Anti-Interesting: Difference between revisions
 |
|||
| Line 270: | Line 270: | ||
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein | |usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein | ||
|username=EricRWeinstein | |username=EricRWeinstein | ||
|content=Q: Are Enormous Canadian Trucker Protests | |content=Q: Are Enormous Canadian Trucker Protests [[Anti-Interesting]]? If so, why? | ||
|timestamp=6:06 PM ¡ Jan 29, 2022 | |timestamp=6:06 PM ¡ Jan 29, 2022 | ||
|media1=ERW-X-post-1487487234273996802-CXYvAcDHdFilGB1k.png | |media1=ERW-X-post-1487487234273996802-CXYvAcDHdFilGB1k.png | ||
| Line 282: | Line 282: | ||
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein | |usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein | ||
|username=EricRWeinstein | |username=EricRWeinstein | ||
|content= | |content=[[Anti-Interesting|âAnti-Interestingâ]] is an important concept: not everyone has experienced it, but once you see it even a single time, you will see it repeatedly thereafter. | ||
{{Tweet | {{Tweet | ||
|image=SteveGuest-profile.jpg | |image=SteveGuest-profile.jpg | ||
| Line 309: | Line 309: | ||
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein | |usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein | ||
|username=EricRWeinstein | |username=EricRWeinstein | ||
|content=This story is | |content=This story is [[Anti-Interesting|anti-interesting]] in the way that [[Jeffrey Epstein]] is [[Anti-Interesting|anti-interesting]]. | ||
|thread= | |thread= | ||
{{Tweet | {{Tweet | ||
| Line 319: | Line 319: | ||
|content=How interesting to corporate media are public airings of the details of the relationships between FBI, Twitter, the Military, elections and THE MEDIA itself? | |content=How interesting to corporate media are public airings of the details of the relationships between FBI, Twitter, the Military, elections and THE MEDIA itself? | ||
Follow the pathological disinterest. Follow silence. Follow what is | Follow the pathological disinterest. [[Follow the Silence|Follow silence]]. Follow what is [[Anti-Interesting|anti-interesting]]. Let the â[[Nothing Burger]]â guide you. | ||
|media1=ERW-X-post-1605626608739528705-FkhU5CKUYAA8OuQ.jpg | |media1=ERW-X-post-1605626608739528705-FkhU5CKUYAA8OuQ.jpg | ||
|quote= | |quote= | ||
Latest revision as of 17:59, 29 November 2025
The concept of "Anti-Interesting," originated by Eric Weinstein, describes phenomena, events, or topics that are inherently fascinating, newsworthy, and potentially of great public interest but are deliberately underreported, ignored, or downplayed by mainstream media and other institutional actors. The essence of the concept lies in the idea that these topics are not simply "uninteresting" but are actively suppressed because they threaten established narratives, powerful institutions, or vested interests.
Anti-interesting, adj. 1) A subject is said to be anti-interesting if it is absolutely fascinating to the point where there is a strong market for itâs investigation but it threatens an institution capable of stifling discussion inside the Gated Institutional Narrative (GIN).
Weinstein argues that "anti-interesting" subjects often involve significant discrepancies or "failures to close" within the visible world, where the observable facts or events do not align with the narratives presented by media and authorities. These discrepancies suggest the existence of an "invisible world"âforces or agendas working behind the scenes to control what is reported or discussed publicly.
Examples Eric has cited as "anti-interesting" include the lack of media interest in Jeffrey Epstein's wealth origins, "hedge fund" currency trading records and filings, and ties to intelligence, the handling of the COVID-19 pandemic's origins and the role of EcoHealth Alliance and Peter Daszak, President Joe Biden's Cognitive Decline, the Boskin Commissionâs attempt to transfer 1 Trillion Dollars by hacking the CPI, the H1-B visa history, and various other significant issues that, despite their potential to captivate the public, are sidelined in public discourse.
In essence, "anti-interesting" highlights the disconnect between what should naturally draw public attention and what is actually allowed to surface in mainstream narratives, pointing to an underlying mechanism of control that dictates the boundaries of acceptable discourse.
Something is anti-interesting when it is newsworthy in the extreme and fascinating to consumers of news but the editors show a preternatural disinterest in covering it. âThe world has moved on.â âNobody knows who these people are.â âThereâs not enough here.â âTin Foil Hat story.â
On YouTube[edit]
More On X[edit]
2020[edit]
Five days ago I released a podcast. It has been listened to by over 100,000 people. If you search twitter you will see that it generates an enormous amount of interest except from two groups: the news & professors. They are not disinterested, but anti-interested. Except for Greg.
if you haven't listened to this then you're in for a crazy, unhinged but brilliant ride.
What is anti-interesting? Well Jeffery Epsteinâs wealth source is anti-interesting to media. Bernie in 2016 was anti-interesting to @nytimes. Income inequality was anti-interesting to economists until very recently. The Las Vegas shooter was anti-interesting. Building Seven too.
To @MSNBC, @AndrewYang is pathologically anti-interesting. Flight 800 is pretty anti-interesting as was the Boskin Commissionâs attempt to transfer 1 Trillion Dollars by hacking the CPI. The H1-B visa history is anti-interesting. As are broken laboratory mice with long telomeres.
Anti-interesting, adj. 1) A subject is said to be anti-interesting if it is absolutely fascinating to the point where there is a strong market for itâs investigation but it threatens an institution capable of stifling discussion inside the Gated Institutional Narrative (GIN).
But I find these things fascinating. As do we all. Do stay tuned to The Portal.
More to come. Thanks @greggutfeld!
If you want to see this theory of Idea Suppression in action, retweet the first tweet in the thread with hashtag #SlipTheDISC. Hey, who knows...We might be able to change the game.
Where are we on State-Sponsored pedophilia honey-pots?
Letâs try the following: How can we be sure that China, Russia or Iran wasnât behind Epstein if we canât ask the question of Epsteinâs ties to intelligence? So either we KNOW his tie, or we are leaving a giant security hole.
Why is that anti-interesting? Wouldnât we want to be sure that Epsteinâs fortune didnât come from China, Russia, etc.? Thus we either *know* that it didnât and arenât reporting what we know, or we have left the door open to the states that we are certain are trying to control us.
Pursue this even further: if news desks arenât asking these questions, arenât they under suspicion of being under control of foreign or domestic intelligence? That is can we essentially back out that some intelligence has captured legacy media if they arenât willing to *ask* Qs?
Let me say as someone old enough to remember Watergate & the Church Committee, as recently as 40-50 years ago journalists would pursue stories about dirty tricks and Intelligence excesses. The phrase âNo Commentâ is familiar to anyone my age from this time.
Where is that phrase?
It is an entire concept that has disappeared: institutional accountability with institutions going after institutions rather than institutions going after those individuals who are the only ones who are still really raising questions.
Ghislaine Maxwell is the most anti-interesting person on earth. She remained not worth locating, questioning or investigating during all of April.
Why is Ghislaine Maxwell so anti-interesting to our media? To our FBI? To our CIA? I mean these folks do *not* want to find her or talk to her in a HUGE way.
Letâs find out.
How hard can this be - unless the US (read Trump & Friends) has asked Interpol NOT to find her?
https://www.the-sun.com/news/1014441/jeffrey-epstein-ghislaine-maxwell-hiding-paris-flat/
2021[edit]
Remember when @azizansari picked the wrong wine for a lady who connected with him while on a date with another gentleman:
Well thereâs a trial going on involving trafficking kids that is apparently 10000x less interesting to our media. #antiinteresting
Something is anti-interesting when it is newsworthy in the extreme and fascinating to consumers of news but the editors show a preternatural disinterest in covering it. âThe world has moved on.â âNobody knows who these people are.â âThereâs not enough here.â âTin Foil Hat story.â
But do carry on.
This is *extremely* Anti-Interesting to our news media. Like the Ghislaine trial that begins this week. Or the SUV accident in the Midwest that claimed multiple lives. Which is similar to the Las Vegas Shooter. And Hunter Biden. Or Joe Bidenâs decline. Or the Portland Courthouse.
Periodic reminder that on March 28, 2016, Daszak described exactly what led to the pandemic.
This could not be clearer and yet we're still turning in circles because corrupt scientists and their media flunkies are still relentlessly pushing the natural origins hoax.
2022[edit]
Q: Are Enormous Canadian Trucker Protests Anti-Interesting? If so, why?
âAnti-Interestingâ is an important concept: not everyone has experienced it, but once you see it even a single time, you will see it repeatedly thereafter.
How the Sunday shows covered the attempted assassination of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh via TVEyes.
# of mentions of "Kavanaugh":
ABC's This Week: 0 mentions
NBC's Meet The Press: 0 mentions
CBS's Face The Nation: 0 mentions
CNN SOTU: 0 mentions
Fox News Sunday covered
How interesting to corporate media are public airings of the details of the relationships between FBI, Twitter, the Military, elections and THE MEDIA itself?
Follow the pathological disinterest. Follow silence. Follow what is anti-interesting. Let the âNothing Burgerâ guide you.
This story is anti-interesting in the way that Jeffrey Epstein is anti-interesting.
2023[edit]
Because:
Wuhan involves a Bio-Weapons Convention workaround using @EcoHealthNYC funded by @dtra.
CCP controls a huge market.
We created scientists who all fear for their ability to feed families when we ended true academic freedom.
Science-serfdom.
Itâs anti-interesting.
đ
But if you really want to get it look at Wikipedia entries of people who spoke out when it was maximally taboo. There is an entire sub-system of âIntellectual Border Colliesâ with PhDs who police any one who strays from the consensus flock to please their institutional masters.
Itâs absurd. Sure. But can you imagine Anthony Fauci and Francis Collins going after mainstream academics as âFringe Epidemiologistsâ?
We are talking about institutional evil. Why it is there, I canât say. But we need to simply take out the Fauci class from control over science.
*@doddtra
Apologies to @dtra.
Q: What is the scientific basis of the level of reporting and official response to the Ohio Vinyl Chloride moving cloud?
I donât know whether this is a huge deal for areas far from the derailment. But it seems anti-interesting relative to its environmental harm.
Can we speculate on:
A) Expected mortality impact? B) Expected morbidity impact? C) Expected long term Soil damage? D) Expected impact on corn/soy based processed food products? E) Financial loss?
How bad is it? Why are we on endlessly about the environment but not corporate and government responsibility on this one? As an old school democrat, this is what we used to go after. Right??
Doesnât make sense to me yet. Anyone? Thx.
Because our institutions decided that they outgrew the free society they serve.
What is âPrebunking Malinformationâ?
https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/publications/mdm-incident-response-guide_508.pdf https://archive.is/CuoJ7
What is a âFree Speech Zoneâ to a free people? [Since 1988]
What is a âreputation scoreâ and why am I still throttled?
NEWS: The Twitter team continue to find shadowbans buried deep in the Twitter code.
Just last week they found a measure that stopped accounts assigned a low 'Reputation score' from trending.
This shadowban even applied to Elon's account and prevented his tweets from trending.
What is ESG and how does it work exactly?
NEW: From S&P Global to the London Stock Exchange, tobacco companies are crushing Tesla in the ESG ratings. How could cigarettes, which kill over 8 million a year, be deemed a more ethical investment than electric cars?
One answer: Tobaccoâs gone woke.𧾠https://freebeacon.com/latest-news/how-tobacco-companies-are-crushing-esg-ratings/
What is âControlled Sponteneityâ?
Is there a more Orwellian oxymoron among oxymorons?
What was Project DEFUSE? Seriously.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21066966-defuse-proposal/
Why is this so anti-interesting?
Just search on âFurinâ, âSARS-CoVâ âSpike Proteinâ, âWuhanâ and âDTRAâ for @doddtra. Wouldnât you **want** deep public hearings if this was all a super unfortunate coincidence? Right??
Coincidence theory puts conspiracy theory to shame.
If you want to understand Trump & RFK, make it very simple. Ignore the errors and issues for a moment. ALL of them. Theyâre the only 2 major candidates working at the scope of âMaybe almost EVERYTHING important/weird that weâre told by institutions is potentially totally wrong.â
2024[edit]
In 9 days, this video about the second shooter has fewer than 4K views. I find that odd because I find Mike Benz to be pretty compelling.
Perhaps itâs not that interesting. Perhaps itâs anti-interesting. đ¤ˇââď¸
Whatâs your take?
[Thanks to @JakeOrthwein and @MikeBenzCyber.]
2025[edit]
Ryan Wesley Routh and USAID are both strongly tied to discrete American interests, assets, sources and methods in Ukraine.
Who was paying Routh in Ukraine, Afghanistan, etc.? Is there no connection whatsoever?
Those are a crisp questions that can now, at last, be answered.
UFOs & Foreign Aid/NGOs are both broad programs with which to hide Aerospace development and covert operations respectively.
We don't need to be conspiracy theorizing anymore.
We can now simply be conspiracy inquiring.
It takes some getting used to. But we can just...ask.
And if you think that's nuts: then you EXPLAIN this construction worker turned would-be assassin? I'm all ears.
Just another misfit far from home near a war? That's it? Let's get that on the record! From officials. Under oath.
I'd love to hear that, because trying to assasinate a once and future president is a HUGE deal. And we don't seem very interested in his oddball story. Why was this guy so anti-interesting? I find him utterly fascinating. At a minimum.
Such a crazy story! No? I'd pay to watch a documentary.
I really want to know. And it is a totally fair question we were all trained not to even think about...let alone ask and expect a straight answer.
I don't see President Trump wanting to protect any group who tried to make sure he never took office again.
A very interesting question is why academics almost uniformly make fun of conspiracy theoriesâŚwhen presented by colleagues at least.
Los Alamos, Tuskegee, Human Terrain Systems, etc. all involved conspiracy BY ACADEMICS. Some were good. Some bad. Some ambiguous.
But isnât it odd that conspiracies are a permanent part of human existence, yet trying to study them or theorize about them results in crippling professional penalties?
I am astonished that I have not heard one single physicist call @pmarca a liar for claiming the Biden Whitehouse revealed that entire public subfields of theoretical physics were taken off-line by the government for security reasons, and disappeared or went dark.
Nor have I heard âWe have to look into this!â. Nor have I heard âWow! That is super interesting.â Just silence.
But what I have heard is academics finding it laughable that others find this is interesting.
The @pmarca claim about physics is thus one of the most anti-interesting claims I have ever heard. Everyone in physics just seems to intuitively know not to ask about it.
Has anyone seen @michiokaku, @neiltyson, @bgreene etc. commenting on this claim? I havenât.
They all just know: Donât go there girlfriend.
@codingquark @HeathHimself GU is both the most anti-interesting theory in history as well as the only theory that cannot be steelmanned.
I am not the guy to tell you what Epstein was. Or whether he killed himself. Or what the "Client list" was. Because, like you, I don't actually know about any of those things. And I have never claimed that I do.
I am going to tell you with 100% absolute certainty that Epstein is "Anti-Interesting" to our news desks. No one want to publish a story about how his multi-billion dollar currency trading hedge fund worked by interviewing a few of those many former eployees that it must have had.
Or by reviewing the fillings it must have made to the Government. Or its trading records. Or by talking to the sell-side coverage it must have had. Or by going through it's records.
Or that it didn't exist. And he wasn't a Multi-Billion financier. And that someone set him up as a construct at great expense.
The scandal is not investigating. Not publishing, Not doing journalism. Clearly the state has control of our news.
I don't care where this leads. I believe he was most likely constructed by a *tiny* number of tight lipped psychopaths who set him up to ruin the lives of children in the service of gathering information. And those people...whoever they are...would need to be brought to justice. Whatever the cost.
I would like to think there isn't a father alive (no matter how flawed) who disagrees with that. And that we need to put ourselves at risk as a group to protect our children from the State, The Press and The Evil co-conspirators. And I don't know who they are. It's terrifying.
I also thing that a number of people who had nothing to do with that but who had deaings with Epstein (e.g. scientists) need to be separated from that aspect of evil and fully exonerated. And those that participated in the Evil with Epstein need to face justice as well.
Pretending that there is nothing further to see here, and that no one wants this investigated remains preposterous.
This was over 5 years ago now. Where are the Dads?
I think many of you made a huge mistake about the âClient Listâ. About âLolita Expressâ. About âPedophile Island.â That is, if the goal was to use Epstein to get justice, and put an end to this abuse of children and civilians by the sickest members of the worldâs ICs.
You had fun with memes. And you let an IC sponsored pedophile get away. We were supposed to be pushing the press:
âWhy donât you ask **any** truly detailed questions about a supposed multi billion dollar FX hedge fund that may not have existed at all?â That wasâŚand isâŚthe first order of business.
We canât know exactly what he did, where and when.
But there is no way to fake this hedge fund. Either he had an enormous fund or he didnât. We can get all the details if he did. Or push as to why they donât exist.
I donât know if he killed himself. I donât even know if he is dead. I donât know if there is âthe Epstein client listâ.
The thing we know best is that he claimed to manage a multibillion dollar fund that ***cannot*** be hidden. Where are its records and employees?????????â Why does the press avoid reporting on this fund like the plague???? It was headquartered at Villard House for Christ sake. Madison Avenue. Who liquidated it? Who worked there? wtf?
This manager to this mystery fund is like a captain who supposedly has one of the worldâs largest mega yachtsâŚthat somehow isnât registered or flagged. It leaves no wake. No shipyard built it or serviced it. It has no crew. No harbor master has ever seen it.
âItâs so quiet that Lockheed asked to study it. Itâs said to be made of optically neural superconducting ice crystals that form only from the tears of virgin sea lions cooled to absolute zero so it canât be seen. He brilliantly purchased a Bugis Prahu Charter that was grandfathered in before the 1609 Mare Liberum was in force so that he alone may sail the seas without ever communicating with other vessels or harbors. It is said that his carbon fiber anchor and chain stretched to the bottom of the Challenger Deep so that he didnât need to approach the shore for years on end.â
Câmon.
The key was that he wasnât a âdisgraced financierâ. He was a construct fitted with a mysterious poorly drawn backstory. And that construct probably belonged to several Allied nation states:
âHeâs so brilliant that he only accepts people who surrender total control of their wealth under power of attorney. He is closed to anyone who doesnât have 1 Billion dollars minimum. In fact: his investor list is so discreet, and is said to be so secretive and closely guarded that he has only one known client.â
Did you not realize that outside investors are a liability to a cover story or front? Beware any super secretive fund that has a story why they dont want family office or institutional money. This is not the only one btw.
HenceâŚthe exclusivity.
Why was he obsessed by Gravity? He was almost certainly a front used for funding edgy science, information gathering, control, etc away from normal channels.
It wasnât one thing. He wasnât a creepy front companyâŚhe was a mall filled with different business providing different goods and services. It wasnât all about raping kids. Some collection of people invested something like 9 figures in creating a weird 11-12 figure fairy tale via leverage. And it was used for a lot of things. It was called Jeffrey Epstein.
Moral: focus on the cover story. Not the memes. Go after the press first. Figure out exactly who is stopping the fund from being dissected. Focus on the non reporting.
This is what Anti-Interesting is all about. Use it.
One manâs opinion. đ
Related Pages[edit]
- The Portal Ep 25: The Construct: Jeffrey Epstein
- Anechoic Era or Anechoic media
- Boskin Commission
- Cobalt and Baby Blue-on-Blue
- CPI
- Follow the Silence
- Gated Institutional Narrative (GIN)
- H-1B Visa
- Jeffrey Epstein
- Jessupization
- Labor Shortages
- Managed Reality TM
- Map the Silences
- The Cognitive Decline of President Joe Biden
- The Distributed Idea Suppression Complex (The DISC)
- The Invisible World is First Detected by the Visible Worldâs Failure to Close
- Nothing Burger
- Responsible Conspiracy Theorizing