But you're not paying attention to the structure.
Hurricanes are comprised of decillions of molecules. The large-scale structure results from the small-scale structure: interactions between molecules are short-range, governed by electrostatic repulsion. The molecules each do their own thing, traveling at around 300 meters per second, unless they smack into each other.
Collectively, they might all go the same direction based on local interactions. So you'd estimate that the maximum collective action would be something like 300 meter per second wind (>700 mph). Or they could all collide in opposite directions and produce nothing: 0 mph wind. These cover the range of possibilities for hurricanes. If you say a hurricane has 20,000 mph winds, then something seems probably wrong: it can't easily be explained by collective action. But, happily, hurricane winds are well within the plausible range, so it is plausible that the structure of interactions between air molecules produce the large-scale structure of the hurricane. Furthermore, we see all sorts of wind-related phenomena which are small compared to the scale of the eye of the hurricane (eddies, wind between skyscrapers, etc. etc.), so it's plausible that collective action could change on the scale of the hurricane eye.
Structure begets structure--maybe! Of course you have to actually do the fluid mechanics to have a real confirmation, but it's at least plausible.
Galaxies are comprised of billions of stars extremely far apart. Unlike with molecules, they interact with gravity which has a single sign: it cannot be canceled out by anti-gravity, so it only combines to get stronger if it pulls from the same direction. However, if gravity from two different objects pulls in two opposite directions, the overall effect can cancel out. Nonetheless, there is no measured "collective effect" aside from everything pulling on everything, with very small corrections for space-time warping (except around extremely concentrated masses, e.g. black holes, which we don't have in Model B, so we don't need to think about that).
Nonetheless, we can see stars zipping around the galactic center, so we see that gravity is really strong there, and pulling in different directions. So you can ask: we know what the minimum collective force is: zero. What is the maximum collective force, never mind about how the collective is achieved, and how much could that possibly differ in the small space around the "black eye"? That's the calculation I did. And it came out waaaaaaay too small to have an effect on things like light (or even to explain the stars zipping around--and it certainly can't explain the precession of orbits that nicely match what is predicted by frame-dragging from a Kerr singularity), even if all the stars were acting together collectively (which is absurd, because it would mean that some stars are using gravity to push instead of to pull) from their individual positions.
So you have ignored the structure of stars' collective action (pull only, at all distances) compared to molecules (mostly push, only against adjacent molecules), and yet want to claim that the superficial similarities in macro-structure reflect similar collective phenomena.
You'd have to invent a whole bunch of new physics in an area where the established physics is in very very very good agreement with observation (save for actual black holes themselves, because they're far away and hard to observe--but observations of gravity are extremely good).
There's no point doing structural thinking if you don't actually pay attention to the structure! The collective nature of gravity is different than the collective nature of molecules. Gravity is the ultimate commons: everyone interacts with everyone. Molecules are very personal: unless they're charged, they ignore everything except their immediate neighbors who they bump into. Twitter is not like chatting with your neighbors.