Honey. I’ve been cheating with another blog.

I must say.

I met her in June. I was bored. Or something. I succumbed to impulse.

So I thought I’d “change it up” for a bit. In fact, I thought I might just let you go since our annual marriage contract is up for renewal this Fall, so it would be the perfect opportunity to let Social Extinction fold, at last.

My new blog is a fine woman but she is not as edgy or exciting as you, and furthermore, she is a bit plain. But edginess does creep in occasionally. Thing is…you see…thing is, she knows my real name. There are no secrets between us. Whatever I write on her is openly traceable to me and I own each word there openly and defiantly. So it follows, because of this, that I cannot be as blatantly offensive as i am here, on your luscious pages; that other blog lives in a straight-edged normie wasteland of slightly left-of-center sentient knuckleheads. I am a stranger in a strange land there. Rest assured, I do not temper my conservatism and readers know where I stand. The difference is that I exude a reasonable persona there. I don’t yell, I don’t ridicule (cheaply) and I attempt to refute in a calm-mannered tone without resorting to names or inflammatory verbosity.

Honey, I propose an “arrangement.”

I have hesitations about my original plan of abandoning you. I’ve decided I’d like to keep you around. There is too much going on in the world at the moment. A lot. I feel as if we have reached a pinnacle in social and cultural evolution and what better time to run an anonymous blog than now?

My proposition: I will use you, we will remain first loves.

I will visit you when I wish to lambast with words that would wilt iron. I need you. But that other blog…she is sweet. She is peaceful and she provides a sense of succor that is inarguable. And she is my pathway into normieland, that deep burrow where I can insert my mad sense of truth and reason into the tendrils of the rancid unthinking beast of plastic civility that is swallowing up the vibrancy and innovation of a modern culture too obsessed with feelings and sensitivities to be worth a damn.

My new blog gives me the “in” and this is the position where I can wreak the most havoc.

(Part 2) will appear later this week. I will touch upon specifics and their effect on the outward presentation of Social Extinction. Most importantly, I will explain the strategy whereby I will maintain 2 blogs which shall never know of each other <eyeroll>. And in part 2 I will not resort to this sappy metaphorical lovey-dovey language.

Bozo the Brown

The United Kingdom is the Untied Kingdom.

A mockery to the modern civilized Western world. They deserve every ounce of torment handed them by their bedazzled embrace of every global shithole dweller that sullies their land.

Police have warned trolls who mocked a drug dealer’s haircut, that they could be prosecuted for harassment. A mugshot issued by officers for Jermaine Taylor, 21, from Newport, Wales attracted a staggering 76,000 comments, poking fun at his bonce.

Taylor is wanted by police on recall to prison. He was released on licence after being jailed for three years for being concerned in supplying cocaine after being sentenced at Cardiff Crown Court in September 2017.

However, he breached the terms of his licence conditions upon his release, and officers had hoped that releasing a picture of him would help them find him. But instead, thousands of people have taken to social media to mock his unusual hairdo.

Don’t take advice from a man who wants to be ruled by feminine values.

So there I was, attracted by an article entitled, “2 Signs That Instantly Identify Someone With Bad Leadership Skills.” Clicking away like curious little moth on a light bulb.

I wondered if perhaps there might be an ounce of unprecedented insight to be found. I’m very fascinated by “bad leadership” because in today’s corporate world of incessant turnover, obsessive purging of the ranks, zero employer investment (with equal measures of employee investment), and lack of any sense of loyalty whatsoever from any side, bad leadership is the norm. Anyone can (and does) become a manager. One must posture boldly, speak with misbegotten authority and massage the right social shoulders, and you’re in! Today’s workplace values “EQ” above all.

So yeah, I was curious.

The article began innocuously enough with vague truisms. I wasn’t denying and in fact, was willing to continue.

Egomaniacs are on the rise, especially within the leadership ranks of companies across the world, which is detrimental to good business outcomes.

Leadership and management expert and best-selling author Ken Blanchard warns us:

The ego is one of the biggest barriers to people working together effectively. When people get caught up in their egos, it erodes their effectiveness. That’s because the combination of false pride and self-doubt created by an overactive ego gives people a distorted image of their own importance. When that happens, people see themselves as the center of the universe and they begin to put their own agenda, safety, status, and gratification ahead of those affected by their thoughts and actions.

The challenge is keeping such self-centered leaders and managers from taking their teams or companies down a path toward self-destruction. After all, we speak of personality characteristics–some of which border on personality disorders. 

So how can we curtail the mechanisms that keep feeding egomaniacs into the higher echelons of corporate society? The answer is not so simple. It will require a systemic shift not only in our leadership selection processes but in our collective minds.  

Fair enough. Today’s rampant egomania, perpetuated by the paradigm of social media and the facile social structures it spawns, has settled over the workplace, leaving our offices ravaged by overconfident incompetence which often steers the dynamic of the specific organization.

I continued reading and then, like a brick wall, the author threw his ulterior cards on the table.

Cuckdom reared its ugly head. What could you possibly expect from a “man” who characterizes himself as Founder and Chief Human Officer?

What we think true leadership is is far from the truth. Psychologist Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic, chief talent scientist at ManpowerGroup and a professor of business psychology at University College London and at Columbia University, points out that we’ve historically equated leadership with personality traits statistically more likely to be found in men: confidence and charisma.

Bold type is ALL mine. My BS meter sprang into action. Here we go. Author Marcel Schwantes, self-hating man and worshiper of the unicorny fem-power narrative, goes on to advise:

In his phenomenal and alarming book Why Do So Many Incompetent Men Become Leaders? (And How to Fix It), he explains how these same two characteristics can later backfire as overconfidence, narcissism, and even psychopathy, resulting in disaster.

Here’s why you should not reward people–men or women alike–with the two masculine traits we have historically elevated as “leadership material” since the industrial age.

OK. Nice hedging of your generalization, Marcel.

I wonder if Marcel, of “Leadership from the Core” fame, has ever worked a day in a real workplace environment, not that fairy tale HR-clouded cell of platitudes and soft human fuzzies where the “female way” is blindly esteemed.

Man bad!

According to Chamorro-Premuzic, the best leaders combine IQ (intellectual intelligence) with EQ (emotional intelligence), which enable personal effectiveness and self-awareness. While both males and females are equal when it comes to IQ, studies show that women have greater EQ and, in general, perform better as leaders.

Chamorro-Premuzic also points out that a high EQ is also associated with people-centered leaders who are more humble, honest, and ethical. To his point, the shift to focusing on selecting and developing more leaders with these traits–as competencies–would also help correct the gender imbalance in higher leadership ranks, since the underlying issue remains that we, as a society, lack valuing these traits in the leaders we choose. 

Marcel neglects to mention that EQ, like IQ, can be wielded malevolently as well, and in the realm of liberated, empowered women, frequently is expressed in such a self-interested manner. Marcel, like all virtue-signaling SJW’s in today’s modern environment, fails to recognize that all people, as he inadvertently messages, are innately corrupt and abusive when handed “power.”

Women are equally spiteful and narcissistic. Except, in women we don’t call it charisma or confidence. These are “masculine” denotations of the concomitant feminine traits of emotional coercion and social manipulation, two traits found in abundance in female leadership. But leadership cloaked under the auspices of such a toolkit of deranged controlling, power-hungry mechanisms, is “good” according to manginas like Marcel.