Debunking the "Nice Guy" Phenomenon

[Tsar]

The "Nice Guy" phenomenon is a byproduct of feminism, societal indoctrination, media brainwashing, and terrible advice from parents (if any parental advice was even given).

The way that I understand human nature and reality is that people can't be weak.

Men must be assertive. There cannot be equality in a relationship, one person must be dominant as in the leader of the relationship, and the other submissive as in a follow. A man must be a King. He'll listen to the suggestions or advice of his Queen Consort, buy he doesn't bow to her commands.

Likewise, being nice to everyone isn't a good idea. Imagine someone effectively says to your face, an insult about you, in front of your girl. Or someone says something disrespectful to your girl, either because it's sexually suggestive or impolite. Either you must be assertive and respond, or have a bodyguard or thug you're friends with (or on your payroll) willing to attack on your command so you can keep your hands clean but still display some aggression.

Men cannot be weak or meek. That's not how the natural world works. The strong should help the weak, but if nice equals weakness, then I understand why nice guys often get rejected.

Girls want to know a guy can be assertive and can be dominant. That he can say no, draw lines in the sand, will stand up to her if she gets out of line, and is willing to breakup with her if she crosses certain lines. She wants to know he can defend her and himself, at least in some contexts.

Can girls sometimes accept nice guys that are weak or meek, or both? Sure but that's a tiny percentage that's extremely rare because it's not typical programming for how girls are wired.

Girls can like some qualities that the stereotype "Nice Guy" has, but those aren't specific to "nice guys" because they're traits.

"Nice Guy" is a stereotype. Most girls won't like the stereotype in reality.

Girls might like "a guy that is nice" because "a guy that is nice" can also have assertive and dominant traits.

Bad boy is also a stereotype.

Maybe girls go for bad boys not because they're bad but because they go for what they want, are often more assertive, and are more bold.

Sure, many can be bad choices, but the girls are probably drawn to the traits.

I assume that girls would typically prefer a guy who has the best traits of a stereotype nice guy with the best traits of a stereotype bad boy.

The mistake that modern society makes is telling guys too be weak, meek, docile, always ask for permission, to always care about a girl's feelings, and to effectively be more of her knight instead of her king. It teaches boys that they should win a girl, like they're lesser, and have to prove something to a girl.

Girls don't care about guys who are trying to prove that they're worthy of her. Girls want a guy who genuinely believes that he's already worthy.

I think a "balanced guy" is what girls want most. They more often choose a bad boy instead of a nice guy because there's not too many people who understand human nature.

Most gentleman by historic standards weren't nice guys as seen today. Gentleman were respectable, noble, and had a sense of honor but they weren't meek, weak, or timid. They could command and control a woman because he was a patriarch. Today's men, especially nice guys, don't often have the strength of historic men.

The best comparison would be an MMORPG game. In the latest patch, the system is reworked, and now, playing on the standard class settings of "Nice Guy" and "Bad Boy" were broken. Nice guy would often win as the default because the system was designed for respectable guys, and Nice Guys are obviously more respectable. However, a Patch that changes the combat system or a system rules, made the Bad Boys more powerful as the default. Obviously, customizable character classes will be much better. However, most people are somewhat lazy so they play on default classes and the standard paths of progression for their pre-set character class.

Everything in life is just a game or a recipe. It can be broken down to basic elements and compounds and formulas and principles. The sooner people realize everything is just a game or can be broken down to it's basic forms, the more they can begin to understand how everything works and why.

I long thought about building everything up, but then I decided to think about breaking everything down, and then I thought about other things. I think that changing perspectives is necessary to see the greatest truths of reality.

Stereotypes can be statistically accurate but a more accurate system would be to just use statistics, sociology, economics, sociocultural factors, psychology, and other information to create a scientific approach to identify and predict behaviors, successes and failures, and what is responsible for those successes and failures.

Another reason is desperation. If a guy seems too desperate, most girls would find that a turnoff. Girls aren't like guys. A guy will often think it's great he doesn't have competition. A girl will feel more special if a guy chooses her over other girls. She'll feel that she was special enough to win his heart and charm him. Some guys might feel some sense of achievement if they win a girl that had a lot of competition, but for the majority of guys, they wouldn't care and competition isn't necessary. A guy can feel happy and special just being with a beautiful girl. Girls often compete for a guy that's already taken because they want to win his affection and because he's also been vetted as being desirable. It doesn't work for all guys, but for many, it does work, where being taken increases the probability of girls having more desire to be with a guy.

Human nature is science.

According to Wikipedia, these are the traits of a "Nice Guy"

A man who is agreeable, gentle, compassionate, sensitive and vulnerable. A man who puts the needs of others before his own, avoids confrontations, does favors, provides emotional support, tries to stay out of trouble, and generally acts nicely towards others. In the context of a relationship, it may also refer to traits of honesty, loyalty, romanticism, courtesy, and respect. When used negatively, a nice guy implies a man who is unassertive or otherwise "non-masculine".

None of those things are applicable to only a "Nice Guy" and everyone knows that most girls don't want what they say they want.

Let's break it down:
Agreeable: Too agreeable means you're a pushover
Gentle: Too gentle means you can't do necessary aggression
Sensitive: You can't be too sensitive because girls don't want a whiny guy or crybaby
Vulnerable: Girls can enjoy that, especially because girls have a nurturing instinct deep inside and vulnerability increases trust
Putting Others Needs Before Your Own: Well, I don't do this! My needs come first. If other people want to be a sacrificial Nice Guy, sure, let them, but I am not a Nice Guy. My needs are #1. Girls like a guy who is willing to be #1 and a leader. She should know she needs to stick with him and earn her place beside him.
Avoids confrontations: A guy can't avoid every confrontation, sometimes it's important to know when to fight.
Does favors: Some favors are okay, but the favors need reciprocation. Anyone who does favors without getting rewarded is either a simp, loser, or loves getting used and taken advantage of. A man cannot be too willing to do favors for girls, but also got anyone.
Provides emotional support: Sure, if there's a genuine friendship or a genuine relationship. But if it's just any random girl you are acquainted with or a girl that friend zoned you, and she continues to have breakups or complain, then just drop her. She can find another shoulder to cry on because she's probably happy to have a soap opera life. You're contributing to her lifestyle as a drama queen on a soap opera. Nice guys typically do that and wonder why things don't work out for them.
Tries to stay out of trouble: Trouble? As in what? Sure, you shouldn't go vandalizing, starting unprovoked fights, or speeding down roads. You shouldn't go drunk driving or anything. But if a guy is obsessed with rules and following every arbitrary illegitimate laws that governments make, then they're just not fun or dominant enough. Sometimes people must break laws, cheat, and risk trouble for success. Girls want a guy that's willing to risk getting in trouble to win because girls want a winner, girls don't want a loser.
Acts nicely towards others: Respect goes two ways. If someone isn't nice, then a guy shouldn't be nice to another person who isn't nice. Reciprocity!

The romantic traits of honesty, loyalty, romanticism, courtesy, and respect should be found on any relationship. Any respectable person has those traits.

So, considering all the traits aren't applicable to "Nice Guys" then it's definitely true that more often than not, a "Nice Guy" comes down to one negative trait: unassertive.

Unassertive also implies submissive. A submissive guy isn't dominant. Therefore, the guy isn't masculine enough because a girl wants a guy that's willing to be assertive.

Some of the other "Nice Guy" traits if too extreme would also make a guy a pushover.

Therefore, it's easy to see why "Nice Guys" aren't able to get most girls. It's because they don't understand human nature and all it's nuances and the true nature of females. They can't act like a White Knight Loser that simps for girls and constantly treats all girls like Queens. A guy shouldn't be a Prince Charming unless the girl proves she's a princess and then says yes to a real relationship.

Girls want a challenge and to know a guy isn't desperate and to feel like they won him over.

Society has been teaching guys that it's guys who need to win over a girl, but that is desperation. A guy doesn't need to win over a girl, he just needs to get her to fall for him, and that happens with time and using the correct psychological strategy for the girl and the strategy can be determined by statistics, demographics, her socioeconomic background, culture, and nationality.

Getting a girl as a "Nice Guy" isn't a strategy for a high probability of success. At best, it's maybe a 1% odds. Younger guys who have it work or guys who get girlfriends that are under 21-22 could be considered lucky and statistical outliers because they managed to fall outside the majority of the overall population. At least 95% of people won't have any success with just being a "Nice Guy" because let's face it, the majority of true Incels are "Nice Guys" and they prove "Nice Guys" most often lose.

Sure, maybe at higher age brackets, a 30 year old woman will find it more appealing because she's desperate to find a Beta Bucks Provider Baby Daddy to "settle down" with, and yes, she is settling, and the guy would be a Cuck for accepting a Cock Carousel Cum Dumpster Slut. If a guy wins as a "Nice Guy" in this paragraph's scenario, then he's a Loser! She wants a "Nice Guy" because she's being selfish and wants the best provider, at least for several years until the most probably divorce happens because she is a Slut incapable of love, bonding, or any sort of loyalty, and she doesn't respect her weak loser Cuck of a Beta Bucks husband.

I would suggest guys be a Balanced Guy, not a Nice Guy, because Balanced Guys are typically the most successful with girls.

In reality, most girls choose Bad Boys over Nice Guys, purely because they appeal to the nature of young females more than Nice Guys.

Nice Guys should change and become more Balanced Guys who acquire traits that appeal more to females.

[Tsar]

All good points. No girl ever goes and offers herself to a man "because he's so nice". Not unless the guy looks good, earns good, talks good, etcetera. His niceness, or lack thereof, is but an afterthought. I will not teach my son to be 'nice' and friendly and non-threatening. Because I don't think it'd do him any favors. If he's a ruthless little sociopathic piece of shit with the talent of switching on the charm whenever needed, he'll get further in life and I'll have more descendants. The game is won by those who play it best... not by those who hang on to archaic concepts of honor.

Honor is important. It's just a question of what type of honor you want to teach?

Honor such as the honor of nobility, the Medici, or the Mafiosi?

Or the "Slave Values" of Christianity that teach everyone to be completely "good" (as in good serfs) and "turn the other cheek" and embrace weakness because of the laughable idea that "the meek will inherit the Earth"

Honor and loyalty are two important traits.

People need the right mix of honor and ruthlessness.

Without honor, people will begin to doubt intentions or doubt you're completely trustworthy. Without ruthlessness, people will think you're weak and nonthreatening. It's important to achieve the correct balance.

[Outcast9428]

All good points. No girl ever goes and offers herself to a man "because he's so nice". Not unless the guy looks good, earns good, talks good, etcetera. His niceness, or lack thereof, is but an afterthought. I will not teach my son to be 'nice' and friendly and non-threatening. Because I don't think it'd do him any favors. If he's a ruthless little sociopathic piece of shit with the talent of switching on the charm whenever needed, he'll get further in life and I'll have more descendants. The game is won by those who play it best... not by those who hang on to archaic concepts of honor.

Honor is important. It's just a question of what type of honor you want to teach?

Honor such as the honor of nobility, the Medici, or the Mafiosi?

Or the "Slave Values" of Christianity that teach everyone to be completely "good" (as in good serfs) and "turn the other cheek" and embrace weakness because of the laughable idea that "the meek will inherit the Earth"

Honor and loyalty are two important traits.

People need the right mix of honor and ruthlessness.

Without honor, people will begin to doubt intentions or doubt you're completely trustworthy. Without ruthlessness, people will think you're weak and nonthreatening. It's important to achieve the correct balance.

The only girls out there who are virgins until marriage are either extremely devout Christians, or devout Muslims… And you bash both religions… So your strategy is to find a virgin neopagan? All neopagan women are turbo leftist and no Christian woman who takes her religion seriously enough to be a virgin is going to tolerate a man who doesn’t believe in her religion.

[Outcast9428]

All good points. No girl ever goes and offers herself to a man "because he's so nice". Not unless the guy looks good, earns good, talks good, etcetera. His niceness, or lack thereof, is but an afterthought. I will not teach my son to be 'nice' and friendly and non-threatening. Because I don't think it'd do him any favors. If he's a ruthless little sociopathic piece of shit with the talent of switching on the charm whenever needed, he'll get further in life and I'll have more descendants. The game is won by those who play it best... not by those who hang on to archaic concepts of honor.

Honor is important. It's just a question of what type of honor you want to teach?

Honor such as the honor of nobility, the Medici, or the Mafiosi?

Or the "Slave Values" of Christianity that teach everyone to be completely "good" (as in good serfs) and "turn the other cheek" and embrace weakness because of the laughable idea that "the meek will inherit the Earth"

Honor and loyalty are two important traits.

People need the right mix of honor and ruthlessness.

Without honor, people will begin to doubt intentions or doubt you're completely trustworthy. Without ruthlessness, people will think you're weak and nonthreatening. It's important to achieve the correct balance.

The only girls out there who are virgins until marriage are either extremely devout Christians, or devout Muslims… And you bash both religions… So your strategy is to find a virgin neopagan? All neopagan women are turbo leftist and no Christian woman who takes her religion seriously enough to be a virgin is going to tolerate a man who doesn’t believe in her religion.

[Cornfed]

Women care about your looks much more than your personality.

Of course they don't ONLY care about looks.

[MrMan]

It may be that messed up sluts go for bad boy thugs who sleep around with lots of women, and that the sweet decent virgin type that @Tsar has actually wanted for so long would be fine with a nice man who loves her.

But women do seem to respond well to demonstrating leadership, resolve, decisiveness, competence, having principles, etc. Not letting her get away with stuff can be a part of that. Some women will respect positive masculinity and be attracted to it. But this kind of man can be a 'nice guy' in a lot of ways-- kind, attentive-- even willing to please his woman in reasonable ways.

[Tsar]

All good points. No girl ever goes and offers herself to a man "because he's so nice". Not unless the guy looks good, earns good, talks good, etcetera. His niceness, or lack thereof, is but an afterthought. I will not teach my son to be 'nice' and friendly and non-threatening. Because I don't think it'd do him any favors. If he's a ruthless little sociopathic piece of shit with the talent of switching on the charm whenever needed, he'll get further in life and I'll have more descendants. The game is won by those who play it best... not by those who hang on to archaic concepts of honor.

Honor is important. It's just a question of what type of honor you want to teach?

Honor such as the honor of nobility, the Medici, or the Mafiosi?

Or the "Slave Values" of Christianity that teach everyone to be completely "good" (as in good serfs) and "turn the other cheek" and embrace weakness because of the laughable idea that "the meek will inherit the Earth"

Honor and loyalty are two important traits.

People need the right mix of honor and ruthlessness.

Without honor, people will begin to doubt intentions or doubt you're completely trustworthy. Without ruthlessness, people will think you're weak and nonthreatening. It's important to achieve the correct balance.

The only girls out there who are virgins until marriage are either extremely devout Christians, or devout Muslims… And you bash both religions… So your strategy is to find a virgin neopagan? All neopagan women are turbo leftist and no Christian woman who takes her religion seriously enough to be a virgin is going to tolerate a man who doesn’t believe in her religion.

I don't bash both religions but I don't believe in the weakness some aspects promote or how the Abrahamic religions are Judaized.

I suspect that it's highly possible they were Jewish psy-ops.

Most Christians who amount to anything great are the Christians who actually break the rules of their religion.

Imagine if all governments and leaders were timid and weak. They would all fall. Imagine turning the cheek to getting your women raped, your home destroyed, your culture destroyed, and your nation conquered? That's effectively what if taken at literal interpretation, that people are suppose to do if they completely accept "turning the other cheek" and don't do anything!

And Christians are suppose to not fornicate.

Christianity was also like Islam in the past where it was against interest.

Now, much of Anglo Christianity is like the Cult of Zionists because they believe in the Jews because "Jesus was a Jew" and "Israel is our greatest ally" (more like anyone that believes that are lapdogs and attack dogs on a leash or slaves to Israeli masters).

It's a natural progression. When someone accepts the JQ to the total amount possible, they cannot believe anything.

You said it yourself, at 99% of girls at churches won't be virgins anymore.

It's not a question of how devout a girl is, it's a question of did she have the opportunity to lose her virginity yet.

I am also not bashing the religions. I'm just stating some facts with a realistic outlook.

Also, circumcision is a terrible practice and Muslims should stop that ancient water-conservation desert practice and/or Jewish practice. Those are the only two legitimate reasons why any person in a desert would do it. Victorian Society did it to dull the sensitivity of men and reduce their pleasure to try to prevent them from masturbating. American society does it because it's a cruel capitalist society.

Hospitals and the medical industry profiteer off the circumcision of baby boys to use the foreskins for very profitable products and scientific research!

https://www.crutchfielddermatology.com/ ... w%20tissue.

They deceive (ignorant) parents that it's safe or healthy, and parents are abusers!

@MarcosZeitola @Pixel--Dude @Lucas88

I am completely turned off by how most Christian girls are not virgins (they're just like every other girl when it comes to losing virginity), being virtuous, being charitable, being fair (America is a hypocritical nation because it's supposedly the most Christian but it's also the most Greedy and Corrupt in the West and has the most socioeconomic inequality), and many are Zionist Collaborators. Christians are also promoting LGBTQ+ or accepting feminism. Christianity has effectively failed because it's weak. It was strong when society was primitive and most people were weak, ignorant, or uneducated. That's because much of the religion effectively revolves around weakness and meekness. It was meant to appeal to the weakest while being nonthreatening to the Elites who would be willing to break some of the rules to remain Elite. When most people become strong, enlightened, or educated then of course the natural progression would be the decline of Christianity until it becomes a cultural tradition instead of a belief that the majority completely believe 100%.

The Elites of the Abrahamic religions constantly use their respective religion to manipulate the masses. Focusing on specific verses purely to appeal to them and gain power.

Judaism is strong because they're tribal and also use it as a networking organization and their Talmudic Zionism is effectively National Socialism for Jews.

In reality, only the Jews win from Abrahamic Religion being dominant, and I don't believe that what is commonly referred to as "God" is a Jew. Jews are responsible for Abrahamic Religion, Marxist/Bolshevik Atheism, and Satanism. It's all a backdoor for Jewish control.

Anyone who is JQ enough can still respect the accomplishments of Abrahamic religions and recognize the good aspects, but the natural progression is realizing that society must have Jewish influence in any form swept out of all facets of society.







This isn't a religious discussion to thread, it's meant as a "Nice Guy" discussion thread.

[Outcast9428]

@Tsar You attack Christianity for “promoting weakness” but I really don’t think you would have survived in the pre-Christian world. When you talk about Ancient Rome you seem to assume you would be one of the wealthy aristocrats. That’s a danger gamble to make, you would only have a 1% chance of being born as such. Most likely you’d be born to a poor peasant family struggling 12 hours a day just to make ends meet and getting your possessions stolen all the time. You’re talking about an era of history when anyone who wasn’t the strongest, meanest bully around simply died. You are not the kind of person who would’ve survived such a brutal society. Even in the era of its weakest influence over society, Christianity still ensures you at least didn’t have to swelter under a burning sun for 72 hours a week only to get stabbed in the streets by a criminal.

What you are doing is basically saying “I don’t like that these people couldn’t defeat evil so I’m going to help evil’s agenda now.” The reason why evil won was because people didn’t try to stop it.

Anyway though, even if you resent Christianity for not being strong enough to prevent fornication… What other options do you have? Your chances may be 1% with Christianity but with neopaganism your chances are 0%. If you ever do go to the Philippines, your chances are not 1% anymore. All the virgin women will be Christians and they won’t like it if you are bashing their faith.

[Lucas88]

The "Nice Guy" phenomenon is a byproduct of feminism, societal indoctrination, media brainwashing, and terrible advice from parents (if any parental advice was even given).

The way that I understand human nature and reality is that people can't be weak.

Men must be assertive. There cannot be equality in a relationship, one person must be dominant as in the leader of the relationship, and the other submissive as in a follow. A man must be a King. He'll listen to the suggestions or advice of his Queen Consort, buy he doesn't bow to her commands.

...

Wow, this thread by @Tsar about the need to be a Balanced Guy rather than a Nice Guy or a Bad Boy is really nuanced, insightful and well-presented and I really enjoyed reading it. I will even save it to my hard drive for future reference.

All of the Tsar haters on the forum can now see that Tsar is actually really smart and thoughtful and is more than capable of writing worthwhile content when he's in a good state of mind and applies himself. He can write much better things than angry rants now that he has some stability in his life and a good circle of friends who look out for him as opposed to those who seek to provoke him and tear him down.

[Tsar]

The "Nice Guy" phenomenon is a byproduct of feminism, societal indoctrination, media brainwashing, and terrible advice from parents (if any parental advice was even given).

The way that I understand human nature and reality is that people can't be weak.

Men must be assertive. There cannot be equality in a relationship, one person must be dominant as in the leader of the relationship, and the other submissive as in a follow. A man must be a King. He'll listen to the suggestions or advice of his Queen Consort, buy he doesn't bow to her commands.

...

Wow, this thread by @Tsar about the need to be a Balanced Guy rather than a Nice Guy or a Bad Boy is really nuanced, insightful and well-presented and I really enjoyed reading it. I will even save it to my hard drive for future reference.

All of the Tsar haters on the forum can now see that Tsar is actually really smart and thoughtful and is more than capable of writing worthwhile content when he's in a good state of mind and applies himself. He can write much better things than angry rants now that he has some stability in his life and a good circle of friends who look out for him as opposed to those who seek to provoke him and tear him down.

True. He's a poster of quality. I noticed the same thing in his recent interactions with @Cornfed where, even when his viewpoints were called out as ridiculous, he kept a cool head and stayed civil. Tsar isn't as prone to anger as he once was, a sign of maturity. The fact that he his life goals have become more clearer must have helped.

It also helps that @Cornfed is a good member of the forum and is a serious poster. He also didn't cross any lines or make anything personal. He is also more open to traditional viewpoints and ideas, especially on many viewpoints that I use to post about in the past.

Certain other people, and I won't mention any names, but I will say that these certain people are my haters, have always sought to derail threads and provoke things, which when they could get away with acting terribly with impunity, obviously provoked anger, especially if I was depressed or not doing well. These people would often select provocations they know would trigger me or intentionally bait me into responses. I'm sure most people would probably have reacted in the same way if they were in that situation.

[Tsar]

@Tsar You attack Christianity for “promoting weakness” but I really don’t think you would have survived in the pre-Christian world. When you talk about Ancient Rome you seem to assume you would be one of the wealthy aristocrats. That’s a danger gamble to make, you would only have a 1% chance of being born as such. Most likely you’d be born to a poor peasant family struggling 12 hours a day just to make ends meet and getting your possessions stolen all the time. You’re talking about an era of history when anyone who wasn’t the strongest, meanest bully around simply died. You are not the kind of person who would’ve survived such a brutal society. Even in the era of its weakest influence over society, Christianity still ensures you at least didn’t have to swelter under a burning sun for 72 hours a week only to get stabbed in the streets by a criminal.

What you are doing is basically saying “I don’t like that these people couldn’t defeat evil so I’m going to help evil’s agenda now.” The reason why evil won was because people didn’t try to stop it.

Anyway though, even if you resent Christianity for not being strong enough to prevent fornication… What other options do you have? Your chances may be 1% with Christianity but with neopaganism your chances are 0%. If you ever do go to the Philippines, your chances are not 1% anymore. All the virgin women will be Christians and they won’t like it if you are bashing their faith.

My agenda is helping good but without any Judaism in it. Anything with Jewish elements leaves a backdoor for evil. Therefore, in a way, Christianity is ultimately responsible for allowing evil to destroy it. A hollowed out religion is ultimately a failure because it's been watered down and become a cultural tradition, more than the rules to live life.

The Medicis surely killed people. Nobles killed people. Revolutionaries killed people. The mafia killed people. Even if they didn't get their own hands dirty, they paid people to do it.

That's reality.

Sometimes people must do bad things for the greater good, or to achieve greatness.

The people who completely obey the religion ultimately must either exist in an ideal society, accept mediocrity which is the best most people can and could hope for, or break the rules of Christianity to actually win.

Many Christians who broke the rules, as if a paradox, did more to contribute to building cathedrals, funding artwork, and donating to the religion than the peasants and the poor.

Christianity teaches that all people are sinners but expects them to be absolutely good, and claims the God of the Bible (Jew God) is completely good, but it proves otherwise.

I am unhappy that the majority of Christians have lost their virtue, engage in fornication and hypocrisy, and exalt the (evil Jews). Another turnoff is how it has Jewish origins because throughout history, Jews have been liars, cheats, manipulators, destroyers, and propagandists that seek to undermine all other groups on the planet. Considering these facts, I cannot genuinely believe in any religion or ideology with Jewish origin, influence, or sympathies. I use to be serious about Christianity back when I was younger but I continued to contemplate aspects of Jewish power and control, and question how Christianity could have failed, especially at preventing fornication and feminism.

I also never said that I want a pagan girl. I said that in previous posts that I believe that deism and polytheism are more logical than the Abrahamic monotheism. Patterns repeat in math, science, and biology. These patterns can be used to make inferences about spiritual things. Therefore, if a monotheist God exists: God is genderless, not a He or a She, and wouldn't be Jewish.

It's logical that people who accept National Socialism and cultural purity and freedom from Jewish control (and tyranny) and to see good triumph must eliminate everything that has traces of Jewish control or influence.

Consider it a type of purge where all Jewish elements are eradicated leaving behind a pure culture like existed in Year 0. A year when Jews were powerless, weak, and unable to destroy Goyim civilizations.

I honestly don't much at all about a girl's religion. I care more about a girl's virtues and virginity. At this point in history, religion is a cultural tradition at best. Virtues and spiritual belief are more important. Is a girl a believer in a higher power or not? If a girl is serious about her religion, then that's fine, but she better not love Israel, be a Zionist Collaborator, or believe in Circumcision because I wouldn't tolerate that nonsense. The idea people must believe in a Jewish God to be good and if not either support evil or be an atheist is a false dichotomy promoted by the Abrahamic Elite who ultimately assist the Jewish Agenda.

A person doesn't create something and then leave a pillar that if destroyed would collapse the entire structure. However, that's what Jews do undermine everything they create. Christianity was likely intentionally created as a strategy to acquire power. You can either conquer people with armies or conquer them with ideas, often times one leads to the other, and anyone that's clever would leave behind something to undermine it if they only created it as a way to destroy enemies, which is what they did. Look at what Lenin and the Bolsheviks did by intentionally allowing the Soviet Union (formerly the Russian Empire until the Jewish coup) member states dissolve historic Russia by recognizing different areas as independent states and effectively weaken Russia if it ever regained enough independence or was able to overthrow Jewish influence, or if a new traitor achieved power and would willingly surrender all the historical parts of Russia to the new center of Jewish power, meaning the United States and it's NATO Empire.

I believe in strength, power, virtue, charity, and righteousness. I would always choose a righteous war over false peace. I am not an adherent to any ideology except truth, justice, and virtue.

Also, to elaborate on your point about Ancient Rome, most peasants or poor people would own swords and knives. Getting away with murder in ancient times was much easier. Hypothetically, let's say that I was in Ancient Rome and I did kill a traveling merchant, so I could build myself a better life. I wouldn't be punished if I was never caught or seen by anyone. Yes, it's evil, but people who want to achieve greatness must sometimes do terrible things if they would otherwise be trapped in poverty or live a life they would find intolerable. Sometimes evil actions must be done for the greater good. It doesn't matter if a brighter future is built on a past of blood, what matters is the triumph of good.

Men in Ancient Rome who joined the army were guaranteed better food and a better income. Even during WW1 in the United States, many men would enlist purely to get the pay and the food. The US military lowered it's weight requirements because most people were not a healthy weight, they were underweight. Men would join the army specifically for good pay and better meals.

Christianity is a religion that advocates absolute obedience to (the Jewish) God and to Government. It advocates obeying every single law and obeying every single rule. That's effectively the definition of being a "Nice Guy" and Christian guys will often become "Nice Guys" if they do not live in a moral society with a culture that celebrates masculinity that has a functional social contract.

Christians of the US for example would most often say that I should accept a fornicating Christian girl and forgive her past fornication, along with follow ever arbitrary government law and arbitrary rule that regulates relationships, and therefore limit my options. The idea of forgiveness eventually becomes tolerance which becomes acceptance. It's why many men become Cucks.

Christianity teaches that human nature is possible of absolute goodness and works on the idea people are entirely good and the only evil that exists is because of "Original Sin" and "Satan" which I don't believe at all. I don't believe anyone is completely good and I don't believe just because someone steals or even kills that they're evil. I don't accept black and white thinking.

People can become gods themselves if they were made exactly in the image of gods. However, according to Christianity, people have to bow to everyone regardless of anything because it's servile, which is why it promotes obedience and slave values, and that's why Ancient Elites favored it as a way to make their own people more docile, especially Constantine after he defeated all his pagan opponents. After a certain number of believers and forced converts, the herd mentality and groupthink begins, and people often go along with the herd or believe something must be true because they've been taught it is true, and then it's a self-sustaining system. Any flawed system can sustain itself as long as things don't change too much. Any true religion that is actually absolute truth wouldn't have hypocrisy or breakdown. It wouldn't have plot holes, logic errors, and fluff elements, unless of course current religions were never meant to be true because it's a control mechanism.

I'm a Balanced Guy. I use to be a "Nice Guy" during my teens and early 20s, and it ruined my life. The more I started to understand all the systems, the more I realized why I failed, and who, (((who))), or what caused me to fail or thrust failure onto me or to keep me down.

Being too "good" destroys the ability to be successful in the real world and achieve greatness.

Absolute adherence to any Abrahamic religion will statistically doom someone to mediocrity and a mundane existence, favoring the Elites and the people who will break certain rules to advance.

Everything fails for a reason and I know why everything fails.

Being too "good" effectively makes someone a "nice guy" because being too "good" means too boring, meek, weak, servile, docile, and submissive.

Equality doesn't exist. Democracy is an evil political system. A husband and a wife cannot have a 50-50 power-sharing agreement.

Democracy and Equality and Freedom really cucked Western men which happened to mainly be Christians because they weren't strong enough to resist it.

The Christian lense of reality is mostly just a perspective, because it has a definite bias in it's outlook. It's much better than the rest of the mainstream alternatives but that's an issue because the mainstream things are often most beneficial to the Elites and exist purely because the Elites find them useful in controlling people. In reality, everything in mainstream politics and mainstream religion is flawed because it has built this corrupt and broken world, and made everything terrible. Weak men, Slut females, the destruction of European culture and also many other cultures, all the great civilizations of the world are failing, economic disasters, fiat money, mass socioeconomic inequality, the return of serfdom in a post-industrial age, and in the industrial age poverty increased which is why Marxism was even possible, and that poverty increased because of Protestantism and because the Christian Elites accepted greed, and democratic systems of governance replaced the monarchies because many Christian monarchies were either too good or because they became too weak or too corrupt or thought that they could rule purely because of bloodline or power instead of being a Monarch of the People. Most people don't look to see how everything is connected to each other but I do.

Everything in life is connected like a spiderweb.

Ultimately, everything is about balance and harmony. Good can only win if there's balance and harmony. Everything must exist in a state of perfect balance and harmony.

"Nice Guys" will therefore lose because girls want "a guy that's nice" because the reality of a "Nice Guy" isn't appealing to at least 99% of girls and all females 28+ don't count for anything because they are at the absolute end of their value as females.

[Tsar]

Nice is subjective and relative. "Nice Guy" is objective and specific.

[Kalinago]

@Tsar You attack Christianity for “promoting weakness” but I really don’t think you would have survived in the pre-Christian world. When you talk about Ancient Rome you seem to assume you would be one of the wealthy aristocrats. That’s a danger gamble to make, you would only have a 1% chance of being born as such. Most likely you’d be born to a poor peasant family struggling 12 hours a day just to make ends meet and getting your possessions stolen all the time. You’re talking about an era of history when anyone who wasn’t the strongest, meanest bully around simply died. You are not the kind of person who would’ve survived such a brutal society. Even in the era of its weakest influence over society, Christianity still ensures you at least didn’t have to swelter under a burning sun for 72 hours a week only to get stabbed in the streets by a criminal.

What you are doing is basically saying “I don’t like that these people couldn’t defeat evil so I’m going to help evil’s agenda now.” The reason why evil won was because people didn’t try to stop it.

Anyway though, even if you resent Christianity for not being strong enough to prevent fornication… What other options do you have? Your chances may be 1% with Christianity but with neopaganism your chances are 0%. If you ever do go to the Philippines, your chances are not 1% anymore. All the virgin women will be Christians and they won’t like it if you are bashing their faith.

If @Tsar wants a virgin,and he is okay with a non-white woman,he can easily get one among the tribal communities of india,like the bhili or the kharia people.he can get a arranged marriage with one for a few goats or cows.

[Outcast9428]

@Tsar

You can think whatever you want but at the end of the day. Sticking to your beliefs is going to destroy your life. You’re worried that being a nice guy is going to destroy your life but its far more likely that stubbornness is going to destroy your life. Your beliefs do not line up with what you want in life. They are too fringe. Too extreme. And you want something extremely specific and rare. These beliefs are holding you back in an extreme way.

A rich merchant travelling in Ancient Rome would've had a security detail go with him. Probably a dozen guards at least. Maybe more, they were worried about more then one guy, they were worried about gangs of bandits ambushing them. You would have a very hard time killing the merchant. Also, I just don't think you would've survived in the Roman army. People back then were more hardened then you can imagine, an enemy soldier would not be easy to bring down.