Very nice video, Salome.

My understanding of neutrality started young. I have a terrible temper, or at least had, I was very impulsive. These were strong feelings and I learned the best way to deal with them was to step outside the bodies reactions and take a breath. In that breath the impulsive action rises fully, often in logical folly in my head - from the imagined hight of emotional response I would burn down the nonsense based on impulse as I exhaled and strive for a happier course. Not easy, for sure folk are incongruous at times. Curiously between the worst and best; often no response is correct.

I think that is interesting as often you get the same true result from not thinking, but the lesson from thoughts or feelings is undiscovered.

I wanted to mention a trick of writing where a neutral statement often can have small changes in inflection that guide the next thought. Where the English language often encourages language of the wrong inflection. Well no I cant seem to explain it yet clearly. If you reverse characters or locations and reread see what I mean - Billy's work is most unusual in its true form and flow. I am not really a linguistic person it is born from dyslexia (apparently) I need to use dictionaries and thesaurus often. I feel that all helps to understand the most diverse perspectives.

Each being has a perspective formed from all learned experiences through the lense of their personality. We can understand a learned perspective from understanding familiar things in their lives and influences. We can understand the thoughts behind the influences and compare these states to other options. Again I must exclaim on Billy's work as it captures such diverse perspectives to be exactly centre of all. Often if you think of favourite resonating passages they are exactly neutral positive - thats very hard we write disclosure in accounts it should be neutral its not and its mostly gibberish based on a set of principles lost in time to the details of advantage.

Anyway the question:

if you sustain a neutral position in a constant state of opposition; does your neutral thought action require balancing to the force; does it get harder to sustain: would a true neutral position require an inflection to divert the force: or does a neutral position automatically balance to all circumstances.

I have some doubts about the question of neutrality.

It seems to me that neutrality is easily confused with indifference. There are times in life when it is not only necessary to judge (to evaluate), but also to act. The defence of the victim against the attacker can be given as an example. The mere fact of assessment does not imply a lack of neutrality if we assess the situation according to reality.

I am also puzzled by the situation of the war in Ukraine. Doesn't Swiss neutrality amount to indifference. In contact 858, Billy writes that a person should be forced into neutrality. This is incomprehensible to me. It seems to me that a person can have a different opinion on the full neutrality of the state and even express it. Expressing an opinion is not equivalent to a non-neutral action by people in state positions when the state declares its neutrality. But it seems to me that neutrality can be democratically revoked if that is the will of the citizens. On the other hand, if every state does nothing when aggressive states conquer weaker states, then one day they may themselves be conquered by the aggressor and neutral status will not help. The issue of preserving state sovereignty and protecting borders should be an international issue and no participant should run away from it.

Yes, gladly:

Consequently, every human being capable of logic, reason and rationality – female or male – who has Swiss citizenship should know consciously and clearly what neutrality effectively means. This is also true if the human being is a 'bought-in' Swiss, resp. a human being who comes from a foreign country and has been naturalised in Switzerland. Neutrality must be an irrevocable and lifelong duty for every human being who is naturalised in Switzerland, which must be 'vowed' and recorded in writing during the act of naturalisation, and which must also never be broken one iota. Whoever does so, however, is guilty of national treason and betrayal against the people and is to be held accountable, in a harsh process, without pardon, and regardless of the person and the position he or she holds.

Folgedem müsste jeder der Logik, des Verstandes und der Vernunft trächtige Mensch – eben weiblich oder männlich –, der die Staatsbürgerschaft der Schweiz hat, bewusst und klar wissen, was Neutralität effectiv bedeutet. Dies auch dann, wenn dieser Mensch ein ‹eingekaufter› Schweizer oder eine Schweizerin ist, resp. ein Mensch, der aus einem fremden Land entstammt und in der Schweiz eingebürgert wurde. Die Neutralität muss doch für jeden Menschen, der in die Schweiz eingebürgert wird, eine unumstössliche und lebenslange Pflicht sein, die beim Einbürgerungsakt ‹verbläut› und schriftlich festgehalten werden muss, wie auch niemals nur in einem Jota gebrochen werden darf. Wer dies aber trotzdem tut, der macht sich des Landesverrates und des Volksverrates schuldig und ist zur Rechenschaft zu ziehen, und zwar in harter Weise, ohne Pardon und egal, um welche Person es sich handelt und welche Position sie innehat.

It is in the text that a citizen must vow neutrality, which must be written down. Not sticking to neutrality implies severe punishment. This is for new citizens, but the text implies that neutrality should apply to all citizens.

Mike Whelan thoughts themselves are vectors of energy. If I have a thought to employ someone to act for me in a capacity and behave towards someone else in a capacity to sustain conformity with the will behind the thought. In shorter form the thought on food bringing you to a shop but reality prevents or suggests the options available. The most neutral position is simply a report on factors or facts and truths and the cause and effect that makes this apparent. These are observable data points in a situation - however the weight of understanding points towards the natural position of these factors - this is a type of inflection - literally conformation bias. The more you understand about a situation the more obvious the true creational position becomes.

Mike Whelan these are the external forces. However every human also has an internal reflection of these based on their understanding. Many forces we do not accept into our paradigms, this in itself is destructive as you state. It represents a failure in two perspectives that should share far more common ground than differences. Balanced with self, we can maintain a neutral position internally, often more time is needed or more data so it is natural even if the thought or force from its inception increases in amplitude or frequency. I am recognising your position, my position has no impact, or my position is compromised, or my position is improved. It seems to me a neutral position must have a feedback feed forward potential or it is not neutral it is a road block.

I think send it back with love. Neutral positive, but thats not always appropriate. Neutral negative, often seen as sarcastic. Or just flat facts. Then the neutrality you demonstrate must also attend to the natural position, that all humans understand if they take the time. Is a positive position countering a negative position - net neutral. Then the long term positions death penalty clearly negative and breaks any possibility for learning - is the neutral position in opposition naturally or do we simply allow learning to take place - but then there's the lesson for thee and not for me aspect and we failed in our humanity to observe the issue.

I expect it gets complex in each life but I wondered if it was as consistent as Billy suggests it is, creation loves us and wants us to learn to duck.

Many thanks for your patience Mike, your perspective helps.

Salome.

Hi Mike, I think that what we have here is the definition of, "Open a can of worms".
"A Discussion on Neutrality", from your point of view that you portrayed in the video is not for the Earthworms in this millenium, and barely the next one, in my opinion. "Well no I cant seem to explain it yet clearly."
I find it a tad difficult to be neutral when I am accused of being guilty of the crimes of others, by them, just for pointing out their crimes.

Edmund P.

Hi Edmund. This from Billy:

"Neutrality with regard to a neutral state encompasses not only the military, but everything, including everything and anything in economic terms, without IFs and BUTs. Neutrality encompasses everything and anything in such a way that in every case nothing else takes place other than a clear factual assessment of given facts. This, however, requires a clear soberness of observation and perception, according to which the result then provides an indispensable moment of critical thinking, according to which a just judgement takes place, respectively a proper, correct and just judgement of the given facts, which also requires a subsequent completely neutral way of acting and behaving, as a result of which any form of partiality is excluded. However, the necessary is already done, namely that there is clarity about what is right and what is wrong, which can then only be represented by the word of truth and possibly - in the case of dispute or war etc. - be attempted to be explained impartially to one and/or the other party. More, however, is not allowed, because that would violate neutrality and make it null and void, because - especially politically - neutrality is valid in every respect and does not allow any deviations of any kind.
The same also applies in accordance with the law if a criminal offence is to be clarified on the basis of verifiable facts, after which the just sentence must be passed according to the given penal law - either acquittal, conditions or punishment. Here, however, action must be taken in accordance with the law, which means that a sentence imposed must be implemented in accordance with the law.

If a person or country is neutral, it means that the person or country, of whatever political nature, does not interfere in wars and other affairs of other countries, including economic ones, etc., and, of course, does not participate in actions of any kind against belligerent other countries. And this has been the case from time immemorial, and this alone means neutrality, which corresponds to soberness of opinion, objectivity, impartiality as well as objectiveness in every respect. This also means that no sanctions etc. may be taken against other states, regardless of whether or not they are waging war or have other dealings with other states. However, it also means for the individual that no lies, insults and deceit should be levied against one's neighbour, violence of any kind should be exercised and damage or destruction etc. should be caused.

Neutrality seen in sobriety is to be explained in such a way that it is an indispensable moment of clear and critical thinking, which is of the highest value as a filter against untruth, which unfortunately is still disregarded in religions and in people's belief in an imaginary God. As a consequence, neutrality is not understood as to what it really is, namely a sobriety of faultless clear ascertainment, observation and perception as well as judgement of what effectively corresponds only to what is the truth, which cannot be shaken even by all malicious lies and deceptions. Something that, on the contrary, has unfortunately been caused in history and the present by lousy traditions of lies and deception, and continues to cause distortions."

If someone is indifferent then he/she simply doesn't give a damn. They don't care what the facts are, or about thinking about the situation.

As a result of a lack of neutrality regarding Ukraine/Russia, Switzerland has now made enemies and caused various countries around the world to lose trust in Switzerland. Switzerland has picked a side like picking a political party, picking a god. It's people will undoubtedly suffer as a result. It's very easy for us, on Earth, to pick a fight rather than not. That's what we were 'built' for isn't it. :-)

Hi Mike. I like the discussion idea. I hope you can get some people around a table for future videos.

I like what you said here:

"If we take the time to understand other peoples actions and behaviours as well as their thoughts and feelings it would lead to our acceptance of everything. And if we create acceptance in ourselves we are no longer bothered by the other person."

Thanks.

Mike Whelan
The coercion is in that a person has no right to have a different opinion on Swiss neutrality. If the majority of Swiss democratically decide that full neutrality is not needed and exceptions are possible, then so be it. And closing the mouths of citizens on neutrality does not serve democracy.

SteveLane

As a result of a lack of neutrality regarding Ukraine/Russia, Switzerland has now made enemies and caused various countries around the world to lose trust in Switzerland. Switzerland has picked a side like picking a political party, picking a god. It's people will undoubtedly suffer as a result. It's very easy for us, on Earth, to pick a fight rather than not. That's what we were 'built' for isn't it. :-)

Switzerland, on the other hand, has gained supporters of the idea of stopping the aggressor in an active way. I do not think that the countries that advocate standing up for Ukraine do so as if they are choosing a favoured god, it is rather a question of compassion and solidarity with the victim. History has shown that in many cases a declaration of neutrality has failed to ensure security because the aggressor pays no attention.

Hi Mike,

The only example that comes to my mind when trying to understand neutrality would be when first finding and beginning studying the case. I remember having no bias, pre-concieved ideas, or any opinion one way or the another about it. I researched everything that was available regardless of whether it was pro neutral or hostile to the case which, helped in building a larger picture of everything.

So, this is the only example from experience I have in understanding the meaning of neutrality. I would like to say that I have successfully applied it in every other area of life, but this is not so and most of the time still fail miserably.

If I am not mistaken in the video, it mentions that a lack of neutrality and of having opinions is virtually automatic to us. This to me feels true particularly in conversations that become heated with family etc, even if trying to be more neutral I end up getting swept up in the wave and carried down river so to speak.

I think that any progress in this life regarding neutrality will be small if anything since it's difficult being conscious of it and putting in to practice the way billy and the Plejaren do.

Just like to say that I Really enjoy the videos you make and how you present the topics, I find it immensely helpful.

Thanks!

Mike Whelan it is all forces active on a being, each of these is an original thought of creation. Each human has a different perspective of the phenomena but fundamentally the characteristics can be agreed. On earth we dislocate the cause and effect for these forces by inserting a belief the ownership of the belief is tended by experts of the belief concept. Our neutral point of realisation and inspiration can understand fully or partially the cause and effect depending on how well we understand the arrangement. Rain may not seem like a thought force but it exists as part of our geology and follows creational patterns completely. It is easy to be neutral to rain, but often even with this our media picks a side. The zeitgeist of society adopts convenience to defer responsibility; if you are aware of a neutral position, reflect from it, our environment is literally built to offer advantage and disadvantage in the detail while aspirational claims are identical. These forces are childish but are delivered with the authority of habit. They exist around our human interactions but we are trained to ignore them.

I have watched many humans now grappling with negative forces applied through dominating will to restrict life on our planet. Those that lead us are doing this on purpose; folk that inact their will, do so from necessity of work. Folk might say they hate their job but often, it is the cause and effect of the parasitic demands of legal loopholes regarding unfair profit they hate. I was wondering if it can be made psychically easier if I can match the order of facts.

Its all forces as they are all logically driven by ideas of creation. From the centre it seems possible to at least glimpse alternative scenarios. Each being has the power to change certain currents in their lives. Each being expects good outcomes but not unconditionally - no one understands the conditions on earth, but everyone believes they must be correct or they wouldn't exist - its a sort of madness brought about by having leaders we don't trust, responsibility devolved it is left to the general, feeling or god. These are forces of unreason in our world and leaders know they are unreasonable which is why they are so harsh towards anyone that holds them accountable and they have a big book of excuses.

Its hard to describe English is bonkers, but it helps me to try and describe things I am perceiving. Factors that were always there and I was told were not my problem. Truth can never shrink as it is formed by the absolute so a neutral assessment of the facts reveals very little on earth designed to support evolution.

Salome.