there aren't rules and law if the nation is under tyranny. if the state floods the country with millions of migrants, knowingly against the nation's wishes, then what rules and law is there? u.s. is basically a continuation of england, and liberalism just hijacks into the old english zeitgeist, which is the preserved european view. john fortescue, chief justice of england, said sometime in the 1400s something like > the guarantee of english law is english lawlessness and that may seem contradictory to old sentiments like > the english are a naturally law-abiding people and that seems to contradict the common idea of english people just ignore laws. but it's all the same coherent thing of that the law belongs to the people.  the law is not some rule above the people, the law is a tool to be used in the interests of the people. this is the fucked up modern notions of > rule of law and that somehow it's about > no one is above the law! no. that is not at all what rule of law was about, what it came out of - the idea of law being above all people equally is contradictory to the entire dramas that the notion unfolded in. the 'rule of law', historically, narratively, culturally, had nothing to do with somethign like > all people must follow the law! it was about how that the law can be applied to anyone. that means discrimination, which is the core value in english law (once germanic law, previously the same culture that ancient rome was rooted in, the same culutre you found amongst the scythians and pre-hellenistic greeks). liberty is the ability of a people to freely discriminate.  liberty is being able to ignore the law, and then use the law as a tool to discriminate. the idea of  > rules and laws! as something detached from people is traditionally considered tyrannical. if there is some singular truth! of what the law should be! according to le morality! then some priestly class will be deducing it and imposing morality and law upon society.
United Kingdom