There Is More Than One Reason Why They Are Grooming Children

Then there is the political grooming, in which radical "social justice" values and communist ideology are shoved down their throats in schools. The "Queering" of education in all respects has been a feature of the educational landscape for at least a generation, and before that the schools were pushing left-wing ideology with just a slightly less radical tinge than we see today. 

Obviously — the "educators" even say this — this is all about "decolonizing" education. 

But what most people don't fully realize is that this is not just about creating a new bloc of radical voters when the kids reach voting age. It's also part of an agenda to radically reshape what "voting" means. 

I feel like this video should get wide dissemination so regular Americans can understand just how 🦇💩 crazy our law schools (and the legal profession more broadly) actually are.

The dude on the right is Samuel Moyn, a respected, tenured professor at Yale Law School.

Watch this… https://t.co/vltpcRVOxt

— Cynical Publius (@CynicalPublius) August 5, 2026

I feel like this video should get wide dissemination so regular Americans can understand just how 🦇💩 crazy our law schools (and the legal profession more broadly) actually are.

The dude on the right is Samuel Moyn, a respected, tenured professor at Yale Law School.

Watch this short video please.

One of the tenets of most forms of totalitarianism, including Marxism and Naziism, is to destroy the family as the basic building block of society and replace it with the State.

Moyn is suggesting that parents should not have the right to speak for their children, and that third parties--presumably those chosen by a government led by evildoing "experts" like Moyn--should speak on behalf of those children instead.

This is not a new idea.  Hitler embraced this idea.  Stalin embraced this idea.  Mao embraced this idea.

Yet this is a respected professor at what is generally considered the premier law school in the USA.

We have a deep and troubling problem in America's legal profession, and we must find ways to reduce the power and influence of lawyers generally.

I say this as a lawyer myself.

There is an entire movement, and it's not an entirely new movement, about reshaping who gets to vote and how much those votes count. We already know about the push for noncitizen voting, which thankfully wouldn't fly in federal elections, but would be quite probably be legal in many states and localities (depending on how state constitutions get interpreted). But there is also a movement to reduce the voting age and, in some cases, the weighting of votes so that this new cadre of radical voters has an outsized say in how our country is run. 

It's not a fringe movement either, although, as "Queering" was not so long ago, it is hardly prominent enough to have reached the public consciousness yet. Like so many radical movements, we are seeing a shift in the Overton Window that is resulting from decades of preparing the ground. 

Among leftists, the push to reduce the voting age has been around for quite a while. It has been seen as fringe, but many things that are now quite common were seen as fringe 20 years ago. We barely chopped any genitals off children 20 years ago; now we are in a fight for our lives to make it merely uncommon and frowned upon. A number of states are "trans sanctuary" states where the state will pick up the tab for mutilating children, and even provide legal services to fight off parents in other states with court orders intended to prevent it. 

So don't scoff. This is a movement, and it is picking up steam. The New York Times is having conversations about it, and The Guardian has broached the subject of radically rejuggling voting to prioritize the opinions of children, based on the obviously true claim that children will be living with the consequences of decisions made today much longer than older voters. 

As someone nearing 60, I can confidently say my generation, and older generations, have been very good at tilting the policy playing field in our favour. Our political and economic system is very good at prioritising the views of older people. So maybe it’s time to tilt the electoral system back in the other direction, in favour of younger voters.

This could be accomplished in several ways. The one most often discussed is lowering the voting age to 16. Another is something called Demeny voting, in which parents or guardians could cast votes on behalf of their children. While this would seem to favour parents rather than young people per se, it should not be forgotten that many parents of under-18s are younger people themselves, despite the rising age of motherhood in Australia.

My preferred method is to weight votes according to age: voters below, say, 30 would receive a more heavily weighted vote, voters 30 to 60 would get a less weighted vote, and those over 60 would retain their current single vote. For argument’s sake, you could multiply the vote of under-30s by 1.3 and that of 30- to 60-year-olds by 1.1. People’s ballot papers could be distinguished by colour – under-30s get blue, 30s to 60s green and oldies red – to make counting easier on election night.

How could such a blatantly discriminatory democratic system be justified? On the grounds of simple justice: policy decisions will affect younger voters for far longer than older voters, who will be alive for a much shorter period. The classic example is the climate crisis: younger voters will disproportionately bear the costs of climate change compared with older voters, who will die in the next 20 years and who are far less likely, seemingly, to care about it.

While it is no doubt true that there are serious problems with gerontocracy, most notably the fact that voters rarely vote against their own economic interests, which is why cutting Social Security is a third rail, it is also true that young people are...unwise and inexperienced.

They literally don't know what their interests are, because they are not experienced enough to know how the world works. Look at the DSA if you doubt what I say, and they aren't even teenagers, but people in their twenties and early 30s, many of them who have never held a job. If there were ever an argument that many of the Founders were right that there should be property-owning qualifications for voters, the DSA would be Exhibit One. 

Also, no trust fund kids. 

When Occupy Wall Street was happening I ended up at a dinner party in Williamsburg with one of the organizers.

He proudly talked about how he had been living in a tent in the encampment there for three months.

Me, being the absolute asshole, asked him, “oh wow, you are… https://t.co/0E5YGRefwN

— Av Michal אביגיל מיכל (@avygal) August 9, 2026

When Occupy Wall Street was happening I ended up at a dinner party in Williamsburg with one of the organizers.

He proudly talked about how he had been living in a tent in the encampment there for three months.

Me, being the absolute asshole, asked him, “oh wow, you are homeless? Do you have an apartment to go shower at least?” 

At which he answered me yes he has a loft in in of the new condo buildings nearby ($$$$$$$)

I said “goodness, is it hard to pay the rent since you’re not working right now?”

He sheepishly answered “uhhh no no I’m ok don’t worry I’m ok….”

He then shifted to railing on the 1% 

I interjected, “well, excuse me for my ignorance, but how DO you pay your rent when you don’t work?”

He shifted the topic. I pressed on. 

Now I was getting a bit bold lol 

“Do you have a trust fund?”

He didn’t answer so I asked again.

“I think if you are from the 1% and you are spending your life railing against the 1% it is extremely disingenuous unless you disclose that information and incorporate it into your speeches, do you not think so?”

At this point he stuttered and admitted he was lucky to have a trust fund and never need to work in his life and was very flustered and excused himself.

Needless to say I wasn’t invited back for dinner again but it was worth it 😎

People with no life experience should not be voting. Arguably, people without jobs shouldn't be voting. Certainly, kids should not be voting. You could make a case that nobody under 30 should have a vote, and perhaps nobody over 60 or 65, too. I would be willing to trade my vote if I could keep everybody under 30 from voting, though this would never happen. 

I read my comments, and even many women in them have floated the idea that the vote should never have been extended to women, given how toxic femininity and empathy have been hollowing out our culture. A more modest proposal would be to limit the franchise to people who are, or at least have been, married. 

Obviously, none of that is going to happen. We have Constitutional Amendments that determine who can vote in federal elections, but the point I am making should be clear enough: we vote to determine what sorts of serious policies should address serious issues, and people who can't think seriously should have no influence over those decisions. 

In a healthier political time, we at least respected people's decisions to opt out of politics; many people implicitly recognize that politics are not their thing, and they used to opt out of the system on a regular basis. But over the years, driven mainly by liberals' understanding that the less serious a person is when they consider politics, the more likely they are to vote left, liberals have been pushing to expand voter participation as much as possible. 

It sounds ever-so-civic-minded, but it actually is quite the opposite. These people are no more civic-minded than before; they are just voting based on vague feelz or doing what their peers tell them to. 

It's how you get AOC, Francesca Hong, and all the morons who are being foisted on us. 

None of this is to say that the gerontocracy that we are suffering through is a good thing; it manifestly is not. Personally, I would love to see some Gen X politicians have more influence, and the Millennials seem to have become far wiser the older they get. 

But who can argue that America would be better off with Gen Zers in charge? And if that is you, please don't vote. 

Seriously. Don't.