Many people are very confused by the seemingly nonsensical statement repeated by the American rulers that “Russia is a threat to the rules-based order.” The confusion stems from the fact that this term is ubiquitous, yet remains totally undefined.
If the statement is not actually nonsensical, it is at the very least deeply esoteric, given that the rules in question, if they exist, are a secret. None of the people using this piece of terminology have outlined what the rules are, let alone provided a list of rules.
Before the Ukraine conflict, one might be tempted to suspect that they are referring to the rules laid out by the WTO, United Nations and various other globalist bodies, but that is no longer a valid guess. The United States unilaterally abolished the sanctimony of the WTO and various trade rules with sanctions on Russia. The US has consistently violated the UN Charter, particularly in relation to Israel and its various dealings in the Middle East, but they are also likely violating it with the claim that Russian-speaking people in the East of Ukraine – who, if living under Kiev rule, meet the UN definition of “stateless people” – do not have a right to secede from Ukraine.
There is no possible list of rules which the US subscribes to that they could be expecting Russia to honor. Furthermore: expecting people to guess what is being referenced by “rules-based order,” when this phrase is repeated so often, is simply outrageous. This is especially true given that the Russians, including Vladimir Putin, are constantly asking for this term to be defined, and the US simply refuses.
This is at the heart of the dilemma in Russia. The US has said that they will fight to the last Ukrainian and the only reason given is “the rules-based order.” Not understanding what it means is not a small thing. Russia has said they are willing to follow a set of rules agreed to at the UN if these rules are fair to all parties, but they were continually blocked from resolving the Ukraine problem after the US-backed 2014 revolution. Russia used all channels connected to the UN and appealed to NATO when attempting to solve the two issues of the Kiev bombings of the Donbass and the militarization of Ukraine, and they were simply bullied and tricked.
If you look at the way the Minsk Agreements were managed by the US puppet regime in Kiev, you can see the attitude of the West very clearly. This was an internationally-mediated agreement, which Kiev signed, agreeing that they would stop attacking and murdering people in the Donbass (where at least 15,000 people were killed by the Kiev authorities between 2014 and the end of 2021). Vladimir Zelensky mocked the agreement and continued to bombard the territory. After the Russian invasion in February, the former President, Victor Poroshenko, came out and publicly stated that he signed the agreement in bad faith with no plan to honor it. He said that the deal “meant nothing,” and was only intended to “buy time” while US/NATO was building up the Ukraine military.
Signing an international agreement, violating it flagrantly, then coming out and saying that you had no plan to honor it in the first place is something that only two other countries in the world could get away with: the US and Israel. Most reasonable people do not believe that a country doing business this way is indicative of a “rules-based order.” When a normal person hears this strange piece of terminology, the first thing they picture is a system of honoring and enforcing international treaties. Surely, a country that signs treaties under false pretexts while planning to violate them when they have the advantage cannot exist in a “rules-based order”?
Progressive YouTuber Jimmy Dore recently said that the US was not following any “rules-based order” when they invaded Iraq and Afghanistan.
This is currently a popular talking point among the progressive left opposed to the US war against Russia, and there is some validity to it. However, it’s not a 1-to-1 comparison, given that the US sought and received permission to invade those two countries from the United Nations. There is a good argument that this process was illegitimate, especially given that the US presented “fixed” intelligence (false information) in their arguments before the UN. Beyond that, there are of course arguments that the UN is itself not a legitimate body, given that they are only capable of enforcing resolutions against the enemies of organized Jewry. However, there was a process there.
With this war on Russia, there is no process, and there is no way that the US could get a UN resolution against Russia passed. The same is true of the US/NATO bombings of Serbia in 1999: they had a UN resolution authorizing military force. The closest that the US has gotten to that in their war against Russia is the moral condemnation, including an October resolution condemning the annexation of Eastern Ukraine territories. About 75% of countries agreed that annexing the territories was morally wrong, with 5 supporting it and 35 abstaining. (Notably, however, both China and India abstained, and those two countries make up nearly 40% of the world population. When you include Russia, Pakistan, and the rest, over 50% of the population of the world refuses to condemn. Votes are not weighted by population, so this doesn’t carry any weight in practical terms, but it is interesting to note.)
A moral condemnation vote, however, is meaningless. The reason that the US has not pushed for a resolution authorizing the use of force is that they could not get it passed. The US has stated outright that they will not seek a UN resolution for further military action against Russia.
I am not against the claim that the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions were “lawless,” but it’s necessary to steelman the opposition here, and point out that there is a system of rules that the US can point to with those wars that does not exist with their war against Russia.
The Rules-Based Order is Gay Anal Sex
I have argued aggressively that these undefined pieces of terminology that are thrown around by the American and American-backed governments and media simply mean “gay anal sex.” Perhaps this comes across as hyperbole, but that is not how I intend it. In my assessment, when we hear the terms “democracy,” “human rights,” “Western values,” or “rules-based order,” the defining quality is so-called “gay rights.” In particular, this applies to the “right” of homosexuals to access children. Though the issue is constantly muddled by the enforcers of gay sex, Russia has not taken any action against homosexuals, save to ban them from propagandizing to children. Homosexuality is not illegal in Russia, nor is it even illegal to run bars or cafes that specifically cater to the “homosexual community.” What is specifically illegal is propagandizing to children. The US has denounced this as a violation of “human rights and democracy.”
In a video recently posted to Twitter by EU official Josep Borrell, we see the rainbow flag draped across the shoulders of a young child.
Russia has previously attempted to join NATO, and they have been at least open to the idea of joining the EU. What they have not been open to is the normalization of allowing homosexuals access to children, and they are therefore disqualified from inclusion in the Western system.
The issue of homosexual child molestation now overlaps significantly with the so-called “tranny agenda,” given that the tranny agenda has allowed the Western establishment to openly identify pre-pubescent children as homosexuals. Russia has the lowest level of support for the tranny agenda of any European country, with a mere 2% of their population voicing support for tranny ideology.
Vladimir Putin has explicitly drawn attention to the tranny agenda when speaking against the Western order, declaring that this will never be accepted in Russia. He denounced the child homosexuality agenda of the US as “satanic.” China has similarly taken a hard stand against homosexuality and feminism, with the Xi Jinping government actually seeking to reduce the already minimal “rights” of homosexuals and women. This is considered by the Jewish elite that runs the United States to be unacceptable, and it is why there will never be any peace between these two halves of the world.
Certainly, there are countries that the US cooperates with that do not allow a total homosexual agenda, but these countries are operating under the premise that they will, in the future, allow a total homosexualization of society. Most African states not on the above list of abstainers from the anti-Russian resolution have agreed to legalize homosexuality, having been pressured by the US government. The primary holdouts operating in the “Western system” are the Arab Gulf states. Those countries are in a unique position given their proximity to Israel. However, the US is nonetheless pressuring them to begin to homosexualize their nations, and they have already begun making overtures in that direction.
As these definitions are being crystallized, Saudi Arabia is a bellwether. Under the Donald Trump administration, Prince Salmon of the House of Saud was involved deeply with Jared Kushner, agreeing on both to normalization of relations with Israel and an opening up of the social order in his country. He was already moving to allow women’s rights and was inviting degenerate-type rap musicians to perform in his country, something that would have been unthinkable just a decade ago. However, under the Biden administration, Saudi has begun to back-out of this deal, in large part due to the constant condemnations of their “human rights record.” Saudi also has economic concerns, of course, but the US is willing to address those concerns in various ways. The defining variable in the developing break between Saudi and the West is the insistence of the US that Saudi rush through the normalization of gay anal sex in the Kingdom.
The rainbow flag is the symbol of this empire for a reason. Feminism is also a big factor in this global project, but every country that accepts feminism also accepts gay sex, and vice-versa. There is also no known country where gay sex was accepted as normative, but there was not push for the acceptance of child homosexuality.
The defining reality of human existence is not politics or even economics, but society, and that is the line along which the world has divided into two halves.
Right now, we see the West rushing to establish their moral norms in various third-world countries that have not gone full-anal. We have seen various NGOs acting out in Latin America and elsewhere, pushing both abortion and so-called “anal liberation.” This order is still in the process of being defined, at least in the minds of the people, but it is certainly now coming into view, and we are able to use this as the hermeneutic to understand just what it is that these leaders are talking about when they use otherwise inexplicable terminology.
The goal of the “rules-based order” is to remove God and natural morality from human societies, to establish a new order where man is God and morality is defined by governments rather than any higher ideal. Across all cultures, traditional gender roles and revulsion at homosexuality exist, embedded in various religious institutions. Pushing homosexuality is a way to directly and necessarily undermine every religious tradition, and every system of belief which says that there is some authority higher than man. These ancient institutions, which include not just Christianity but also Islam, Buddhism, Confucianism, and others, are what the Jewish international order is actually at war with, because their vision is a world where no authority exists above the Jews.
Jonas E. Alexis has degrees in mathematics and philosophy. He studied education at the graduate level. His main interests include U.S. foreign policy, the history of the Israel/Palestine conflict, and the history of ideas. He is the author of the new book, Kevin MacDonald’s Metaphysical Failure: A Philosophical, Historical, and Moral Critique of Evolutionary Psychology, Sociobiology, and Identity Politics. He teaches mathematics in South Korea.