> Nothing in Breitbart seems that extraordinary to me.
That's your problem right there. If your understanding of the world, history and your reading comprehension are such that Breitbart looks normal to you then I'm afraid I am out of options to convince you of the opposite, you will have to do some catching up.
We are talking about the same website I hope?
It's a non stop orgy of emotional button pushing with a complete lack of balance with respect to the reality on the ground. It's quite possible to lie with facts by selectively leaving out facts that support counter examples and those things that do not support your worldview. Breitbart is apparently good enough at this that it can convince people like you - able to string together a couple of sentences with more than two syllable words in it - that this is normal.
So, maybe it is possible that an intelligent and decent person subscribes to Breitbart, but it would require stretching 'intelligent' to the point of abstraction and 'decent' would not enter the picture by my definition of that word. Most decent and intelligent people that I know would be more than capable of seeing it for what it is: outright manipulation of public opinion for political purposes, so blatant that it is surprising it works at all.
If you feel it is normal then that is your problem, especially if you consider yourself to be intelligent and decent. Personally I like my news diet to be solidly grounded in reality, not a carefully made selection of facts to support certain political bumper stickers such as 'white is good, black is bad', 'immigrants are bad', 'America is great' and so on.
Remember too that history has a way of not looking too kindly on those that felt that obvious aberrations were perfectly normal and decent, when in fact all they were justifying was their own bigotry and biases. Time to figure out which side of history you want to be on, good luck, you'll need it.