More than a third of young Americans are voluntarily enforcing de facto vaccine passports through excluding unvaccinated friends, family, and acquaintances from their life, according to a new poll.
Data published by Axios in a newsletter on August 16 showed that 30 percent of Gen Z and 33 percent of Millennials said they, “Have cut ties with a friend, family member, or acquaintance because they wouldn’t get the COVID-19 vaccine.” The research was conducted by The Harris Poll and was based on a survey of 1,334 U.S. adults between August 6 and 8.
Harris Poll CEO John Gerzema, in comments to Axios on the findings, lauded vaccination status as, “The new cultural dividing line,” noting the younger generations, “Have ghosted friends who would not get vaccinated.”
The poll also found that while only 15 percent of respondents expect party hosts to require proof of vaccination, “two thirds” said they would personally enforce a vaccine passport if they were in charge.
A downward trend
Some recent studies have shown a marked downward trend in the moral and social values embraced and demonstrated by the younger generations. In May, a study of 2,000 adults by the Cultural Research Center of the Arizona Christian University found that the Millennial (born 1984-2002) and Gen X (born 1965-1983) demographics, when facing a question about the “Golden Rule” of whether to treat others in the way you wish to be treated, only responded 48 and 53 percent in the affirmative respectively.
Success
You are now signed up for our newsletter
Success
Check your email to complete sign up
By contrast, 81 and 90 percent of Boomers (born 1946-1964) and Builders (born 1927-1945) surveyed said they valued the Golden Rule.
In a question of whether one would seek revenge against those who had wronged them, 38 percent of Millennials and 33 percent of Gen X agreed, contrasted sharply against only 12 and 10 percent of Boomers and Builders who believed in getting even.
In July, a study by UK-based Institute of Economic Affairs surveyed Millennials and Gen Z on their opinions about socialism and capitalism, finding that both demographics had become a, “Hyper-politicised generation, which embraces ‘woke’, progressive and anti-capitalist ideas.”
Data found 67 percent of respondents said they desired a life under socialism’s economic policies, while as many as 75 percent thought that social and economic problems facing the UK, such as climate change, housing crises, and racism were attributable to the more-traditional capitalism model.
75 percent notably said they believed, “Socialism is a good idea, but it has failed in the past because it has been badly done.” The study’s authors found such notions had become, “The mainstream opinion among Millennials and Zoomers [Gen Z].”
“Young people associate ‘socialism’ predominantly with positive terms, such as ‘workers,’ ‘public,’ ‘equal’ and ‘fair.’ Very few associate it with ‘failure’ and virtually nobody associates it with Venezuela, the erstwhile showcase of ‘21st Century Socialism,’” remarked the report.
The ‘red’ root
The 2004 book Nine Commentaries on the Chinese Communist Party is arguably the most in-depth examination of how the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) came to exist, how it operates, how it thinks, how it functions, how it lies, and how it systematically destroyed the 5,000 years of traditional culture passed down during China’s many flourishing dynasties.
A look at how the CCP usurped China sheds light on the true nature and meaning of the media-driven trend of self-imposed and government-imposed vaccine passports.
Commentary 6, On How the Chinese Communist Party Destroyed Traditional Culture explains why the rogue communist regime sought to destroy traditional values and culture, starting with Confucianism, which, “Emphasized family-based ethics, in which filial piety [respect and loyalty to parents] played an extremely important role, teaching that ‘all kindness starts with filial piety.’ Confucius advocated benevolence, righteousness, propriety, wisdom, and faithfulness, but also said, ‘Aren’t filial piety and brotherly love the roots of benevolence?’”
“Brotherly love is the relationship among brothers and can be extended to righteousness and justice among friends,” explains the book. “Confucians teach that in a family, a father should be kind, a son filial, an older brother friendly, and a younger brother respectful. Here, fatherly kindness can be extended to the benevolence of a monarch toward his subordinates. As long as the traditions of the family can be maintained, social morality can naturally be sustained.”
It then points out how Confucian values contrast the CCP’s, which rely on Marxism, “Confucianism values family, but The Communist Manifesto clearly promotes the abolition of the family. Traditional culture differentiates the Chinese from the foreign, but The Communist Manifesto advocates the end of nationality.”
“Confucian culture promotes kindness to others, but the Communist Party encourages class struggle. Confucians encourage loyalty to the monarch and love for the nation. The Communist Manifesto promotes the elimination of nations.”
The way the Party overthrew tradition was explained, “To gain and maintain power in China, the Communist Party first had to plant its immoral thought on Chinese soil. Mao Zedong claimed, ‘If we want to overthrow an authority, we must first make propaganda and do work in the area of ideology’.”
Commentary 4, On How the Communist Party Opposes the Universe, points out how Mao during his Cultural Revolution used this approach for the purpose of “confounding good and evil and eliminating humanity.”
“Affection is a natural human emotion. Affection among husbands and wives, children, parents, friends, and in society generally is normal. Through incessant political campaigns, the CCP has changed humans to wolves, or even an animal that is fiercer and crueler than the wolf. Even the fiercest tigers would not eat their own young.”
“But under the rule of the CCP, it has been common for parents and children to report on each other, or husbands and wives to expose each other; familial relations were frequently renounced.”
Big media serves as vanguard
There are many examples of big media and celebrities using their influence to encourage readers to self-impose vaccine passports on their inner circle. In an August 3 article by pop culture magazine InStyle, former Friends star Jennifer Aniston said at the end of a lengthy interview that she had casted “a few people in my weekly routine” from her life who “have refused or did not disclose [whether or not they had been vaccinated],” describing the loss as merely “unfortunate.”
The quote quickly transformed into multiple promotional articles by mainstream outlets such as USA Today (Jennifer Aniston Distanced Herself From People Over Covid-19 Vaccine: ‘It Was Unfortunate’) and NBC News (Jennifer Aniston Says ‘Anti-vaxxers’ are no Longer in Her ‘Weekly Routine’).
But the narrative and what it encourages is much more direct in youth-facing style and glam outlets such as Hello Giggles, which titled their piece Jennifer Aniston Says Sorry, Not Sorry to People Criticizing Her COVID-19 Vaccine Comments, and Elle, which headed theirs as You Have To Be Vaxxed To Be Jennifer Aniston’s Friend.
In another form illustrating how the propaganda push manifests, Canadian publication Healthing.ca published an August 13 question & answer column that was featured on the websites of several of Canada’s Postmedia conglomerate’s city-based papers titled ADVICE: What Do I Do About Unvaxxed Family?
The question posed:
Dear Asking For a Friend,
My mother-in-law refuses to get vaccinated. It hasn’t mattered much since we haven’t seen her, but we are having a big family celebration in a few weeks for my elderly father, and I’m worried about putting him at risk. Not inviting her doesn’t feel like a good option.
Signed, Vaxxed
Some key excerpts of a long and winding response make clear the direction readers are being pushed toward:
If your unvaccinated mother-in-law is invited to participate in a family celebration, you have to decide if you’re comfortable with the risks, and if so, there might be a way to handle that without the added stress or drama.
When you’re dealing with someone who refuses to be vaccinated there are some things you should do and things you shouldn’t. You are fully within your right to ask that your mother-in-law wear a mask and social distance. It will be awkward, but we’re talking about your health and the health of your guests.
Hopefully, your mother-in-law sees things your way and accommodates your COVID safety requests and everyone can enjoy a lovely event. If she doesn’t, then things become a little more complicated. But there is a bottom line: your decision could actually mean life or death for anyone at your event. Confrontation and judgement aside, that’s what’s most important.
