I thought this vote from Wednesday was very interesting. A lot of Christians think that choosing a political party is a lot like choosing your flavor of ice cream. You choose the one you like, the one that makes you feel good and look good to others. But actually, one of the political parties condemns the persecution of Christians, and the other one is all in favor of it.

Consider this article from Daily Signal:

Over 200 House Democrats voted Wednesday against condemning the slew of attacks on pro-life pregnancy centers that have occurred since the leak of the draft opinion indicating that the Supreme Court would overturn Roe v. Wade.

H. Con. Res. 3 (expressing the sense of Congress condemning the recent attacks on pro-life facilities, groups, and churches) passed 222 to 208, with three Democrats supporting it.

At least 78 pro-life groups and 108 churches have been attacked since May, according to Catholic Vote trackers. Vandals have often tagged these buildings with threats such as, “If abortions aren’t safe, neither are you,” making the attacks incidents of suspected pro-abortion violence.

Yet as of Wednesday, authorities had not arrested anyone in connection with these incidents. Democrats like New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have been loath to condemn or even acknowledge the attacks.

The Biden administration isn’t very interested in prosecuting domestic terrorism when it’s committed by the secular left against churches and crisis pregnancy centers. But they are VERY interested in using the power of the law to go after the pro-life taxpayers who pay their salaries:

The DOJ’s Civil Rights Division has refused to share with The Daily Signal whether it is prosecuting any of these cases under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, which “prohibits threats of force, obstruction and property damage intended to interfere with reproductive health care services.”

Meanwhile, that Civil Rights Division charged 26 pro-life individuals in 2022 with violations of the FACE Act—though the legislation protects both pro-life pregnancy centers and abortion clinics, as a DOJ official noted to Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, in December.

Also in December, Associate Attorney General Vanita Gupta revealed that DOJ has been targeting pro-life activists through the FACE Act as a response to the overturn of Roe as she delivered remarks at the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division’s 65th Anniversary.

Now, I heard a lot secular leftists concerned about the January 6th demonstration. They weren’t concerned about the Capitol Hill police officer who murdered the unarmed protestor, they were concerned that people who disagreed with socialism were allowed to demonstrate.  But do you know what the secular leftists were not concerned about? Antifa and BLM committing insurrection in Washington, D.C. in 2020.

Here’s an article from Real Clear Politics dated May 2020, to remind you about that:

We are witnessing glimmers of the full insurrection the far-left has been working toward for decades. The killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis was merely a pre-text for radicals to push their ambitious insurgency. In a matter of hours, after the video of Floyd began circulating the internet, militant antifa cells across the country mobilized to Minnesota to aid Black Lives Matter rioters. Law enforcement and even the state National Guard have struggled to respond in Minnesota.

Portland, Oakland, Los Angeles, Dallas and Atlanta are just some of the other cities waking up and finding smoldering ruins where businesses once operated. Nearly 30 other cities experienced some form of mass protest or violent rioting. At least three people have been killed so far.

Antifa, the extreme anarchist-communist movement, has rioting down to an art. The first broken window is the blood in the water for looters to move in. When the looting is done, those carrying flammable chemicals start fires to finish the job. Footage recorded in Minneapolis and other cities show militants dressed in black bloc— the antifa uniform — wielding weapons like hammers or sticks to smash windows. You see their graffiti daubed on smashed up buildings: FTP means ‘Fuck the Police’; ACAB stands for ‘All Cops Are Bastards’; 1312 is the numerical code for ACAB.

Last night, rioters reached the gates of the White House, possibly the most secure location on Earth. There, they chipped away at the barriers piece-by-piece while law enforcement struggled to respond. One Secret Service officer reportedly had a brick thrown at his head. Footage recorded at the scene showed him blood-soaked. Police were eventually able to repel masked rioters by using pepper spray and tear gas. That worked, for now.

The militants uprising across the country want a revolution and they don’t care who or what has to be destroyed in the process. If their comrades die, they are elevated as martyrs in propaganda. Death is celebrated.

At its core, BLM is a revolutionary Marxist ideology. Alicia Garza, Opal Tometi and Patrisse Cullors, BLM’s founders, are self-identified Marxists who make no secret of their worship of communist terrorists and fugitives, like Assata Shakur. They want the abolishment of law enforcement and capitalism. They want regime change and the end of the rule of law. Antifa has partnered with Black Lives Matter, for now, to help accelerate the break down of society.

The US is getting a small preview of the anarchy antifa has been agitating, training and preparing for. Ending law enforcement is a pre-condition for antifa and BLM’s success in monopolizing violence. Those who are harmed first are the weak and vulnerable, the people who cannot protect themselves. Small business owners in Minnesota pleaded for mercy, even putting up signs and messages in support of the rioters, but to no avail.

The Biden administration wasn’t interested in investigating or prosecuting their friends in Antifa and BLM. No, no. They have to go after peaceful pro-lifers. You can’t trust those Christians, what with their marriages and their children and their jobs and their church attendance. Everyone one of them is a potential terrorist!

The problem with people on the secular left is that they primarily form their beliefs based on feelings. What makes them feel good. What makes them look good. So, an insurrection committed by their own side produces no outrage. Billions of dollars of damage from Antifa and BLM is no concern to them. But if the TV news anchor tells them to be outraged at January 6th people walking around the Capitol, then they will be outraged. It’s just like the “two minutes hate” from 1984. These are not rational people. They’re lemmings.

I sometimes get into discussions with social conservatives about why I am not at least trying to get married. I have a lot of reasons for not trying to get married. For one, I don’t want to fall under the authority of hierarchies (school, work or church) who don’t think that women should ever be held responsible for their own choices. Let’s take a look at a news story that illustrates the problem.

Once upon a time, men would meet their wives in school, workplaces or churches. As long as the man was not in the reporting hierarchy of the woman, (i.e. – as long as he was not her manager or her director, etc.), then it was fine for people to meet up, date, get engaged, and get married. But that’s all changed now.

Consider this story from the New York Post:

A renowned Massachusetts Institute of Technology biologist who was axed after having what he said was a consensual fling with a much younger colleague, said the mushrooming scandal forced him on the unemployment line.

David Sabatini, 54, whose research involved unraveling how tumors develop, resigned from MIT last month and has been surviving on employment after fellow scientist Kristin Knouse claimed he “groomed” and “coerced” her into a sexual relationship, according to a report and court papers.

A longtime friend and dean at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine tried to offer him a job, but after an uproar, the school announced on May 3 that it would not hire him despite the fact that colleagues described him in a recent article as one of the world’s greatest scientists — a “genius” in line for the Nobel Prize.

“What wormhole did my life take, to … protests and being called a sexual predator? What quirk in the universe allowed this to happen?” said Sabatini, who has denied wrongdoing and noted Knouse did not work in his lab or report to him.

In an October lawsuit against MIT, Sabatini said that his relationship with Knouse, who is 21 years his junior, was consensual — and told a reporter he was shocked to find himself the subject of protests at NYU when the school explored the possibility of hiring him.

Sabatini has contended he and Knouse began their fling during a 2018 conference, while he was in the midst of a divorce. By 2020, he thought the affair had cooled, though he claims Knouse wanted to continue. By October 2020, she complained she’d been harassed, and in a later lawsuit alleged Sabitini oversaw a “sexualized” environment in his lab.

What’s interesting about this story to me is that it’s been reported that this woman entered into this relationship with this man after he clearly communicated to her that he was only looking for something casual. I.e. – he was not trying to hide that he did not want to be tied down. He was telling her that up front.

There are more details about the story in Common Sense.

After their initial hook-up…

…they met up at Knouse’s condo near Boston Common where they discussed a few ground rules for their tryst. They agreed they could see other people. Knouse, Sabatini remembers, had ongoing flings with men who she referred to with nicknames like “anesthesiologist f*** buddy,” “finance bro,” and “physics professor,” and she wanted to keep it that way. Also, they wouldn’t tell anyone. Why complicate things at work? It was all supposed to be fun.

Why did this woman get the man fired? Well, there is an old saying about women that goes like this: “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned”. Apparently, Sabatini was getting interested in another woman, and less interested in Knouse:

Things were fizzling… he was getting involved with another woman, a microbiologist in Germany.

Knouse didn’t want to let go. In January 2020 she texted, in part: “I get anxious when I don’t hear back from you and then I see you post stuff on Twitter and it provides an admittedly small and silly but still another bit of evidence to this growing feeling that you don’t care about me in the way that I care about you.” He wrote back: “I am sorry but you are being crazy.” In another text, Knouse admitted feeling “stung.” She added: “I think it’s worth thinking about whether you want someone who matches your passion, intellect, and ambition.”

Feminists think that people are faithful and committed because of self-interest, e.g. – “passion, intellect, and ambition”, i.e. – self-interest. They think that  a woman can just like fun, and choose a man who likes fun, and have a permanent, exclusive relationship based on continuous fun. No need to care about religion. No need to care about the rationality of moral behavior. No need to care about traditional gender roles. Things will just work out, if each person acts selfishly all the time.

So what happened to Sabatini next?

This:

In October 2020, Knouse texted her friends that she was “unpack[ing] a ton of suppressed abuse and trauma from an obvious local source”—an apparent reference to Sabatini. Knouse’s fellowship at the Whitehead was ending, and she didn’t apply for any faculty jobs there. When the new director, Ruth Lehmann, called Knouse to ask why, Knouse complained for the first time of being “harassed.”

In November, Knouse warned her friend—an incoming Whitehead fellow—to “squeeze out as much advice as possible before your mentor is Weinstein’ed out of science.”

In December, at Lehmann’s behest, the consulting firm Jones Diversity sent the Whitehead employees a survey “based in part on Dr. Knouse’s false complaint about Dr. Sabatini,” according to a complaint later brought by Sabatini. All participants were anonymous. Five or so of the nearly 40 employees in Sabatini’s lab took part.

The next month, two former Sabatini lab members lodged complaints to H.R.—the first complaints against him in his 24-year tenure—about “bro culture” in the lab.

This prompted the Whitehead to hire the law firm Hinckley, Allen & Snyder to conduct an investigation on “gender bias and/or inequities and a retaliatory leadership in the Sabatini lab.” The Whitehead never told Sabatini what he was accused of. Former lab members told me their co-workers were sobbing when they came out of meetings with the lawyers, saying that the lawyers had put words in their mouths. “They had a very strong agenda,” one of them told me.

Knouse was 29 years old. She was not a child. Sabatini never worked with her. He never supervised her. He never threatened her or pressured her. This was a relationship between two consenting adults. But that doesn’t matter, because in every school and workplace, women cannot be held responsible for their own bad choices. Women are always victims of men. It is always the man who must be punished. And men have to go to school and work in these environments for their entire lives – walking on thin ice, never knowing when the axe will fall.

Sabatini is ruined:

In the 24 hours after the report came out, Sabatini’s life fell apart. MIT put him on administrative leave. The Howard Hughes Medical Institute, another prestigious non-profit that funds biomedical research and was paying Sabatini’s salary, fired him. He resigned from the Whitehead, and eventually MIT, at the advice of his lawyers who thought it would help him secure his next job. (“I one hundred percent regret that,” Sabatini told me).

Soon, the biotech startups he’d helped found— Navitor Pharmaceuticals, KSQ and Raze Therapeutics—started severing their relationships with him. Sabatini was axed from professorships, fellowships, and professional societies. Awards and grants were pulled. His income disappeared.

Knouse is still working. They decided that she didn’t violate the policy – only he violated it. She has no problem at all with this outcome – she really believes she is a victim, and shouldn’t have to take responsibility for her own choices. Can you imagine being married to a woman who does whatever she wants, then blames you when things go wrong? And worse – goes to the authorities to have them punish you, when she is the one who chose poorly?

This was a consensual relationship. Expectations were set at the beginning – this was casual, no commitment. She agreed to the casual nature, she was sleeping with several other men. Suddenly, she reached age 29, and decided it was time to get serious. He reminded her about their arrangement – nothing serious.

They were BOTH EQUALLY in violation of the company rule. Abuse was alleged by her, but there was no police involvement to verify it. He was punished, but there was no criminal trial where he could defend himself. He was not given due process. No lawyer. No self-defense. This lack of due process is common on college campuses, workplaces, and even in religious organizations. Women who are jilted by men are able to make these allegations and get these men fired without any due process.

Some people might say “well, he was treating her badly, so he deserved it”. The issue is not whether he is to blame, or whether she is to blame. The issue is what message it sends to men about the safety of having relationships with women. Women aren’t punished for breaking the same rules as men break. And men are learning from that not to engage in relationships with women, because the authorities always side with the women even if their own decisions have gotten them into trouble.

Some people might say, “well as long as you act morally, then this won’t happen to you”. But these accusations can also be made against innocent men who are just “guilty” of offending women in the school or workplace with their conservative or Christian views. This was already happening to people in companies like Mozilla and Google. Men sometimes get accused of false rape and sexual harassment for rejecting a woman’s advances.

I know that a lot of pro-marriage social conservatives love to load men up with duties, and blame them when things go wrong. But those social conservatives cannot expect men to continue to marry in an environment where men are always to blame, men must always be punished, men must always pay alimony and child support, men must always go to jail, men must always lose their jobs or custody of their kids. Men are learning NOT to talk to women, date them, mentor them, or marry them.

It’s lots of fun for pro-marriage social conservatives to treat women like children, and embrace chivalry in public. It’s a form of virtue-signaling. But if you ignore the incentives facing men, then you are causing the very decline of marriage that you claim to oppose.