None should be able to, with the notion of the possibility for sincerity with only another individual, be able to state that such is also a reality among a collective. A family cannot be a collective, though are a group. Comprehensive of that, it cannot be an army. A family, not an army, though related to individualism unless there is one among it received with negligence. Would a family member be neglected, then the entirety is no longer of individualism, though of collectivism. Unity is the mark of individualism through its qualitative state. Then, it is collectivism being here reminded of that it pertains to quantity. For the purpose of speaking of a neglected member to a family as causing the entirety to be a collective, is knowing that the essence of quantity is to division.
Quantity is to division, when for the matter of resources, all is understood of negligence that its reception is in relation to a tool. While the tool can be neglected, it is still used. A human tool is one without will of their own and without individualism. Negligence is always to the human tool when such a one is not received with the care, in reference to being breakable as an instrument would. All tools break, though are then replaced with a betterment. It is the task of those in their possession of human tools to consider the notion of improvement as mere replacement for whatever breaks to then be discarded. Such is the same as a soldier is discarded, though wept for only by their family.
From individual to individual, there is the definition of individualism, along with the singular. A duo to make a singular is also individualism, since such is the representation of knowledge with the offering of trust. Although, whenever such information is more spread among a greater force, then such becomes a collective of differing opinions from those who are their own individualist. Individualism is always to be defined as human will, of not being the simple listener to another words out of blind trust and being without adherence the devotional actions. Individualism is offered from human connection, born from trust, though becomes collectivism whenever such passed information is no longer discussion. Without discussion or simple interaction on the basis of this free information, there is greater risk for the distortion of it into deception. Whatever is heard and then believed in is a truth, though is a deception when none are able to interact with another for the sake of acceptance to those differing viewpoints. Without individualism through such acceptance, there is the collectivism that remains as an opposing armies supporting differing ideals.
With deception, there is no acceptance to the self. With the pride that believes in self-acceptance, there is deception upon the self when there had been no adherence to acts that are better as a display of devotion. Without action, there can be no acceptance to what the self has sacrificed, in the same sense as to trust another with information comes with the inevitable mindset of modesty. Such is to mean that the sheer prideful mindset is one of no trust allotted. Instead, it shows intentions that are enough to be in the deliberate placement of the prideful self in the collective, remaining willfully safe against criticism for whatever information would otherwise be sacrificed.
Without a degree of sincerity to the attitude of one’s noble deeds, there is only the notion of obligation. In believing there can be human will without sincerity to the action, then such is the deception faced towards the self when nothing of an obligation matches what would be true to the individual. There is truth to which the individual has within themselves, though deception and collectivism will be that which conceals it. Collectivism, or of societal accountability, becomes termed here as the concept of external reliance. To count the reliability of society to replace what is a personal wrongdoing, then it is to mean those most obligatory are meant to handle such faults.
Deception is to ignore what is personal about the self, as through family there will be the same. If family is close to the self, then this is true when one can claim to know where one has placed their individualism, if not ever to the multitude that remain in ignorance. As a speaker to their collected audience is not able to admit to knowing the stories, in relation to their faults, of each individual within said audience, such is the same in differentiating family from what is more aligned with obligation. As an example, a worker to their co-workers remain such, until those co-workers become individualism in the form of friendship. Through trust, information is offered, as would not be the case among another person more distanced. Distance does not trust, since a sense of trustworthiness was not offered to begin with, nor was communication ever present for closeness to be achieved. As it is, trust is allotted upon those who have been communicational to the individual. It is then to mean that the politician is, in the objective sense, secretive of the most personal information that, despite all the words spoken to their audiences, are never told. It is then to mean that would a politician ever speak of such information, then the nation’s population could be considered a true threat.
As truth is a threat to those who mean to govern a collective on the basis of deception, it would be the form of individualism where this damage will be dealt from. It is not a sincere person who devotes themselves to a group, though would offer their time, in separate quantities, based on the severity to the fault. Through such a consideration, trust offers its place, though it is not an obligation when it is not centered around professionalism. Meaning to be loyal, as the person with such devotion cannot, for the knowledge to themselves, of their own character and will, believe they are worth more than the other.
If knowledge is on part of the individual, then in being sincere for the sake of their truth expressed to another, deception is the result of absence to what is known. It is in meaning that would the leader tell their audience that there is knowledge, from them, upon what is understood of a nation’s problems, is all a reference towards ignorance. There cannot be knowledge if not expressed from individual to individual. Then, should a leader not be deceptive, the individualism such a one can face is their nation, being a oneness not meant to be broken. It would then not be the people a leader speaks to, though what the nation represents to them. Deception is for the leader to say they know their people. Honesty is in the leadership that knows their people for their country.
A leader that compares a collective to themselves is even unaware of being an individual, on their own. It is to mean that would a leader find themselves believing in their nation’s people as a family unit, deception rules their intentions in what is not truthful to such a population. What cannot be truthful to a population is not what is for a collective that such might be a part of, since it has been said that a group represents the quantitative state.
Quantity is all that a number is. Although, in the knowledge of what each singular within a plural is, there can be no ignorant when quality has become the discovery. All that is a rarity among the qualitative condition is a direct reference to quality. Among character, being within a person, is then to believe less in the exterior details of quantity that is endless in amount, to begin believing in individualism or the person. If not to place individualism as greater than collectivism, in this sense, is same to state that quantity would overrule quality. It is always the inevitable case that quality outmaneuvers quantity. Such is due to the previous descriptions of the addict, whose deception to the external perceiving eyes must find it objective that their behavior is not their own. Being under the influence means to be controlled, referring a collective quantity as everything related to the desires to control.
As no leader can control what is not known, makes then of the collective of any number as unable to withstand itself. Such requires an individualist’s perspective to awaken the sense of a person influenced by what is deceptive, in relation to an addict under the influence of their abused substance. An individualist offers an objective view to the one governed by what is deceptive, awakening the person from their delusional senses to what is outside the collective. Through familial understanding to the concept of collectivism to individualism, there is ignorance for what is neglected, the same with the world leader who is believed to oversee those not meant to be of such a state. Although, outside of the familial unit, a deceiving collective is the replacement, all due to the individual not ever present for those most neglected.
Modern Romanticism 