Forgive me if any thing I write here is obvious or simplistic.
Most right-wing discussion assumes, or is built on top of, a main general "background" viewpoint- that the world was more or less "normal" until some recent point when other groups or ideologies pushed the world in a different direction.
However, taking the general public's (non) reaction to recent events like the exaggerated pandemic and the suspicious election foolery- it would seem that NPC theory is true- that the majority of people simply go along with the narrative of whoever is in charge. Of course, there is a significant left-right divide even between "normies", but this divide is limited to superficial opinion and not things that actually challenge the system. The majority accept the pandemic, the election, and the media as being legitimate, in US and worldwide.
Taking into account this demonstration of how people behave as a group- I suspect that things have not been "normal" in a long time. For all we know, we could have been lied to about any number of historical events and not know because people with evidence didn't have the means to widely disseminate it. It is possible that we are only now beginning to wake up because of the internet allowing skeptics to congregate.
This is pure speculation on my part, nothing more. But knowing how easily we are lied to in the present day, and how easily people swallow it, makes me suspicious of the legitimacy of what we were told in the past.
I have for some time been amassing a collection of physical books out of fear of future censorship. They are on a wide variety of subjects but mostly focusing on history, philosophy, law, and religious/esoteric texts. Ashamed to say that I haven't opened most of them, but I plan to do deep research to figure out what is and isn't true. 4chan is helpful sometimes but the high percentage of diversion posts and shills is why I am doing my own research.
I am sure that at least some of history is true- there are things that simply can't be faked-but am also sure that much of what we are told is, if not fake, at least distorted to suit a narrative.
Either way, the recent "social justice" is not itself the only problem, and they are not the only ones screwing things up. They are a cause, but far from the sole cause of all the "recent" bullshit that may not be recent at all.
Sorry for rambling, sorry if this was stupid or obvious. Just needed to write this out.
I was touching on this a bit, yes. But to give an example of what I was specifically arguing, look at how information and narratives used to be communicated. All media was essentially "establishment" in this time, i.e. through physical newspapers, TV, and radio. Very top-down, without any real platform for the average person.
Let's say there was a 2020-esque scenario that took place in 1960. The media and communications apparatus only reported in ways that were advantageous to their chosen candidate, and in this internet-less era, where individuals had no real far-reaching platform, would proof of, (or even the mere speculation of) significant election fraud ever reach the general public? Probably not.
Yes, my point is sort of related to the "history is written by the victors" thing. But I am really saying, it is possible that the current extreme bias in media is not new, but that it is only being widely noticed now because of the Internet, which enables skeptics to talk, share info, and build their own narratives even when physically separated.
And if you accept the possibility that media has been extremely biased in this way for a very long time (not just recently from sjw stuff), then that calls into question the validity of a lot of other historical events.
We used to at least have the illusion that if your city had two competing newspapers, one would "liberal" and the other would be "conservative", but those views would/should only be reflected in the opinion columns/editorial pages. Otherwise, the news stories themselves were supposed to be pretty much similar to one another (and they usually were, thanks to papers increasingly relying on news services; about the only difference might be one paper cuts out the last two or three paragraphs for irrelevancy and space.) Colourful adjectives were to be avoided as "yellow journalism".
That lie simply blew up under the sunlight, like a nuclear cockroach.
But then, I witnessed the day the Detroit News and the Detroit Free Press started to be printed under one roof, and come in a combined edition on the weekends ...
I think it's been extremely biased for a long time, if not forever. It's just human nature and how power structures work. Like you said in the past there was very little way to question a narrative/discuss that questioning with others. What's changed recently I think is just the technology.
How do you know one didn't? How do you know the "peaceful protests" in the 1960s were actually peaceful?
Read up on the lead-up to Kent State sometime. It wasn't peaceful: they lit the ROTC building on fire. You can argue what the National Guard did was disproportionate or tactically unsound, but they were there for a reason.
That's exactly the point.