1.

Young men go to the university full of childlike trust and gaze with awe at the
self-styled possessors of all knowledge and now even at the presumptuous investigator of
our existence, at the man whose fame they hear enthusiastically proclaimed by a thousand
tongues and whose lectures they see attended by elderly statesmen. And so they go there
ready to learn, believe, and revere* Now if these innocent youths without judgement are
presented, under the name of philosophy, with a complete chaos of thought that is turned
upside down, a doctrine of the identity of being and nothing, an assortment of words that
cause all thought to vanish from a sound mind, a twaddle recalling bedlam, all this
trimmed with touches of crass ignorance and colossal stupidity, as irrefutably and
incontestably shown by me from Hegel's compendium for students—this I did in the preface
to my Ethics in order to cast in the teeth of the Danish Academy, that happily inoculated
encomiast of bunglers and patron of philosophical charlatans, its summus philosophus— then
these youths will revere even such stuff. They will merely think that philosophy must
indeed consist in such abracadabra and will go forth with minds paralysed in which
henceforth mere words pass for thoughts; thus they will for ever be incapable of producing
real ideas and so will be mentally castrated. As a result, there grows up a generation of
impotent, perverse, yet excessively pretentious minds, swelling with plans and purposes
and intellectualiy anaemic, such as we have before us at the present time. This is the
mental history of thousands whose youth and finest faculties have been infected by that
pretended wisdom, whereas they too should have partaken of the benefit which nature
prepared for many generations when she succeeded in pro- ducing a mind like Kant’s, Such
abuses could never have been practised with real philosophy that is pursued by free men
simply for its own sake and has no other support except that of its own arguments, but
only with university philosophy that is primarily a State expediency. We see, therefore,
that the State has at all times interfered in the philosophical disputations of the
universities and has taken sides, no matter whether it was a question of Realists and
Nominalists, or Aristotelians and Ramists, or Cartesians and Aristotelians, of Christian
Wolff, Kant, Fichte, Hegel, or anything else. 

In addition to the harm done by university philosophy to that which is genuinely and
seriously meant, we have in particular the supersession, already mentioned, of the Kantian
philosophy by the vapourings of the three trumpeted sophists. First Fichte and then
Schelling, both of whom were not without talent, but finally Hegel, that clumsy and
nauseating charlatan, that pernicious person, who completely disorganized and ruined the
minds of a whole generation, were proclaimed as the men who had carried forward Kands
philosophy, had gone beyond it, and so, by really climbing on to his shoulders, had
attained an incomparably higher degree of knowledge and insight.  From this height they
then looked down almost with pity on the labours of Kant which paved the way to their
splendour so that they were the first to be the really great philosophers.  [...] They
hastened to the new temple of wisdom where those three windbags accordingly sat in
succession on the altar to the song of praise of stultified adepts.

But now, unfortunately, there is nothing to be learnt from those three idols of university
philosophy; their writings waste time and also ruin minds, Hegel’s indeed most of all.

...

2. 
The student, therefore, attends the course of lectures with childlike trust, and as he
finds there a man who, with an air of conscious superiority, looks down on and criticizes
all the philosophers who have ever existed, he has no doubt that he has come to the right
place and is as faithfully impressed by all the bubbling wisdom there as if he were
sitting before the tripod of Pythia. Naturally from now on, there is for him no other
philosophy but that of his professor. The real philosophers, the instructors of hundreds
and even thousands of years, are left unread as being obsolete and refuted, but their
works solemnly wait in silence on the shelves of bookcases for those who desire them; like
his professor, the student has "done with" them. On the other hand, he buys the regularly
appearing mental offspring of his professor whose frequently repeated editions can be
explained only from such a state of affairs. For after his years at the university, every
graduate as a rule continues to be faithfully devoted to his professor whose turn of mind
he early assumed and whose manner he has adopted.  In this way, such philosophical
monstrosities obtain an otherwise impossible circulation and their authors a lucrative
reputation. How otherwise could such a complex of absurdities, like Herbart's Introduction
to Philosophy for instance, have run through five editions? Thus the fatuous presumption
again appears  with which this decidedly perverse mind condescendingly looks down on Kant
and indulgently puts him right. 

You have just read a fey excerpts from "On Philosophy at the universities" by Arthur
Schopenhauer.

3. 
In order to stifle any revolt in advance, one must not use violence. Such methods are
outdated. You need only develop such powerful collective conditioning that the very idea
of revolt will not even cross people's minds.

This collective conditioning process requires drastically reducing education in order to
bring it back to a form of integration into the world of work. An uneducated individual
has only a limited horizon of thought, and the more his thoughts are confined to mediocre
concerns, the less he can rebel. Access to knowledge must be made increasingly difficult
and elitist. The gulf between people and science must be widened.  All subversive content
must be removed from information intended for the general public.
     -> I have to break in to clarify the meaning of words like education, knowledge, etc
     Too many people think that education means following certain classes, reading many
     books, accumulate vasts amounts of synthetic knowledge (expressed in overly-subtle
     terms) or simply spend time among other people with academic degrees who consider 
     themselves educated. 
     NO: What I described above is NOT really education. 
         Education means something else: it means learning to think for yourself, it
	 means training your brain to be able to do any type of reasoning.
                    See: en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Art_of_Literature/On_Thinking_for_Oneself
     NO: the goal of reading is not to amass a great amount of disconnected random
         information. The goal of reading is to connect to a superior brain whenever you 
	 can not find that in your circle of friends or family (i.e., very often).
     AND do not forget that many primitive people may have a stronger will than 
         very cultured people.

Above all, there should be no philosophy. Here again, we must use persuasion and not
direct violence: we will massively broadcast entertainment via television that always
extols the virtues of the emotional and instinctive. We will fill people's minds with what
is futile and fun. It is good to prevent the mind from thinking through incessant music
and chatter. Sexuality will be placed at the forefront of human interests. As a social
tranquilliser, there is nothing better.

In general, we will make sure to banish seriousness from life, to deride anything that is
highly valued and to constantly champion frivolity: so that the euphoria of advertising
becomes the standard of human happiness and the model for freedom. Conditioning alone will
thus produce such integration that the only fear – which must be maintained – will be that
of being excluded from the system and therefore no longer able to access the conditions
necessary for happiness.

The mass man produced in this way must be treated as what he is: a calf, and he must be
kept a close eye on, as a herd should be. Anything that allays his lucidity is good
socially, and anything that could awaken it must be ridiculed, stifled and fought. Any
doctrine questioning the system must first be designated as subversive and terrorist, and
those who support it must then be treated as such.

It is observed, however, that it is very easy to corrupt a subversive individual: it is
enough to offer him money and power.
---
After checking, this text is due to Serge Carfantan and not A. Huxley or G. Anders
https://www.mathemathieu.fr/component/attachments/download/1374