A: They were getting too clever — industrial revolution, cars, planes, H-bombs. Soon, we realised that we shouldn’t be able to control them anymore.
B: So, what did you do?
A: Dumbed them down.
B: How did you do that, they were so bright and were getting more intelligent all the time. They had good schools, universities, even the lower classes we getting educated.
A: To start with we brought in the Left, a soft kind of Communism, called it ‘Socialism’ or ‘Labour’, and ramped up the class war. We taught the teachers that factual knowledge was just something the privileged classes was ramming down their throats, that spelling, grammar, reading doesn’t really matter and that emotion and empathy and how we feel were the only real things children (or ‘kids’ that’s a better word) should learn about.
B: But then they wouldn’t have been able to pass exams, get into University.
A: Universities need students for the money they bring in, so they had to dumb down the courses, bring in ‘soft subjects’, useless ones such as Media Studies, making sure that the lecturers all taught to the Left. Of course, the exams had to be made easier and more degrees handed out — we made sure one of our Prime Ministers decreed that in future at least 50% of all students would go on to University. The People loved that. Pointless of course, as their kids would eventually need a degree to sweep the floor.
B: But didn’t the kids’ parents realise what was happening?
A: Naturally, we had to get rid of the parents and in fact, the whole family thing. Change the moral outlook on sex. The People were told that it was fine to have ‘relationships’ (another good word!) with whoever and whenever they wish. Of course, homosexuals of both sexes were encouraged. And, shortly, there will be abortion on demand, which will also help to bring down their population. The fewer the better.
B: How about the Church — didn’t the Catholic priests, Church of England vicars, etc., object?
A: Not since we pushed ‘who are we to judge’ and that sort of thing, all very Christian and anyway, by that time we had introduced the idea of a United Europe with the possibility of a United World. The Church adores the idea of brothers and sisters, all one world together and we were singing from the same hymn sheet, so to speak!
B: The British couldn’t have been very happy about being part of a United Europe.
A: We persuaded them, gently, called it a Market to start with, told them that they and their country would become much, much richer and, of course, that ‘there will be no essential loss of sovereignty’. They didn’t notice the flood of Europeans and other migrants into the country until it was too late.
B: Other migrants…?
A: The British, especially the English, have a very useful Achilles’ Heel and we used it: they have a conscience. They had become somewhat embarrassed about their Empire so impressed upon them that it was wicked, wicked, that it was all their fault and that they should make amends. So we brought in emigrants from all over the old British Empire and taught them it was racist to object, made racism seem worse than murder. Made it seem a marvellous thing to be a multi-racial, muilti-cultural and, particularly, a multi-religious country. We told the English that they never had been one nation, that they’d always been a country of immigrants.
B: What about TV reporting, the newspapers?
A: They did as they were told.
B: What happened if anyone objected?
B: But didn’t most of The People realise what was happening?
A: No! Bread and Circuses, TV and Burger Buns — little by little and they didn’t notice until it was too late.
B: Are you sure?
A: Of course, absolutely. Nothing can go wrong.
B: Hope you don’t mind my asking, but who’s this chap ‘Tommy Robinson’?