You would be surprised but I went through that piece several times exactly in order to make sure I don't just spout nonsense. So, let me take it slowly, one more time:

As I understood it, your main point was that niceness is basically idiocy stemming from ignorance of the natural harshness and war-like nature of reality, where the top dog rules the day and denies access to resources to all below them. You went on to compare those top dogs to capitalist elites, "alpha predators" in "dating game", and subsequently (though in reverse order) to Satan. On the other hand, you claimed that those "nice losers" invented nice idols, ("messiahs, prophets, saints, monks, or artists") to placate themselves. On top of it, it all sounded as a lamentation that only "if we’re preoccupied with the ideals that set the anti-natural cultural agenda of behavioural modernity," "nice guys — idealists, ideologues, ascetics, conscientious visionaries — finish first." Alas, nature is amoral and monstrous, thus it's a no go, even though the other side of the coin (natural competitiveness as you described it) is equally absurd.

So, I responded making a few key points in the process:

1) Associating human aggressors (and Satan as their epitome -- " the most aggressive alpha male of all is the demonic figure of Satan") with "alpha" individuals is a false equivalency.

2) The same false equivalency is then associating "messiahs, prophets, saints, monks, or artists" with "nice guys" as in doormats or yes-men (Moses, Jesus, Buddha, Bodhidharma, Mozart, Beethoven, Pollock, and their ilk were certainly not nice people in the sense in which you use the word).

3) Thus, it's total BS to associate natural or unnatural with either aggression or submissiveness, as is total BS to label masculinity as antisocial. Especially, if that masculinity does not hinge on aggression (and please, don't mislabel and mistake assertiveness for aggression -- they are worlds apart).

4a) It all boils down to your misinterpretation of natural structures as hierarchies as they are known in human culture, because nature, while amoral, does not operate in the way you systematically try to convince your readers.

4b) Alpha individual is not an aggressor and does not deny access to resources to other members of a pack. It's all an equilibrium. Did you know that e.g. if the leader of a chimp pack does not participate in the hunt, he does not get to eat?

4c) Those who constantly stir the shit and resort to aggression are not the "top dogs." It's exactly those who are not top dogs, but would like to be, but cannot become.

4d) Thus, while doormat style "nice guys" may not finish first, neither do the aggressors, who you falsely associate with "alphas", etc. (like--take Trump for example, who didn't fuck anyone whom he didn't pay in one way or another, and that's just one, most obvious, example).

4e) All in all, it’s nice alphas who finish first, thus, your conclusions are wrong.

So yes, the minutiae of Satan and the nature of creativity are important, because they highlight your ignorance in the large picture.