> The Law of The Gated Institutional Narrative: Every story that starts out to be about some particular topic, once reported, instantly comes to be about perseveration, framing, coordination, gaslighting & narrative.
> In my own opinion, this is extremely dangerous to our democracy.
He's also actually contributing to the problem he's criticizing. He's creating destabilizing narratives and reducing trust in democratic institutions by spreading fear and paranoia to a few hundred thousand people. [1] That might actually be his goal in which case he should be rightfully criticized.
Do you even know what Eric's referencing in his tweet re: Gated Institutional Narrative or GIN for short? It's a concept he's spoken out about in detail before. I'm guessing you don't or his tweet would make more sense to you. But there is a community of people around him who value and understand what he says, learning from him as well, even so much so as creating a wiki for his concepts - theportal.wiki - and specifically here's GIN for you: https://theportal.wiki/wiki/Gated_Institutional_Narrative_(G...
He's also coined DISC for Distributed Idea Suppression Complex - look it up.
Are you able to understand either of these concepts for what he's pointing to? If no then perhaps it's just not an inherent capability you have with how your intelligence is structured - that's a possibility outside of Eric being a kook - but requires one to be humble in their limitations.
It doesn't seem like you do understand him. He's not fear mongering or spreading paranoia, he's shining a light on corruption and its inner workings, highlighting oddities. It's actually the opposite of what you say, it's empowering to know - knowledge is power - in fact it may be you who's fearful, paranoid, and worrying and projecting that.
I did not expect his followers to have such strong feelings. I'll keep this in mind next time I engage with Weinstein cult members. I might even need to create phrases of my own like "Algorithmically enhanced cult induction, memetic capture, and gating" and "Social media is an algorithmic substrate for mutagenic enhancement of viral ideological vectors" to be taken seriously by people like you because it seems like you folks enjoy unnecessary and convoluted abstractions that are basically meaningless.
Here's my abstract assessment of Weinstein. I don't have a wiki page to explain what any of it means but I assure you it's all very meaningful:
Eric Weinstein is using basic cult induction techniques and leveraging social media as an algorithmic mutagen to enhance viral ideological vectors of destabilizing and paranoid narratives that paint him in a favorable light in order to place himself in a position of leadership among the people that believe existing democratic institutions are no longer acting in their favor. It's either that or he's going senile. Either way, the man should not be taken seriously because he's only interested in his own crusade against the establishment that he feels spurned him and his unfathomable genius.
You can see how any sane person when they decide to analyze the statement would think the man is going senile. There is no real substance in the statement other than whatever the reader is willing to imbue into it, i.e. it is nonsensical. This is all before we even get to the part where he is claiming to have created a grand unified theory of everything which solves economic problems better than existing economics but is also just purely for entertainment purposes. The man is practically asking to not be taken seriously.