Return to Editor's Cell

     Hatred is normally polarised as the opposite of love.

     In my opinion hatred is a very ancient emotional condition that can indeed be provoked by sexual betrayal, but is perhaps better described as the outcome of tribal disturbances, security for hunting grounds.

     In other words, security is at the root of deeply emotional hatred.

     In reference to the political views that are surfacing throughout the world as we observe the Palestinian and Israeli combat, and the result of the dismissal of UN regulations, plus  the many times recently that the UN Security Council  Recommendations for the placement of Political Observers have been vetoed by the USA, has brought about impassioned debate on the Internet.

     To hate the Jews (or the Arabs) is a censure on debate ; it won't flush out a real enemy from the blackhole of hatred. Palestine and Israel have both revealed, during these many years the instincts for survival. If, as outsiders we debate their condition, we ourselves are open to censure. But if this debate persuades others to take up news and reactions to that news more thoughtfully,  then the concepts of Internet-network debates prove themselves.

     Laughter, laughter is not often generally shared, in the same way as it might have been in the past, it is now very unusual. Except ofcourse for the generated laughter of entertainment. It is amazing that rarely on-line people make make or share any jokes. But varied perceptions can seldom get sufficient perspective to be interesting unless the mind is unburdened of tension through laughter.

     Hatred can often now be regarded as 'tunnel vision' and it is quite possibly a state of mind that is less open to the relief of self-forgiving laughter than other 'tunnel visions'.

     Obsessed mental conditions seek solutions - draw near to them - and then seem to seek evidence for rejecting the solutions, before realigning themselves with the problem again. Zionist behaviour in Israel reveals that the real needs behind the opportunity for solutions is always sidelined.The deep-seated need for secrecy is tied up in this, as it disguises the loss of face and the amount of shame that intelligent minds can be aware of.

     If you have a problem that you cannot solve because of these emotions that you have disguised, and continuously refuse to recognise - then you have constant access to realign yourself to the problem.  I think that this is part of the attraction for some people to politics, political debate etc. I see this as the base of the politician's florid speeches, promises and poetic wordplay. Wordplay that is contradicted without a pause, promises that are never kept.

A theatrical display, photographic portraits, and, like jacob wrestling with the angel, history is encountered.

     The politician’s bold display results in a shared encounter because it has to be observed by the public as a form of Law. His/her handshake with the crowd never comes about with either a regard for the problem or for the recognition of truth. Barristers are attracted to a political career.   But political life based on hatred can and must be brought to an end, and  revealed, not only to endure the derision of those of us who observe (but do not suffer from the obsessive hatred of the insecure ),but also introduced into Law as not permissible. Thus a politician could be hedged in by references to facts that cannot be hidden or “obscured”.

      Elections take place in East Timor, Kosovo etc.The Political Observer does not make a public report, so it is difficult to evaluate new political ambitions surfacing in these and other countries. Irresponsible ambition is almost always fostered in hate and insecurity is always recognised as the real obstacle that Democracy cannot hide. The boundary for public recognition of this, at this time, is always set up well inside any political faction. The 'minder' blocks the camera, the soldier beats the citizen, the voter’s box is tampered with, all without record.