Fascism, education and social control

It was in 1956 that the German philosopher Günther Anders wrote this premonitory reflection:

"To stifle any revolt in advance, it is above all not necessary to go about it in a violent way. Archaic methods like those of Hitler are clearly outdated. It is enough to create a collective conditioning by drastically reducing the level & quality of education, to bring it back to a form of professional integration.

“An uneducated individual has only a limited horizon of thought and the more his thought is limited to material, mediocre concerns, the less he can revolt. We must ensure that access to knowledge becomes more and more difficult and elitist… that the gap widens between the people and science, that information intended for the general public is anesthetized of any content of a subversive nature.

Here again, we must use persuasion and not direct violence: we will broadcast massively, via television, mind-numbing entertainment, always flattering the emotional, the instinctive. »

“We will occupy the minds with what is futile and playful. It is good with chatter and incessant music, to keep the mind from wondering, thinking, pondering. »

“We will put sexuality at the forefront of human interests. As a social anesthetic, there is nothing better. In general, we will make sure to banish the seriousness of existence, to deride everything that has a high value, to maintain a constant apology for lightness; so that the euphoria of advertising, of consumption becomes the standard of human happiness and the model of freedom.

Gunther Anders

“The obsolescence of man” 1956.

He was right. but what he did not anticipated is that it will backfire.

For instance, if Science is discredited, false science comes to the front, and we see the results today.

1 Like

Some real meat on those bones, think I’m gonna have to read it another time or two, later.

That makes me think of another seer.

George Orwell: A Life in Pictures Full Documentary (High Quality)

George Orwell: A Life in Pictures is a 2003 BBC Television docudrama telling the life story of the British author George Orwell. Chris Langham plays the part of Orwell.
No surviving sound recordings or video of the real George Orwell have been found.

{I’ll have to listen to this tonight, so I can share time signatures to some penetrating observations regarding, We The People, attitudes, commitments, fears and domestication, and such. But I need to engage the day. Been sitting here way too long already. }

Things to do outside. Warm days so yesterday I cleared the snow off of my diversion ditch, let the sun warm it as the snow starts melting in earnest, so after our walk, outside chores will swallow me up, always a list of things to do.


That’s why Biden is expanding free education regardless of economic background. He wants a “well informed citizenry”.

A Well-Informed Electorate Is a Prerequisite for Democracy

Thomas Jefferson wrote that a well-informed electorate is a prerequisite to democracy.

Approximately 70 years ago, Republicans hit upon a winning formula: if the data disagree with your worldview, kill the data. Then, with no problematic data, claim that there is no definitive proof of reality and, in the words of Karl Rove, create your own reality.

How can an individual today see the truth when its buried under many layers.How do you open your mind and free youself from the controls to know the truth.
I think the first step is to think as an individual and not to see yourself as a political party member or part of a group because you adopt their view on eveything.If your part of the collective you toe the line what ever that may be.

1 Like

True, but many induviduals have just as much trouble with truth even without the groupthink. I ask people all the time about their methods for evaluating information and I’m surprised how many don’t have an answer.

Could it be they go to social media for the “truth” when its the very tools for skewing information and infuencing people.They go right back to the group and get the wrong information again.

Peter61 - do you think people here , in particular the posters that have been here for ages, engage in truth-telling or encourage truth telling when their views are called into questions??

Your question leads back to mine. What methods do you use for determining truth?

That’s called “herd mentality”… :hole: :walking_man: :man_walking: :walking_woman: :walking_man: :man_walking: :walking_woman:

Peter, do you think that every newcomer to this forum engages in truth-telling when their views are being challenged and they fail to respond??

You can tell sometime its a polarized subject like religion or politics which is likely to go off the rail at some point.
I didn’t come for idealolgy I was hoping to find subjects like physics and space.I do have my own ideas that I cannot prove like many others.I just don’t want to talk politics or religion I see both as controls and total BS so its best for me to stay away from those subjects.As for long time posters here I have not really read anything to make any judgement.


There are different sections for different topics. You would start a topic in the science area. Politics has an area of its own and if you don’t want to discuss politics, you don’t have to go to that area. You don’t even have to go to the religious area.

Well, that’s interesting.

I came by this today, and while there are a couple of threads I could put it under, I’m thinking this one is quite apt.

“The attention phenomenon has several characteristics. It is a function of the type of information, its physical intensity, and its semantic strength, but it can also be voluntarily oriented towards certain dimensions of the information. In the first case, we speak of a “floating attention,” with cognitive mobilization depending on the characteristics of intensity or meaning of the afferent signal. In the second case, we define a “directed attention” towards expected characteristics. From this, we can conceive that attention directed towards a target limits any attentional capacity to other destinations. One then knows of the world only what one expects of it.”

And as they conclude: we have great cause to treat the problems of the world as open problems. Thereby we can avoid such a cognitive deficit. Certainly we have limited awareness. The same strategy that works with young children works with adults as well. Based on current foreign policy here in U$ this blunder in the collective form is well under way.


IMK, Günther Anders was opposed to technological advancement.

How does he distinguish technological advancement from scientific advancement (the latter which he seems to advocates for in the passage quoted)?

To me, technological advancement and scientific advancement are inherent to one another. The discovery of the atoms lead, of course among many other things, to the invention of the atomic bomb, for instance (as exposed in (Lamont, 1997), The philosophy of humanism).

Nb: May I ask, is this passage one full block, or different disconnected passages from the book?

I don’t really know the man .

What i understand is that Gunther Anders was a critic of modern technology and notably of Television. He thinks that there is a gap between modern technology and our ability to think and to master it.

Yes technology and science depend from each other.

As far as i know, the quote is a block.

He also told that TV banish first hand experience and observation. I ma wondering what he would have said about the social network.

What interests me is the idea that science, facts and seriousness are becoming irrelevant. And we see the effect today . Fascism arises.

Thank you for the exhaustive and precise answer :slight_smile:

Because human sciences, philosophy, matter. We need secular humanism.

Ironically, I think it’s people like Günther Anders (along with Jacques Ellul, etc.) and others who, while advocating for less “positivism” and more “human sciences”, participated in the decredibilization of human sciences (and therefore in the weakening of the secular humanist tradition)

Sorry, what is this?

Thx, I corrected into “decredibilization”

To me, they are a bit like “après moi, le déluge
I know this is what they say of industrial society proponents, so ironically, I think it applies very well to them in fact.

They did or are doing what Picasso & co. did to Art