9 points of clarity

The points:

1. All political principles are derived from appetite
2. The ideal level of racism is non-zero
3. Everything is eugenics so you might as well do it well
4. Exit is ruinous in a genetic species
5. Every system that works is built on discrimination
6. Everything of value is built in hell
7. Practical consistency is better than moral consistency
8. Today's morality is largely incompatible with survival
9. The popular perception of reality is never the actual

1. All political principles are derived from appetite

Somebody tells you that you owe them reparations for the crimes of your ancestors against their ancestors. They really just want your money.

Another person says that it's transphobic to refuse to teach children about gender: they are really just a pedophile who wants access to children.

The culture tells you to work hard and you will succeed. In reality that is propaganda promoted by managers and owners who want you to work as hard as possible for your pay. (This propaganda might be good for the nation as a whole in some circumstances).

The government tells you that if you don't support the war you're unpatriotic. This is obviously propaganda to get you to send your sons to die in war, a war which is very profitable for someone. In truth you should never go to war unless it's to establish your own freedoms.

Feminism says that it is predatory for an older man's marry a younger woman. This is obviously a case of older women trying to prevent the competition from taking men their own age. Another feminist promotes the notion that any relationship between a boss and his subordinate is workplace sexual harassment. This is obviously an attempt by wives to prevent their husbands from cheating and the loss of income, relationship, and status a divorce would bring. These women have an investment in their husbands, especially if their husband is high ranking in the corporate world, especially if he makes a bunch of money, and have no desire to share that investment with a younger female.

Someone tells you that it's wrong to be racist. In truth they want you to give up your land, make yourself and your family unsafe, and invite hostile foreigners in your country. At best they want to gentrify your country and make it unaffordable for your descendants to live there, turning your country into a playground for the ultra wealthy. They want to price you out of your own nation and make all the worlds democracies rich only clubs. At worst they want to wipe you out because the psychology goes both ways; just as one may scheme by converting an appetite into a moral injunction, one may look around and see something that appears to be unjust and rationalize it by believing it is morally right. Telling the people they are guilty for being white alleviates the guilt of the wealthy and powerful who are replacing them with foreigners.

A Pakistani who seeks "freedom"  in the UK has an appetite for white women and for the unearned freedoms his religion seeks to destroy. He cannot stand his own country, does not have the humility to tolerate imperialism, desires to be ruled by whites, but cannot admit this to himself. His own values and Islamic religion destroy the very thing that he seeks.

The racist who wants to deport him has an appetite for a pollution-free environment, his desire to live without brownoids comes from the same place as a desire to breathe clean air. Even though all people are motivated by appetites all appetites are not equally valid. A white man's desire to have ugliness removed from his sight it's not the same as a browns man's fetish for white women and white spaces. Much of racism is in fact an appetite for cleanliness, orderliness, peace, harmony, and aesthetic healthy people. The fact anyone would think that this appetite is somehow less morally valid than a brown man's sexual obsession with white women, white nations, and getting even with white men, has got to be the greatest scam job of our era. BU-UT BUT BBUUT TH-ATS FASCISM! Yes, it is. Wanting a clean safe space free of brown pollution is definitely fascist and that is why fascism has moral legitimacy. The white man will say he wants safety or "jobs" or express concern about the UK losing rights. This is the moral logic that conceals his true appetite: not for hate or cruelty, but for an unpolluted environment. The proof that he is not motivated by hate is that he would be perfectly happy if they had never come in the first place. A man motivated by hate would want them to come just so he can make them leave. A man motivated by hate would be looking for reasons and scenarios that would give him an excuse to punish, and he would find no contentment with brown people leaving because that would remove any opportunity to inflict violence on them. A racist white man motivated by hate would operate much more like a liberal or a neocon; tormenting them until they leave, and then invading their space because their leaving is unacceptable to him. The average white nationalist is an isolationist and not an imperialist. He is motivated by disgust and not hate. Hate wants to know you so he can hurt you but disgust just wants you to go away.

The number of examples are endless and tedious to go through. Can you think of any? Can you think of an instance where somebody converted their appetite into a moral injunction and commanded you to obey it? Don't get me wrong, morals are real. Things like murder are wrong, but the instant you get into the political realm moral injunctions cease to be universally beneficial to everyone and become predatory.

A libertarian is motivated by an appetite for drugs, scams, and prostitutes. A neocon wants to inflict suffering for his own pleasure. A pro immigration cuck probably has a secret brown gay boyfriend. Keir Starmer is rumored to have a Pakistani boyfriend.

It is all like this. In one era you have to go fight the Gooks and kill the Hun so the powerful can get rich, in another era racism is prohibited so the powerful can get rich on imported labor. I am not some hippy telling you that the people are sheeple. I am telling you that you should use this to your advantage. If people are going to believe invented morality then we (whites men) should be the one who invent it. The inventors of a new morality might as well be white nationalists.

The implications of invented morality are various and devastating. It means that everyone is deceiving themselves and objective morality does not exist where politics is concerned. It means there is no "rising above" or "defeating authoritarianism" since the will-to-power is latent behind all political values, even democratic ones. It means that the people who protest the most and say they care about democracy are the most self-deceptive and power hungry. It means that naked force is actually more honest than the rule of experts. It means that separation of church and state is a fool's errand that simply allows a covert left-wing state religion through the back door with universities as the churches of mentally ill left-wing experts.

Since political morality is fake so are all liberal promises about rights. The left itself proved that morality does not exist in politics with their actions. When the defenders of democracy try to groom your children to be transgender so they can sodomize them you begin to realize no one is playing an honest game. The absence of government power and punishment can also facilitate abuse and tyranny, not just its presence. When the government allows a crime but does not allow vigilante justice then that is a different form of tyranny coming through the back door. For America's entire history the level of rights in this society have declined. Freeing slaves and giving women the vote might be important to those demographics but they are basically red herrings to distract from the fact that these newly liberated people have less rights than white men before them, and white men also have less rights than they used to.

Oh yes, a woman can now vote, but the elections are meaningless, and she is no longer secure in her possessions (civil asset forfeiture), and has no privacy (NSA). She cannot legally defend herself on public transport against rapists, imported to torment her for being white, she has lost the freedom to even use a slur against her rapist, etc. "Democracy" under the management of PMC liberals systematically deconstructed the rights of its own citizens even while pretending to expand those rights. It said it was winning rights for new groups but scratch the surface and these rights are either entirely performative or just cash payments / jobs programs. The real level of rights, even for these newly incorporated groups has declined. The police protected the property rights of blacks more under white supremacy because they would at least try to find the criminal responsible.  America now has cities like East St Louis with police no-go zones and the liberal managerial class is the cause. How can one have rights if the police won't defend you?

2. The ideal level of racism is non-zero

Racism is fundamentally a prisoner's dilemma and anyone who abolishes their own racism first will be horribly exploited by everyone else. If your goal is to maintain multiracial peace then the ideal level of racism is non-zero and you want to be just racist enough to disincentivize the racism of other races. The most stable multiracial society is the one where a dominant race suppresses the racism of all the others. Insisting that white people never be racist while everyone else is racist towards us will have the effect of encouraging abuse against white people. This in turn will create a backlash that gives white people a racial consciousness. In fact this is what we want, so by all means keep telling white people they're not allowed to be racist. Multiracial piece is like pure anarchy: impossible to maintain and just a transition state to a different system. Better to just let the population suffer abuse until it becomes enraged. Besides being a game theoretic problem racism is also a survival skill. How many white people are dead because they were not racist enough to avoid blacks? To avoid travel to foreign places that hate them? Many would be alive today if only they had some racial paranoia. There is a reason suspicion of outsiders evolved. Pain is there to tell you you're doing something wrong, and that is why you should listen to it, and just like pain racism is there to tell you that you are in danger, and you should listen to that too.

3. Everything is eugenics so you might as well do it well

The government subsidizes degenerates. That's eugenics. Corporations over work the middle class thus destroying their birth rates. That's eugenics. The tax code punishes the middle class also lowering their birth rates. That's eugenics. The government puts violent men in prison and these men don't start families. Also eugenics. The government refuses to incarcerate people and so they breed at a higher rate. Eugenics. The government hands out Adderall prescriptions this causing people with ADHD to have increased sex drives. These people then have more children. Eugenics. The mental health profession gives SSRIs to schizophrenics and bipolar people. That ruins their ability to get erections. Eugenics. America brings in high IQ people and wrecks their birth rates. Eugenics. Corporations encourage women to freeze their eggs but most of these women die childless after the IVF fails. Eugenics. Feminism teaches you to hate men so you don't have kids. Eugenics. Dating apps cause chads to ejaculate into latex bags and not breed. Eugenics. It's all eugenics and almost all of it is negative.

You're already doing eugenics, you're always doing it and there's no escaping it. The only question is whether or not it is creative or destructive, whether it is making the species better or worse. Everything the government does, everything corporations do, everything the medical industry does, pretty much everything affects birth rates or death rates and constitutes some sort of negative or positive eugenics. There is a whole twisted ball of forces at play here and ignoring those forces does civilization no favor. It's going to happen whether you like it or not but we don't have to let it happen in an uncontrolled way, we don't have to risk the destruction of civilization itself, we don't have to risk descent into Idiocracy. I'm not advocating we put people on box cars to concentration camps, but everything that every institution does should be studied for its genetic effects and laws modified in order to produce a better race.

4. Exit is ruinous in a genetic species

Libertarians have this fantasy called exit. They think that they are going to build some Island, some seastead and then escape to paradise far away from the crushing rules of government where they will be free to fuck whores, sell crypto scams, and fry their brains with hallucinogens. There is no exit in a genetic species because to do so is to limit your own options. Ultimately you need other people in order to reproduce, and ultimately every ideology needs to reproduce in order to reproduce the ideology. It is doubtful any group of people could permanently exit with a philosophy like libertarianism and still manage to propagate their genes. The non-aggression principle is something that people simply will not obey, and are genetically evolved to ignore. Control over territory, control over ideology, is control over women. Like it or not women will always serve strong men. Patriarchy is a female creation caused by women relentlessly choosing successful and capable men. It is also an essential feature of the genetic health of the species and if the patriarchy was ever abolished so would the health of the species. Women are right to favor the strong just like men are right to favor the beautiful.

Any ideology that enhances control over the opposite sex will always prevail over those that promote exit. This is why both feminism and the Christian right exist.  People want to fuck and "leave other people alone" is a dead on arrival ideology, a maladaptive belief system destined to be out competed by literally anything else.

5. Every system that works is built on discrimination

In order for brain surgeons to be competent they must be hired exclusively on the basis of merit, otherwise some black guy who was hired for his race or connections will hack away at someone's brain and lobotomize them.

Since some races have a naturally higher IQ distribution and can get away with practicing racism while others cannot. If you have a surplus of high IQ talent you don't really need anyone else, and those races that you would import high IQ people from would be better off if you did not import them, since to do so is to cause a brain drain in an already low IQ race. Within a white nation every functioning system is built BOTH on merit and discrimination, at least for whites and asians. Browns and blacks would benefit from anti-racist meritocracy as a method of siphoning off high IQ talent from more intelligent races, but their ego will not allow it, so basically the races that need to practice anti-racist meritocracy won't, and the races that are intelligent enough to practice anti-racist meritocracy don't need to, and actually benefit from combining racism with meritocracy.

There is a significant overlap between being racist and being successfully discriminatory against unqualified labor (among whites and asians). Meritocracy and racism are not a contradiction in a high IQ race, only a low IQ race.

The bridges you drive across need to be designed by engineers who can do the math. That means discriminating against stupid people. Since intelligence it's not perfectly distributed among all races that WILL have racist knock-on effects. You can debate whether the difference is caused by genetics or culture but this was never actually relevant to the issue at hand. Society must discriminate against stupid people to have competent engineers, doctors, lawyers, politicians, Supreme Court justices, etc. The fact that this has racist effects is irrelevant. If a civilization needs to be racist in order to succeed then racism is good at least in proportion to how much it is necessary. You don't want the bridges you drive across falling down because of race quotas. Intelligent people must be given preference. A fully communist society would also have to practice discrimination on the basis of intelligence in order to have bridges that stand up. They would also have racist side effects. Every job description is ultimately a list of discriminations against brown and black people, but also that segment of the white and asian races that is low IQ. Racism against brown and blacks is always going to be loosely proportionate to successful screening for merit.

Moreover, the need for discrimination does not stop with intelligence. Women must discriminate against incapable men, and men must discriminate against ugly women in order for the genetic health of the species to be maintained. Society must practice ableism in order to have able-bodied people in positions that require it. Firefighters must be able to carry people, athletes must be able to throw a ball, workers that stand on their feet have to be able to stand on their feet. Nearly all of it depends on some level of discrimination and allowances should only be made for veterans who served their country.

Necessary discrimination is not race neutral and african countries  would have to discriminate against their themselves in order to achieve civilizational competence. They would have to literally outsource labor to other societies, which they seem to be willing to do with the Chinese but not whites for her historical and egotistical reasons.

The gist of all of this is that every successful economic system will require discriminating against black and brown people, even those that are run by black and brown people. Communism will not escape this problem since the problem is rooted in technology rather than any social effects. Africans, for example, would do well to outsource clean governance to white Americans the same way they have outsourced engineering to the Chinese.

6. Everything of value is built in hell

God brings life forward. Life is struggle. Therefore God brings struggle. Humans are snowflakes in hell and this is more literal than you may think. The solar system is in a galactic habitable zone. Close to the center of the Galaxy is a deadly space of radiation thousands of light years in diameter where flesh will melt into paste. Farther from the Galaxy than us are metal poor worlds hostile to the emergence of intelligent life, since certain neurological functions require the kind of cation exchange that only metals facilitate. Within this galactic habitable zone is a heliopause, this is a boundary where the sun's solar wind protects the solar system from radiation outside of the solar system. Within that bubble is the habitable zone of the solar system, which is a region where liquid water is possible. Then you have the moon stabilizing the rotation of the Earth. Then the Earth has a bubble composed of a magnetic field, which prevents The atmosphere by being stripped off by the solar wind, and within the magnetic bubble is another bubble of the atmosphere, and within that is another bubble of the biosphere. Within those bubbles is the capitalist market and within that is the family structure, and within that men protect women and women protect children. Humanity exists within a matryoshka doll of concentric bubbles within bubbles. Not only is the earth an oasis in a desert of radiation, death, and vacuum, but it is several layers deep of oasis within oasis. It is doubtful that humanity in its present form will ever colonize the stars without converting into some more durable AI based form of life. 

Fascism is used as a term of abuse for anything that is harsh and in that sense the universe is most definitely extremely fascist. Survival in a fascist universe requires internalizing the values of that universe as moral injunctions. Nature gets to veto your moral code, and if you're moral code leads to your extinction or death then nature terminates your moral code and other people with different morals replace you. Thus, a form of social darwinism forms the boundary of what moral systems are survivable. It is imperative for your survival that you believe something compatible with the universe itself, something other than equality.

To quote from the book Xenosystems by Nick Land :

 

If social Darwinism is in any way unfortunate term, it is only because it is merely Darwinism, or more exactly consistent Darwinism. It is equivalent to the proposition that Darwinian processes have no limits relevant to us. Darwinism is something we are inside. No part of what it is to be human can ever judge its Darwinian inheritance from a position of transcendent leverage, as if accessing principles of moral estimation with some alternative genesis, or criterion.

 

This is easy to say. As far as this blog is concerned, it is also—beyond all reasonable question—true. While very far from a dominant global opinion, it is not uncommonly held—if only nominally—by a considerable fraction of those among an educated segment of the world's high IQ populations. It is also, however, scarcely bearable to think.

 

The logical consequence of Social Darwinism is that everything of value has been built in Hell.

 

It is only due to a predominance of influences that are not only entirely morally indifferent, but indeed—from a human perspective—indescribably cruel, that nature has been capable of constructive action. Specifically, it is solely my way of the relentless, brutal calling of populations that any complex or adaptive traits have been saved—with torturous inefficiency—from the chaos of natural existence. All health, beauty, intelligence, and social grace has been teased from a vast butcher's yard of unbounded carnage, requiring incalculable eons of massacre to draw forth evenly subtlest of advantages. This is not only a matter of bloody grinding mills of selection, either, but also the innumerable mutational abominations thrown up by the madness of chance, as it pursues its directionless path to some negligible preservable trait, and then—still further—of the unavoidable horrors that fitness (or sheer survival) itself predominantly entails. We are a minuscule sample of agonized matter, comprising genetic survival monsters, fished from a cosmic ocean of vile mutants, by a pitiless killing machine of infinite appetite. (This is still, perhaps, to put an irresponsibly positive spin on the story, but it should suffice for our purposes here.)

 

Crucially, any attempt to escape this fatality—or, more realistically, any mere accidental and temporary reprieve from it—leads inexorably to the undoing of its work. Malthusian relaxation is the whole of mercy, and it is the greatest engine of destruction our universe is able to bring about. To the precise extent that we are spared, even for a moment, we degenerate—and this Iron Law applies to every dimension and scale of existence: phylogenetic and ontogenetic, individual, social, and institutional, genomic, cellular, organic, and cultural. There is no machinery extent, or even rigorously imaginable, that can sustain a single iota of attained value outside the forges of Hell.

You see constantly in left-wing thought a profound resentment of darwinian processes of selection, and since darwinism is something we are within and inescapable from, this amounts to a profound resentment of reality itself. Civilization was striving for centuries to achieve the very malthusian relaxation we now enjoy. When we achieve the comfortable we also achieve the degeneracy of the mind and obesity of the body. There is a reason everyone is fat and delusional today. The process has gone through three phases, with each phase roughly definable by how it treats descriptive versus prescriptive logic. Prior to the era of malthusian relaxation, that is, Industrial Revolution, the logic followed roughly that of tradition, which is to say, is therefore ought. Just logic goes something like, "things have always been that way therefore they should continue to be that way." This transitions into Hume's guillotine, the logical law which says "just because things are a certain way doesn't mean they ought to be that way." After this comes the present logic that we now endure, which says, "things ought to be a certain way therefore they are." 

Eras:

Era 1: Is ⊃ Ought

Era 2: Is ⊃ Ought

Era 3: Ought ⊃ Is

The third form is a sign of civilization level mental decay. You see this logic everywhere:

"trans women ought to be women therefore they are"

"we ought to be able to establish democracy in Afghanistan and therefore we can"

"blacks ought to be capable of achieving parity with whites therefore they can"

"humans ought to be equal therefore they are." 

The fact that this last piece of logic goes all the way back to the Declaration of Independence tells you something about how deep the rot goes.

7. Practical consistency is better than moral consistency

Let us say that you create an absolute moral principle and it says something like "all children must be taken care of and provided with sufficient resources for their development."

Sounds great, right?

In order to fulfill this moral principle a welfare state is created which gives every child free education, healthcare, and in case of abandonment, placement with foster parents. Awesome.

Of course this means that you can now exploit the hell out of this system and that is exactly what some people do. A man, let's call him Billy, knows that his children will be taken care of no matter how many women he impregnates, and so he goes around knocking up as many women as possible. His children all receive free health care, education, and if the mother cannot afford it placement with good foster parents. He knows his children will be taken care of and survive to adulthood. He now has the perfect system in place which he can exploit to replicate his narcissistic geans as much as possible. This is what adherence to your absolute moral principle has earned you: exploitation. 

Of course this dovetails with what we have said about everything being productive or destructive eugenics. Also, it should be noted, that the steady increase in narcissism will eventually destroy all willingness to cooperate with the welfare state by collapsing the level of altruism in the society among its voters. Even if it doesn't have genetic effects right away it will have devastating cultural effects which converge on the same outcome.

Every absolute moral principle earns you some sort of exploitation. In this universe absolutes are unattainable because humans are a complex ecosystem and not an engineering problem. It's not like the laws of physics where you can figure out what the laws are and then count on things to work every time the same way. In a garden or an ecosystem you have living organisms that are constantly adapting. Providing the same exact inputs of fertilizer, water, and light won't necessarily work all the time. Diseases can come and go, nutrient deficiencies can develop, nutrients might get washed out of the soil, or maybe salts will accumulate because of the wrong fertilizer. There is no absolute set of permanent inputs that you can use for such a system or if there is there is no way for human government to perfectly execute that and the kind of mind that could pull that off would be so precise it would never bother with absolute moral principles to begin with, since such principles are a sloppy idea. Absolutes are a liability and actually an engine of decay, because around any absolute moral principle will form an industry of exploitation that cannibalizes the whole society. It can be any absolute at all: an absolute commitment to help refugees, an absolute commitment to educating all children, an absolute commitment to rehabilitating all prisoners, an absolute prohibition against the death penalty. To set up absolutes is to court destruction and social decay.

What happens when you're absolute prohibition against the death penalty allows a cartel leader can have prison guards killed? What happens when the refugees turn toxic? What happens when some (black) children are such destructive thugs that ruin the ability of other children to learn? There is always somebody ready to step up and exploit your principles which is why every communist regime has resorted to using gulags. They won't fire people so people stop working. Go to gulag! When everyone gets the same outcome, lots of people exploit it, and then you need vast gulags to hold them all. Nice principle you got there, would be a shame if somebody exploited it! Just stop clinging to absolutes.

There is another aspect to this, which is that morality is ultimately rooted in intuition. Think about it, what do you use to judge whether something is right or wrong? Your intuition. When somebody comes up with a moral system, let's say deontological ethics or consequentialist ethics, utilitarianism, ethics of care, right to life, or whatever, ultimately you are going to use your intuition to judge its value. When somebody declares that you have to give all your spare income to foreigners you have never met, or be vegan, or feed the utility monster, or get an abortion to save the Earth, it is your intuition that's going to tell you that's wrong. Therefore your intuition is the superior moral code since the thing that judges is obviously superior to the thing that is judged. The only way that intuition can go wrong is if it doesn't anticipate the secondary and tertiary consequences of all actions. Intuition must be coupled with an understanding of all the consequences of the given action.

To iterate means to continuously refine a technique or design. You design something and then you constructively criticize your own design, then you redesign it, then criticize it again, then redesign it again. This is the process used in architecture and an interesting thing happens when you simply iterate towards doing what works: you converge on what is moral. This is because the same intuition that you use to judge morality is being used to judge workability and since intuition is the ultimate source of moral reasoning, (or perhaps God speaking through your intuition), then both moral intuition and design intuition converge on a morally sound plan of action. This is what I mean by saying that practical consistency is better than moral consistency. I mean that it is more important to be consistent with what works in reality than what is dogmatically correct according to some wokescold shrill dogma. Morality should come after discovering what works, not before. Leading with morality puts the cart before the horse. Saying "outcomes must be equal" is an example of this foolishness. Why must they be equal? Is equality actually optimum? Doing whatever works would by definition serve more people than dogmatic equality. Doing what works would cause less total suffering. Therefore practical consistency matters more than moral consistency, that is, consistency with what works.

The popular consensus is never true because any consensus will be exploited the moment it is achieved, thus changing what is actually true.

8. Today's morality is largely incompatible with survival

Reality has no obligation to respect your moral principles or to even tolerate your continued existence under those principles. Everything exists within the boundaries of natural selection including your values. If your values drive you to extinction then your values go extinct with you. Women's rights may or may not be compatible with the continued existence of the species. If they are not then all societies that embrace them will go extinct. Since the world is male-dominated to begin with it is highly likely that nature has a fundamental bias against gender equality within our species. Of course this says nothing of a newly designed artificial intelligence species, or technological workarounds like artificial wombs. All solutions create problems and radical solutions to biological problems will create radically new problems.

But the break even rate is a total fertility rate (TFR) of 2.1 children per woman and if half of all women choose to focus on their careers then the remaining half need to have 4.2 each. Without pressure to reproduce and social stigma against singlehood the mere act of choosing not to have children can cause the extinction of a people. For thousands of years humans were bound by our biology and we reproduced much the way mammals reproduce: by having litters of children. The advent of birth control put an end to this paradigm and created women's rights. There is no reason to think that this new paradigm of women's rights is actually compatible with the survival of the species. Why would it be? Biological systems are almost always delicate at adapting to drastic changes. This is one more reason why an upgrade to an artificially intelligent substrate may be inevitable.

9. The popular perception of reality is never the actual

It is probably impossible for tens of millions of people to coordinate their perception of reality before that new consensus is exploited. Maybe in the future, neurological interfaces will solve this, but for now there is simply no way for millions of people to agree on anything that is actually true. By the time you have widespread agreement a group of people will have already moved to exploit that agreement, so that means that the new reality will not be the agreed upon reality, but instead will be the agreed upon reality plus exploitation. The true reality is always the exploited consensus, never the consensus itself. Until factual information delivery exceeds the rate at which the human brain can invent new lies there will always be an element of deception involved. It is best not to get fixated on forcing the consensus to change to meet an actual reality since that is simply never going to happen. Get content with knowing the truth amongst yourself and a small group of friends. You can broadcast what you know, that's fine, but don't expect everyone to know it while it's still fresh and true. By the time everyone agrees the world will have moved on.