Emotions Are The Key

Developing Your Emotional Intelligence

Learning how to identify, observe and understand the emotional responses of others is the key to personal insight and accurate social perception.

As such, people can gain further, and highly significant, insights into others if they make a conscious effort to focus more often on the emotional forces that appear to be driving them and less often on the surface content of their social interactions and personal communications.

By doing this, people can enhance what is nowadays often called their 'emotional intelligence'. And in the process of doing this, they can also increase their capacity for empathy.

Indeed, you can learn a lot by studying what upsets people, disgusts them, amuses them, bores them, irritates them, frightens them and so on.

And, in my view, by doing this rather than by focusing on any other aspect of their behaviour, you can drill fairly deeply into someone else's soul - and quite quickly too.

Emotions are very difficult to hide

Emotions are very difficult to hide - especially from someone who knows you fairly well.

But most people do not often avail themselves of the opportunity to focus their attention on this area when they are interacting with others.

A good example, of course, would be the man who is chatting up the pretty woman and who can barely focus on anything except her pretty face.

She could be talking in strange tongues never heard before and he wouldn't even notice.

But in more normal circumstances too, most people who are interacting together seem to spend most of their time attending to what others are trying to convey rather than to any emotions that might also be being expressed -  though often these emotions are expressed unwittingly and are often barely noticeable.

I  am not saying that most people do not attend to the emotional indications of others because they clearly do, but that they do not do so often enough, nor do they follow the trails and make the connections.

Women seem to be better at this than men; though, as I have mentioned elsewhere, this does not necessarily mean that they are more empathic than men.

our social training these days comes from the TV and the mainstream media,

Perhaps one reason that we do not do this enough is because much of our social training these days comes from the TV and the mainstream media, wherein the movement of the plot is far more important than are the underlying motives and emotions behind it.

The plot unfolds, scene after scene - whether in a news story or in a piece of TV fiction - and we do not have enough time to reflect upon anything more than the actions of the actors and the words that they deliver.

And then they are gone.

They do not remain sitting around in our living rooms while we chat to them about other things. We do not get into bed with them when it is time to retire for the evening. We do not eat breakfast with them when we wake up.

They have just gone.

For example, on the TV screen, we might see a woman screech at the sight of a mouse - which tells us something about her - but before our brains have worked out the implications, another scene impinges on us - the heroic man rushing to swat the mouse with a shoe - the plot moves on - and there is no time to absorb much else.

In a news story, we might hear about a man killing his wife and children, but we are never  told why.

There is no deep investigation into what caused this to happen.

Typically, we are told that he was just a 'psycho' who was a control freak.

Of course, if a woman is a perpetrator, then we will get a more sympathetic point of view. She is a victim of some sort.

And so the truth of the matter is that in the vast majority of cases you can learn nothing of value from the mainstream media.

They need to sell their wares, and so they will tell their audiences whatever they think that their audiences want to hear.

they will often also mislead people about the motives and circumstances of others

And so they will often also mislead people about the motives and circumstances of others - especially where political correctness is required.

Some will certainly give you information that is closer to the truth than will others, but how do you know which ones are which?

Is the woman who falsely accused five men of rape over a period of ten years a scheming, vindictive witch who ought to be locked up?

Or is she a frail, mentally-impaired woman with a low IQ who drinks a lot, takes drugs, is totally confused and subject to huge memory distortions as a result of her persistent fearfulness of the world?

Maybe she has some mild kind of psychosis.

How can we possibly know on the basis of the limited information that we are usually given?

are most prostitutes in your country unwilling slaves

Similarly, are most prostitutes in your country unwilling slaves who are forced to service men, or are they just hard-headed women earning money just like they do in many other jobs?

It seems to me that when you look closely at this particular matter here in the UK, the latter is far closer to the truth - the prostitutes are mostly hard-headed women earning money -  but you wouldn't think so given the way in which the feminist-dominated media portray them.

And my point is that we, the public, are not looking deeply enough any more.

And so the mainstream media are getting away with their self-serving spins.

In the olden days, people spent many years together in the same neighbourhood or in the same little tribe. And they got to know each other; often from birth.

Everyone talked about each other. And so they learned to understand more about why individuals did what they did.

They  knew more accurately where everyone was 'coming from' when they spoke, and why it was that they behaved in various ways.

Nowadays, everything moves past you very quickly. And people do the same too - particularly in the media. And so there is less time to contemplate them and, hence, to understand them.

And, of course, there is also a great deal to be learned from what has not been said or described.

For example, you can often see people (especially politicians) avoiding certain questions, or answering them in a manner which skirts around the point of the questions - often sneakily wandering off on to a trail which diverts attention away from what is being asked.

It happens all the time.

Indeed, if you really want to know what is going on, you should focus your attention very heavily on why something is being said, on how it is being said, and on what is not being said.

This will tell you a great deal.

But if you do not do this, then you will simply be led by the nose by people whose intention it is to profit in some way from moulding your thoughts - very often deceiving you in the process.

For the most part, however, the mainstream media pretend to be relatively impartial.

the mainstream media are far more interested in manipulating than in elucidating

But if you believe this, then you are being well and truly suckered, because the mainstream media are far more interested in manipulating than in elucidating.

And, fundamentally, this is all about them getting more money and power.

They will do nothing that threatens or diminishes either of these things. Their aim is always to advantage themselves in some way.

Of course, this is much easier to see as you get older and gain more experience. You begin more easily to see their tricks, their obfuscations, their avoidance of certain questions and their underlying motives.

You more easily see them stirring up people's emotions in an attempt to control them -  to change their views, to confirm or to undermine certain beliefs. And the 'facts' that they present are either distorted, carefully selected or completely manufactured.

Even the photographs and the film footage are carefully chosen to buttress a certain point of view.

And so it is always worth asking yourself the following questions.

Why did they air this particular story? What was their aim? Why were the characters portrayed in this manner? What emotions were they trying to engender in their audiences?

you will often see people ducking, diving, obfuscating and omitting important facts

But, of course, it is also at the personal level where you will often see people ducking, diving, obfuscating and omitting important facts - and, often enough, avoiding certain issues too - or, indeed, continually bringing them up.

For the most part, these are small affairs - tactics which are sometimes used with the best of intentions; perhaps in order to remain polite, to avoid conflict, or to get something done.

Nevertheless, if, for example, you catch people lying to you or you see them lying to others, then you need to be on your guard.

What has this got to do with emotions?

Well, quite simply, if someone does not seem to be perturbed by lying, then this tells you something about their emotional response to deceiving others.

It does not concern them very much.

And from this evidence, you can also often suspect quite legitimately that there are, most likely, other unwholesome characteristics lurking inside their personalities.

For example, liars are surely far more likely to cheat on you by having a sexual affair without you knowing; whereas someone who never lies to you cannot really cheat on you, can they?

And what about, say, women who fake their orgasms?

Is not this an act of dishonesty? Well, of course it is.

And even if this is sometimes done with the best of intentions, it is definitely dishonest; and it certainly tells you something about such women - basically, that they will lie in order to manipulate.

If someone is overly rude or overly aggressive towards others then it is quite likely that, one day, you will find yourself on the receiving end of such behaviours.

When those who work for children's organisations such as the NSPCC, over and over again, tell children who have been abused that they will necessarily be damaged for life, you know that they have no concern for children; because even if this was true - which it isn't -  this is the very last thing that people would tell children if they cared about them - e.g. see Child Abuse - The Real Culprits.

When feminists persistently promote policies that cause more harm to women and children in order to pursue their various nefarious agendas, you know that, regardless of what they might proclaim, their real aim is not to benefit women or children - e.g. see Only Women Are Offered An Alternative To Domestic Violence

When government officials keep lying about the facts, this tells you something important about them; viz, that they are quite prepared to lie in order to pursue their self-serving aims.

In other words, they are liars. And we should not be afraid to accuse them of being so.

My overall point is that in all these types of cases, you are more likely to be able to head in more fruitful directions as you march onwards through your life if you recognise that such behaviours represent fundamental aspects of the people concerned.

Such recurrent behaviours are not slips, trips, accidents or unfortunate errors. They represent fundamental, persistent characteristics of those who engage in them.

(If this was not the case, they would clean up their acts.)

In other words, this is who they are.

And the key to understanding who they are is to view more often what they are doing, not merely as a current behaviour, nor just as a reflection of a current underlying motive, but as a window into their fundamental being.

To illustrate, take a man who is guilty of five counts of burglary.

When you look at this man, you are not likely seeing a man who is just "guilty of five counts of burglary".

You are likely seeing someone who is, fundamentally, dishonest, uncaring, and who likely does not see theft in a negative light.

However, it is not my intention to suggest that one can easily figure out all the ins and outs of why people do what they do. On the contrary, people are very complex beings.

My point is that it is very fruitful to look much more closely at the emotions - or lack thereof - that seem to govern the way in which people think and behave.

And if you take the time to focus on such things, to learn about them, and to follow their trails, you can empower yourself - and perhaps also become a better person, in many ways, because doing this sort of thing tends to force you to look much more closely at yourself.

...

Finally, whatever the reasons might be for our current failures to read others more accurately, I still find it quite astonishing to see just how blind are most people to the serious implications of even the most obvious emotional declarations that are revealed unwittingly by certain reactions.

 people will laugh openly at Bobbit jokes

One of the best examples of this, in my view, is the fact that people will laugh openly at Bobbit jokes - i.e. they feel no shame at doing this - whereas they would not find jokes about the mutilation of women, children or animals to be funny.

This phenomenon is clearly indicative of a deep-seated hatred of men in general, and it needs to be recognised as such.

Indeed, and for example, if your female partner is generally amused by Bobbit jokes or by similar jokes (e.g. jokes about men being raped in prison) then you should ditch her at the speed of light - because she is never going to love you while finding such material to be funny.

If in doubt about this claim, then ask yourself these questions.

Would you trust someone with your child if they found jokes about children being tossed out of top-floor windows or being cut up with a knife to be amusing?

Surely not.

If you are a woman, would you ever want to partner a man who finds the idea of cutting off a woman's clitoris to be funny?

Once again, surely not.

Well, a woman who likes Bobbit jokes fundamentally hates men. And you will almost certainly find further evidence of this in other aspects of her personality and behaviour.

And if you, yourself, are amused by Bobbit jokes, then perhaps you should think very carefully about what you have become.

Somewhere along the line, your mind must have been well and truly infected and damaged by some very malicious psychological forces.

as a man, you will never stop being hated until feminism itself is destroyed.

In western countries, these malevolent forces have, for some four decades now, been generated mostly by hate-intoxicated bigots who call themselves feminists - which is why, as a man, you will never stop being hated until feminism itself is destroyed.

Indeed, men have about as much chance of living in decent circumstances while feminism has much influence as would Jews have in any country wherein Nazism was a significant force; e.g. see Feminism and Nazism.

So much so is this true, that you cannot really escape from the conclusion that feminism is not about 'equality' at all.

More than anything else, it is about stirring up hatred.

Towards all men.

Not just towards men in outgroups - like foreigners, blacks, whites, Jews, Manchester United football supporters - but towards all men.

In other words, hatred towards half the population of the entire planet.

Even towards those men who are their very own people!

Indeed, if you are a man who finds Bobbit jokes to be funny, then it is those who promote feminism who have most likely indoctrinated you to hate yourself.

All in all, therefore, feminism really must be one of the most invidious, obnoxious, malevolent, self-destructive ideologies imaginable.

people should do everything in their power to destroy feminism.

As such, people should do everything in their power to destroy feminism.

And men, in particular, have every right to do this; because there is no moral imperative which dictates that men must allow themselves to become the collateral damage of hate-mongering ideologues who seek to profit from their debasement.

So, please look closely at both feminism and feminists, and burrow down to inspect the emotions and the motives behind their various claims. It should not take you long to discover that it is a hatred of men that often unites them and energises them.

Kia Abdullah

And so, for example, when you see much-lauded feminist icons such as Andrea Dworkin saying such things as, "I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig"  or you see a feminist Guardian columnist, such as Kia Abdullah, finding it amusing that three young men were killed in a coach crash, or you see a biologist such as Steve Jones proclaiming that all men are parasites, it is important to understand that the overt expressions of such sentiments are not just accidents or slips of the tongue. Nor are they derived from scientific research that has been misunderstood.

These sentiments derive from a deep-seated hatred of men, and they are expressed overtly in order to fuel this hatred in others.

men have every right and every reason to destroy feminism

As such, men have every right and every reason to destroy feminism, and to attack both vigorously and viciously all those people who promote it and, indeed, all those people who employ highly prejudicial - often life-destroying - misandric policies that derive from it.

And my guess is that when the men's movement is powerful enough, many of these people are going to find themselves in very serious trouble.

Because, in one way or another, there will eventually be many thousands of angry men who will want to see these people paying a price for what they have done to them and to so many innocent others.

And these men will almost certainly get their way.

How come?

Two reasons, mainly.

1. The growth of the men's movement cannot be stopped.

2. Many of these people who promote and/or implement certain feminist policies are increasingly being seen as criminals; and many thousands of men will expect them to be treated as such.

YouTube Video - 5 min

Take a look at just how outrageous is the attitude of some media women (which includes Sharon Osbourne) to this savage mutilation.

And also listen to the women in the audience as they whoop with joy over this appalling act of violence.

It is all there, in front of your nose.