😵‍💫 Skitzocow Dan Cilley - autistic self-help guru/diet expert

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Dan does, but he frequently breaks the rule, mostly out of desperation, then blames Kim or anything else but himself for the supposed sickness afterwards. He's eating lasagna in something he just uploaded.

Alcohol is an even bigger trigger for him, he claims the only time he ever tasted alcohol was on the lips of the first girl he ever kissed (No surprise there).
Well that's 99% of his content---lectures that we should all follow but that he personally not only doesn't follow but lives the opposite of. He has hundreds of videos where he says gluten/meat/white rice/brown rice/you name it makes him unable to function, yet he eats it in video after video. Then he rants for half an hour about how none of us know how to eat the perfect diet but he does, even though his diet has left him bedridden. It's the same idea when he lives on welfare yet rants how Americans shouldn't be living on welfare and we're lazy and stupid for doing so. And that's 99% of his content, except when he talks about how he wishes he had a harem of women to have his babies.
 
In one of his recent videos, he talks about how he looks like Jesus while Kim disagrees in the background. He's so awful to her any time she's around during a video. I would like to pretend he only acts that way to be "macho" for the camera, but I'm finding that harder and harder to believe. You can tell he scares the shit out of her when he acts like a maniac in the video where he says that he's dying because he ate gluten.
 
This was one of the worst Kim moments for me. He describes at the 4 minute mark how he had "outercourse" with Kim, which starts sounding like dry humping but Dan himself soon describes it as molestation. He then goes on to describe what he physically doesn't like about Kim and what physical attributes she's lost with age. Fortunately she's tuned out, but it doesn't make it any less all-around awful:

 
I've never been more tempted to fund someone's austim in my life:

Bg4njZ.png

Dan treats us to a stunning rendition of Goodbye Horses

 
Last edited by a moderator:
For $40 and that snappy design, how can you go wrong sporting one of those shirts about town?

Dan's latest video shows a good view into his mind.


At 10:00 he starts pontificating about the Baylor rape case. For those who don't know, this isn't the Stanford guy, but a situation where a football player was dismissed from Boise State due to violence against women and erratic and suicidal behavior. Baylor knew this yet brought him to their school anyway because he could help the football team. He then raped a girl there. When it came out that the Baylor coach knew the guy's history, he got fired. The school chancellor, good ol' Whitewater prosecutor Ken Starr, was demoted. The football player was convicted but only got 6 months (hey, same as the Stanford kid, but then this is football in Texas). The victim is bringing a civil suit against the school, and this has Dan Cilley indignant.

11:30: "She apparently got raped"
12:15: "She wasn't necessarily raped"
No Danny, she was raped by a guy with a history of violence. The guy got convicted already.

Dan goes on about how the girl expects special treatment just because she was raped. At 14:45, he says, "It's impossible to be raped...she must have been drunk". At 15:25, it's "She put herself in that situation and got naked with the guy." No dumbass, this was not "date rape" or a change of heart. He tore her clothes off while she screamed "Stop" and "No", with her head trapped between a bed and a desk. But don't stop Cilley, he's on a roll. He says, "She's acting as though it's not her fault she was raped." Then at 17:55, Dan states, "She shouldn't be able to sue to expel the student..." Well no shit Dan, he's locked up, there's no need to sue to expel him. He's very upset this girl is filing a civil suit. "It's not your right to be protected by wherever you're going." He then ties this into women getting fat---a direct comparison from one sentence to the next between a poor woman getting raped and women in the United States getting fat. Fucking delusional scumbag.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So at what point do kiwi's go from he's just a barrel of entertainment (he kinda was) to holy fuck this dude is scary ala' Nick Bate? Not that I think he's masturbating with his own shit and molesting very young family members but is anyone else starting to wonder when this is going to come to a head and someone ends up hurt?

It's a-loggy and cunty but when it does (it will) hopefully it's to his own damn self and not let's say Kim or some random on the street. There's a couple people on here that could go either way but seem to just stick w the basement dweller angry loser status and while he certainly falls into those traits nicely there's just something else there that's unsettling to the core. Seriously if you could
put him under numerous tags he's a skitzocow, horrorcow, and a sadcow. Though that last one may be related more to Kim than himself. I get he's mentally ill but he's also an awful abusive asshole and it's the ever increasing out of touch abusive asshole label that's disconcerting and nullifies any possible compassion due to that illness. Iffy on involuntary commitment as I believe if can cause more harm than good but this dude is kind of a fantastic example of why involuntary commitment exists in the first place.

For any knowledgable law kiwis @Marvin and @AnOminous come to mind as you're both walking talking encyclopedias, at what point does a person cross the line from iffy to straight up a danger to himself and others? Is it only once he really does physically harm someone. I googled but didn't neccesarily find anything that answered the question properly.

TLDR; he's fucking gross, shits going to go down and it will either be a glorious event to behold or straight up horrifying.
 
Last edited:
For any knowledgable law kiwis @Marvin and @AnOminous come to mind as you're both walking talking encyclopedias, at what point does a person cross the line from iffy to straight up a danger to himself and others? Is it only once he really does physically harm someone. I googled but didn't neccesarily find anything that answered the question properly.

To quote the language Florida uses, and most states track, to lock someone up involuntarily you need "a substantial likelihood that without care or treatment the person will cause serious bodily harm in the near future." That's harm to self or others. It doesn't quite require rampaging around with a chainsaw, but pretty close.
 
Dan's latest video shows a good view into his mind.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=z6E0ba2Qb2s

Dan's analyzing photographs of women in this video is godfucking awful, too. His demands for specific facial expressions is so out-of-touch, I really get the feeling that no medication or time in an institution would have any lasting effect on that kind of entitlement.
 
Dan's latest video shows a good view into his mind.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=z6E0ba2Qb2s
At 10:00 he starts pontificating about the Baylor rape case. For those who don't know, this isn't the Stanford guy, but a situation where a football player was dismissed from Boise State due to violence against women and erratic and suicidal behavior. Baylor knew this yet brought him to their school anyway because he could help the football team. He then raped a girl there. When it came out that the Baylor coach knew the guy's history, he got fired. The school chancellor, good ol' Whitewater prosecutor Ken Starr, was demoted. The football player was convicted but only got 6 months (hey, same as the Stanford kid, but then this is football in Texas). The victim is bringing a civil suit against the school, and this has Dan Cilley indignant.

11:30: "She apparently got raped"
12:15: "She wasn't necessarily raped"
No Danny, she was raped by a guy with a history of violence. The guy got convicted already.

Dan goes on about how the girl expects special treatment just because she was raped. At 14:45, he says, "It's impossible to be raped...she must have been drunk". At 15:25, it's "She put herself in that situation and got naked with the guy." No dumbass, this was not "date rape" or a change of heart. He tore her clothes off while she screamed "Stop" and "No", with her head trapped between a bed and a desk. But don't stop Cilley, he's on a roll. He says, "She's acting as though it's not her fault she was raped." Then at 17:55, Dan states, "She shouldn't be able to sue to expel the student..." Well no shit Dan, he's locked up, there's no need to sue to expel him. He's very upset this girl is filing a civil suit. "It's not your right to be protected by wherever you're going." He then ties this into women getting fat---a direct comparison from one sentence to the next between a poor woman getting raped and women in the United States getting fat. Fucking delusional scumbag.
I'll admit his dismissal of what happened in the case and just making up his own scenario is infuriating. Especially when this is the mentality of a lot of backwater/hick communities.

Freely admit this is powerleveling, but as a victim of statutory, it's so frustrating to see. More so when this guy verbally abuses his girlfriend and harasses women on the street. He thinks men are entitled and women are the ones who should know better. Just... Ugh
 
Dan's analyzing photographs of women in this video is godfucking awful, too. His demands for specific facial expressions is so out-of-touch, I really get the feeling that no medication or time in an institution would have any lasting effect on that kind of entitlement.
I had trouble making it that far, but I did watch some of it. His anger at women and frustration with how no one can live up to his standards (no body fat, submissive, eats "a perfect diet") is rising. Goes without saying that it's delusional, since analyzing 50-year-old pictures and explaining how the woman would someday be fat or was holding her arm at a defiant angle is just bizarre, even for him.

Edited to add: Now that I watched it all, the best part is when he starts in on how a woman has to have "perfect chaste skin" and "pure white skin" yet in a recent video he said he only showered once in the past two months...or maybe the sketch of the woman by the washing machine who is "giving her daughter these appliances for her marriage, er, I don't advocate marriage, but for the consummation of their relationship." He's a barrel of laughs, if only he was joking.
 
Last edited:
I'll admit his dismissal of what happened in the case and just making up his own scenario is infuriating. Especially when this is the mentality of a lot of backwater/hick communities.

I think his dismissal is projection. He's incredulous of those claims because he's incredulous of the ones made against him. I honestly don't think he understands why accosting random women in the street, following them with a camera, informing them they're making his dick hard is frightening. I think women who complain about "street harassment" (cat calling) are mediocre or ugly and using it as an excuse to humble brag, UNLESS it's something like this.
 
I think his dismissal is projection. He's incredulous of those claims because he's incredulous of the ones made against him. I honestly don't think he understands why accosting random women in the street, following them with a camera, informing them they're making his dick hard is frightening. I think women who complain about "street harassment" (cat calling) are mediocre or ugly and using it as an excuse to humble brag, UNLESS it's something like this.
I agree that Dan clearly suffers from some kind of issue that prevents him from seeing what he is doing is wrong. But I still stand by that a lot of people have his mentality. Even if they should know better.

Dan's lack of understanding, and the attitude he has shown in videos shows that he isn't a joke. He's grabbed women. Verbally accosted them. Even when they are phoning the police. Unlike most lowcows who at that point would run.

He truly thinks himself an 'alpha' and above what he is doing.
 
I agree that Dan clearly suffers from some kind of issue that prevents him from seeing what he is doing is wrong. But I still stand by that a lot of people have his mentality. Even if they should know better.

Dan's lack of understanding, and the attitude he has shown in videos shows that he isn't a joke. He's grabbed women. Verbally accosted them. Even when they are phoning the police. Unlike most lowcows who at that point would run.

He truly thinks himself an 'alpha' and above what he is doing.
He thinks he SHOULD be an alpha and is incredulous he's not treated that way. This is a guy who thinks he has all the answers even though he follows none of his own advice. He sees women as objects who should be worshipping him and having his babies, but I never thought him capable of violence until some of his recent videos. I could SAY it's all just words, especially because he's too ill to even walk now, but as he gets more and more angry at how the world has wronged him, I wouldn't say he's not capable of snapping.

His new video is a big hit on YT, 82 likes and 5 dislikes. Not sure where the sudden torrent of Dan fans came from. The "psycho killer" highlight is 11:25, where he says he has a knife and could kill someone now if he wanted. He could go "slicing and dicing downtown". I think this is a joke but he says it in the middle of a stonefaced ramble so it's hard to take it that way. That's our Dan though. Looks like his new gimmick is reading news stories and giving us his twisted interpretations of events he has no context or clue about, and with all those positive reviews we can expect a lot more.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
His new video is a big hit on YT, 82 likes and 5 dislikes. Not sure where the sudden torrent of Dan fans came from. The "psycho killer" highlight is 11:25, where he says he has a knife and could kill someone now if he wanted. He could go "slicing and dicing downtown". I think this is a joke but he says it in the middle of a stonefaced ramble so it's hard to take it that way. That's our Dan though. Looks like his new gimmick is reading news stories and giving us his twisted interpretations of events he has no context or clue about, and with all those positive reviews we can expect a lot more.

It's surreal to hear him doing ads and reading news. I can't stomach full videos anymore since he went back to movie-length uploads.
 
It's a manic day on the Cilley train as he's talking at top speed. His new song analysis idea is a twist:


Just watching the beginning, his stone-faced analysis of the lyrics of a classic song, is kind of funny. By the time he says that a girl being so poor she doesn't even have furniture turns him on, it's a laugh riot. It would actually be funny if Dan wasn't totally serious about everything he says and thinks these 50-year-old pop songs are sending him a deep message about life in 2016. But then it's back to his same lecture about how all women are fat. As always, his obsession with how society has wronged him because he can't attract a woman (even though he's afraid to leave the house, is too lazy to work, doesn't shower, never works, lives on welfare, etc.) is disconnected from reality. And for a guy begging for donations here, his fake crying about how his router wires are tangled is pretty shitty since we're paying for all this stuff for "poor Dan".

For anyone who doesn't want to watch two hours of Dan saying words in strange voices and pronunciations, and who can blame you, here's Dan's essay on YT. With his desire for 16-year-olds, he's becoming the Republican Lucas Werner.

This is a song which puts healthy images into your mind, and healthy feelings into your soul. You are placed into a different reality, a world where a healthy heterosexual man’s views and desires were heard by the majority, and people had strong desires to connect romantically. In this song, the protagonist (the lead singer) is expressing a strong desire for a girl. The girl is poor because she doesn’t have money, but the girl has “such a pretty face” and so is probably not overweight at all. This song was from 1964 when fat people were rare. People ate much healthier. There was probably no welfare also, and so people couldn’t get food and other free resources and be lazy. Because there were few overweight people, there were many attractive girls. When girls become overweight, they become unattractive. When this happens, the fit girls get more attention, and become jaded, spoiled, unappreciative, etc. This is the world we live in now. Girls do not appreciate men. Also, in this song, I believe these men are not that young; they seem older, maybe in their 30’s. In America, men nowadays are expected to settle for older women, or, at least it is somewhat taboo for a man in his thirties to desire a girl, such as a 16-year old. This song makes me feel it is completely expected, and even respected, to desire very much younger women. Doesn’t it make you feel that way? It makes me feel that society assumes that men should pursue such aged girls. But now, you’re a pedophile or a pervert or there’s something wrong with you if you desire young girls. The reality is that men are naturally attracted to those ages. Society should be in harmony with this fact. Why is there discord at all? Our country needs to be on the same page. There is so much disagreement. Why can’t people accept and embrace nature? Why can’t they be in harmony with nature? Why can’t they celebrate life like other cultures do? I seriously think that masculinity, traditional romance, love, etc.—are missing from our society solely due to the consumer-targeted content we are exposed to. Who is the consumer? Who spends money on stuff the most? I believe it is an overweight woman who doesn’t enjoy sex, who thinks sex is disgusting, who would much rather buy stuff and expensive food and sit and watch TV and hate men because she is too fat to attract a good one, and thinks the world is dangerous and doesn’t socialize, etc. Due to watching programming that is constantly reinforcing the beliefs of these women, we (everyone) are programmed to see life how they do: have you noticed how the women act in commercials? They act as though they are in charge and not their husband or boyfriend. Men are portrayed as unimportant and childlike. Kids are smarter than Dads. Women are in charge. This just boosts the viewers’ confidence; it makes them feel good about the life they are living. People like hearing good news about their bad habits; the TV channel does not want to offend the viewer/consumer ever. This causes viewers to never feel they need to change. They just get fatter and fatter, more masculine and disrespectful of men, etc. In general, they are getting more out of touch with reality. The reality is that men naturally desire to dominate, and women desire to be submissive. Being submissive does not mean being a slave or unhappy carrying out the orders of a superior, but rather, it means doing what you want and happily doing it, but what you are doing is being done for the purpose of pleasing someone else. Women naturally want to please a man; they desire to make food for their man, if the man is a good man. They desire to do his laundry. (To read the rest of this description, go to dancilley.com)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
With his desire for 16-year-olds, he's becoming the Republican Lucas Werner.
Absolutely this. They're on two sides of the same unemployed, perverted coin. Maybe they will have a bit more in common once Hillary wins the election and Lucas goes even more insane. Losing 160 pounds wouldn't impress Dan, though, since he should really have NO BODY FAT whatsoever. I'd love to see them debate politics.
 
Absolutely this. They're on two sides of the same unemployed, perverted coin. Maybe they will have a bit more in common once Hillary wins the election and Lucas goes even more insane. Losing 160 pounds wouldn't impress Dan, though, since he should really have NO BODY FAT whatsoever. I'd love to see them debate politics.
I'm not a Lucas Werner expert, but does his political opinion change to suit the time? Dan used to be Mr. Free Love, but since he realized he wasn't going to get a harem of women, now he's all "let's go back to the '50s where women were barefoot and pregnant" and "where are our morals" guy. But I think he means that everyone is too sexually repressed to have sex WITH HIM. He wants a group of poor women that will be his free-love sex slaves who follow his orders and have his babies, but any other woman who acts that way is a slut.
 
I'm not a Lucas Werner expert, but does his political opinion change to suit the time? Dan used to be Mr. Free Love, but since he realized he wasn't going to get a harem of women, now he's all "let's go back to the '50s where women were barefoot and pregnant" and "where are our morals" guy. But I think he means that everyone is too sexually repressed to have sex WITH HIM. He wants a group of poor women that will be his free-love sex slaves who follow his orders and have his babies, but any other woman who acts that way is a slut.
I wouldn't call myself an "expert" on Lucas, either. I will say that despite his liberal beliefs and hatred of sexism a lot of his rants about women not having sex with him and his attempts to fuck underage girls sort of go against that.

I love (/ am horrified by) the changes that have happened with Dan. I mean, given his desire for a cult-compound full of wives, I guess it was only a matter of time before he started circlejerking about the 50's. His beliefs have become more conservative all around the board. A while back (no idea when) he tried to sound shocked when people called him a rapist. His replies on the subject now are something along the lines of "heh maybe I should should get someone (I guess Kim) to play rape with in film".

I just see all of this as some kind of mental break. He will continue to get crazier and his views will shift more to the right as time goes on. Everyone pray for Kim in these troubled times. I can't help but feel absolutely terrible for her.
 
Back
Top Bottom