33% Of Young Brits Apparently Love Lockdowns And Want More Of Them - With or Without A Virus
Is this deliberatly fabricated, a verified fact, or a bit of both? If it is a fact, why do they want it?
This article was published on the UK website “I” on February 4, 2024.
I have read many disturbing propaganda pieces over the past four years, but this one tops the list. I need your help dissecting it, and I look forward to your opinion on it.
I can’t fully wrap my head around how much of it is sinister propaganda to normalize more lockdowns to come, and how dysfunctional people have become to apparently really like them.
I also wonder if they weaponize the fact that an increasing number of people crave more authority because their sense of own agency has been shattered by this ongoing 5th Gen Psy-Op, the biggest mindfuck in history.
I wonder if there is a kind of Stockholm syndrome at work, where the victims of totalitarian authority start to identify with the authoritarian perpetrators.
The longish article is here, but I will quote the most important parts below.
Who is behind the think tank “More In Common” that conducted the poll and focus group for this article?
The article draws exclusively on a poll and “focus group” organized by the think tank “More in Common”. This non-profit was founded in 2016.
More in Common is a non-profit organization committed to advancing the common good of the societies in which we work. We are independent of partisan or political interests.
Let me repeat that: “Independent of partisan or political interests.”
Do you remember the Hot Chocolate Hit: “It started with a kiss.”
“It started with a lie”, comes to mind in this case. Not a good start.
Four of the six founders of “More In Common” - Unbound Philanthropy, Barrow Cadbury Trust, Luminate, and the Open Society Foundation - are directly or indirectly linked to left-wing billionaire, Democrat party funder and anthropologist George Soros. The European Climate Foundation is another left-wing, woke NGO with deep pockets to maintain offices in six major European capitols, distributing millions in grants every year to achieve Net Zero.
If you don’t know George Soros and Google it, there is page after page of glowing endorsements of the man. He is the biggest donor in the world in relation to his wealth. The man who gave away 32 Billion. Not only that. Apparently, he is a misunderstood Jewish victim of antisemite “right-wing” extremists who pick on him.
Poor George.
The Google-picked articles somehow forget that among many other sinister political activities connected to Eugenics and population control, as a young man, he worked for the Nazis in his native Hungary before he made Billions as a scrupulous hedge-fund investor.
I had to escape the selective left-wing filtering algorithms of Google and resort to one of the last uncensored platforms available - Substack - to find out about the other sides of George Soros.
Substacker
published two well-quoted recent Substacks on Soros that show a different, much darker side to Soros in “George Soros - Foundations of Villainy; Part I” and “George Soros - Foundations of Villainy; Part II”.Part I deals with Soro’s colourful history, while Part II makes for interesting reading about how and why a white, insanely rich, patriarchic, predatory Billionaire like Soros funds organisations like Black Life Matters and other left-leaning causes. According to
, it is all about creating social unrest and destabilising democracies for a global Marxist totalitarian takeover. Soros also has close ties to the WEF and is linked to their planned “Great Reset”.No matter if you believe the Google version or the Substack version of the man, one thing is crystal clear: Soros and his large web of NGOs are not “independent”. So, the fact that “More in Common” lies about that makes them suspect.
Where is the poll?
The whole article and resulting focus group are based on a poll conducted by “More in Common” in Dec 2023. But the poll is nowhere to be found. I searched for at least 30 min on their Website and the Net - I can’t find the poll. The article links frequently to all sorts of insignificant sites, so they know how to link. But to the one that matters - the actual poll - they do not link. If you find the poll, please put a link in the comments.
Several mainstream news organisations and the alternative GB News reported on the poll when it came out. Or, more precisely, they printed what “More in Common” UK director Luke Tryl had to say about the poll without verifying or linking to it either.
I am not saying they made it up. But can we please see the results instead of what left-wing Soros-funded think tank “More in Common” wants us to see about the results?
You see, propaganda disguised as “research” from a purpose-built left-wing NGO, unchecked and mindlessly reprinted by mainstream media, is the best propaganda because it looks so legitimate.
What made me even more suspicious about how the poll is used for this article is what GB News wrote about it:
Research from campaign group More In Common polled 2,033 people between November 30 and December 4 asking about if they would back some form of Covid measures.
The question asked was "Currently, there are no legal Covid-19 restrictions in place in the UK. Thinking of the current health situation in the UK, would you support or oppose the Government re-introducing each of the following Covid-19 restrictions at the current time?"
Context matters. The questions were asked while Covid numbers increased again in the UK in November 2023. The poll was all about what Covid measures people support in Dec 2023. In contrast, this article refers to the poll regarding whether people were happier during lockdowns than now.
If and how this question about lockdowns was asked, in what context and how it was worded would influence the answers greatly. Until I see the source, I can’t tell. And why does no one link the source, and why can’t it be found?
To their credit, GB News called “More in Common” what it is: a campaign group. It is a shame they didn’t include “left-wing” because that’s exactly what they are. A left-wing campaign group disguised as a “research think tank.”
But the unsuspecting reader of mainstream news would have no clue about that. This was proper “research” by a “think tank” for them. Wow.
What they read - and believe - is this:
Asked whether they were happier in lockdown or today, just over a quarter of people – 26% – chose the former, and 58% the latter.
Perhaps unexpectedly, the figures were much starker for younger people.
Almost a third – 32 per cent – of 18-24 year olds reported feeling happier in lockdown, and under half said they were happier today.
And 33 per cent of 25-40 year olds were happier then, and 54 per cent happier now. On the other end of the spectrum, only 10 percent of people aged 75 and over were happier in lockdown, and 74 per cent are happier today.
To be honest, I don’t believe half of it. I think they took it out of context, but I can’t prove it without the actual poll, which no one links to and is nowhere to be found. That’s how propaganda works these days.
This is a long, cumbersome, and maybe a bit boring opening, but bear with me. It will get very entertaining soon.
Now that we have set the context, we can analyse the actual article.
The Craziest Question Of The Craziest Four Years Of My Life
The article starts with an insane question:
Would you fancy having another lockdown, with or without a novel coronavirus?
“With or without a novel coronavirus?” The madness and mind-fucking starts right there - in the first sentence. Why would we have a lockdown without a reason?
It is a totally utopian, crazy proposition. Are they putting a seed in people’s minds? I would never have considered such a sick idea in my wildest dreams. Let’s just lock down society for the fun of it.
The other thing that stands out is the word “fancy”, as if it were all a game, a joke. No big deal. Ha ha ha.
Then, the article goes into detailed comments from the “focus group” members.
Ah, “the focus group. "
That’s another ghost. There is no link, no evidence, nothing. The Website has nothing about it. It is also very odd that a “think tank” webpage that brags about all the research it does has no search field. When I tried to send a media enquiry, I could not get past the Captcha. It was never sent.
Therefore, we have to trust the author's hand-picked quotes for what has been said.
Further, we must read to the end of the long article to learn some crucial information about the bias of the focus group. It consisted of only eight people, all of them between 25 - and 40 (the group that had the highest happy rate for lockdowns in the poll), and, not surprisingly, all of them were very happy during the lockdown because they were obviously hand-picked.
So here we go. An unsupported, unlinked 33% cohort that is apparently happier during lockdowns gets reduced to hand-picked eight people explaining why. This makes people think that all 33% think like that.
This is the “new normal”, people. Lockdowns are great.
At this point, I almost disregarded the whole thing as “outright fabricated propaganda.” But then I wasn’t so sure anymore. Of course, it is left-wing globalist propaganda, no doubt about it. But have people also gotten a bit madder lately?
Is this a kind of Stockholm syndrome?
Over the past four years, I met several individuals of that age group who matched the psychological type of the focus group people quoted below. I definitely think they exist. I am talking about the head-in-the-sand, PlayStation-playing, fast-food-ordering, virus-phobic, mask-wearing, social-phobic, anxious, depressed, and helpless types who not only happily surrender to the authority but even find security and some perverted joy in it.
Some people find making decisions about themselves and their lives exhausting. Let’s just farm it out to Bill, Klaus, and George.
Their lives consist of getting a social benefit or going to work, ideally from home, and bunkering down in a self-elected home prison away from society's stresses. They sacrificed freedom and agency for a calm, not entirely unpleasant, survival mode.
How many there are, I don’t know. 33% appears high, but they are definitely out there in some numbers.
Then I thought, when did I start to notice them first?
Exactly !!!
2020 !!!
Lockdowns. Fear-mongering Blitzkrieg delivered by the biggest coordinated Psy-Op the world had ever seen.
Then I thought: Isn’t that also a kind of Stockholm syndrome? Instead of siding with the hostage taker, they sided with the hostage-taking situation, the lockdowns. When fighting and rejecting them is too demanding and scary, siding with them is a viable option to escape an unbearable situation.
If I am right, and this really happened to these people, these totalitarian globalist players invented and implemented the hostage situation in the first place and, therefore, created the victims. Now, in stage two, they are using these victims to glorify the abuse three years earlier in a staged propaganda piece. That’s why this is so disturbing.
By doing that, they also try to normalize locking people away, even suggesting that we do not need a reason.
These are very dark, cunning and dangerous people. They have to be exposed and stopped. They are actively creating a new totalitarian normal that finds nothing wrong when damaged and traumatized people prefer lockdowns over a free life. They are exploiting it.
Reasons for a lockdown without a virus
If you think I exaggerate when I state that people “glorify” lockdowns, see for yourself. In response to that initial question - “Would you fancy another lockdown?” - focus group people had this to say:
Adam, an audio transcriber from Bristol, thinks about it for a while, then decides that yes, he would.
“I’m an introverted person, a bit of a homebody, so it would suit me anyway. I did enjoy the peace and quiet outside, when you went for a walk and there just wasn’t much going on”, he said. “It was just nice.”
Ali, a doctor, thinks alike.
Ali, a doctor from Coventry, agrees, and thinks lockdowns could be useful in more ways than one. “It would be a good idea to do it every few years or so because it would give people more free time to focus on their hobbies and try new things. It would also lead to more family time”, he explains.
Francesca, an education manager, also made it into the group, and she was “glowing” when she reported that she had managed to pick up a bread maker and bake her own bread during lockdown.
Katie, a complaints advisor from Solihull, personally found lockdown to be good for her brain.
“I suffer with anxiety and I was feeling a lot better being stuck at home,” she explained.
Emma, an inclusion mentor, loved life on lockdown, especially “getting drunk on Zoom calls with colleagues, " among other things.
And they all agreed that not having to commute to work was a blessing. They also shared a sense of belonging and being in the same (lockdown) boat, feeling part of the nation that went through the same plight. Suffering together - while being isolated - made them feel more connected - believe it or not.
You couldn’t make this up.
A good idea to do it every few years?
The world should be locked down so I can have a peaceful walk?
People can only start new hobbies and have a great family time in lockdown?
The silver lining of lockdowns
I am not saying there was no silver lining to the lockdowns. I can totally relate to what Adam and the others say. I enjoyed the quiet and lack of traffic, too.
It is not that I don’t get or don’t want to see the peace the lockdowns provided for many people. Also, it provided better family time for functioning families. It was easy for people with money and opportunities to do new things and pick up new hobbies like gardening, baking, cooking or renovating.
There definitely was a silver lining for many better-off families and people. It was a reminder about what is really important in life. People reflected on their hectic consumerist lifestyles.
However, all these advantages of lockdowns for the privileged don’t need lockdowns to be implemented. We can find peaceful walks in nature if we want to. We can have more active family time if we want to. We can pick up new hobbies whenever we want. We always did.
To suggest we need more lockdowns for that is extraordinarily mad.
Not only mad but extremely narcissistic and selfish. These people demand that the rest of society gets locked down because they can’t get their act together to make it work in an open, free society.
They totally disregard the immense suffering less privileged people had to endure.
Like isolated old people dying alone, many young singles going mad and poorer families cramped together in two-bedroom flats without a garden.
To her credit, the author acknowledged that:
Of course, lockdown did prove to be nightmarish for a lot of people. Many were cooped up in flats or houses with no gardens or outdoor space during a heatwave, only allowed out to walk or exercise and banned from even sitting on benches in parks.
Numerous studies have since found that incidences of anxiety and depression increased. […]
Elsewhere, a review of 14 separate studies involving 46,158 participants found many people reporting difficulties in sleeping and/or thinking clearly.
Domestic violence incidence also increased in those years.
[…]
Children’s education also suffered greatly, with school closures and home learning affecting millions. […]
Then, she did something very weird. In a special highlighted box, she gave a long account of how and why she personally hated and suffered under the lockdowns. While adding personal experiences and insights to an article is not unusual, this felt very out of place and fabricated because it was so long and highlighted.
In it, she claimed one simple reason she wanted to write this article: She hated lockdowns so much.
And then ends up with an article that glorifies them and paves the way to a “new normal”. How can that happen?
Sitting in on the focus group was, in a way, like therapy. Firstly, hearing about people’s views and anecdotes painted a much more nuanced picture. Most of them hadn’t adored every minute of every day of lockdown; they’d just found more silver linings than I had.
So, it was all her own fault. There is nothing wrong with being locked down. We just need to learn to like it.
Utopia 101.
Secondly, they were just different from me. They were introverts, living with big families, able to go out in the garden, usually too busy to cook. They weren’t heartless nihilists. Our lives just weren’t really comparable. […]
If you enjoy being locked up and want it again (along with everyone else) because normal open life is too stressful for you - that’s not mad and dysfunctional. It’s just different. Let’s just all be woke and super tolerant here.
That doesn’t mean they’ve brought me on side, though. It’d take nothing less than another killer virus to get me to stay at home again.
Ehm? Killer virus? With a death rate of under 1%? Something like 0.02% for your cohort? And you also do want another lockdown, don’t you? You just need a “killer virus” first.
If that wasn’t enough propaganda and brainwashing for you, don’t despair. The real mind-fucking starts when Lucy Beresford, a therapist, explains it all to us.
Lucy says that, in essence, enjoying past lockdowns and asking the authorities to please lock me up in the future - no specific reason needed - is normal.
More than normal.
It's better than normal, actually, because it gives you more control over your life.
Yes, you heard that right. Being locked up gives you more control:
“The secret of happiness is to identify what is within your control and what is not in your control, and to make judgments around that”, she said. “What happened in lockdown is that people realised they could be in control of quite a lot. They could be in control of when they spoke, what they ate, who they interacted with.”
I am not making this up. I have a vivid imagination, but even my twisted brain can’t imagine something that distorted.
The happiness of lockdown is that you can control what you eat?
And when you speak?
And you have control over who you interact with?
In a lockdown?
Let me spell that out. You are locked away in your home. You can actually not interact with anyone. And therapist Lucy claims it creates more happiness because you control with whom you interact.
Then I get it. How stupid and old-fashioned am I? To me, interacting with other people is a physical thing. Real people talking to each other face to face.
This generation and this specific cohort (social phobia, anxiety, depression, etc.) interact - when they feel brave - 99% via screens.
The 1% of real interactions in normal life - when they enter a shop and someone says “Hello, how are you?”, for example - are stressful, out of their control and rejected. Unwanted.
Therapist Lucy knows - because she earns a living with them, making them feel normal and asserting everything they say and do, no matter how mad or dysfunctional.
From that perspective, it all makes sense.
Being forced into the world, they don’t have total control over their eating. They have to rely on the restaurant. Not so, if locked away.
Being forced out into the world, they don’t have control over when to speak. God forbid someone might ask them a question, such as, “Do you want that sandwich toasted?”
That’s challenging. That’s tough. Won’t happen locked down.
Lucy continues
“For some people that was a real revelation, particularly people who have social anxiety, or who feel a lot of pressure to conform in certain ways. All of those pressures fell away, and for some people that felt very liberating.”
Fair enough. Let’s be more caring. Let’s all lock ourselves down voluntarily to protect these poor souls from life happening.
I am not cruel. I had anxiety attacks in my life. I know what it means. I am also a therapist with a vague idea about these things. It is no laughing matter.
In those days, you saw a therapist to get ideas to get rid of them - not to have them affirmed. And it worked - at least in my case. Locking myself away wasn’t one of those ideas.
Dealing with it by asking authorities to lock you away? Dealing with it by simply avoiding any triggers? What life is that? And how does that improve your condition?
And Lucy has more advice.
This was the great paradox of lockdown; though some people largely focused on the myriad of new rules they suddenly had to follow, others relished the ability to make their own rules.
I must be dumber than dumb. I still don’t fully get her. Why, again, do I need a lockdown to make my own rules? Can I not do that anytime? Those myriads of mostly nonsensical rules really did mess with my life a bit and were somehow annoying. And I did feel cut off from the world.
“Those people wouldn’t have regarded it as being cut off from the world”, Beresford said.
Is that because they don’t live in the real world anyway?
“They would have been looking at it through a completely different end of the telescope, so: not having to meet people they didn’t want to, not having to fake anything, being very in control of my own day” – or, as she summed it up: “I’m in my flat, and I can be in control of what happens to me.”
Absolutely. If you suffer from social phobia, lockdowns are paradise. But most people don’t suffer from social phobia. Or did that all suddenly change?
Back to the author.
Real life may in theory be more open and full of possibilities but it can also feel more constraining.
Yes, darling, this goes together. It’s called “a challenge”. Mastering them is how we grow up and become independent. Real life is more open and full of possibilities. It’s a fact. It’s not a theory, and it's not a “may”. It is. It is beautiful.
[…] this doesn’t mean that everyone had a terrible time [during lockdowns], and that normal life isn’t without its problems.
Not saying.
No, not everyone had a terrible time in home prison, but most did and never ever want it again.
If you had a terrific time being locked down, please lock yourself down as much as you like. And take Lucy and the rest of the focus group with you.
Knock yourself out. Get pale, fat and die and fulfil your “useless eater” destiny all mapped out for you and prepared for with articles like this.
Be assured, it is totally normal.
Maybe I am extremely out of touch with people between 25 and 40 because I simply can’t comprehend that, apparently, 33% of them feel like that dysfunctional “focus group” and are happier locked down.
So we have a problem either way.
If it’s true that 33% feel similar to those in this focus group, something is seriously wrong with that generation. It is horrifying and sad.
It also becomes increasingly dangerous for us, the previously “normal” people who enjoy being free and in contact with other people. They need us out of the way to do their lonely thing. Hence, they demand lockdowns and do not even need a virus for them.
Or, this is largely fabricated to change the narrative about lockdowns and make them more acceptable, even a “happy time. "
I had so much fun alone in my flat, controlling everything.
It was so awesome sitting with my two toddlers in my high-rise apartment in the middle of Melbourne day in and day out. My partner loved it too. Locked out of his non-essential work, he could finally drink beer and watch TV all they long and beat me up at the end of the day. The family bonded really well.
This “think tank” looks like a woke Marxist activist group, so I tend to believe the latter. They are preparing society to live more and more under lockdown rules, which, of course, has many advantages for a totalitarian controlling ruling class that also wants to “fix” overpopulation. Frequent lockdowns will take care of both.
My feeling is that it is a bit of both. The globalists use the mental health cohort they have created with lockdowns and the dumb, woke young idiots they have created with TicToc to drum up support for more lockdowns.
And there is the “old” third problem - the captured mainstream media spreads and promotes rubbish like this article to pass unchallenged, unverified and uncriticized.
What do you think?
My opinion of this, as an Englishman, is that it's propaganda. The variety where they massively amplify the position of the tiny proportion of utter degenerates they want us to believe represents a rationale, educated middle ground.
We seem to live in a "neurocracy" these days, where the needs of neurotics, whether they be climate neurotics or gender neurotics, trump those of ordinary people. Sad times for humanity.