Incentives vs. Traitor Mindset & American Negative Exceptionalism

Point 0: morality isn't really real. At most you can talk about upholding local mores - local customs are not "morality" in the modern/Christian sense.

"When considering things happening in the world, do you think primarily in terms of ‘incentive structures’ or ‘good and evil’?"
https://nitter.unixfox.eu/noxraptus/status/1506573634399313924

Personnel is policy and the obverse of Goodhart's law.

Incentives don't come from nowhere. In the end you can choose not to take the job. (Peasants are, of course, unaware of this brilliant, challenging insight.) If nobody takes the job because they can see the incentives are backwards, then the incentives don't drive behaviour, they destroy themselves.

What are the incentives to create certain incentive structures? It's not turtles all the way down. Ultimately someone decides. As was inevitable, Americans like to deny that lords exist, but it do. 

"There's nothing quite as evil as a rotten incentive structure."
https://nitter.unixfox.eu/Outsideness/status/1506604476677115905

Traitors construct rotten incentive structures. 

If you don't like an incentive structure you can declare war on it, raze it, and raise a new one. If war is not being declared, then alliance is being declared. Americanism is a traitor-supremacist social system, so instead war is declared against healthy incentive structures. Such as marriage. Such as having the law punish criminals. Such as allowing Gamestop short-sellers to lose money. Such as parents of a child hit by a car being able to sue the driver. 

Put another way: we have all these secular-materialist "incentive structures." Now, far be it from me to deny that (on peasants) incentive structures work. They really do drive behaviour. However, imagine someone who doesn't particularly value money. Your "incentive structure" just collapsed. It cannot control this person. 

The values come first. The mind, the conscious affinity for one future over another, comes first. The incentive structures come second. The incentive-definers define the incentives that buy the things they want. They design the incentives based on the values of the peasants they're controlling. Money is big, obvious, flashy, and short-term, so it works on peasants, so they use that.

In turn, peasant values come from religion. They come from a Pope. Americans are venal and materialist because they are raised to be venal and materialist, not because it's a universal divinely-ordained fact. Ref: every Amish man could make vastly more money if he stopped being Amish, but he repeatedly (wisely) chooses to remain. He is aware in his guts that being Amish is worth billions of dollars relative to being American; it's not a moral thing, America isn't offering enough money to make the switch profitable. 

Likewise Americans sometimes, despite everything, try to move toward being Amish due to the obvious superiority of more-Amish customs, but their head traitors notice this and make it illegal. Americans get the message and obediently stop trying. They want to be obedient more than they want their lives to not suck donkey shit.

In Reality, Adam's Invisible Hand is always in charge. The incentives that exist reflect the demand of the peoples who construct and maintain the incentive structure. Personnel is policy, and religion determines personnel. 

How do evil emperors get bodyguards? Shouldn't the prospective employees go all, "Actually I don't want to make Hitler safe. nthx bie" Resigning in protest is a thing. Why don't all his bodyguards resign in protest? Why didn't Enron have a catastrophic labour shortage? Even if someone takes the job, shouldn't they get ostracized by all their neighbours? Shouldn't they face "social consequences" or whatever they're calling it these days?

In Reality there is no shortage of evil men to take evil jobs. In Reality, the neighbours are evil too. The local more is evil. The emperor gets to rule because, on average, the subjects demand a defective traitor for the top spot. He would never have come anywhere near peak power if the society at large didn't broadly support him and his supporters. Further, the religion couldn't have made the peasants call for this if peasants weren't inherently compatible with defection and deviance.

From a bird's-eye view it's better to say that incentives don't drive behaviour. Desired behaviour drives incentives. Looking at the incentives informs you about values, which drive behaviour and drove the incentives. Americans want to be traitors, and want to be ruled by traitors. 

So, like, isn't it obvious? If you're not a traitor-supremacist, you need to reject this social order. You live in a society? Okay, well stop. That was dumb, don't do that. Participate only if overwhelming violence forces you to participate - then it's not your responsibility, and you won't be held responsible. Always look for ways to get out from under their thumb.

Explicitly, consciously, verbally declare them illegitimate.
Pray for protection.
Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's -  nothing.

If you choose to remain with the traitor society for any reason, that means you value treachery over not-treachery.
Well, certainly you are Free to have such a Will. It's a valid choice. You can always choose your decision. You don't get to choose the consequences, however. Turns out postmodernism is false actually.

P.S. Technically speaking peasants essentially have no values. They seem to have bad taste because they're incompetent at pretending to have good taste. They in fact have no taste at all, which is why it's so difficult for them. It never occurs to them that "taste" is a real thing and they can't really imagine what they're trying to imitate. When they inevitably fuck it up they can't tell the difference between what they're doing and what you're doing.

Exception: they have strict animalistic desires such as not getting trampled by the strong horse. Flesh-based reflexes. They don't like responsibility because they sense in their bones they're not responsible; they want to obey instead. Safer, because [not starting a fight with the local Big Man], and the actions taken are wiser on average. (Offer not valid in Global American Empire.) 

P.P.S. War of American Rebellion => traitors fighting for the right to break their oaths. They won, so America has always been a traitor-supremacist regime. Hence, ninth circle of hell. Satanism. The only reason America didn't immediately collapse is because they weren't very devout and furtively compromised their own Satanism in an amusing sort of Gnosticism. To Americans, the lord of this world, the demiurge, is Gnon. Gnon cruelly made the world punish envy, treachery, and deceit, rewarding instead cooperation and humility, so the Founding Mothers grudgingly put cooperative systems in place. Respected property rights here and there, if they really had to.

Luckily their descendants understood their inner intentions and have been systematically dismantling these compromises. Slowly, though, because defectors are defective. Can't concentrate and keep falling to infighting instead of getting on with it.