We’re getting dumber, weaker, more submissive and less able to be meaningfully alive in the world, says Neil Oliver

How to convince those millions that the old ways are done. National borders are only outdated obstacles to progress. Fondness for familiar faces equals racism. The very idea of individual nations, led by leaders freely chosen by the citizens, is almost offensive. How to have a population snap and so submit and finally say enough is enough and beg for security, for protection from the alien, for enough money to put food on the table and heat their homes.

How is all that to be accomplished, while simultaneously ensuring those who have been in control that are still in control now remain in control when the dust settles on a brave new world of one world government, digital IDs, central bank, digital currencies, state applied censorship and social credit scores. Well, look around your fellow citizens and see how all those questions are being answered right before our eyes.

Autocracy is the word for government by the worst of us, that a succession of kakistocracies have reigned blue or red, fat, blonde, boomer or gray faced hatchet wielding irritant makes no difference.

Squatting in splendid isolation in Ten Downing Street, as of now as distant from his subjects as though he were in a palace on Mars, is the walking, talking embodiment of a cartoon villain.

Keir Starmer robs the shivering elderly of their few remaining crumbs of comfort, while he and his wife decide which designer threads to dawn for the Taylor Swift concert. All of those fripperies having arrived as freebies from those who want and get an unelected, unaccountable say in the country's direction of travel.

If you are to set out to design and build a Labour Prime Minister guaranteed to test the tolerance of the British people to breaking point, you'd end up with Keir Starmer.

He's beyond the pale because as far as I'm concerned, he's been placed beyond the pale by his masters, by scripted word and choreographed deed.

He erodes any remaining faith the British people might have had in the traditional ways they were granted, of seeming to select a leader. That Starmer wears the badge of Labour.

Erstwhile party of the people is only the bright red cherry on the better cake. Poor people being abused and mistreated by the party they were raised to trust is a nice, devilish touch.

I've had it with these clowns. We're trained to think they're all the same. We see on the take. Only in it for themselves, perhaps would do better is inevitably our next conditioned response.

Perhaps our needs would be better met if we were governed by, oh, I don't know, by a different group of people altogether, some unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats, perhaps in Davos, maybe, or Brussels.

Anyone left over, anyone still clinging to the wreckage of before in hopes of remaining afloat in stormy seas. Any dupe insane enough still to be thinking that one more repeat of the same experiment being the next general election might yield different results, and therefore paying an iota of attention to what the other side, the other cheek of the same arse, is offering this week is simultaneously presented with the mind numbing spectacle of the contest for leadership of the thing some zealots still insist on calling the Conservative Party.

I had to look this up a few hours ago. Since I'm more inclined to eat my own liver than watch the mainstream news. But apparently it's down to a straight choice between Kemi Badenoch and someone called Robert Jenrick.

I confess I've heard those names somewhere before, but that's honestly about it. Our being presented with Nonentities is something else that makes sense. Of course, for those in the business of subtracting people from the past and readying them for an altogether different future, no more than another Hobson's choice, another erosion of faith.

The absence of hope embodied by either of those two bit part actors, at least as far as the shivering, anxious, hopeless many are concerned seems most likely to invoke nothing but existential ennui. The question that their appearance on stage seems to provoke is why bother in this way? Is the equation balanced on one side, Starmer, the pantomime villain. Meaner than mean, crueler than cruel. Boo hiss!

On the other side, a choice of nobodies given a gloss of identity only by their blue colour scheme, the latest actors mouthing the same old parts. Around the world. In recent months, populations have indeed been revolting as best they can, at least by voting in France, in Germany, in Austria, for those political alternatives that at least seem to speak the language of the people promising to secure borders, rule of law, economies based in the real world and not a fantasy land of windmills and unicorns.

And for their pains, their forlorn efforts. They are labelled far right, extremist, racist told that while votes for creatures of the sitting governments are democratic, those cast for dissenters and disruptors are not.

All the while Rome burns here and abroad, while all the generations held dear, is put to the torch by self-proclaimed progressives, we might pay attention to who's fiddling and the tune played.

When Tony Blair was British prime minister. He controlled the staff in Downing Street and held sway over one country. Fast forward 17 years and courtesy of the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change, he tells 800 staff what to do to advance his ideology in 40 countries. What could possibly go wrong? The Blair Witch Project, sorry, Freudian slip. The Tony Blair Institute (TBI) became an easily identifiable threat during what I call the Covid scamdemic.

Wasn't it fascinating how policy proposals issuing from that TBI so often foreshadowed what the then Tory government actually did? The rollout of rapid testing cutting the interval between jabs. Always, however, the real point of the TBI has been to push Blair's vision of a brave new technological world. Digital IDs.

Anyone? They've been a Blair favourite for decades. More artificial intelligence. Another Blair must have.

He always puts me in mind of those signs above the systems in public loos, the ones warning about what unsavoury items won't flush since Sunak went and Starmer came in so ready to sit on the seat, still warm. We've been invited to spit tacks of fury.

Much in evidence was Starmer's choice of chief of staff, Sue Gray, a lifetime civil servant who, lo and behold, emerged as the perfect scapegoat for all the rent a headlines about freebies and pensioners.

She's gone now, exit pursued by a Blair, you might say, because the word on the street, some of it at least, is that Gray's departure signals the return of a dark shadow sliding back across the picture of Britain's decline.

Britain's controlled demolition. Let us ask ourselves once again, who really runs this country? It's anyone's guess who's running the United States of America right now. Not demented President Joe Biden. Maybe his mrs.. Maybe Barack Obama. Who knows?

I refuse to believe for a nanosecond that Keir Starmer is running Britain. And by now, I am ever more persuaded that an unflappable like Tony Blair is even more obviously, let us say, influential in the relentless nudge and heading towards a time of digital slavery, of neo-feudalism, of the sort preached by the apostles of the World Economic Forum and their ilk, the sort Starmer has already declared his preferred associates.

I've said before, I think the intention is to players like a Stradivarius violin, and I see it again now.

But behind all the grisly razzle dazzle of money siphoning for profitable wars abroad, while the elderly shiver and die, the destructive deindustrialisation, immiseration and madness of Ed Miliband.

I'd rather mind the fundamentals of what is clear to see. Earlier I used the tainted word progressive. Underpinning so much of what's been happening is the notion of progress. But progress towards what?

And is what we've been going through in recent years, recent decades, any kind of progress at all in terms of what I've always understood the word to mean? Technology progresses, that's for sure.

In a famous, possibly apocryphal exchange between proto-technocrats as long ago as the 1950s, Marvin Minsky, pioneer of artificial intelligence, said, we're going to make machines intelligent. We're going to make them conscious. To which Doug Engelbart, visionary of what the internet might have been, replied. You're going to do all that for machines? What are you going to do for the people?

What indeed, our recent predecessors were useful people more useful than us. Progress for them meant the freedom to build lives for their children that were better than those they had known themselves, defending and championing nation states that had made such lives possible together as families, men and women fix their own cars and other machines, knew how to hunt and fish, grow their own food and cook, how to maintain their homes by themselves to keep the home fires burning, raise and educate their children.

Those days are long gone, replaced by progressiveness. To misquote American author Garrison Keillor, a progressive man is like a bear riding a bicycle.

You can teach him to do it, but he'd rather be out in the woods doing what bears do a few progressive generations and would have been rendered all but useless, dependent more and more on the machines to which Marvin Minsky promised intelligence.

Last week in the United States, a judge accepted that children's IQ as being damaged and lowered there by the fluoride added to the drinking water fluoride that is a neurotoxin. Reports from our schools here in Britain show that while we talk about the importance of maths, children are growing less proficient while machines excel.

One way or another, we're getting dumber, weaker, more submissive, less able to be meaningfully alive in the world. More and more truth comes out about our mistreatment by the powerful.

Here's the thing. What are we really being shoved towards? Is the misnamed progressive world anywhere a worthwhile human being ought to go?

Are too many so weakened now, so hobbled by so-called progressiveness that they've learned only to submit? Have too many been prepared, like so many oven ready chickens to be consumed by technology? The answer to that question better be no.