Feed on
Posts
Comments

Robert Cialdini is an expert in psychological manipulation, i.e., goal-oriented communication. (Something we all do, more or less successfully, whether we are aware of our own machinations or not.) He wrote the seminal book Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion. What you may not know is that Cialdini was, in many respects, a founding father of Game. He is cited by many well-regarded pickup artists, and his ideas, like “social proof”, percolate throughout the game literature. Game has had, from its inception. some pretty solid scientific, theoretical, and experiential backing.

Something else you probably don’t know: Cialdini was tapped, along with other renowned behavioral scientists, by the 2008 Obama campaign to help propel Obama to the highest office in the land.

Two weeks before Election Day, Barack Obama’s campaign was mobilizing millions of supporters; it was a bit late to start rewriting get-out-the-vote (GOTV) scripts. “BUT, BUT, BUT,” deputy field director Mike Moffo wrote to Obama’s GOTV operatives nationwide, “What if I told you a world-famous team of genius scientists, psychologists and economists wrote down the best techniques for GOTV scripting?!?! Would you be interested in at least taking a look? Of course you would!!”

Moffo then passed along guidelines and a sample script from the Consortium of Behavioral Scientists, a secret advisory group of 29 of the nation’s leading behaviorists. The key guideline was a simple message: “A Record Turnout Is Expected.” That’s because studies by psychologist Robert Cialdini and other group members had found that the most powerful motivator for hotel guests to reuse towels, national-park visitors to stay on marked trails and citizens to vote is the suggestion that everyone is doing it. “People want to do what they think others will do,” says Cialdini, author of the best seller Influence. “The Obama campaign really got that.”

The existence of this behavioral dream team — which also included best-selling authors Dan Ariely of MIT (Predictably Irrational) and Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein of the University of Chicago (Nudge) as well as Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman of Princeton — has never been publicly disclosed, even though its members gave Obama white papers on messaging, fundraising and rumor control as well as voter mobilization. All their proposals — among them the famous online fundraising lotteries that gave small donors a chance to win face time with Obama — came with footnotes to peer-reviewed academic research. “It was amazing to have these bullet points telling us what to do and the science behind it,” Moffo tells TIME. “These guys really know what makes people tick.”

Cialdini’s theories about the nature of human psychology and his influence on the American elite are evidence of the triumph of Game. Game has infused every facet of the body politic, not just the sexual organs. As CH has said many times already, if you can game a woman into bed you can game a boss into handing you a raise or a nation’s voters into electing you President.

That is the awesomely dark power of Game. And dark it is, because what is essentially remote control of another person’s executive brain function is the kind of power that irresistibly pulls one to malevolent ends.

President Obama is still relying on behavioral science. But now his Administration is using it to try to transform the country. Because when you know what makes people tick, it’s a lot easier to help them change.

You can thank Game for our first two-term halfling SWPL President and the nationalization of 1/7th of the economy. Now, if Game can do that, imagine what it can do on bored girls at bars yearning for a little excitement in their lives.

Some have said the 21st Century will be the age of biology. I think what we are entering is the age of Orwellian mastery over human psychology. Scarily, the two might be related. The power to shape people’s opinions and emotions through mere word and expression, and guide them to actions they may not have taken otherwise, is reaching an apotheosis that could be magnified a thousandfold coupled with the power to alter people’s genetic architecture.

If your eyes are open, you don’t have to look far to see foreboding signs of this new age of the human aquarium rising into view. Unaccountable secret government agencies using the internet to “manipulate, deceive and destroy reputations”. Your webcam commandeered by shadowy operatives. Cameras on every street corner. Cathedralsourced slanderswarms of crimethinkers.

Cialdini’s name has been found in NSA documents. I wouldn’t be surprised if the man himself is working for them.

Doubters can snark about “PUAs” to their hearts’ content, but the arc of recent history is proving that PUAs were at the leading edge all along. Will people listen only when it’s too late?

[crypto-donation-box]

For those who don’t know, the Twitter feed @tinderfessions is a cornholecopia of pervy and depraved confessions of Tinder users, the Weimar era-approved app that allows people to quickly geolocate future husbands and wives for intimacy trial runs. 😆

If even half the stuff on Tinderfessions is true, the republic is hurtling towards its doom faster than anyone thinks. Reader ivanhoseph77 writes,

Tinderfessions will cure you of any betaness instantly. It will also cure you of any lingering fondness for LTR’s or marriage.

It shows the global march of absolute sexual anarchy in stark relief. We are so far past any attempt at turning back from semen filled gutters of our society it’s not even funny.
It’s a poon paradise. Nobody in their right mind would even CONSIDER an LTR or marriage when looking at the stark reality.
“Virtue has it’s own rewards” my ass. As CH would say, “sit poolside, imbibe of the delights, and enjoy watching it burn.” There is nothing else to be done. Literally.
That twitterfeed will fell any idealized notions you may be absurdly clinging to.

The modern sexual market appears to be in the process of bifurcating. The religious and (relatively) prudish are making babies; the secular and debauched are not. Has this ever happened before in American history? Good question. How representative is Tinderfessions of the public’s sexual behavior? Also a good question.

Having read enough social media in various interchangeable formats, I notice that online communication — for all its passionate sperm und wang — reveals very little of love or aspirations to love. From unformed men this is expected; from women it’s jarring. The divine and mysterious has been strip-mined from sex, leaving behind an abandoned pit.

Maybe the quest for human happiness is better served by a little less convenience and a little more struggle.

[crypto-donation-box]

Mate guarding is a science-y term for possessiveness. Both sexes mate guard, but for reasons having to do with the inherent skew in reproductive value and goals between men and women, men are the sex who generally mate guard more often, and with more intensity. Men of the northlands, at any rate.

To be precise, beta men and lesser alphas are chronic mate guarders. Established alpha males don’t typically mate guard — at least not obviously — because they don’t fear their women cheating on them or falling under the spell of other men, and, less benignly, they redirect some of their relationship energy that would normally be spent on mate guarding toward hooking up with side lovers.

Beta males, whether consciously or not, sense more keenly the sexual interloper threat posed by other men and the wandering eyes of their own women. This heightened threat detection system is likely an evolved instinct that serves the useful purpose of keeping the lover of a beta male faithful, (or constrained in her ability to cheat).

Here’s where it gets interesting for philosophers and warriors of Game alike: While mate guarding may offer some temporary or discrete relationship security, multiple acts of mate guarding will paradoxically increase longer term relationship fragility. The mechanism by which this LTR instability is generated is a status feedback loop; if a man mate guards, his woman will subconsciously evaluate his romantic worth downward because (her sensitive idware will reason) only a beta male would feel the need to mate guard. An alpha male would not; his aloofness would be perceived as proof of his impenetrable high status.

Yes, when a beta male mate guards, his girlfriend will proclaim in the moment her ego-stroked thrill at his display of jealousy, but over time the accretion of those displays will erode her charitable judgment of his mate value. This is why women are viscerally disgusted by the thought of overly “possessive” boyfriends. It’s not the chauvinistic possessiveness per se that makes women wince (a shibboleth to which rationalizing feminists constantly allude); it’s the betatizing fallout that repulses women. No woman wants to think she’s hitched to a lower value man, just as no man wants to think he’s with a woman uglier than he can be expected to get.

It’s therefore in the master womanizer’s interest to avoid the trap of mate guarding. The temporary happy ego boost it might give your woman is not worth the long-term erosion in your mate status. If you doubt this, try to visualize scenarios of men in the act of mate guarding. Recall moments when you witnessed mate guarding by other men. Does “alpha male” spring to mind? Or do you feel something closer to pity for those men?

If you’re having trouble organizing your thoughts on the matter, a picture can help to wonderfully focus your mind:

Assuming for purposes of discussion that this isn’t a creep copping a cheap feel, who among you can restrain the impulse to mock this fingertip-affixed beta male boyfriend claiming ownership of his snoozing girlfriend’s thigh? This is what mate guarding frequently looks like: A quasi-pervy, insecure beta trying hard to let the world know that this is HIS girl, and you (or her) better not get any ideas. This is also why excessive PDA is beta.

When you think of alpha males, you picture a self-possessed (rather than possessive), somewhat standoffish dude with a girl gazing adoringly at him and squirming to wedge tighter into the nook of his chest. He might drape a noncommittal arm over her shoulders, but even that small gesture of mate guarding appears as if it had to be coerced from him. Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to emulate this guy and not the guy in the photo above.

CH Maxim #57: Beta males mate guard, alpha males disregard.

Before the EXCEPTIONS ARE THE RULE crowd chimes in with their insipid blather, no one denies that there might be rare times when a forthright act of overt guardianship is necessary to remind an especially obstinate man or slutty woman of your boundaries. The rule to avoid mate guarding doesn’t mean avoid it at all costs. If the cost of avoidance is high enough, you’ll be better off breaking the rule. But if you find yourself breaking the NO MATE GUARDING rule a lot, you need to reassess exactly who in your relationship is the real break-up threat.

[crypto-donation-box]

Women expertly wield the “loser” shiv against men they don’t like (or don’t find attractive) because they know — or at least their unconscious knows — that the insult sticks. A man’s SMV (sexual market value) is, in large part, a measure of his social status. Loser men simply don’t compete very well in the mate market.

The equivalent insult against women is “ugly”. Women’s SMV is less a function of their social status than it is of their looks, so being called ugly is the kind of jab that penetrates all the way to the female id. But calling a woman a loser when she is indeed a loser can still wrest a shock of pain, and provide ancillary societal benefits, such as ostracism of the loser woman by other women.

But women are rarely called losers because they are protected by the penumbra emanating from the fundamental premise. In times like these of female regression to a hellcunt mean, this protective bubble of automatic deference helps spread the shamelessness virus of female loserdom until it infects all classes and strata.

Therefore, CH decrees that the time is now to start calling out loser women for the losers they are, using a colloquial definition of the word “loser” that is quite a bit more stringent than the excessively broad definition applied by women tarring men with the label. Who are loser women?

Single moms (excluding widows): LOSERS.
Fatties: LOSERS.
Spinsters: LOSERS.
Cougars: LOSERS.
Childless careerists: LOSERS.
Social media attention whores: LOSERS.
Feminists: LOSERS.
Sluts: LOSERS.
Divorcees (with exceptions): LOSERS.
Mudsharks (with exceptions): LOSERS. (Proof.)
Porn whores who want the world to know what they do for a living and don’t think it will affect their prospects of marrying a high value man: LOSERS.
Women who take selfies of their asses while their infant daughters watch: LOSERS.

Let your shiv flag fly, paladins of the patriarchy.

Shame a loser, save a nation’s soul.

[crypto-donation-box]

The Final Word On Peacocking

Peacocking — the art of dressing ostentatiously to attract positive female attention — has been a staple of game theory for a long time, ever since Mystery proved in-field that gaudy outfits were like flames to moths.

But peacocking has been controversial from the start. Some players thought it looked try-hard, and whatever initial impression was made on women would dissipate soon after. Some thought it would invite antagonism from other men. Still others argued that too much peacocking made a man seem unattainable and this was ultimately self-defeating to his goal of getting loved.

All these were plausible objections. CH has long been on record for finding a peacocking “sweet spot” — unique, but not too outrageous, and accented with peacocky accoutrements. The goal should be to stand out without looking like a dork completely out of his element.

Thankfully, the ❤️science❤️ is rolling in to help clear the confusion on this perennial topic. One important result emerges from the latest slew of studies: Context, and self-confidence, matter.

Anyone who has felt like the odd duck of the group can take heart from new research from Harvard Business School that says sticking out in distinct ways can lend you an air of presence or influence. […]

Less work has focused on what others think of those who try to communicate that they are different or worthy of attention. Efforts to be different are interesting because humans are wired to conform and be part of a group.

In a series of studies published in the Journal of Consumer Research in February, Silvia Bellezza, a doctoral student, and two Harvard professors sought to examine what observers thought of individuals who deviated from the norm in the workplace and in a retail setting. Some of the work was conducted in the lab on students. Other studies took place in the community and involved passersby or attendees of a seminar. Most of the studies included about 150 participants. What they found was that being a little different can socially benefit people—in some situations.

The following parts of the experiment were heavily context-dependent:

In their first study, they asked shop assistants and pedestrians in Milan to rate what they thought of people who walked into luxury stores wearing gym clothes. The subjects also rated those who wore outfits typically considered more appropriate, like a dress and fur coat.

Pedestrians were more likely to think that a well-dressed individual was more likely to have the money to buy something in the store. Shop assistants thought the opposite. Those more familiar with the luxury retail environment were more likely to assume that a gym-clothes-wearing client was confident enough to not need to dress up more, and therefore more apt to be a celebrity making a purchase than someone wrapped in fur.

The same pattern emerged in subsequent studies conducted in other settings: Students afforded more respect to a fictitious bearded professor who wore a T-shirt than to a clean-shaven one who wore a tie. Candidates entering a business-plan competition who chose to use their own PowerPoint presentation background were tabbed more likely to win than those who used the standard background.

Lesson: You don’t want to look like every other button-down, jeans-wearing dude. The safe play won’t get you much negative attention, but neither will it earn you much positive attention. You have to dress with deliberate “social risk amplification” in mind. In the courtship arenas of bars et al, you should strive to look like a man who has nothing to prove and isn’t concerned with people’s expectations.

But, there are limits to the effectiveness of nonconformism:

There are boundaries to the benefits of looking different, the Harvard work showed. If an individual was viewed as accidentally out of sync with everyone else, such as mistakenly wearing a red bow tie rather than black at a formal event, that erased positive feelings about him among those surveyed. Those opinions only improved when the survey group believed their contrarian acted differently on purpose.

“In order to think that the person’s a big shot, you have to understand that the person is willingly engaging in this nonconforming conduct,” Ms. Bellezza says.

One reason Mystery’s peacocking worked so well was because his attitude and the context within which he operated (nightclubs) conveyed intention. No woman would assume he “accidentally” wore a feather boa. He wore his flagrant peacocks’ attire with purpose. That is, he owned it. Contrast is king, but only when overconfidence is co-king.

There’s one more important caveat:

In addition, the environment must give cues that suggest a person’s talent or wealth. Standing in the front of the classroom or walking confidently into a luxury store already imply some level of belonging. But when an observer didn’t know whether the person they view is part of the group, eccentric dress was seen as a negative, according to the researchers.

Peacocking has to be framed. If you’re a newbie to game dressed in Victorian coat, spats and Celtic pendant, but carrying yourself with the body language of an anxious and uncertain man in a roomful of strangers, you will signal too much outsiderness. You will be shit tested and ostracized as a dork. Your already weak frame will be smashed to smithereens.

The solution is 1. peacocking only in the company of people who are already familiar with you (social proof) or 2. tempering your flash in the company of strangers so that you don’t unduly alert any of them to your outsider status.

Body language, as usual, is key here. The stronger — i.e., more alpha — your presence, the easier it will be to stand outside the crowd dressed in odd or inappropriate clothing. The irony of successful peacocking is that you have to act like you belong to afford the social risk of dressing like you don’t belong.

Maxim #42: Contrast in how you dress is received better by the group when you are socially proofed.

Corollary to Maxim #42: If you peacock, don’t wait long to befriend the group. Peacocking should be framed as “This is totally normal. The problem is everyone else’s weirdness about it.”

There are times when communicating high rank and competence becomes more important, such as during a shake-up in management at work. Signaling one’s place in a group reduces uncertainty, but sometimes the goal may be to fit into the group, and sometimes to signal that one is a high-status person in the group, says David Dubois, a marketing professor at Insead in France and Singapore.

Given the strong female predilection for higher status men, signaling high rank within a social milieu is more crucial to seduction success than is signaling group membership. You can dress conservatively and fit in, and you’ll make lots of asexual friends that way, or you can dress a little crazy and attract women intrigued by your handicapping boldness.

Dr. Poole’s best practical advice: “Don’t talk a lot if you have high status. People will assume you’re competent and when you talk, they will listen to you.”

Poon Commandments V and VI.

Mystery’s peacocking was not a superficial ploy. He thrived on negative attention from women because he knew that it was simpler to attract an antagonistic woman than it was to attract an indifferent woman. He knew he had the game cattle to go with his furry hat. This latest series of studies examining peacocking may overlook that calculation: Eccentric dress to provoke negative social appraisal as a means of accelerating courtship.

The Bottom Line

Don’t peacock until you’ve improved your body language and have learned how to talk to women confidently and handle the inevitable shit tests you’ll get when you start dressing in a unique manner. The clothes alone won’t make you a player. If you peacock, don’t stand around waiting for women to notice your courageous sartorial ensemble; approach promptly, and act like there’s nothing unusual about how you’re dressed. Remember that a major goal of peacocking is to provoke negative attention which, in women, is a direct pipeline to their sexual interest. If you struggle with negative attention, don’t peacock. You don’t need to go full-body peacock to raise your relative in-group status; subtle cues of risk-taking alphatude — jewelry, tattoos, shoes — can work just as well if the social context is skewed toward a conformist, bland dress code.

[crypto-donation-box]

When yer lurvable CH manor lord was a wee lad sprinkled with fresh down, many illusory obstacles set themselves in his path to mastering the hearts of newly teenaged girls in the plum ripeness of supercuteness. He would carefully listen to them dictate to friends in squealing cadence the qualities they loved about the boys they loved. Words like “cute”, “hottie”, “great body”, “muscular”, “flat stomach”, “bedroom eyes”, “so sweet” and related would zip around from ear to ear, never reaching a depth of analysis beyond the barest superficiality.

Schoolboy CH would then examine himself for this or that girl-approved quality and decide he had come up short compared to the handful of boys who best exemplified what the girls claimed they loved. Momentarily discouraged, CH grit his teeth and put into motion plans of passionate adolescence that would vault him to the ranks of the beloved.

But a funny thing happened on the way to molding himself into the male blueprint drafted by girltongue: CH stayed alert long enough to notice the kinds of boyfriends all that supple teenflesh eventually began to gravitationally orbit. These boyfriends were, in the unsparing judgment only a teenage boy can summon, neither cute nor hot nor muscular nor temperamentally sweet. They were quite often funny-looking, soft, pudgy, awkwardly bony, and clearly unsweet. They did not have bedroom eyes; they had mole eyes.

But one thing they DID have, and a lot of, was preternatural confidence. They walked and talked with bravado. They stood athwart their girlfriends with impassive stubbornness. They nodded with a glaze of coerced recognition in the general direction of the girls who were showering them with admiration and affection. They moped with a practiced air of perpetual dissatisfaction. They were heartlessly cruel and emotionally blank. They crushed romantic hopes like a bulldozer smashing grub life to mush.

And beautiful babes loved them.

From those earliest beginnings, a truism about the soul of woman would guide CH to the heights of romantic bliss. He had learned, and not a moment too soon, to watch what women do and ignore what they say about their romantic needs. For all the men who knew nothing about what women wanted, even fewer women knew themselves.

[crypto-donation-box]

“Do you want to put it in my ass?”

I’ve heard women speak to me a million permutations of sexy invitations and romantic aches, but none hastened my heart, boiled my blood, and coagulated my cock like these nine words sailing over a smooth, prone shoulder and landing ear-ways with a sparrow’s chirp. I wish I could say otherwise; that it was some other, loftier, exclamation of desirous love that etched a permanent shelter in my neural storage locker. But I must stay true to the Chateau Heartiste mission statement and judge a woman’s sexy interlude not by the parched abstraction the superego demands, but by the ignited viscera that livens the id.

[crypto-donation-box]

Ever notice how emphatically the few married feminists proclaim the awesomeness of the males who settled for their post-slut carcasses as if this was some sort of evidence proof of the superiority of the cock-hopping, mimosa-fueled lifestyle? COTW winner Paul Murray, replying to another commenter, explains the pathological narcissism that shapes the scarred psychologies of manjawed feminists,

There’s a recurrent use of “my wondeful husband” in Salon and other femcunt territories.

They never say “my SEXY wonderful husband”.

They don’t see people in their lives as full human beings. They see them as a role being played in their lives. The actor is replaceable – it’s the role that matters. The only non-replaceable actor is herself, the star of the show.

Married feminists of course will never admit that the scalzified losers who settled for them aren’t sexy, exciting men who make them swoon with love. To admit that would be to surrender everything they’ve invested in their egos.

***

Better to be thought an alpha male than to speak loquaciously and remove all doubt. COTW runner-up winner Rick Derris ponders what an Obama/Putin fireside chat would sound like,

No doubt [terse game] can apply to international relations as well.

I am sure Barry talked for 89 of the 90 minutes during the phone call he had with Vladimir “Nyet” Putin this weekend.

Barry hears that a lot from Michelle, too.

[crypto-donation-box]

Guess The Sex

Read this OkCupid profile and try to guess the sex of the person who wrote it.

Don’t read further until you’ve made your guess.

.

.

.

Still guessing?

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

These are your American women. Delightfully feminine bunch, ain’t they? This profile, minus a few giveaways, could easily pass for the braggadocio of a fraternity brother.

And brow-furrowed femcunts wonder why men won’t “man up” and marry these drunk slatterns.

The blocked out part was a brag about her blowjob technique. Translation: She’s a fat sow who has to advertise her sexual depravity to get any attention from the losers she likely hooks up with once in a fat moon.

Grotesqueries like this beast exist. The revelation for a lot of people would be the kind of “lovers” she manages to score. I bet a lot of proud feminists claiming satisfying love lives would abandon the opinionator sphere if pictures of their “””boyfriends”””” and unbiased third-party accounts of the charming personalities of the men who lap the smegma of their moldy feminist snappers were to become public knowledge.

[crypto-donation-box]

There is much hand-wringing by the hypocrati over the below-replacement fertility rates of overeducated, urban leftoid, credentialist suck-up, status whoring SWPLs. However will civilization carry on if our progressive snarkmeisters disappear down the sinkhole of Darwinian finality?

Well, I’m here to tell you that Western civilization will carry on quite well, and certainly better than it has the past 60 years. For evidence of the source of my sureness, review this quote by Thomas Aquinas on the Catholic Church’s prohibition of cousin marriage aka inbreeding:

Afterwards, however, towards these latter times the prohibition [against cousin marriage] of the Church has been restricted to the fourth degree, because it became useless and dangerous to extend the prohibition to more remote degrees of consanguinity. Useless, because charity waxed cold in many hearts so that they had scarcely a greater bond of friendship with their more remote kindred than with strangers: and it was dangerous because through the prevalence of concupiscence and neglect men took no account of so numerous a kindred, and thus the prohibition of the more remote degrees became for many a snare leading to damnation.

Aquinas was a man who rightly perceived the dangers inherent in both too little and too much outbreeding. (Were we blessed with such wise men today!) Inbreeding encourages clan-based violence and decreases social trust, two consequences that are anathema to the development of modern civ. But too much outbreeding (EatPrayBang!) decreases charitable kin-feeling and incentivizes a decadent ennui that severs the citizen’s sense of obligation to his nation and co-ethnics.

Where is this thought leading? The native stock of the West is clearly suffering from a mental sickness caused by too much outbreeding. Universalism is the religion of liberal whites, and they cleave so strongly to this secular religion that they are happy, nay overjoyed!, to throw the borders open and bequeath their hard-won territory and culture to battalions of Third Worlders and other temperamentally distant aliens, who of course given large enough numbers will promptly, whether wittingly or consequentially, execute its destruction.

The liberal SWPLs’ universalist instinct is so deeply embedded that it’s become a danger to their own reproductive fitness. If it were just themselves they were (unproductively) screwing, that would be fine; unfortunately they’re screwing everyone who has to live under their administrative tyranny.

So it is with great sadistic glee that I put two and two together and conclude that the passing of the sweep of SWPL liberals into the prolapsed hole of history will prove, ultimately, a good thing for the reconstitution and continuation of Western civilization, and in particular of America. Whether through the act of some subconscious calculation, or environmental disincentive, or perhaps via a divinely directed cosmic rebalancing working magic on the impervious hindbrains of self-destructive fools, the children of universalist leftoids are fewer by the hour, and their complete demise closer by the day.

We should be welcoming this fitness adjustment for the ray of hope it delivers. Prosperity can turn on accidental fortune. Runaway universalism, it would appear, contains the seed of its doom, and in its death there will be rebirth. The gods of the copybook headings will have their laugh at last.

So pass out the condoms, fire up the abortion mills, parade the sluts, stream the cuck porn, shove those freebie Pills down the throats of SWPL princesses, and bask in your righteousness, knowing that your tribute in distasteful utilitarianism will pay handsome rewards to your posterity.

Truly, the SWPL is the cuckold of the world. Pronounce it “swipple”. Let it snap off the lips with pleasing hatefulness. It stands for “white person who gets a leetle chill down his neck when a black doctor is on the TV”. Remind the SWPL in your company that there is no moral obligation to uplift the world’s wretched refuse. If they balk, remind them again of their atheism.

SWPL is the cuckold of the world
Yes he is…think about it
SWPL is the cuckold of the world
Think about it…do something about it

We make him sit in the corner and watch
If he won’t be a cuck
we say that he’s a bigot

If he’s real, we say he’s
trying to be a racist
While pulling his pud he
pretends that he is above us

SWPL is the cuckold of the world…yes he is
If you don’t belive me take a
look to the one you’re with
SWPL is the slave of
the slaves
Ah yeah…better screem
about it
We make him pay and raise
our children
And then we leave him flat for
being a cuckold beta male
We tell him home is only a
fantasy
Then we complain that he’s
too pale-skinned to be a man

SWPL is the cuckold of the world…yes he is
If you don’t belive me take a
look at the manboob filth
SWPL is the slave of
the slaves
Yeah (think about it)

We insult him everyday on TV
And wonder why he has no
guts or confidence
When he’s young we kill his
will to be free
While telling him there’s no such thing as smarts
we put him down for being so dumb

SWPL is the cuckold of the world…yes he is
If you don’t belive me take a
look at John Scalzi’s tits
SWPL is the slave of
the slaves
Yes he is…if you belive me,
you better screem about it.

Repeat:
We make him pull his
pud and prance
We make him trash his
seed for laughs
We make him axe his
balls as penance
We make him rend his
soul in half

[crypto-donation-box]

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »