Skip to main content


the competition for your mind has never been more intense:

The new platform promise to 'fix' fake news is fake.  What wants to be fixed is your perception.  Algorithms the original filter.  The idea that conduits should become absolute filters is a bankrupt concept.  Filtration is not a conduit's job, nor is filtration ethical when it comes to user produced content.  Your platform is going to filter me for monetary gain?  I don't think so.  All this ridiculousness built on extensions of our fixation with rote memorization.  Study the answers and you'll be smart now obvious bullshit.

Providing answers doesn't build braincells: The ability to think has nothing to do with the memorization of answers, and it never will.  Thinking comes from the act of speculation as it relates to multiple perspectives.

"When we give answers without work we are actually building weakness."

Pick a topic.  What's in the news today is a regurgitation of singular perspective.  The offering of both, or several sides of the story a journalistic expense that con no longer be tolerated.  Certainly not in the ad based jungle of dog and cat pile search.

Why spend good money on content creation when we can simply buy an ad to promote inaccuracy?  This is the basis of what we've got.  A hodge podge of ads encircling sketchy content repeat stamped for maximum penetration into our thickening skulls.

We are at a point of maximum confusion.  Most things have become polar.  It's too time consuming to run down alternate angles.  And, the grey area of objectivity has become a faint, or even invisible line between polar opposites.

The chances of 100% accuracy in what we are being fed > Zero.  Otherwise intelligent people seem completely willing to go with the flow of incomplete, and often one sided mis and disinformation.

"It is simpler, in the short term, not to think."

We don't want to uncover all the facts.  We're busy.

Marketers love this.  If people don't want to know the full story, that's perfect.  The more likely we are to share singular views designed to ignite emotion.  Playing on emotion is what marketers do.

When it comes to critical matters; We all here in tiny boxville are so far off of any semblance of rational dialog to get to the bottom of issue.  Shifting this new phenomenon is relatively simple.  Though, doing so will take some "won't power."

Case Example ~ Situation | Solution | Result:

Situation > The pictures, the positioning, the messages have all been going round for weeks.  The U.S. is now unlawfully [according to the U.N.] detaining children and separating them from their families.

This is not new.  This is not just happening now.  And, the narratives being circulated are recurrently and conveniently less than half the story.

is there a problem?  Undoubtedly.  The question is where to begin to unravel the problem.

Solution > A borderless world.  That's probably not going to happen anytime soon.  So, let's get pragmatic.  It's probably time to stop simply parroting mainstream news.  All we are dong is spreading half truths and errant dissent.  It's definitely time to start fact checking YourSelf:

Currently the ad based jungle is skewing search results to render marginal results farther to the margin.  This doesn't mean [yet] that alternative perspective content is not still out there.  Here's an example of some questions you might ask yourself and others engaged in the concern, coupled with [relevant activities to paint a more complete picture]: 

What factors contribute to illegal migration?  [If you haven't actually seen a fairly comprehensive list of contributing factors, you could make one].  

Has the flow of illegal U.S. immigrants changed demographically over time?  If you're not sure where to look, you could [begin looking at other stories supporting related trends].  Birth vacations for example, supported under the constitution.  Though, unconstitutional [in theory] to discriminate between a rich mother and a poor mother with the same intention of giving birth to a U.S. citizen for the possibility of that baby sponsoring their parents in becoming citizens later.

What about legal precedent changes regarding the detention of children in custody of those determined to be breaking the law by purposely failing to report to a customs office?  [The Consent Decree of 1997, one example of relevant law you could look up and share into our currently stilted dialog of extremism].

What constitutes "family," why aren't we looking at biologic proof, and what does the claim have in common with the global problem of human trafficking?  There is some contention that bogus claims of family and child responsibility are on the rise.  This makes sense when we look at the emotional response of many.  Tossing out the law in favor of heart strings an age old ploy.  [Work out how to figure this out].

And, finally, what is the ethical cost of continuing to not enforce our own laws, enforce them conditionally, or not shut down the illegal flow of people across our borders?  [Offer a thought piece].

Results > [Anticipated]: When we start looking around the corner at additional perspectives we'll have more room for one another, and our differences of ideas.  When we start doing that, then we may in fact start listening to people differently.  When we start listening to people differently, then we might actually begin to produce real, positive change...

Distinctions: Fake, Grounding, Assessments, Assertions, Speculation, Offers,

Relation To Core: Acknowledgement, Observational Frameworks, Navigational Capacity, Bridging Realities, Human Interactivity's Ones & Zeros, The Language Of Coordination, Turning Business To Enterprise, Reciprocally Transactional Loops,