The Big Psyop-Political Polarization

The politics of polarization is a political strategy that seeks to divide society into distinct, often opposing groups, emphasizing differences rather than commonalities. This strategy is used to mobilize a specific base of supporters, consolidate power, and weaken opponents. The experts would like you to think this polarization is natural, it’s not. Like so many other things today its being engineered for a purpose.

Political Polarization uses psychographic profiling and targeting coupled with big data and deployed in digital political campaigns is a form of psychological operations (“psy-ops”). Using deception, coercion, and influence activities and propaganda, persuasion and policy making to polarize populations

We have seen this play out today. It predates Trump but went on steroids with Trumps arrival on the political scene, and after 8 years people on both sides of the political aisle are bat shit crazy.

And lets be honest, that Woke Shit , Critical Race Theory Nonsense, Climate Change Fraud, Vaccine Mandates and Excess Immigration were polarizing as hell, just as intended. Without them Trump and Dark Enlightenment Tech backers never get their foot in the door. Both sides of course are being backed by the BLOB that seeks Freedom from Democracy and the Constitution.

The Freedom and Constitution loving Right was the greatest obstacle to their plans to roll out Authoritarianism and they figured out they could use Trumps Populism and Polarization to counter the Lefts Polarizing Authoritarianism. The Freedom and Constitution loving center has been hollowed out.

This leads me to a fellow named Hugenberger. Most people including me never heard of him but a recent article got me thinking. He was the inventor of the Politics of Polarization, or at least the most famous user of it without which Hitler might never have come to power. Don’t worry, I wont be making the case Trump is another Hitler, just an Authoritarian who holds himself above the law.

There are many parallels to todays America and Weimar Republic but there are many differences, most important of which is we are a rich nation in terms of resources and unlike Germany not shackled by Great Powers after being defeated in War. Our problems are Made in America by the same BLOB that wants to use your dissatisfaction to get you to accept the changes they want . Sadly, many have fallen into the trap.

Hugenberger might best be thought of as the Elon Musk of the Weimar Republic, or more accurately as a hybrid of Rupert Murdoch, Trump and Elon Musk. A rich Media Mogul and Industrialist who hated Democracy and desired Authoritarian rule and who used his wealthy, media empire and political platform to polarize society to achieve his goals.

Alfred Hugenberg was a prominent German businessman and politician during the Weimar Republic. He practiced the politics of polarization primarily through his control of media and his leadership of the German National People's Party (DNVP).

Hugenberg owned a vast media empire, including newspapers, news agencies, and film companies. He used these outlets to propagate nationalist, anti-democratic, and anti-Semitic messages. By controlling the narrative, he was able to stoke fears, spread propaganda, and polarize public opinion.

Hugenberg and the DNVP were staunch opponents of the Weimar Republic. They consistently criticized the government, blaming it for Germany's economic woes and the Treaty of Versailles. This rhetoric helped to deepen divisions within German society, pitting those who supported the republic against those who sought its downfall.

Initially, Hugenberg saw the Nazi Party as a useful ally in his fight against the Weimar Republic. He provided financial and media support to the Nazis, helping them to gain a broader audience. This alliance, although later strained, was part of his strategy to polarize the political landscape and weaken democratic institutions.

Hugenberg advocated for policies that favored large industrialists and landowners, often at the expense of workers and the middle class. This economic nationalism further divided society along class lines, exacerbating social tensions.

Hugenberg promoted an authoritarian vision for Germany, opposing parliamentary democracy and advocating for a more centralized, authoritarian state. This vision appealed to those disillusioned with the Weimar Republic but alienated and polarized those who supported democratic governance.

From wikipedia

He worked in the Prussiancivil service and in private business before joining the Krupp steel works where he was chairman of the board of directors from 1909 until 1918. His work there led to seats on other supervisory boards and trade associations.

During World War I, Hugenberg was an annexationist who wanted the Empire to expand to the east through German settlements. He blamed Germany's defeat on Jews and socialists who had supposedly stabbed the Germany army in the back.

After World War I Hugenberg left Krupp to concentrate on politics and building up the media empire that he had started in 1916 when he bought the Scherlpublishing house. That purchase was followed by the news agency Telegraphen-Union, numerous newspapers and in 1927 a controlling interest in the Universum-Film-AG (Ufa), a major film producer.

His empire included:

• Newspapers: Over 150 newspapers nationwide, including influential right-wing outlets like the Berliner Lokal-Anzeiger and Leipziger Neueste Nachrichten.

• Telegraph Agencies: The Telegraphen-Union (TU), one of Germany’s largest news agencies, controlled how news was reported and framed across many papers.•

Film Production: UFA (Universum Film AG), Germany’s largest film studio, was under his control, allowing him to influence popular culture and political narratives through cinema.Hugenberg’s strategy was to create a unified nationalist message across all media platforms, reinforcing anti-democratic and anti-leftist sentiments.

Hugenberg had a grand strategy to bring down "the System" as enemies of the Weimar Republic always called it. Hugenberg believed in the politics of polarization under which German politics were to be divided into two blocs, the right-wing "national" bloc whose leader he envisioned as himself and the Marxist left consisting of the Social Democrats and the Communists.

Hugenberg polarized public opinion and the political parties with incendiary news stories, some of them Fabrikationen—entirely fabricated articles intended to cause confusion and outrage.

Hugenberg calculated that by hollowing out the political center, political consensus would become impossible and the democratic system would collapse.

Hugenberg "debated political issues in terms of a simplistic, philosophic disjunction – a man was either for the nation or he was against it".

Hugenberg's strategy was a negative one intended to create the "national bloc" that he envisioned meant there could be little discussion of what the "national bloc" intended to achieve, since there were too many divisions on the German right for a positive program, and instead the "national bloc" was to be united by what it was against instead of what it was for.

As a right-wing delegate to the Reichstag, Hugenberg proposed a “freedom law” that called for the liberation of the German people from the shackles of democracy and from the onerous provisions of the Versailles Treaty. The law called for the treaty signatories to be tried and hanged for treason, along with government officials involved with implementing the treaty provisions.

But by late January 1933, Hugenberg, had leveraged his wealth into political power, and become the leader of the German National People’s Party, which had the votes in the Reichstag that Hitler needed to be appointed chancellor.

Hugenberg would deliver Hitler the chancellorship, in exchange for Hugenberg being given a cabinet post as head of a Superministerium that subsumed the ministries of economics, agriculture, and nutrition.

Alfred Hugenberg was not directly involved in orchestrating the Reichstag Fire (February 27, 1933), but he and his media empire played a role in politicizing it to support the emerging Nazi dictatorship. The Reichstag Fire Decree (February 28, 1933) suspended civil liberties, allowing mass arrests of Communists and other political opponents.

Hugenberg’s newspapers did not challenge the Nazi claim that the fire was part of a Communist uprising. Instead, they reinforced the idea that drastic measures were needed to “restore order.”

After the fire, the Nazi leadership, especially Joseph Goebbels and Hitler, blamed the Communists (KPD) for the attack. Hugenberg’s media outlets amplified this narrative, reinforcing public fear and justifying repression.

The Enabling Act (March 23, 1933) was passed soon afterward. This law gave Hitler dictatorial powers, effectively ending democracy.

Hugenberg, hoping to maintain his position, voted in favor of it, believing he could still influence the regime.

As self-proclaimed “economic dictator,” Hugenberg kept pace with Hitler in outraging political opponents and much of the public. He purged ministries. He dismantled workers’ rights. He lowered the wages of his own employees by 10 percent.

Hugenberg declared a temporary moratorium on foreclosures, canceled debts, and placed tariffs on several widely produced agricultural goods, violating trade agreements and inflating the cost of living.

The financial burdens of these rescue measures fell on the poorest. Let them suffer awhile, Hugenberg argued. “Then it will be possible to even out the hardships.” The economy fell into chaos. The press dubbed Hugenberg the Konfusionsrat —the “consultant of confusion.”

Hugenberg had initially believed he could use Hitler as a puppet to push his own nationalist-conservative agenda. However, after Hitler consolidated power, Hugenberg was sidelined

In late June 1933, while Hitler was trying to assuage international concerns about the long-term intentions of his government, Hugenberg appeared in London at an international conference on economic development. To the surprise of everyone, including the other German-delegation members present, Hugenberg laid out an ambitious plan for economic growth through territorial expansion. “The first step would consist of Germany reclaiming its colonies in Africa,” Hugenberg explained.

The announcement made headlines around the world. “Reich Asks for Return of African Lands at London Parley,” read one New York Times headline. Below that, a subhead continued: “Also seeks other territory, presumably in Europe.”

On June 29, 1933, Hugenberg was forced to resign his minister post.

Goebbels ensured that all independent newspapers, film studios, and radio stations were either taken over by the state or forced to follow strict Nazi messaging. By late 1933, Hugenberg’s media empire no longer existed as an independent entity—Goebbels controlled everything.

Unlike some early right-wing allies of the Nazis (e.g., Franz von Papen), Hugenberg did not play any role in the Third Reich after 1933. He had no official position in the Nazi government. Goebbels and the Nazi press ignored him, erasing his past influence Essentially, Hugenberg became irrelevant, a relic of the failed conservative opposition to the Nazis.

Even though the Nazis seized most of his media assets, Hugenberg remained wealthy. He retained some industrial holdings, particularly in steel and armaments industries. He focused on his business ventures rather than attempting a political comeback.

After WWII, Hugenberg was briefly detained by the British as part of the denazification process. Since he had helped bring Hitler to power, he was investigated for his role in Nazi propaganda. However, he was classified as a “fellow traveler” (Mitläufer) rather than a key Nazi figure, avoiding severe punishment.

Many of his remaining business assets were confiscated after the war. He lived in relative obscurity, no longer having any public or political influence.

Hugenberg died on March 12, 1951, at the age of 85 . By the time of his death, he was largely forgotten, overshadowed by the figures he had once supported.

I asked DeepSeek how Hugenberg was aligned with Carl Schmitt. Schmitt as you know has been mentioned quite often by Peter Thiel , especially for his Friend Enemy distinction in Politics which is analogous to Hugenberg’s Political Polarization and his concept of State of Exception where the leader may suspend the Rule of Law

Alfred Hugenberg and Carl Schmitt were both influential figures in the early 20th century in Germany, and while they were not directly aligned in a formal sense, their ideologies and activities intersected in ways that reflected the broader political and intellectual currents of the time, particularly those that contributed to the rise of the Nazi regime.

### Alfred Hugenberg

- **Background**: Hugenberg was a prominent businessman, media mogul, and politician. He was a leading figure in the German National People's Party (DNVP), a conservative, nationalist, and anti-Semitic party that was influential during the Weimar Republic.

- **Political Role**: Hugenberg was a staunch opponent of the Weimar Republic and sought to restore a more authoritarian form of government. He was a vocal critic of the Treaty of Versailles and advocated for the restoration of Germany's pre-World War I borders and power.

- **Media Influence**: Through his control of a vast media empire, Hugenberg was able to spread nationalist and anti-democratic propaganda, which helped to undermine the Weimar Republic and pave the way for the rise of the Nazis.

### Carl Schmitt

- **Background**: Schmitt was a jurist, political theorist, and member of the Nazi Party. He is often referred to as the "crown jurist of the Third Reich" due to his legal justifications for Nazi policies.

- **Political Theory**: Schmitt is best known for his critique of liberal democracy and his concept of the "state of exception," which argues that sovereign power is defined by the ability to suspend the rule of law in times of crisis. His ideas were influential in justifying the authoritarian practices of the Nazi regime.

- **Alignment with Nazism**: Schmitt joined the Nazi Party in 1933 and quickly became a prominent legal theorist for the regime. He provided intellectual support for the Nazi's dismantling of the Weimar Constitution and the establishment of a totalitarian state.

### Alignment and Intersection

- **Ideological Convergence**: Both Hugenberg and Schmitt were deeply critical of the Weimar Republic and shared a desire for a more authoritarian government. While Hugenberg's approach was more political and media-driven, Schmitt's was theoretical and legal.

- **Anti-Semitism**: Both figures were anti-Semitic, though their expressions of this ideology differed. Hugenberg's media empire propagated anti-Semitic messages, while Schmitt's legal theories often included anti-Semitic elements, particularly after he aligned with the Nazis.

- **Support for Authoritarianism**: Hugenberg's political activities and Schmitt's legal theories both contributed to the erosion of democratic norms in Germany. Hugenberg's DNVP initially supported Hitler's appointment as Chancellor in 1933, believing they could control him, while Schmitt provided the legal framework for the Nazi regime's consolidation of power.

### Conclusion

While Alfred Hugenberg and Carl Schmitt were not directly aligned in a personal or organizational sense, their respective roles in undermining the Weimar Republic and promoting authoritarianism intersected in ways that facilitated the rise of the Nazi regime. Hugenberg's political and media influence helped create the conditions for the Nazis' rise, while Schmitt's legal theories provided intellectual justification for their authoritarian practices.

I find it interesting that ChatGBT never mentioned anti-semitism in connection with Hugenberg

Sources

https://archive.is/YwZE4

https://archive.is/28xPD

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Hugenberg

Chat GBT

——————————

What follows is a description of Polarization as a Political Strategy

Key Features of Polarization as a Political Strategy

1. Amplifying Divisions:

- Politicians or leaders highlight and exaggerate existing social, cultural, economic, or ideological divides (e.g., race, religion, class, or political ideology).

- This creates a sense of "us vs. them," where one group is portrayed as virtuous and the other as a threat.

2. Emotional Appeals:

- Polarization often relies on fear, anger, or resentment to galvanize support.

- By framing issues in stark, emotional terms, leaders can motivate their base to take action (e.g., voting, protesting, or donating).

3. Demonizing Opponents:

- Opponents are portrayed as enemies or existential threats rather than legitimate political rivals.

- This delegitimizes opposing views and discourages compromise or dialogue.

4. Exploiting Identity Politics:

- Polarization often leverages group identities (e.g., ethnic, religious, or national) to create loyalty and solidarity within a specific group while excluding others.

- This can lead to the marginalization of minority groups or those who do not conform to the dominant narrative.

5. Media and Propaganda:

- Control or influence over media outlets is often used to spread polarizing messages.

- Misinformation, conspiracy theories, and biased reporting can further deepen divisions.

6. Undermining Trust in Institutions:

- Polarizing leaders may attack institutions (e.g., the judiciary, media, or electoral systems) to erode trust in established systems.

- This creates a vacuum where the leader or party can position themselves as the only solution.

7. Rewriting History or Reality:

- Polarization often involves creating alternative narratives or revising history to fit a specific agenda.

- This can include denying facts, promoting conspiracy theories, or reframing events to suit a particular ideological perspective.

Goals of Polarization

1. Mobilizing the Base:

- By creating a sense of urgency or threat, leaders can energize their core supporters to vote, donate, or engage in activism.

2. Consolidating Power:

- Polarization can weaken opposition parties or movements by fragmenting society and making it harder for opponents to build broad coalitions.

3. Distracting from Issues:

- By focusing on divisive cultural or identity-based issues, leaders can divert attention from economic problems, corruption, or policy failures.

4. Creating a Loyal Following:

- Polarization fosters a strong sense of group identity, making supporters less likely to question their leader or party.

Examples of Polarization in History

1. Weimar Germany:

- Figures like Alfred Hugenberg and Adolf Hitler used anti-Semitic, nationalist, and anti-democratic rhetoric to polarize society and undermine the Weimar Republic.

2. Modern Populism:

- Leaders like Donald Trump in the U.S., Viktor Orbán in Hungary, and Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil have employed polarizing tactics, emphasizing issues like immigration, nationalism, and cultural wars to rally their bases.

3. Brexit Campaign:

- The Brexit referendum in the UK was marked by polarizing rhetoric, with proponents framing the EU as a threat to British sovereignty and identity.

Consequences of Polarization

1. Social Fragmentation:

- Polarization can lead to deep societal divisions, making it difficult for communities to coexist peacefully.

2. Erosion of Democracy:

- By undermining trust in institutions and discouraging compromise, polarization can weaken democratic norms and processes.

3. Violence and Conflict:

- In extreme cases, polarization can escalate into political violence, civil unrest, or even civil war.

4. Policy Gridlock:

- Polarized societies often struggle to pass meaningful legislation, as compromise becomes politically risky.

End