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
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
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
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
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
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
And so the mainstream media are getting away with their self-serving
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 NSPCC -
Children's Charities Sued for Millions?
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
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
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
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
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?
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
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
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
As such, people should do everything in their power to destroy
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
both unites them and energises them.
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
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
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.
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.