The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com.

Forgive my confusion, but I’m trying to figure out how this all works. If rules are going to guide my behavior by providing negative consequences for their violation, it’s not unreasonable to want to know exactly what they are. Except all these rules that I and other Normals are expected to follow, well, they don’t make a lot of sense. I just want to know what they are. Maybe you liberals and Fredocons can help a brother out.

Like that word right there, “brother.” It denotes a gender, and I really want to know how the gender rules work. For purposes of this column, I’m just going to assume there are only two sexes, which is probably a massive SJW felony in and of itself. So, are both genders equal?

It’s confusing to me because I see a lot of elitists whining about “males” – usually “old” and “white” ones. Is someone bad simply because he’s male? Is that a thing? So, is someone therefore good because she’s female? Is that how it works, because if that’s how it works, well, that doesn’t seem very equal to me.

And the same with the “old” and the “white” parts. Are you worse if you are old and better if you are young? And are you worse if you are “white” as opposed to some other hue? Because I was thinking that we weren’t supposed to base our opinions of someone on his immutable characteristics. There is a word I’m looking for for when people who prejudge others on those criteria – oh yeah. “Prejudice.”

So, I need to know the rule. Is prejudice okay now? See, because I’m not okay with that, and you other Normals aren’t either.

My new book Militant Normals: How Regular Americans Are Rebelling Against the Elite to Reclaim Our Democracy talks about a lot of annoying things the elite does, and changing the rules and applying them differently to different people are two of the most annoying. Somewhere along the way, it looks like the elite changed the consensus on us without bothering to ask. We all agreed that you don’t prejudge others based on sex or race or religion and suddenly it seems the elite up and decided that now that’s cool.

Sometimes.

Because these changes don’t seem to be based on principle but on political expedience. The notion that women never lie about sexual assault, for instance, seems a lot like a scam designed to intimidate people into allowing selected men to be railroaded into conviction in the court of public opinion despite numerous, infamous examples of women lying about rape. The elite’s new rules might be less troubling if the elite’s designated beneficiaries of the new rules didn’t break them.

And, of course, even the hint that one might characterize a specific woman based on sexual stereotypes is greeted as horrific sexism. But what’s wrong with sexism if it’s okay to generalize about people based on their sex? See, that’s the problem with the new rules. You don’t just get to selectively apply them. If you normalize, say, prejudice, then pretty soon everyone is going to be prejudiced about everyone.

“That’s whataboutism!” the hacks shout, but it really isn’t. What they label “whataboutism” is not so much excusing the rule violation of one person based upon the rule violation of another as it is pointing out that there is no such rule at all.

The elite is eliminating the rule against prejudice, and it’s going to insist on acting surprised when people stop acting like there is a rule against prejudice.

And the rules are confusing in other situations. Now, the elite insists that the alleged and disputed actions of Brett Kavanaugh as a drunk teen forever bar him from a seat on the Supreme Court. Okay, but then how does the disqualification rule apply to other situations? Let’s take Tex Kennedy. Beto O’Rourke drove drunk as a 26 year old, got busted after nearly killing some people and tried to ditch the scene. Let’s put aside whether he’s lying to the voters about absconding and focus on the glug glug vroom vroom part.

Does an adult DUI disqualify him from the Senate? If not, why not? Why are his undisputed actions less disqualifying than Kavanaugh’s alleged one? If true, both represent, at best, huge misjudgments. Both subordinated the safety and rights of others to the malefactor’s personal desires. Both involved alcohol, but one involved a minor and the other an adult. Why aren't both disqualified?

Can someone explain the rule to me that makes both Kavanaugh irredeemable and Beto – pardon the expression – the toast of Texas Democrats?

What’s the rule?

Here’s what I think. I think there actually are no rules anymore. I think the elite is so terrified it is losing its power that it is tossing out the foundations of the society it is supposed to organize and manage, that is, the rules. I think our elite actually does not believe in rules, that their attempts at enforcing the rules are merely a grift designed to jam up Normals and provide a way to keep them in line.

And I think we Normals see that. We see that when that Looming Doofus Jim Comey lets Felonia Milhous von Pantsuit off after running down a list of crimes that would have sent any of us Normals off to the pokey. We see that when we watch the Democrats line up to vote for Keith Ellison and Sherrod Brown after accusations that they beat up the women in their lives (apparently the new rule is you believe only some women, and only when it’s convenient). And we’ve seen it when we watch the media demand the respect due unbiased truthtellers even as they jump in squarely on the side of the elite.

Our useless, worthless elite’s craven abandonment of the basic rules that make a free and moral society in order to hold on to power over the short term is a long-term disaster. See, where there are no rules then there is a vacuum. And that vacuum is filled by people exercising raw power. I saw the fallout of that reality serving in the ruins of Kosovo.

If you want the rule of power, elite, keep it up. Just remember that, as the left’s buddy Mao used to say, power grows from the barrel of a gun. And us Normals have all the guns.