Today’s propaganda is primarily about monopolizing access, not hegemony in the sphere of communication
Paweł Mościcki is a professor at the Institute of Literary Research of the Polish Academy of Sciences, the author of numerous books and a blog: pawelmoscicki.net as well as substack pawelmoscicki.substack.com
Cross-posted from Pawel’s Substack
A flag is a peculiar form of symbol. Its essence lies not in what it expresses, but in what it gathers and captures within its defined boundaries. It is a sign that assembles and contains rather than expresses or manifests. Or rather, it is capable of doing the latter because it does the former. A country’s flag represents the symbolism associated with its political system, but above all, it marks it in a broader order of signs. At the same time, it represents, in a rather arbitrary way, all those who are somehow subject to the jurisdiction of that state, even if they fundamentally disagree with its political order.
During the protests in Iran in early January 2026, Twitter changed the graphic representation of the country from the flag of the Islamic Republic to the flag of the Monarchy. To this day, the characteristic golden lion appears in the center of the flag, instead of the word meaning “Allah” and the tulip symbolizing Islam, strength, and martyrdom. In this way, the tech giant joined the battle over symbols, the stakes of which are the continued existence of what the Western media invariably call the Iranian “regime.” However, this act is not limited to taking a position in a specific and local dispute, but hides a deeper meaning and refers to the transformation of the very conditions of possibility of today’s politics. Especially since this single gesture crystallizes the strategy of the entire American oligarchy managing the continuum of Western political, technological, intelligence, and information power.
***
First, Twitter’s decision shows that there is no longer any room for deliberation in today’s infosphere. “Public debate” has become an outdated term, revealing only its users’ nostalgia for ideological disputes of the past. The current state of politics is more like a permanent disinformation operation, in which political arguments have turned into tokens subject to complex networks of control, manipulation, and fraud.
The gesture of American technocrats is a perfect example of what Jean Baudrillard, in the innocent era of the first experiments with collective perception management, called the “precession of simulacra.” The proverbial Elon Musk has already established a new regime in Iran, or rather restored the old one that was overthrown by the 1979 revolution. Now we just have to wait for reality to catch up with the future of the country decreed by the algorithm. Political events are therefore secondary to the symbolic coordinates established and perpetuated by the American oligarchy in advance.
The change made by Twitter shows the scope of choices acceptable to the Empire. It is not a matter of pondering the future of Iran or waiting for a collective decision by its inhabitants. They have already been designated, along with their country, as a society dependent on the US, just as the monarchy under the Shah. Therefore, only those who oppose the current Iranian regime will represent “Iranians” in the Western media space. Many of them, in fact, represent organizations that have been funded by American intelligence for years and pursue the goals set by it.
Twitter does not express anyone’s opinion. It creates an environment that conditions the way opinions function. It sets the coordinates for the circulation of information. It predetermines the hierarchy of topics, arguments, and images. Anyone who enters this defined circulation functions in a world in which the Iranian authorities have already been delegitimized in a top-down, algorithmic manner. And one can only speak out in an environment already marked by this delegitimization. Social media is not a neutral space for communication, but a weapon of mass destruction against which it is impossible to defend oneself without suffering severe losses at the outset.
This seems to be incomprehensible to leftists, who continue to try to negotiate with the information space as if they could single-handedly change the conditions of its functioning. A perfect example of this attitude is the voice of Yanis Varoufakis. It can be summarized by the phrase “neither, nor,” characteristic of most of the Western left, raised on various more or less consciously assimilated historical reflexes of Trotskyism. That is: we stand in solidarity with the Iranian people in their struggle against the oppressive rule of the ayatollahs, and at the same time we oppose attempts to instrumentalize this struggle by American and Israeli attempts to subjugate Iran.
Varoufakis’ position may seem correct from the point of view of a left-wing set of demands and beliefs about what politics should look like. But this is only true in theory, that is, in a parallel world where such demands seem to describe something, when in fact they simply miss the real conditions of the ongoing struggle. Varoufakis and his ilk would still like to be able to choose, together with more or less imaginary “Iranians,” a flag that suits them, completely disregarding the fact that it has long since been chosen for them.
In this way, the Western left—or at least a large part of it—chooses righteousness over clarity, which, despite its best intentions, makes its choices easy prey for the imperialist machine. Why can’t we simply reject the long-standing policy of economic sanctions and attempts by the US to overthrow the government in a country that poses no threat to it? Why do we always have to assure everyone that “we do not support the ayatollahs”? Who set this threshold of credibility? Who subjects us to this moral blackmail so effectively that, while fighting American imperialism, we must constantly condemn the enemies of humanity designated by its war machine? The answer is clear: these conditions were created by imperialism itself, so trying to save one’s reputation in its eyes is not a critical gesture. And the fact that its performance is only possible in an imaginary world, where there is still some eternal debate about the future of Iran (although the Western oligarchy decided it long ago), only proves the helplessness of “righteous” views in the face of a predetermined political simulation.
Varoufakis’ position is also symptomatic in that it simultaneously connects and separates the same things within the same move. It is worth asking: what is the connection between “the Iranians’ struggle against the regime” and “imperialism’s exploitation of this struggle”? These two phenomena somehow coexist, since we have to use the “neither, nor” formula in relation to them – we do not support the regime, we do not support the Empire fighting it. At the same time, however, in this vision there is no demonstrable interconnection between these two events, as if there were two different worlds: in one, the struggle of the people against the regime, in the other, the struggle of the Empire against the regime. A simple conclusion suggests itself: the regime is the main problem here. As soon as this troublesome intermediary in the global struggle of the oppressed people against the embodiment of Western domination disappears, we will have the opportunity to prove the righteousness of our cause once and for all. Until then, however, we will repeat the Empire’s gesture of delegitimizing the “regime.”
The only problem is that in this situation, the regime is the bearer of reality, and like any real power, it has the advantage over an imaginary revolution in that it is real. And so far, it stands in the way of the Empire’s complete subjugation of Iran.
Meanwhile, the Western left prefers its fantasies to real political power, because the latter too violently destroys its ideal. That is why it is not interested in drawing conclusions from the material consequences of its previous escapes into a parallel world, when it turned out to be an involuntary assistant in regime changes in Libya and Syria, for example.
It is interesting that in the case of Afghanistan and Iraq, the same mechanism of psychological pressure did not work as perfectly as it does today. But the effects of the Empire’s concern for the people oppressed by authoritarianism in all these countries are identical.
***
Secondly, changing the Iranian flag on Twitter symbolizes that participation in such a defined media space is inevitably participation in a coup d’état. Even if you write that you support Iran, you will mark it with a monarchist flag. In other words, you will join the wave of delegitimization of the authorities in that country organized by American and Israeli intelligence.
It is not, as Varoufakis seems to believe (taken here as an example of a broader trend), that although there is “somewhere out there” “some kind of” operation by foreign services against Iran, this does not change the fact that a brutal, undemocratic regime that lacks the support of the local population is in power there. Twitter’s decision perfectly proves the opposite, namely that the regime change operation not only goes beyond a few Mossad agents in the field, but also encompasses the entire communication space of the most important platforms managed by the American oligarchy. And it determines access to the basic symbols of each of its participants.
There is therefore no doubt that defining the riots at the beginning of the year as a confrontation between the People and the Regime can also be part of it. The people of the official enemy of the American oligarchy are always a unified abstraction, who always want the very goods that the Empire exports to the whole world in the form of equally abstract “democracy,” “rules,” “freedom,” etc. In Iran, too, there are no classes, strata, families, clans, ethnic or religious minorities, or regional communities. There are no political views other than the generalities of the “activists” on duty, who in the Western media will mainly represent Western NGOs fighting against Iranian tyranny.
American imperialism would not be itself if it did not master the management of collective attention loops to near perfection, i.e., if it did not control the rhythms of collective emotional excitement and predetermine the intellectual consensus of the public opinion spheres subject to it. We have long known that the Western media are mainly concerned with, as Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman wrote, “manufacturing consent,” that is, perpetuating the ideas and beliefs of a given society that are compatible with the goals of the ruling financial and political elite. Today, this is simply happening on a much larger scale.
What does this loop look like in relation to Iran? In the case of the events at the beginning of the year, there is no element, even the most authentic one, that has not been processed in order to familiarize the global audience with the plans to attack Iran and change its political system. The protests began with a currency crisis, and the sudden decline in its value was attributed to misguided decisions by the authorities in Tehran. Meanwhile, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent himself, on at least two occasions (in Davos and in the Senate), not so much admitted as boasted that the weakening of the rial was due to deliberate economic pressure from the United States.
Of course, there may be many reasons for protesting, and they need not be limited to the position of the Iranian currency, but this does not justify ignoring the economic siege of Iran by external countries. Especially since it has been going on for a long time and is having real social consequences.
In his New Year’s greetings on Twitter, former CIA director Mike Pompeo greeted Mossad agents among the protesting Iranians. Statements by politicians in Israel are similar in tone. On the same day, Donald Trump warned that “if Iran shoots and brutally kills peaceful protesters, as is its custom, the United States will come to their aid.” So, from the outset, the Empire has set the stage for a clash between the People and the Authorities, while at the same time admitting that the people are, at least in part, organized agents of foreign intelligence, and that the negative effects of the authorities’ actions are partly the fault of the Empire itself.
And then something completely unprecedented happens. Something that is virtually impossible to predict. The reality, at least as presented by the Western media, fits perfectly into the scenario outlined above. First, mass protests intensify on January 8 and 9, resulting in widespread violence. Here, the versions of events diverge sharply. The West maintains that the demonstrations were entirely peaceful, while the Iranian government argues that they were in fact violent attacks on public officials and random citizens, intended as a coordinated attempt to destabilize the country. It shows surveillance camera footage that actually depicts groups of people, armed with firearms, destroying buildings, burning ambulances, banks, mosques, government offices, etc. However, since all this information reaches Western audiences in a context where the Iranian authorities have already been delegitimized, it is easy to dismiss these reports entirely. And those who would believe them or at least analyze them seriously can be accused of supporting murderers. Meanwhile, the European Union, which for more than two years has stood idly by and watched (at best) the genocide in Gaza, and has just accepted the creator of Al-Qaeda in Syria as its legitimate president, officially recognizes the IRGC as a terrorist organization.
Viral videos and photos appear on social media showing Iranian women burning images of Khamenei, and hashtags calling for solidarity with the oppressed people of the country multiply. The US government openly accuses the Iranian government of mass crimes against civilians. A machine of atrocity propaganda is set in motion, inflating the number of victims of the massacre day by day. After a week, most of the Western public is already living in a world where the ayatollahs could have murdered as many as 30-40,000 defenseless protesters in two days. On Twitter, when you type the word “Iran” into the search engine, the first hashtag that appears is “#iranmassacre.” No one wonders whether the Iranian government really has a reason to murder people at a rate equal to the Babi Yar massacre of 1941. No one wonders where these numbers actually come from and whether they can be verified in any way. Because the government in Tehran shut down the internet in the country (in an attempt to cut off communication with the attackers, according to its own opinion), all sorts of things could be projected into this isolated space, creating a flood of misinformation and fake news.
At a time of intense media factoid generation, no one sees how the attention and information loop works. How is it that the events on the ground correspond so perfectly to the scenario foretold by the Empire? How is it possible that all humanitarian organizations, which are the source of reports about innocent victims and the scale of the crimes for the Western media, are sponsored by the National Endowment for Democracy, a cutout of the CIA? In fact, the director of the NED has admitted outright that destabilizing Iran is a priority for his organization. Why has Amir Parasta, a close friend of Reza Pahlavi, become the main media authority on the massacre, and why has the media appointed fashion blogger Deepa Parent as another expert on these events? The Washington Post has published an article entitled “Breaking up Iran isn’t such a bad idea…” as if nothing had happened. Is it really so difficult to remember that not long ago, the same publications engaged in obscene manipulation regarding the genocide in Gaza?
This loop is about two things at once: creating collective consent for a coup in Iran and concealing the fact that the media storm surrounding the protests is part of that coup. In this context, the moderate voices of right-minded leftists are just one way of building this consent and concealing the fact that the political context of these events is primarily imperialist pressure from the US and the hegemon’s unwillingness to accept the existence of any authority in Iran that is not subordinate to its policy. Those who remind us of this will most often repeat the version of events prepared by this hegemon.
In the literature on violent coups and wars, the term “false flag operation” often appears, referring to a situation in which an enemy is accused of committing a crime that one has oneself instigated. The aim is to provoke outrage among the ranks of one’s own army, to provide a pretext for military action or political repression, etc. However, the case of the Iranian flag on Twitter is indicative of a similar, but not identical, type of action, which should be called a “fake flag operation.” The monarchist flag, by which Twitter marks Iran in its algorithm, pretends not to be a monarchist flag in order to function as a representation of abstract “Iranians” opposed to the regime. In this way, the flag of Iran becomes not a symbolic designation of the state, but a cover for it, obscured by a fabricated and entirely instrumentalized figure, which in addition obscures what it actually is. The flag of the state becomes a symbolic expression of an operation against that state.
***
Thirdly, the replacement of the flag on Twitter is part of a broader – in terms of time and space – operation of hacking collective outrage by the Empire. It is worth noting that today, the most loyal praetorians of the American oligarchy, the most persistent defenders of US global hegemony, often speak to us in the language of feigned revolutionaries. They speak out against corrupt governments (as if they themselves did not represent a system of legalized corruption), defend innocent victims of repression (as if they themselves did not sow destruction wherever they appeared), call for a community of resistance and radical change (as if their job were not to trample even the slightest signs of an alternative order into the ground). However, many people fall for these rhetorical tricks, mainly because it is thanks to the actions of the Empire that we live in a political desert today. Here, every voice of dissent echoes widely, even if it actually reaches us through a police megaphone.
Social media is an excellent tool for amplifying and capturing these emotions of rebellion. Especially if they can be redirected in advance to a target convenient for the oligarchy that rules us. There will be no viral hashtags such as “#stopsanctionsoniran” or “#getoutfrompalestine.” This type of expression will immediately be censored by algorithms or organized smear campaigns carried out by bot farms, Wikipedia editors, and the most important mainstream media outlets. The point is to sort the wheat from the chaff, i.e., rebellion that threatens the status quo from rebellion that is convenient for it, and then present the latter as the former.
Power in contemporary capitalism is not solely concerned with manufacturing consent in order to use it to continue imperialist wars, starve disobedient countries with sanctions, and destroy inconvenient politicians or activists. At the same time, the gears of this machine are working to manufacture dissent, i.e., which organizations, figures, and discourses will be approved and publicized as voices of opposition, criticism, or alternatives. Today, the Western left is mostly an ornament of imperialism, because, having previously lost its identity and influence, it is forced to legitimize its existence by agreeing to a common moral minimum with imperialism. The only problem is that the Empire has no morality, even if it manages its appearances perfectly.
It is interesting, though, that the Western left does not feel a similar, even minimal, sense of shared fate with its victims. That is, it does feel it, but only if they are presented in a form to which imperialist atrocity propaganda has accustomed it. Only defenseless victims and peaceful protesters count, without political views, without a vision of social order, without the tools to actually implement any of their demands. When this happens, they become the target of a massive attack for everything that the United States gets away with at the same time.
Until this hierarchy of resistance changes, any left wing that is constantly “showing solidarity” will never become a serious enemy of the system. You cannot fight imperialism by sharing its values. Nor can you fight it by denying the right to defend themselves to those who confront it.
It is fascinating to see how this desert of reality is produced, in which the act of “solidarity with…” is then carried out in a complete political and informational vacuum. Who is actually a target of this “solidarity with the Iranians”? Are those who took to the streets in defense of the regime also included? Do these massive demonstrations, which in the West are of course treated as staged or coerced, fit into the scenario of solidarity from a distance, or do they complicate the picture too much? Iranians have the right to decide for themselves. And that means that they must first and foremost be free from external interference by parties taken over, controlled, and financed by the US and Israel. Under which flag do they have a chance to guarantee themselves this fundamental right?
***
Fourthly, Twitter’s gesture also has philosophical significance. It concerns a transformation taking place not so much in the space of political debate or representation, but in the symbolic order (to use Jacques Lacan’s term) as such. The change of flags is a symptom of how the status of our signs in general is changing.
It is reminiscent of Donald Trump’s earlier decree to rename the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America. In both cases, the aim is to create an alternative version of the world to the legal order and the reality shared by the majority. Another example of building this parallel reality is the Peace Council, created completely arbitrarily without any UN mandate and, of course, having nothing to do with peace. This kind of alternative legitimacy is a clear sign of what the Empire has been doing for a long time, bending all universal rules and laws to its own needs and interests. Today, we are approaching a world of discretionary, relative, and temporary rules that resemble subscription models in internet applications more than anything related to the legal order.
However, the same transformation is also taking place on a more intimate level and regulates the individual’s relationship to the symbolic order. For years, there has been a growing tendency for symbols to express our deepest beliefs, emotions, and attitudes more and more accurately and directly. It is as if the objectivity and conventionality of signs were a threat to us or a kind of permanent oppression. I recently read a French book in which the rhetorics of pronouns was applied to Nazis, in an attempt to follow the new formula of the inclusive symbolic order. Here again, the moral requirement seems to reflect the latest techniques of commercial persuasion, in which the personalization of services, a level once called “dividuation” by Gilles Deleuze, is the order of the day.
One could therefore say that today the symbolic order is permanently mixed with the imaginary, and even that this mixing is increasingly recognized as a moral act. In this way, morality itself ceases to refer to universality, but becomes an extension of identity divisions or individual beliefs. What we lose in this way is the distance between subjectivity and its embedding in the symbolic order. We think we are personalizing the general, but in fact we are renouncing individuality in favor of symbolic generalization. You cannot have one without the other.
What is more, it is precisely at this point, where individual subjectivity seems to be intimately connected with symbolic representation, that the mechanisms of contemporary power intervene. Today, propaganda does not appeal to the sphere of reaction or reflection. It does not persuade us to ideological arguments. Today’s disinformation operations interfere with the very availability of signs, striving for a material monopoly in the symbolic order. In this way, this order becomes increasingly phantasmatic, filled with content designed as part of psychological operations and perception management. Twitter’s replacement of Iran’s flags illustrates this with a political sign. You cannot talk about Iran at all without saying what the Empire wants you to say. There is simply no other set of signs at your disposal. And if you want to say otherwise, you have to risk standing out from the crowd, exposing yourself to public view as a renegade. You become a public enemy of the new normal simply because you do not accept the arbitrary modification of the signs made available to you.
Today’s propaganda is primarily about monopolizing access, not hegemony in the sphere of communication. The techno-feudalism described by Varoufakis has its offshoot in the form of info-feudalism. When we speak, our words appear in a space that has already been colonized by the current needs of power. That is, a space in which legitimacy is the result of arbitrary decisions by those in power, which cannot be renegotiated. This is ultimately the old principle of capitalism, which began with the gesture of enclosure. Today, this is happening in other areas, and the system, which in the meantime has already devoured the whole world, now encloses our language, emotions, and fantasies. In order to have any other political future beyond the universal prison emerging from these efforts, it is not enough to fantasize about revolt. We need the tools to divide the world anew, on different terms. And then to reunite it again, without the participation of the Empire.
Be the first to comment