Hatred vs. Threats, Whether De Dicto or De Re.

This is a brief rejoinder on the disjointed understanding of hatred as an emotion, whether it addresses any other phenomena connected to it, or stands alone as its own phenomenon.

Why does Teal Swan, among the entire army of New Age and other Behaviorist types of Psychoanalysts, treat the epiphenomenon (hatred) as if it were the primary phenomenon (reason, purpose), yet explain nothing about their true relationship? It amounts to dogmatic rationalizations for suppressing the former, while giving no insight about the latter. The only true way to defuse something which is merely a sign of something else is to deal directly with what expresses through that sign. Arbitrary analysis of "vibrational frequencies" has little to do with the fact that people feel emotions for certain reasons, and these prime those persons to deal with what is already understood by them to have some relationship to various or certain of their purposes. The poor analysts mentioned at outset do in some way then attempt to address those primary phenomena, but they address them inaccurately. A "Threat" is not "You facing something that might cause harm". Something that might cause you harm, and you facing it, are two things, and while they may each harbor their own "risk of harm" (and hence may overlap, and in some ways must overlap), the "threat" is the former in essence, not the latter. For those who refuse to understand this distinction, the distinction itself becomes the "threat" to the coherence of any false approach to the phenomenon of hatred. Some peopl want an arbitrary freedom to determine anything which feels unpleasant to them to be rightly called by them a threat. So this attitude is what actually underlies such views which demand that hatred itself be vilified as a threat in and of itself, in the same vein of fallacious reasoning which blames the circumstances or the instrument for the action which is taken by some agent. This has to be contrasted with the approach in thinking which designates reasons and purposes for the actions of human agents, and does not presume hatred to exist in a vacuum neither as to its causes or effects.
In none of the categories or definitions of "hatred" which follow from the basic "perception versus reality" analysis is there any prima facie reason to denounce hatred per se. People who are in the presence of a threat, or whose presence is invaded by a threat, and who can know that the threat is something answerable only with proper measures of contempt, are only doing what is natural and right according to any sane assessment of the situation. The boundaries within their mind on one side of which is "safety" (real or perceived or both) and on the other side "the threat" are boundaries which are there for a reason, and have been violated by the imminent threat (real or perceived or both). When there is an objective and valid "threat assessment" in this sense, there is only the nature of such a situation "as it is", and that includes emotional responses to that, which are not necessarily more than an ego-concern, but are also not necessarily merely such. It depends upon the example and what it actually entails. But in the case of poor analysts of emotion, or delusional people in general, the quality of any examples of what constitutes a genuine threat depends upon their imagination, or the arbitrary imaginations of their chosen "fragile-ego straw man" examples. In fact a proper analysis depends upon constructive examples, based upon meaningful instances, so as to derive a general insight which helps a person realize the lawful nature of events. Think about the significant possibilities of what consists of a threat in worlds where threats are real, and then re-analyze all the "threat response emotional complexes" and their complex spin-offs, and see if in those neighborhoods of analysis you don't arrive at a different set of significant interpretations of the emotion of hatred (if it is an emotion simply, rather than possibly much more). Then try to give constructive analysis in those situations. One thing that arises is that when threats are real and emotional responses flow, you might be quite a fool to analyze the emotions rather than the objective features of the situation, especially if in those situations a modus operandi of facilitating the threat is to pay undue attention to the epiphenomena OR their interpretation, when only enhanced awareness yields proper results, in the form of focused attention upon the situation which actually HOLDS as a real threat, and then subsequently dealing with it in the appropriate way.  To have attention diverted to the unpleasant emotions which ensue rather than the actual nature of the danger at hand is utterly idiotic.
Proper feelings, under proper circumstances, collude with real information to support proper action according to all known natural, civil, and divine laws, including feelings you don't like to feel, or feelings that weak minds overindulge and never properly analyze. But if someone were to reduce it to a set of inane dynamics of a frail ego in an illusory circumstance, that only gives what we may understand to be the outlying fringe of the norm of experiences of danger and any emotions which may or may not be aroused by becoming aware of such. I say just because you have done the weaksauce analysis of a straw man version of phenomena does not mean that the standard case and its need for proper analysis is not more important, and hence it is this more important aspect of emotions and feelings given short shrift by those straw man bashers that I have been talking about, who clearly have influenced Teal Swan's talking points on this issue.. Ironically it was Teal Swan's obsession to end hatred without objective analysis which prevents an objective analysis of the problems which are inextricably bound with the feeling.