When Nice Isn't So Nice.

It's nice to be nice. We prefer nice people to rude people, and whatever personal feelings we may have about some people, we try to be nice with/about them  in public and expect others to be likewise. Of course, this is somewhat complicated by the fact that public life tends to bring out the opposite extremes of human behavior. While we are generally nicer in public, public life can also bring out the exhibitionist in us. People want attention, and saying crazy things or acting lewd is one way to get it--and lots of wealth as the cases of Don Rickles, Howard Stern, Sarah Silverman, George Carlin, and Eddie Murphy amply prove.

Our attitude about public life/behavior operate by a certain dualism. Public life is, on the one hand, the opposite of personal/private life, but it can also be the exaggeration of personal/private life. We know Howard Stern turns the 'facts' of his personal/private life into something more outrageous than they really are. In a way, the appeal of demagogues is their saying things that many people privately feel but dare not say. Thus, part of Hitler's appeal was the ugliness of his emotions. Many Germans harbored the same feelings but were too afraid to air them publicly as such was deemed lowly and vulgar. Hitler, on the other hand, dropped his inhibitions and aired his personal grievances. He may have fouled up the air, but there was a feeling of liberation in breaking wind that needed to be broken.

And this can also be said for Jewish personalities. Philip Roth's novel PORTNOY'S COMPLAINT is an ugly book, but it may have had therapeutic value as a public(or semi-public as novels are read individually) burst of Jewish hangups, obsessions, and grievances.

Same could be said of the works of Robert Crumb. They are ugly and foul but also 'liberating' in their public airing of pent-up private neurosis--which only seems fair since so much human complexes arise from social/public pressures.  One part of us wants to conform to the public demand of niceness, but another part of us rebels against this rule of niceness, if only indirectly, through art or entertainment. So, even though many people will not admit to certain neuroses or complexes publicly as individuals, they will laugh and agree along with a standup comic who spills the beans about their anxieties about race, sex, obesity, and other problems in a group setting. People do things on the Jerry Springer Show that they wouldn't do even in the privacy of their own bedrooms.

And of course, on certain special occasions, the public pressure inspires unruliness and craziness, especially after sports games in certain cities. Canada has erupted in violence after hockey games, with even nice kids suddenly participating in barbaric behavior. And when blacks riots in American cities, even blacks who generally would not act in such manner act in such manner.

Anyway, the point of this piece is niceness used as a weapon, often deviously but sometimes sincerely/subconsciously. While being nice for niceness sake is nice, many people use the 'nice' to break the ice--and then to use the ice pick for the kill.
This is most obvious in salesmen, especially used car salesmen. They act nice like they've known you since childhood. They act so friendly that you might think it'd be rude if you didn't buy the car. They might even talk about their own family and sneak in some bits of bio, as if to make you feel guilty if you didn't trust them.

But not all uses of niceness as a strategy is so blatantly obvious. Consider Jehovah's Witness people who come to your door and act as though they wanna save your soul. Most of them are no doubt sincere in their spiritual compassion, but their use of niceness is to win you over.
In some ways, this use of niceness has been an evolutionary strategy, at least beginning with mammals--and perhaps even with birds. A newborn mammal whimpers and mews ever so cutely and 'nicely'. The mother's heart goes out to it, and so an attachment grows between the mother and its offspring. Even before humans conceptualized the meaning of 'guilt', mammals--especially mothers--felt a crude form of it emotionally. A lion mother would feel 'remiss in her duties' if she neglected her cubs. This bond is instinctive, but instincts are emotional, and emotions later birthed morality by mating with reason and logic.
This cute 'niceness' of mammal offspring can affect even other mammals that aren't its mother. Our hearts go out to a homeless dog or cat. When a stray dog follows you, you might feel guilty to shoe it away. After all, it's following you with such niceness. You feel heartless and rotten 'not to care'.  Some cultures not only suppress such feelings but reverse them. If Russians generally don't do much about their stray dog problem, East Asians will raise, torture, kill, and eat dogs out of  a dogged sadism--though there may be an element of masochism as well. All humans have some soft compassionate spot. When East Asians suppress and shame such feelings of compassion and treat dogs and cats horribly, they are doing violence to their good side of their nature.

When people act nice to you just to be nice, that's all very nice. Being nice is nice. But when they act nice really to push another agenda, you have to keep up your guard. And this goes for the niceology of both fanatical Christians and radical leftists & radical deviants(such as members of the homo community). Their niceness is often an act, the buttering of the bread before eating it.
It's not niceness as niceness but ASSOCIATIVE niceness. It's to fool you that 'since the person pushing the agenda is nice, the agenda too must be nice, and it must be un-nice on your part to reject the agenda since doing so will be rejecting the nice person.'

Associative niceness can be more dangerous than aggressive pushiness. If you push and threaten others, they will feel emboldened and justified in pushing you back. But if you act so nice, they might feel disarmed by your niceness and not fight back(even if they should). So, when Mexican illegals first marched with Mexican flags, it was not nice, and many Americans were angry and fuming with rage. Not surprisingly, the illegal lobby then instructed the illegals to march with American flags as if illegal immigration was as American as Apple Pie. It was the Saul Alinsky trick, whose Rules for Radicals was essentially to use Middle American niceness to undermine Middle American values. Since Middle America is nice, it won't do to act like 60s radicals giving middle finger to cops and acting like street thugs. Much better to put on suit and tie, smile a lot, and act more normal than normal(on the surface) in order to slip in the radical agenda.

Homos achieved more through niceness than through confrontationalism of the 60s and 70s. Of course, it helped that the AIDS epidemic wiped out many of the more aggressive homos, leaving the leadership to more sober and 'conservative mannered' types. Though wild gay style is still quite prevalent, the face of the gay community has been normalized and nicized. Thus, the Democratic Party has become the haven for homos, the group whose power is second only to that of Jews.
And even many conservatives have been won over by homos. Prominent homos with bright smiles, clean suits, and good manners go to conservatives with such niceness that many conservatives feel won over. They are apt to think, "That gay guy is so nice, he can marry my daughter", though, of course, the homo would rather bugger the conservative guy's son.

But then, niceness alone won't go so far. Niceness by itself can come across as weak and wimpy, and weak-and-wimpy gets no respect. So, the trick is to use sticks and carrots.  Some people with lots of power use only the stick and rule by fear, but fear leads to hatred and resistance.
So, smart power first uses niceness and tries to win by persuasion, all the while reminding the intended target that it's "an offer he can't refuse."  In THE GODFATHER II, the young Vito Corleone uses both the carrot of niceness and the stick of power on the landlord who evicted a woman because she secretly kept a dog. Vito smiles a lot and speaks softly. But the landlord realizes Vito is an important man in the neighborhood, and it won't do to cross him. Vito has the power but acts nice. Thus, he gets what he wants from the landlord, and the landlord is allowed the face-saving fiction that he changed his mind about the woman and her dog out of the goodness of his own heart.

The Gay Lobby and Jewish Lobby act the same way. They come to us with niceness, pleading with us to support 'marriage equality' or to 'save Israel from the crazy Iranians', but the real effectiveness comes from the unspoken but palpable threat that if we don't comply with their demands, they will ruthlessly destroy us. So, homos will come to you as  'victims' of 'social injustice' and ask for support. But if you don't support their agenda, you might not be able to do business in Jewish-and-gay-dominated cities like Chicago. Never mind the Constitutional guarantee that a man shall not be discriminated by 'race, color, or creed'. Your creed, ideological or spiritual, better comply with homo and/or Jewish demands because Jews who control the media, law firms, and courts will destroy you otherwise.

Or, a homo will nicely ask a beauty pageant contestant if she supports 'gay marriage', but if she says no, the full force of the Jewish-and-gay-controlled media will dig up all the dirt it can find to destroy the woman's career and reputation. Jews will act so powerless and ask for sympathy for Jews and Israel, but if you criticize Jewish power and Israel, Jews will use their power to have you blacklisted from all institutions of power. Not long ago, William Kristol bragged how all the Paleocon 'Arabists' have been purged from the GOP. Imagine that, most Jews are Democrats, but they get to decide who can and can't serve in the GOP.

And it is for this reason that we need to be wary of associative niceness. It is too often 'an offer you can't refuse'.