Anti-Interesting
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, 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
More On X
2020
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.
2021
2022
2023
Related Pages
- The Portal Ep 25: The Construct: Jeffrey Epstein
- Anechoic Era or Anechoic media
- Cobalt and Baby Blue-on-Blue
- Follow the Silence
- Jeffrey Epstein
- Jessupization
- 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