Thank you very much. I would like to thank Diding and his colleagues for the fine prize.
There are now endless examples, from all regions of the world, illustrating how state Western propaganda is accepted almost without exception across the media spectrum.
There is no space here to describe the system in detail, so let us just take a few of the current issues.
The issue of the Middle East is a brilliant illustration of the effectiveness of this propaganda system, with massive tactical debate, but where everyone accepts the state’s principled defensive assumptions.
Take Gaza, for example. From day one, Israel made it perfectly clear that its aim was to “wage war on Gaza as a state”, and to “occupy” it. This explains why civilians – not Hamas – were the specific targets (160 civilians : 1 combatant killed according to Western military intelligence) with daily massacres on the same scale and style as Pol Pot.
A fitting saga has been created in the media: it was a just war from the start, but which degenerated into “excessive violence” to quote the highest leadership of the Social Democrats. That an occupier has the right to defend itself, roughly speaking that the Kremlin has the right to defend itself against Ukraine, is thus a dominant view in the Swedish press, with a level of discipline that no respectable intellectual would dare to defy.
The tactical issue that is provoking debate – massive debate – in that Israel has not succeeded in subordinating Gaza quickly enough, is that “Israel has every right to defend itself. But the war today is neither proportionate nor legitimate” (Ander Lindberg); too many die, takes too long, damages our image in the global South, etc. “For Israel, it is ultimately about the right to exist”, but “Netanyahu’s government [is] one of the greatest threats to the future of the Jewish state” due to the publicity damage, in Henrik Torehammar’s words. In short: the perhaps most brutal war of aggression and genocide of the decade against a people occupied for decades is OK, but the PR damage and tactical inconvenience it can cause is not. In a culture of terror, it is taken for granted that the only thing that merits debate is the successes and prospects of violence, everything else is secondary.
In Lebanon, the situation is completely different. In the past year, Israel has carried out almost daily terrorist attacks against the civilian population, and UN peacekeepers, and illegally occupied southern Lebanon in violation of its own agreements. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have published several reports on what they call brutal “war crimes” and “crimes against humanity”, but nothing is reported in Swedish newspapers that are busy praising Israel’s “innovative” operations that “will go down in history” (Magnus Ranstorp, leading “terror specialist”, which he is). Now, under military and financial threat, Washington is forcing its subordinate Lebanese government to disarm Hezbollah, the country’s only defence against continued Israeli occupation – something that goes unnoticed in the Swedish press, which simply laments the fact that Lebanon “[cannot] get rid of Hezbollah by military means” (Nathan Shachar, who fails to mention that the country is, after all, under military attack by an illegal aggressor).
It is quite natural, then, that the West’s successes in Lebanon merit zero comments in the media, and that no further tactical debate prevails, since Western terror and violence work well, and do not cause any PR problems. But we can read golden nuggets of happiness that Israel as a “regional dominant is a vital interest for the democratic world” (P M Nilsson). Or the Segerstedt Institute’s Eli Göndör, who rejoices “that respect for Israel’s capacity has been restored … [in] the whole world. This has probably been more important in order to be able to in the future to achieve agreements that lead to both peace and stability” than diplomacy – and here we should understand “peace and stability” as on the terms of the USA and Israel, much as the Nazi press rejoiced over the “peace and stability” that the Führer tried to establish on his terms.
Exactly the same dynamic prevails with Iran. It is superfluous to document the efficiency and enthusiasm with which Swedish intellectuals performed their assigned role when the US and Israel carried out what since WWII is one of the textbook examples of an unprovoked, undisguised war of aggression with pathetic excuses that even the CIA did not believe. Thus, Peter Wolodarski exulted that “something decisive has been achieved”, and that Washington must “put maximum pressure on Iran to return to the negotiating table”. The mafia mentality that is the defining characteristic of the Swedish intelligentsia is displayed here clearly enough and needs no further comment. And it is uniform in the media, with occasional concerns that the attack might have damaged Israel’s security. All of this was preceded by a decade-long illegal sanctions war and countless Israeli American attacks inside Iranian territory – but cannot be mentioned, because it had cleared the scenes, and intellectuals obey the professional secrecy to this day with impressive discipline.
Again, in these cases, principled debate is almost non-existent, because Washington’s plans work: the region is almost completely dominated, and therefore we sit obediently silent – an enormously impressive feat of the culture of terrorism.
The model that we have imposed on the region with violence and terror is also telling. It was well described by Hal Brands Henry: namely, the US “delegates like-minded sheriffs to regions around the world, freeing up American resources on the global stage”. In the Middle East, this means what he called “remarkable” wars of aggression against any opposition, such as Iran. In the region, “Israel has done more” for Western hegemony than anyone else, and “crushed the enemies of the US: Hamas, Hezbollah and now Iran”, and “now Trump wants similar” sheriffs in Europe, and the rest of the world where the US delegates its terrorism to “front states” with the US in full control, Brands concludes.
In the Swedish press, this is hailed as “regional stability” or the “Abraham Accords”, to borrow the clichés that are in fashion. Thus, the government wrote in a joint text in SvD: “if you look at the bigger picture in the Middle East, not everything is as dark as one might think …. There are several openings right now that could sow the seeds of a completely new Middle East”, with the attacks on Gaza, Lebanon and Syria as examples of fresh “morning air” – a statement that aroused zero criticism, as expected.
All of this explains the central dogma that every educated Swede must harbour if they want to be accepted into the warmth and public debate. And that is that we have the right to attack and crush whomever we want, and if someone were to try to defend themselves against a Western attack, it would only arouse hellish anger and uncontrolled rage. Thus, the very idea that Iran, Yemen, Palestine or anyone else is being attacked by the “sheriffs” is literally non-existent in the Swedish mainstream press. Or the suggestion that we should come to the rescue, and send them tens of billions in weapons, as we do in the case of, for example, Ukraine. It’s not that people disagree – instead, the very idea that they have the right to self-defence cannot even be understood psychologically, much like an incomprehensible language, or 1 + 1 = 5. This is often the case with inappropriate ideas in societies where mind control and brainwashing are thriving and vibrant industries.
Therefore, we can unanimously declare that Israel has the right to self-defence and praise the attack on Iran that “seems to have been extremely successful” (DN). Or the countless American and Israeli terrorist attacks against the leadership of the Houthis, Hezbollah, Gaza or Iran that have even killed prime ministers. “There is nothing to mourn” because they are “terrorist organizations,” as DN’s editorial staff explained. “Of course, it is preferable that terrorists are also brought to justice, but in response to the “terrorists’” attacks, the attacks against their respective leaders appear to be strikingly proportionate … The logic is easy to understand and the goal easy to sympathize with.” Very few would understand, or care if they did, that, based on the principle expressed by the country’s leading “free-spirited” and liberal newspaper, Hezbollah, Hamas, Houthi and a long list of others who are subjected to constant Western aggression and terror, would be justified in dropping bombs on Tel Aviv, Stockholm and Washington, killing (proportionally) a few million civilians, and they would execute Kristersson, Trump, von Der Leyen and other terrorist commanders without “mourning” for these “strikingly proportional” attacks with logic that is “easy to understand” and “to sympathize with”.
And like this, one can easily continue to exemplify in a propaganda system of unparalleled ruthlessness and efficiency.
Questioning accepted dogmas is risky and difficult. Refutation and critical thinking literally require daily diligent work to counter the stream of accusations against official Enemies that are renewed every day. Whatever evidence critics of official ideology present, there is always the imminent risk of accusations of trying to “excuse” rogue states, and of being marginalized to small magazines that hardly anyone reads. Joining in public criticism of official enemies carries no risk or burden of proof. It is the path to media access, to awards, professional respect, and influence.
But it is only through honesty, organization, and constant hard work against concentrated power and privilege that we can put an end to the crimes committed in our name here and now, so let’s go ahead and do the best we can.
Thank you.