Why do these guys get hate again? The most common terminology, eg 'mainstream media' wouldn't exist without their work...

that's the point, they just paste a Star of David next to them without saying anything. If you erased Adorno's name from his writings the alt-right would be praising him because of his hatred for the mainstream, the news, Jazz, etc

The source of his hate for the mainstream is different from the alt-righters, which would ultimately change the solution.
Only the process is similar.

cultural capitalists from the Chicago School are a much bigger issue

youtu.be/-fsbQP4lYUE?t=56m7s

Unrelated but doesn't cultural Marxism literally mean "you're only a Marxist (or anarchist) as a reaction" similar to a lot of the hippie movements were, becoming Marxists for a short time in reaction to the Vietnam war, and instead of reading theory as soon as the war was over they deradicalized.

Maybe for art, but for news it's the same. The Culture Industry attempts to disseminate a consensus that the public understand to be true, the 'mainstream media' provides this role for the alt-right. It's literally the same exact thing.

Add to it the Parisian line of thought that all truths are universal or equally valid and you have the alt-right's take on things.

There's a missing comma in there

I thought it meant Marxists that were observing the super-structure as a means of controlling the base. Culture would be part of the super-structure.

cus the Frankfurt School were around since the 30s, afterall. and Horkheimer supported the war in Vietnam.

Sure, but doesn't anyone with above average intelligence notice that,eventually?
From the top of my head, i remember at least Pareto, Feder and Evola writing on how the means throught culture was spread at the time were pushing for an unified view on things.
And i haven't even mentioned the marxist academics who also talked about the same thing, like Sombart.

Nigger what? Focault literall divided reasoning into the "good" and "bad" reason, going against all previous estabilished epistemology.

this is a bastardization of postmodernism that applies to small subsections of the left and most of the alt-right. you've surely heard that girl arguing that 'Western modernity' is inherently biased towards wypipol and that science should be abolished or whatever. I don't blame Parisian thinkers like Foucault but it's a real phenomenon.

I still don't get it how it relates to the "all truths are universal or equally valid" statement.

From what i understand, that statement implies that there are several worldviews which should be considered valid, even though they often conflict.
Truth is an inherently metahphysical concept, there is only one truth about one specified object, it's just that it is almost impossible to actually perceive the truth because of limitations to the human perception. blah blah blah, Kant and Hume.

The statement which you quoted, which i haven't seen, apparently is about an objective, although flawed, perception of what is undeniably true, denying the subjective truth.

I guess you could say that it is related to Focault's view of history, where the "common" perception of historical facts is generally misguided, although still having some value to social relations.
Where i would counterargue with jungian psychology, but that's another topic entirely.

youtube.com/watch?v=C9SiRNibD14

this. it is specifically about subjective truth, ie a tribe describing how lighting functions over the scientific view. of course our current truth is ever changing and perceived through various flawed senses but whatever.

from my understanding, Foucault's view of history was looking back to the good things within it, ie how people during the early enlightenment viewed the mentally ill and so on.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I wish this was true

This. What we describe today as a "leftist" idpol originated in the decadence of the New Left, not in muh pomo French theorists at the exception maybe of Claude Lévi-Strauss who is strangely rarely mentioned in this debate.

Uh? He did?

Critical theory is, and critical theory is the tool that the Western Marxists devised. It's just shifting the lens to cultural phenomena, and from there, it extends to race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. as systems of oppression. That is exactly what it has branched off from, they laid the groundwork for it. It's given rise to things like critical race theory.

It doesn't.

Unsuccessfully, but that was the theory. That is what it is defined as, that's what, say, queer theory or critical race theory does. It's an off-shoot in sociology from critical race theory. It draws its inspiration directly from their theorizing, it was just extended to various cultural 'aspects' within society. They might not have thought to extend it to such areas (in fact, I bet you the modern sociologists would call the Western Marxists racist or bigoted), but they were the progenitors of the theories.

The French made it cool and humorous to have a mental illness. The Hot Dog School made it funny to touch little boys' peepees.