their own narratives. They also seek to, say, dismantle white supremacy, in any form, from its grip on whatever influence it has on the culture within the environment. None of this is concerned with what Marcuse things of gays or Jews. Coincidentally, there are arguments to be made showing how the Frankfurt School's first generation was fundamentally aligned with the modern regressive liberal viewpoint on fascism and anti-Semitism (from Adorno's 'F-scale').
The entire post is concerned with highlighting the personal views of some of the Marxists and how their worldviews/viewpoints are fundamentally at-odds with modern regressive liberals. None of this is what I am claiming. You are attacking a straw man. To be as concise as possible: “An outgrowth of Western Marxism (especially from Antonio Gramsci and the Frankfurt School) and finding popularity in the 1960s as cultural studies, cultural Marxism argues that what appear as traditional cultural phenomena intrinsic to Western society, for instance the drive for individual acquisition associated with capitalism, nationalism, the nuclear family, gender roles, race and other forms of cultural identity; are historically recent developments that help to justify and maintain hierarchy.”

The comment on the forum is meant to attack “the left’s” idealist interpretation of the first-generation Western Marxists because they have strayed from the path, so to speak. They were not as concerned with racial egalitarianism, whereas regressive liberals today are. Still, this isn't addressing my main argument. None of this is concerned with critical theory and its derivatives. Either formulate your own arguments and reference things that make congruent arguments, or don’t.

It explains things and is roughly correct (you can't expect perfect representation of baizuo in one picture you know). Best thing is they are completely powerless against it.