The world seems like it has gone insane. I doubt anyone has missed this. How people view this insanity and which actions, statements, and behaviors they may consider insane likely vary a great deal depending upon who you speak to.

Why?

To counter insanity there would need to be solidarity and some type of order reached.

Traditionally there have been tools that can help to achieve these states. The occurrences where these tools have successfully employed typically can be defined with some simple words or phrases.

Compromise

Courteous

Tolerance

Belief in Freedom

Reality is full of animals and humans who at their fundamental level are individuals. They are not sharing a hive mind. Each person is unique. They may be very similar to another, but similarity does not mean the same. The most fundamental and lowest level of minority a person can be is an individual. One of a kind.

We may think similarly to someone else, but at some level or perhaps many levels we will think differently. It will be a form of thought unique to ourselves. Realistically there are going to be times where these differences clash.

In the past we used things like Argument and Conflict Resolution and these terms were not considered negative things, but actually positive occurrences and the application of positive skills.

Compromise was a typical medium that was often used. Can you find some middle ground that all of the parties in the disagreement can agree is acceptable? None of the participants will be getting exactly what they want, but each of them would get something they want. This neutral ground is known as compromise. It is a very valuable state to be able to reach to bring order and agreement to a disorderly dissonant exchange of understandings.

Courteous was a state of being where you gave others the same opportunity to speak as you yourself wanted. You heard them out. It could be confused with respect, but you don't have to actually respect someone to be courteous. Being courteous is the medium by which communication that actually has a hope of resolving an issue occurs. Without it then that implies one person is not being courteous, and they likely are introducing new points of contention rather than actually seeking a resolution. It is thus, important that people truly seeking solidarity and to resolve conflicts are courteous to each other. Without this then the stated goal of resolution is a lie.

Tolerance is something people speak about and often show they don't actually have. Tolerance simply means the ability to accept that others have their own ideas, their own cultures/customs, their own appearances, their own preferences and to be okay with them having these things. To be intolerant is to believe you have the right to force them not to have these things. Perhaps you believe they should be silenced. Perhaps you believe they should be fined. Perhaps you believe they should be imprisoned. Perhaps you believe they should be killed. These things are intolerance. Tolerance is a critical piece to reaching compromise. If you cannot tolerate something different from your own beliefs/desires then there can be no compromise.

Belief in freedom in reality is just a more specific variant on what tolerance was describing. It is simply the belief that each person is free to do what they want with their body, and their property as long as it does not harm another person's body, or property. What constitutes property varies depending upon the culture, and the governmental institutions that dictate rules in an area. The truly freedom embracing don't believe we have the right to put rules upon people beyond those simply defined as natural law. Some disagree. In most societies you must thus seek compromise.

So what does this have to do with the title?

Current observations have lead me to strongly believe that the root of the current insanity derives primarily (but not exclusively) from the education system, and the popular media.

The tenets that are being promoted and pushed are in the modern education system. The media acts as an amplifier for these tenets/ideas. They proclaim them over and over loudly, and they give very little coverage of anything that might counter them.

The core of this modern teaching is to SEEK THE VICTIM.

In every encounter, every phrase, and every event identify who the victim is. It is even better if you can self-identify as the victim.

Once you have found the victim you can loudly proclaim some injustice. Even if to identify as the victim relies on assuming a subjective interpretation of something is the ONLY truth.

As these skills are pushed it seems increasingly difficult to look for the silver lining, to look for compromise, to find tolerance.

The easiest tool for finding this state of being a victim is to latch onto the term offense.

Viewing anything that is offensive as an attack, and thus turning the person that is offended into a victim.

My observations are that the large majority of those times it wasn't an attack at all and it required very subjective interpretation by the "victim" and treating someone's intention as though they could ONLY be interpreted in the way that makes them out to be the victim. Generally this is likely not the case.

Yet even that does not really matter. Life and reality are offensive. People can be offended by literally ANYTHING. Someone might dislike the wind and how it blows their hair, and every time it does so they are temporarily feeling offended by how nature approached them. The more common example I like is that of a bird flying over defecating and the bird feces landing on your head or shoulder. You likely are momentarily offended. Then you move on. Reality is full of offense. It cannot be avoided. It is not an attack. It is simply reality. Learning to move on is part of maturation. If we fixate on viewing everything as an intentional offense then there is no hope for tolerance, compromise, or freedom. The world becomes a bastion of multitudes of would be dictators who believe they have the right to force everyone around them to behave how they want or be offended, and by extension view it as an attack, and thus revert themselves successfully to being a victim.

I have stated that the education system is the seeds of this. I can give several examples.

The first is the term Micro-aggressions which I have come to despise. If you read examples of micro-aggressions, and the classes on how to identify them it is nothing more than SEEKING THE VICTIM in any possible place it can be "imagined". It is not about tolerance, courteousness, or freedom. It is about being able to spot injustice anywhere that you can find a way to imagine injustice. If you are like me and take the time to mental thought experiment this and compare it to what we are seeing unfolding in the way of global insanity, and anti-solidarity then what we are seeing appears to be a natural progression for this type of thought. How can one expect compromise when they are fixated in finding offense? How can someone be tolerant when they are busy dictating what other people are allowed to say or think? How can someone be courteous when they are projecting what they believe a person is thinking upon them even though they have no telepathic abilities to read minds and back this up?

The second is the term Safe Spaces. Instead we should call them what they are Zones of Intolerance. They are zones where only the agreed upon thoughts, words, and behaviors are accepted by those that created the zone and applied their subjective ideas as mandates/force/dictates upon others. This in the past has been only been permitted in what is known as private property. You could tell people to leave your home, property, etc. In the recent years the concept of safe spaces has permeated public spaces. It should have no authority as it completely violates free speech, freedom of expression, etc. They truly are zones of intolerance. We will see in the U.S. examples of this as demarked areas as "Free Speech Zones" where as by the 1st Amendment of the Constitution which "Shall Not Be Infringed" the entire United States is a Free Speech Zone. Demarking a zone and limiting it to that is infringement. Declaring safe spaces where speech of certain kinds and ideas are not permitted in public areas is infringement. It is authoritarian. It is tyrannical. It is a tool employed with great efficiency by some of the most vile of historical fascists.

(Example of Seeking The Victim Using this Image: "So you think Alaska and Hawaii don't have Free speech too!?!?!")

The final piece is Marxism which historically takes baby steps through socialism, and eventually ends up in some form of communism. Which on a large scale such as a nation state level they do not scale to support voluntarism. What does this mean? It means they can only exist by an application of force. People MUST comply. Truly the biggest difference between full on socialism and full on communism is that one still leaves some wiggle room for the concept of "Private property" (Socialism), and the other only believes in "Communal/Public Property" (Communism) which if everything is communal it could be argued that perhaps the concept of property ceases to exist completely.

There are generally noble reasons people think socialism, communism, and Marxism are good ideas. They see what they perceive as injustice (much worse if we are in SEEK THE VICTIM mode) and they want to solve this injustice not for themselves, but everyone. They are certain they know how to do it.

They cycle repeats. Historically it has not worked out well. Mostly because it has to ignore a lot of reality for it to remain plausible, and if history is ignored then so too can the results of past experiments be ignored and we can keep trying the same things.

The places most resistant to this push are places that were formerly Communist and/or Socialist and know it doesn't work from first hand experience.

The push for Marxism has been strong in the U.S. and it was a realization that terrorists that bombed places in the U.S. known as the Weather Underground came to realize. These communist terrorists realized the bombs would not work, but if they could push it in the education system they could still win. So that is what they did.

It has been spreading for decades. It has spread like a virus through the education system.

It was also fueled by books such as Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky. The concepts Hillary Clinton wrote her Law School Thesis on and if you watch her you can see her employing those rules frequently. In fact, those rules are useful when they are coupled with people that have been taught to SEEK THE VICTIM.

These rules I think are losing some of their effectiveness as people are starting to be able to notice when they are being employed. Noticing them makes them ineffective.

If we actually want solidarity, tolerance, and freedom then we need to stop SEEKING THE VICTIM.

Instead we need to look for the silver lining, the compromise, and return to an ability to be tolerant. We also must toss micro-aggressions, safe spaces, gender fluidity, labeling everything a racist, etc into the trash where they belong.

Wait a minute, I just said gender fluidity. Why? If you feel a certain way, fine feel that way. If you are attracted to a certain type of person, fine be that way. It should not impact me or others. Be free. Don't force others to act, think, and speak certain ways. That is authoritarian/tyrannical/dictatorial. Live the way you want to live. Let others live the way they want. Identify however you want, you are an individual.

The only minority that truly matters is the individual. The others become simply good tools for seeking the victim.

^{All images are clickable and lead to where I got them from.}