The individual. Society hates the individual, yet it needs him.
The individual. The church preaches against the individual, yet it needs him.
The individual is crucial to a progressive, liberal world; but when the individual is accountable and responsible and has "a mind of his own" and is aware of the pull towards Truth within, the individual goes against the ideologies of the other. Therefore, turning the two against each other. This world is made up of individuals battling individuals. So perhaps you see how the circumstances have to depend in order to determine whether or not being an individual is favorable or not.
Groupthink is common amongst the two types of individuals, despite them being "individuals". The individual either falls for the groupthinking of Truth or that of Lies. Although proven to be dangerous time and time again, "groupthink" can very well be hypothetically turned for good. But this cannot occur, because of the constant, negative connotation of groupthink. "Groupthink" exists for good, but this is first, not acknowledged, but it is not given a term to define it. Therefore, groupthink will forever be known in its negative form. What will the positive be defined as? Or can it be defined? I am not sure.
The correlation between the ideal individual and groupthink should stand out. A corrupt society advocating for a liberated individual will also thrive off of groupthink, which, by definition, discourages creativity and the individual (responsibility and accountability). Is there any way this can exist? Yes. The individual becomes so indoctrinated in liberal, progressive, leftist (Marxist and socialistic), purely satanic ideologies and beliefs which, quite frankly, do the opposite of fully liberating an individual. The so called "woke" crowd are dead...asleep. The constant spread of lies only weakens the individual to a point of dependence to the lies. In general, take a liberal out of his echo chamber and he cannot function with reality. But, unfortunately, reality is whatever we make of it.
So these "individuals" no longer are individual, and must be thought for. Who thinks for them? Liars. Fools disguised as wise men. These corrupt, knowingly persuasive and appetizing "individuals" lead their mass following to think as one. Those preaching for diversity, ironically, hate--absolutely hate--diversity in thought. Their mass following begin to groupthink.
But there is a second type of individual, whom the other hates. This individual is "independent" at first glance. As we journey further into understanding the individual, I hope it becomes evident that I am trying to make the case that the "individual" is needed by both groups; but further, that the individual, in actuality, does not exist. It is a complex.
The first becomes dependent just as the latter does. The difference lies solely in what the "individual" becomes dependent to while still "having individuality". As you saw being briefly explained, the liberated individual is taken advantage of, unknowingly. As you will see, the other will voluntarily become dependent to Truth, rather than lies. Realize, the way of existence is side versus side. Truth versus Lies. Good versus Evil. For we are taught there are two types of people, those that are the children of Good (God); and those that are the children of Evil (Satan). (I dare not venture to say the two types of people in the world: good and evil. Simply because we are all evil, born with a sin nature...far from perfect.)
So. The second individual has "a mind of his own". This individual knows accountability. He knows responsibility. This individual is self-aware and self-crucial. How? There is knowledge of right and wrong within. Unlike the other, this individual is drawn to wanting to know right, or do right. Wanting to know truth. The Truth. Having found Truth, he realizes he cannot be guaranteed security or peace whilst dependent on the materialistic or philosophical or economic (or what have you) things of this world; but rather, he can obtain the security and peace while dependent on God.
But even through that journey to finding dependency on God and the faith, it was not his own choice to be dependent. For everything has been planned/written since before the foundation of the earth was laid. So do the "individuals" actually choose which "individual" they will be? Technically no. I say technically, because in reality...that choice (along with everything else) is above us, for God has complete, holy sovereignty. Our free will exists, but it does not. It is a paradox not even the greatest theologians can explain.
So are individuals actually individuals by definition? I argue no. No matter the "individual", he belongs to one of the two groups. Both groups think for the individual, to varying degrees. One more than the other. The latter embraces responsibility and accountability and "thinking for one's self". The other does not, as they may say they do. The other blames circumstance or childhood trauma or another person for the said "individual's" behavior, and offers insufficient, faulty, purely broken, means to salvation. In a way, this "individual" can do no wrong. This is the "individual" preached against. But who preaches against that "individual"? An "individual".
Both groups exist (not entirely) because of multiple "individuals". Both groups need the initially individual individual. But once of either of those groups, the individual is no longer. The individuality leads to commonality. The individual becomes the collective.
Every human being is a part of one of the two groups. The idea of the individual does not exist and cannot exist. There is no such thing as individuality or the individual. I claim these statements to be true in this sense, for even nothing exists as something.
I present you the Individuality Complex.
