Yes, I know Soviet Communism was authoritarian, it was simply seen as the wrong type of authoritarianism to the generation of mindless American flag-waving Christian nationalists. I'm quite familiar with the system, and endorsed it in spite of all the horrors it produced. As I said, I believed some weird shit as a teen-ager. I have since moved to the opposite corner of the political compass. I suppose embracing liberty and individualism comes with growing up, especially since, truth be told, I was never a very good communist.

Moving on then, serious question: how can someone who professes to be "well versed" in the tactics of propaganda be able to point out, so easily, that a certain news source (e.g. CNN) is nothing more than propaganda, yet fail to see how another news source (e.g. The Guardian) is equally propagandistic? Is this nothing more than the classic "our news is honest, theirs is propaganda, our glorious leader, their despot" sort of rhetoric that leads so many to willingly inhabit echo chambers? Did I just answer my own question?

Speaking of echo chambers, don't midwits immediately run to them whenever they experience cognitive dissonance? Is not their method of resolving conflicts to simply seek out further affirmations that their pre-conceived notions are correct, or did I miss something?