Fairness, if among the collective, is more competitive than collaborative. Just the individual can represent what is fair, since it is defined through the making of it. No introduction of fairness is valid when itself can be emplaced for the advantage of a one, in their rise above the rest. It is to mean that unfairness is achievable with the attempted introduction of supposed fairness. An introduction, that to the denial of unfairness, is kept with the belief that all things can be fair in its emplacement. Though, would fairness be introduced as supported by favoritism, as such is its typical nature for that emplacement, there cannot be its validity when unfairness affects the majority.
While the minorities would be believed of those supporting of fairness to have none, there cannot be its introduction without a removal of individualist freedom. It is to mean that conflict is the result of introducing supposed fairness. To believe in being fair, means to support conflict, when a view for equity is more the favoring for competition. It is equality that refers to each of every one, as it cannot be the collective or a group that receives it.
As will be repeatedly mentioned, to this time, equality is valid only through individualism. That is, resolution through the nature of being humanly vulnerable is opposite from the competitive nature between groups. One cannot be fair, within a group, without its division into several individualists. It is in individualism where freedom is incorporated, since collectivist thoughts resonate in being without its own control. Addiction would be the mindset of the one to believe that deception has a heart, though itself is playing the favorites if just to place the best piece upon the chessboard. As in, those who are given this supposed fairness are the same to the providers for addiction, that to play favoritism will deceive those controlled into believing they are such a provider’s personal favorite. Then, to desire being a favorite, comes with competition.
Fairness is, to the individualistic mindset, understood as the creation of it. It is to mean that there is no fairness that could be offered to someone without the desire for control. If to fairness means to offer better advantage, such would mean to just offer advantage and not its betterment. Such would mean that this gained advantage is a one that makes advancement unfair for the rest. This is the same as favoritism, for to introduce fairness is no different than perhaps a father granting his college fund to just one of two children.
Equity stands as the means for fairness, though its nature for favoritism drives upon others to be lacking. Its focus upon specifics resonates to that notion of favoritism, relating something as fairness as non-existent or invalid when it is convenient to uplift those who are trusting in their blindness. It is those who rely upon the activism that aims for fairness as blind to their own individualist self, among what is close to themselves as their heart. Though, the heart, for its truth would not be heeded, while is more convenient to be deceived in blind trust. Since no fairness is achievable among the collective without its reference to inevitable competition, it would have its objective place among individualism.
A result of knowing fairness as non-existent is the realization of its opposite. That is, unfairness is the reality that is eternally existent, upon the notion that creation of an individual’s future is manifested by themselves. To material gain, fairness has no place among its equal distribution. Since this is due to the freedom for materialism holding its risk upon enslavement, then to the mindset for individualism is understood upon freedom. It is that freedom has no place for the human form, though to the mind. Having one’s own mind is outside the space of being enslaved to addiction, since it is such that would capture thoughts to the extent of themselves being nullified and meaningless. A question upon fairness is to inquire for meaninglessness, since a thing that references what has no existence cannot be questioned further towards a supposed lesser nothingness.
If it is nothingness that cannot be any lesser than itself, it is fairness that cannot be questioned when it does not exist. What an individual perceives then to be fairness, is an actual understanding of advantageous material gain. Through this, there has been an attraction towards the material, whether through outright addiction or a mere spurt of lustful wishes. Fairness cannot be a thing as alive, since itself is a nothingness to the understanding that it cannot reference equality. No one, that is, is equal in fairness, though the prospect of being at an advantage is enough to satiate the addiction to the material.
Humans possess material in their flesh, making for all that is gained as a symptom to greed. As one cannot attempt to bring about fairness for a collective or group without selective choosing of whom is seen at a disadvantage, would then make greed as both motive and identifier towards who would be benefited in the gain. It is an endeavor within a narcissistic mindset that in this selective choosing of those disadvantaged can mirror such identities in others of the same kind. That is, those who attempt to bring about more fairness to a group are the avaricious narcissists who identify with those at a loss for their material substance. It is them, as well, of those who are introducing fairness who are benefited from the one represented as their favorite. Favoritism is the inevitable siding with a supposed fairness, due to the mirrored image of those both with greed and a mindset of narcissism that matches with those at a disadvantage. Would such not be the case among those disabled, for having such mindsets, their desire to have greater advantage is their ignorance to believe themselves equal. It is in them that there is greater susceptibility to being exploited for the weakness of having a disadvantage.
This non-existence to supposed fairness is further proven in knowing it cannot be universal, when those who are given their advantage are susceptible to developing an addiction. As with favoritism, those selected are bettered to the false belief that those who had offered the advantage had a heart. Though, the deception becomes a commonality among all those deemed as the deceiver’s favorites, when kindness is granted in the same dosage to all. In the example that a nurse would offer kindness to a one is favoritism, though in the mindset of the one receptive of it. When the same nurse is seen to offer the same kindness to another, there can be perception from the first a certain betrayal.
It is perception that through the understandings to favoritism, reveals itself, even in this sense, as limited. Favoritism clashes with the place of individualism, with the latter being revealed as equality. Though, favoritism mimics equality to the realization, beyond its deception, that those exploited by it were being used. Just as a mote of desperation would compel a person to discover utility in the wrench, greater dosage of the same yearning could propel that same person to use someone else. It is with such a utilitarian mindset, that control is upon the notion of greed. In greed, there is disallowance to the one being used to possess their own mind, since to the avaricious one a wish for gain is their motive. If to the one believing in fairness is playing favorites among others, then to those being used for this tactic would have their greed levelled to a highness.
Two individuals would not consider the others as their favorite, though it is possible for a deceiver to a group can perform the act of being an individual, with a heart, to show kindness for those at a disadvantage. A disadvantage that, to such a deceiver, would be a prime target for utilitarian gain. Advantage is to advantage, as this deceiver has to themselves a benefit for their appearance, while to those receiving an advantage possess now their material gain. For both appearance and material substance, there is deception. It is while the former to the giver of the substance acts as a supplier to an addiction. It does not a requirement to be an addict, before this series of exchanges commences, though the mere notion of being susceptible is sufficient.
It is to fairness that of its non-existence is a deception, being nothing of truth an individual can comprehend is their sameness. It is a need, not a convenience, to discover depth that is beyond the surface. Such would require its own effort to plunge beneath the surface, meaning that to be comforted in no risk to the development for the self is to be deceived. Comfort is a deception, in its causation to stagnancy. Development comes with the understandings to life, to truth, to the emotions that create movement. If motion is the identity of life, then the same is said for the truth being reached for, along with the emotions that are said to move ourselves.
Modern Romanticism 