This is digressing from the thread topic, but there's a different, more plausible explanation for the rise of far-right populists in several Western countries. After all, this is not a phenomenon that's limited to Sweden.
If you look back at the last few decades, there's a pattern in Western politics: countries have tended to elect either centre-right or centre-left governments, which have taken more-or-less the same liberal approach to governing. Where possible, they have privatised services or cut spending on services and projects, while simultaneously reducing their tax revenues. Some countries have also weakened industrial relations (labour) laws. Governments have also been extremely lax about dealing with housing affordability and a lack of employment opportunities. The middle class is shrinking instead of growing.
When you put these things together, they represent a broken promise. Governments have failed to govern for the sake of their people; instead they've governed for the benefit of corporate donors. They've deliberately avoided full employment, deliberately starved the systems that make people's lives easier, and failed to change the way markets operate when those markets no longer deliver value to people. Modern laissez-faire governance is a bad deal for the average worker.
Far right parties have been able to capitalise on the disillusionment of voters by presenting an alternative narrative: life is getting harder because immigrants are taking all of the jobs and burdening the government's welfare system; life is getting harder because the government is preoccupied with identity politics, and they don't care about the problems of straight white men who were born in this country. The rise of anti-intellectualism among populist politicians is calculated to strike a contrast between them and the out-of-touch establishment, whether that be the politicians who govern for the rich or pundits who propose radical legal changes for the benefits of minorities or the environment.
My main problem with your theory is the idea that the far right's surge is caused by woke intolerance and the death of debate. The intolerance you describe is caused by some of the same things that have stimulated right wing populism. That is, a lack of social progress. Jobs and houses are harder to get, and on top of that, racial and gender disadvantage persists. It's understandable that people might choose to take the gloves off in other for fight for their interests and express their discontent, whether that means harassment, boycotts or riots.
Besides, I think the importance of debate is overstated. Before social media, people didn't debate; they were largely passive consumers of mass media. Debate was largely limited to mainstream politicians on TV, or intellectual writing an intellectual audience. Social media has failed to deliver a forum for civilised debate among laypeople, which is a pity, but it's not necessarily a sign of decline. It has, however, produced a new medium on which people can feel victimised because of their expressed views.
