Dear Friends,
It seems to me, a “rules-based order” would have everyone follow the same rules. That ours has a clear double standard, whistleblowers are vilified, and law enforcement serves power instead of justice… suggests ours isn’t a rules-based order, but something else. On the other hand, rules require morality to carry them out. If those who enforce, write, and adjudicate the law have no ethics… law serves them, not justice. The rules then, under such a system, exist to enrich and empower those that write them. Such a paradigm is highly corrosive of trust in institutions. Our governments lie to us constantly, get caught but don’t appear to lose credibility. They abet billions in fraud while jailing anyone who chisels a dime on their taxes. Meanwhile, that same government doesn’t even follow basic Constitutional rules.
The US Constitution is supposed to be the bedrock foundation of the US government. In the Federalist Papers Madison argued against the Bill of Rights by saying, anything that is not given to the government is restricted from it. If playing jacks is not in it, they cannot play jacks… The Bill of Rights converted the empowering document Madison envisioned, to a limiting document. It strictly limits the power of the federal government. The Bill of Rights then became a keystone article. Such things as media manipulation, false flags, banning public Christian speech, the bureaucracy, closing churches, forcing vaccines, censoring speech on social media, courts overruling the President, limiting guns, accessing person information, etc… are not in accordance with the US Constitution.
The rule makers don’t even follow the rules they are supposed to follow. In a rules-based order you would think the rule makers would follow the rules? That they don’t suggests the rules serve a purpose other than justice. If the rules served justice, they would be equally followed, enforced, and prosecuted no matter the status of the accused. Here’s a metric you can use… If some people in your nation are as far above the law as you are below its protections, the rules serve the rule makers, not justice. There is a tension here, because a rules-based order is sold to us as a means to justice… not the enrichment and empowerment of the rule makers. So, if you see that the elite, (rule makers) are above their own rules, let alone the Constitution, your nation’s laws serve the elite not justice.
Trust is stupidity when invested in those we know can’t be trusted. People who lie, commit fraud, and exploit the law to their own ends, have no ethics. Judges who use their authority to thwart justice clearly have no morals. Elites who molest children, eat human flesh, and worship Satan are probably not the most human hearted people. If we are shown the quality and caliber of our rule-makers are of this persuasion, common sense requires us to withdraw trust in them. Such people will abuse our trust in the most vindictive way, then claim to be the victims when exposed. Indeed, claiming to be a victim while being the villain is truly a detestable act of horrible people. In this case, trusting such people is a sure path to ruination.
If the rules-based order doesn’t serve everyone equally, it isn’t a rules-based order. In such a case, the wise withdraw their trust and support. They move their trust to the community, those who show they can be trusted, and set themselves to building new institutions with moral and ethical people running them. They then replace the rules-based order with a morally based one. Enforce morals with ostracism, ridicule, and derision… as they were in the past. If a lack of ethics gets someone banned from office, mocked mercilessly, and ostracized from society, few will lack ethics. Law uses merciless punishments, morality must use other means. If we want a moral based order to arise from the ashes of the rules-based order the elite destroyed, moving our trust to the trustworthy is only wise.
Sincerely,
John Pepin
