Perhaps this won't "substantiate" anything, but I'll share some quotes to show I'm not alone in my persuasion and am in relatively good company.
Fr. Patrick Henry Reardon, in an email to an Orthodox inquirer, said:
"What almost always passes for Orthodox theology among English-speaking Orthodox these days is actually just a branch of the larger Orthodox picture. Indeed, it tends sometimes to be rather sectarian...The Orthodox Church is an ancient castle, as it were, of which only two or three rooms have been much in use since about 1920. These two or three rooms were furnished by the Russian émigrés in Paris between the two World Wars. This furniture is heavily neo-Palamite and anti-Scholastic...Anything that does not fit comfortably into that model is dismissed as Western and even non-Orthodox...For this reason I urge you, as you can, to read in the Orthodox sources that tend to get skipped in what currently passes for Orthodoxy."
Dr. David Bentley Hart, an Orthodox theologian and scholar, in the Scottish Journal of Theology, 60(1): 95-101 (2007) said:
"Frankly, I think that the theological idiom to which Orthodox theology has been confined for the last fifty years or so has largely exhausted itself and has become tediously repetitive. It has also, to a very great extent, done much to distort the Orthodox understanding of the traditions of both East and West."
In another article, The Myth of Schism, he went further:
"Anyone familiar with the Eastern Christian world knows that the Orthodox view of the Catholic Church is often a curious mélange of fact, fantasy, cultural prejudice, sublime theological misunderstanding, resentment, reasonable disagreement, and unreasonable dread: it sees a misty phantasmagoria of crusades, predestination, “modalism,” a God of wrath, flagellants, Grand Inquisitors, and those blasted Borgias.
As for how to remedy this situation (of apparent theological differences), I can offer only the weak recommendation of better education: perhaps we might find a way to force young Orthodox theologians to read Augustine and Aquinas, rather than fatuous treatments of Augustine and Aquinas written by dyspeptic Greeks, or to forge young Catholic theologians to immerse themselves in Byzantine scholasticism and Eastern ecclesiology, and to force everyone involved to learn the history of the church in all its ambiguity. But, whatever we do, we have too long allowed bad scholarship and empty cant and counterfeit history to influence and even dictate the terms of the relation between Orthodoxy and Rome.
Today, however, a grand mythology has evolved regarding the theological dispositions of the Eastern and Western Christendom, to the effect that the theologies of the Eastern and Western Catholic traditions have obeyed contrary logics and have in consequence arrived at conclusions inimical each to the other - that is to say, the very essence of what we believe is no longer compatible. I do not believe that, before the middle of the 20th century, claims were ever made regarding the nature of the division as radical as those one finds not only in the works of inane agitators like the altogether absurd and execrable John Romanides, but also in the works of theologians of genuine stature, such as Dumitru Staniloae, Vladimir Lossky, or John Zizioulas in the East or Erich Przywara or Hans Urs von Balthasar in the West; and until those claims are defeated - as well they should be, as they are without exception entirely fanciful - we cannot reasonably hope for anything but impasse."
Both sides are guilty, of course. My impression of most of it lying with Orthodox is probably because I'm Orthodox and that's who I most read and converse with. But there seems to be a specific trend within North American convert-culture Orthodoxy that seeks to paint Orthodoxy in contra-distinction to everything else. Hence "The Most Unique Orthodoxy Ever." It's so "unique" it's not like anything! I understand the impulse, but it has unfortunate consequences.