Penalisation for Being Neutral

Written by Mathew Naismith

Imagine separating two dogs that strongly desire to rule over the other, now imagine being the neutral party trying to separate these two strongly opposing dogs......                                

To some people, the following post may seem a little too complicated to understand, I apologise for this, I couldn't simplify what I wrote any further. 

Yes, accept it, we are in an age where people who speak the honest truth are being penalised and even incarcerated for doing so. Even in Australia, journalists are being penalised and incarcerated for speaking the honest truth to a more preferred desired truth.

A desired truth is either of a negative or a positive disposition, depending on a person's desired train of thought of course. On the other hand, honest truths are neither of a negative or a positive, or, of both attributes, usually in balance with each other. Life as a whole is governed by a to-and fro action, if you like, a negative and positive motion. Often being born is deemed as a positive where death is a negative, however, others think that neither birth nor death is negative or positive.

Of course being penalised for being neutral, in other words of honest truth as opposed to desired truths, on the internet is becoming more prominent as well these days. In an age of desired truths, the separation of negatives from positives is most desired. Of course being honest, the separation of energy in any sense is only going to create a desired truth, a truth that sees any neutral state as a threat to its own existence.

So is honest truth, a neutral state of thought, a threat to the existence of desired truths, a mind partial to one side or the other, usually in opposition?

When people like me warn about the effects of being too positive, this is usually deemed to be a negative when all it is, is the honest truth. When there is a deemed opposition, as in negatives to positives, anything not deemed to be of a certain positive is deemed negative. Even when of a negative disposition, anything positive is seen as a threat therefore a negative.

The problem with being neutral, of honest truth, which people from both negative and positive dispositions deem, is that being neutral is deemed to be a huge threat to the existence of both opposing dispositions of negatives and positives. In the camp of both negative and positive camps, the camp of both camps, of a neutral existence of negatives and positives, is deemed to be their biggest threat. Why?

When you get an extreme separation of energy, as is obviously occurring presently, extreme factions see an opposing faction or camp as an enemy to be avoided (penalised) or exterminated (incarcerated). Any neutral camp trying to neutralise the situation is obviously going to be the seen as a huge threat to the extermination or avoidance of the other faction or camp. It is quite obvious that the positive camp desires to wipe out the negative camp and visa-versa. Any camp trying to neutralise this situation is going to be the enemy of both camps. As of my past lives recalled, I wouldn't have it any other way.

If you are of a neutral disposition or camp, trying to neutralise the situation is understandably going to lead to avoidance (penalisation) and/or extermination (incarceration) by either opposing camps or factions of the separation of energy, not the union of energy. Yes, being neutral isn't just to do with being of honest truth, to the best of one's ability, but of a true union of energy, however, neither camp or faction of negative or positive is seen as a threat to the neutral camp or faction. As it is, both camps will see the neutral camp as being its biggest threat, as always.

A scientist in recent years tried to get a job at a lab; he had perfect credentials for the job. At he's last and final interview, he was rejected because in College he wrote a paper that expressed an honest point of view of truth. This is a true story, where a person is penalised for being too honest within their truth in the past.

How many people are penalised on the internet by certain groups, from materialism to immaterialism, for speaking the honest truth as opposed to a desired truth? How often are people penalised for not speaking a certain desired truth in accordance with a certain group's desired truths? From materialist ideology to immaterialist ideology are people of neutral disposition being penalised and/or incarcerated. This is worsening which simply shows that human consciousness is not developing any further from the separation of energy. In truth, human consciousness is separating energy even more, not uniting energy even more.  

As I have learnt from recalling parts of my past lives, any neutral party trying to neutralise the situation will always be seen as a huge threat to both parties, camps or factions. Our mentality of throwing rocks and sticks at each to throwing bombs and missiles at each other shows a clear lack of mental progression. Attacking a neutral party or camp for trying to neutralise the situation, is further proof of our lack of mental progression. However, the existence of neutral parties trying to neutralise the situation shows that human consciousness can still evolve further in mentality and consciousness.

A neutral disposition is unable to speak of everything in negative and positive terminologies. This kind of disposition isn't in opposition to any party, camp or faction, therefore no real threat to any party, camp or faction. However, any party, camp or faction of extreme opposing ideological views, will see a neutral disposition as being their biggest threat therefore a deemed negative to either penalise or incarcerate. I am not myself truly at this stage but I am at least aware.  

A camp of both camps, of both dispositions, in an age of the extreme separation of energy seems like a mistake when trying to separate the two heavily opposing dogs. Wisdom on the other hand sees that the neutral party will become mauled, probably by both dogs, but the outcome of the neutralisation of the dog fight for supremacy over the other is all worth it in the end. As it can be painful in bringing up children, the same is with dealing with life as a whole, but the pain is certainly worth it in the end if a neutral reality, a favourable outcome, was created.