Oh, I certainly agree with that! Read very widely, and lots of noninstitutional voices. "MSM" meaning stuff like NYT or CNN is a pretty small fraction of my information diet. 1/

But "non-MSM" is not itself an endorsement. Most writing on matters of public controversy are tendentious, sometimes by virtue of their (our?) own ideology, sometimes because they are paid to reflect and express particular tendencies. 2/

"MSM" alone is a terrible diet, but if you had to choose a single source (please never do, an uncomfortable diversity of sources is our only hope), "MSM" is better than any one randomly chosen "independent" source. 3/

And yes, it's often the case big institutional media pushes a consensus due to institutional imperatives (not crossing the capital that finances it, maintaining access, social capture by particular communities it's expensive + desirable to belong to) rather than evidence, even outright misinforms.4/

But it's even more often the case that "fringe" sources push narratives consistent with their own institutional imperatives and ideologies and audience capture. "MSM" is bad, but it does not then follow that some set of sources that styles itself counter-MSM is good. 5/

They are all at best noisy signals, very often motivated deceivers. An independent understanding requires diversity and ones own hard work. There is no other way. /fin

I have several friends (like you!) who've chosen to make the kind of dive you describe. We're not going to agree! 1/

In my experience, the making-sense involves putting together complex unfalsifiable mechanisms that do make sense, because they are motivated by and always consistent with a set of priors so strong… 2/

…that complex chains of deflection and deception by hidden, powerful actors seem natural rather than implausible, as every bit of my own experience with institutions like government, media, and academia suggest. 3/

at least the Curtis-Yarvin-style neoreactionaries, who often come join the same political camp, get that "the cathedral" is simultaneously hegemonic and impotent, that the reach of these institutions is inescapable but the problem is they can't organize bold, coherent action… 4/

…they shrug along reflecting structural biases and imperatives built into the self-interest of these actors, even when doing so engenders contradictions that paralyze the entire system. 5/

"the cathedral" does not control the weather, beyond idiotically pumping carbon into the atmosphere while the institutions that constitute understand with a shrug that is unwise. 6/

there is a lot that's terrible abt our institutions. one thing that is both wonderful and terrible is that there really really is no one person in the drivers seat, no master plan, just a lot of competing bastards who manage to tilt the wheel, swerving us all very often right toward some cliff. /fin

illegal migrants don’t get anything simply by virtue of being illegal migrants. some get assistance for various reasons. the comparison of quite unrelated things is entirely tendentious, motivated by political priors. 1/

most people who advance claims about the $750 don’t do it in the carefully phrased, maybe arguable way that you do. they lie outright. you’ve backfilled to create a path towards reasonableness that tue original and still predominant claims entirely lack. 2/

overall, i think the assertion that most claims suggesting Americans receive only $750 while illegal migrants receive much more and have depleted FEMA are correctly characterized as deceptive. /fin