we started in the mid 1990's our material
on the web has grown substantially. At the same time the number of
visits to it has grown. Recently one of the ministers in the Swedish
Sahlin, professed to be one of our regular visitors.
We believe Blågula
Frågor now plays a role as an important factor among
Swedes, interested in the immigration policy of our country.
Therefore, to anyone abroad who takes an interest in Sweden and
in this subject, our web-site might be of interest.
But the Swedish language is not widely
used. Though our material is easily accessible on the Internet,
few outside Sweden can understand what we write.
This is the background for a new initiative.
We will translate vital documents on our site into English. For
a start we present this article, "Sweden - the extreme
way", written in English from the outset.
During the second half of the
20th century Sweden used to be called "the middle way".
This meant something between capitalism and communism, a controlled
market economy, a welfare state with social security for all its
It also stood for certain values,
like democracy, peace and solidarity. The notion "middle
way" included a dialogue between representatives of different
interests and different opinions, a readiness to listen to one
another, a search for compromise and reasonable solutions.
Now there is no more of that.
All of our neighbours are in
a better position than Sweden. They have stronger economies, a
higher standard of living, better social security and less crime.
This includes Finland, a country that was devastated by war.
Sweden today is still remarkable
- though in quite a different way. Today Sweden might rather be
called "the extreme way".
In both our Scandinavian
neighbouring countries there are big opposition parties, but none
in Sweden. How come?
Norway has Fremskrittspartiet,
headed by Carl I Hagen. Denmark has Dansk Folkeparti, headed by
Pia Kjersgaard. Both have quite a few seats in their respective
Parliament. In the Swedish Parliament there is no such party. 1)
Still Sweden has had, all through
the 90's, roughly twice
as much immigration - even per capita - as Norway or Denmark.
Consequently problems connected with this immigration have shown
up in Sweden to no less an extent than in Denmark and Norway.
Does this mean that public opinion
in Sweden is of a different kind than in other countries? Do Swedes
in general favour this kind of immigration policy? No!
In 1988 there was a referendum
in the southern community of Sjöbo about a number of refugees.
The result was a clear "no!", with a majority of 67%.
A referendum about immigration
on a national level in Sweden would probably 3)
produce a similar result.
According to several opinion polls during the 90's a majority
of Swedes favours a more restrictive approach.
One may also say that there
is a "permanent referendum" taking place. It takes the
form of Swedes moving out of areas where many immigrants live,
and of parents avoiding schools with a high density of immigrants.
In this kind of referendum those in favour of a generous line
towards immigration also participate and they vote - by their
feet - "no!", in a landslide manner. Rarely do they
themselves live in areas where many immigrants live...
Compared to the early 1980's
immigrants seeking asylum rose dramatically in 1989 and has since
stayed on a high level, peaking in 1993/94. This immigration has
been followed by an influx of relatives on a massive scale. This
kind of immigration now constitutes about 55% of the total immigration
Today, out of a population of
9 million people, about 1 million are born outside Sweden. This
constitutes 11% of the population. If we also include their children
born in Sweden, the figure rises to nearly 20%.
This goes for the country as
a whole. As the immigrants tend to concentrate in some areas,
like Stockholm and Malmö, the percentage in those areas is
considerably higher. Added to this is the fact that fertility
is high among new immigrants.
The effect of all this is that
in some schools and in many classes native Swedes are in a minority.
There are even cases where almost all the children have foreign
As a consequence, they do not
acquire sufficient knowledge of the Swedish language. This causes
difficulties in the learning of other subjects and to move up
to a higher educational level.
Many young people with immigration
background now feel excluded from, and have little or no loyalty
to, Swedish society. A result of this is an extensive distribution
of drugs, vandalism, violence, robberies and other crimes.
Another effect of this sudden
mass immigration is that only a fraction of the migrants have
found an employment enabling them to support themselves 4)
So an alarmingly big
portion of the newly arrived immigrants is dependent on welfare
and this causes a considerable burden for the tax-payers.
The conclusion of this is
that Sweden´s immigration has been too big,
i.e. it has exceeded the possibilities of integration or assimilation.
With a more considered policy
of integration/assimilation from those in power, stating that
rights are tied to demands, the immigration could have been less
of a disaster. For instance, if new arrivals were told to live
outside of the regions already crammed with immigrants, if a condition
for welfare were to study hard and learn Swedish, if parents were
told to take responsibility for their childrens progress at school,
we might have a different outcome.
But together with the economic/social
generosity has gone an attitude of "goodness", meaning
rolling out a red carpet. Under banners like "Everybody
has equal value" and "Integration" the
Swedes were expected to meet the new immigrants with servitude.
Anything but silence and servicemindedness could render accusations
now in many ways treated as second-class citizens in their own
country. 5) The very word "Swede" has been given
a negative connotation. Can anything more clearly show the extremity
of the situation?
Many everyday people with common
sense and in touch with reality noticed the problems, but had
little say. The orders come from above.
From the start of Blågula
Frågor we tried to dig up facts about the situation and
we sought an open debate, where arguments could meet arguments.
It became apparent however,
that no such debate was desired by those in power. They had a project, which was to transform Sweden into
society". To implement
that project they were ready to use any means necessary.
This included labelling opponents
- portrayed as being afraid of foreigners, hostile to immigrants,
narrow-minded, ethnocentric, right-wing extremist, racist, fascist
and worse. Talking to these opponents would mean to "legitimize" them - there were to be no debate!
Consequently all the parties,
as well as editors in media, have declined invitations from Blågula
Frågor to debate immigration or an invitation from MSG 6)
to debate democracy
and freedom of speech.
An important part in this context
is played by a fairly small magazine called "Expo".
When Expo started in 1995 it
was inspired by the British "Searchlight". The idea
was - according to official declarations from the editor - to
expose nazis and fascists, enemies to democracy, people who were
prepared to use threats, intimidation and violence in their political
Two things, though, soon
1. The target for Expo was not only these groups.
The target included Blågula Frågor and everyone critical
to the mass immigration and the multiculturalism project.
2. Expo itself had close ties to groups, ready to
use threats and violence. One of their own editors, Tobias Hübinette,
had been sentenced on those kinds of charges.
So the real aim of Expo was
something else than the proclaimed one. It was to combat any opposition
Why mention this small magazine?
This is not just any kind of
magazine! It has been given a key position. When the mass media
- television, radio, nation-wide daily papers - write about these
matters, they quote Expo for the "truth". So whatever
Expo writes may be given a wide publicity.
Expo works not only through
its articles but also by sending letters and acting behind the
scenes. For example, it was a letter from Expo that recently stopped
the organisation MSG 6) from acquiring membership in "Open Channel"
(a public access channel) in Stockholm, for local TV-broadcasting.
The recently elected board of
directors at Expo includes people high up in the administration
and with access to police files.
Why this project of a multicultural
society? What is wrong with a homogenous native society? For what
reason should we abandon a working concept?
We in Blågula Frågor
have thought a lot about this, but we still cannot understand
Who can have anything to gain from a situation
where an ethnic dimension is added to other kinds of divisions
What is the point of a society with less social
cohesion, less solidarity and less loyalty to a common cause?
What can be good about a society where people
feel afraid of going outside at night, and there are high costs
for upholding law and order?
This kind of project has
now been introduced all over Western Europe. Sweden is still a
special case. In no other country has it gone that far.
This is especially remarkable,
if we make these comparisons:
The United States has had its
history of importing African slaves on a massive scale, with ensuing
problems - Sweden has had none of that.
Britain and France had its colonies,
with ensuing special ties - Sweden did not have that.
Germany had its naziwar, with
ensuing guilt complex - Sweden was neutral during that war.
So: why Sweden?
One factor may be Swedish mentality,
connected with a long period of peace and welfare. This has bred
an urge to be good and at the same time a notion of being able
to achieve anything. We have been used to see our country as a
kind of moral superpower, with a duty to take responsibility for
the whole world.
Part of the Swedish mentality
is also an unwillingness for conflicts, we rather step aside.
The long period of security and prosperity has made many Swedes
accustomed to be taken care of, and to trust the people in power.
An important part of the explanation
is the role of mass media in Sweden. Not a single TV-program,
radio program or big newspaper would give space to critics of
the multicultural project. The coordination and discipline, when
it comes to this issue, is total.
The picture of our immigration,
as presented by media, has been consistently false. Readers and
listeners are given the notion that:
Immigration is far smaller than it is.
Most immigrants are refugees.
The costs of immigration is negligible.
Mass media are now in such
a powerful position that they can decide which parties are to
be represented in the Swedish Parliament.
This has been proven by the
case of "Ny Demokrati" 7), headed by Ian Wachtmeister. At first the media
brought it to attention from nowhere and gave it a boost, so it
succeeded in the elections. After that media turned around 8) and started to denounce the party,
and in the ensuing election it was ousted from Parliament.
In the last Swedish parliamentary
elections - in 1998 - Ian Wachtmeister had started another party,
"Det nya partiet"
9). He began to campaign, by travelling
around the country holding public meetings in many cities. This
was almost totally ignored by the media. This new party - critical
to the immigration policy - got very little publicity.
The experience of "Det
nya partiet" during the last election campaign, as well
as by "Sverigedemokraterna" - another party outside
the Parliament - also was that they could seldom hold meetings
without being hassled by political hooligans, who made noise,
destroyed equipment or even resorted to violence.
There were no reactions to this
in mass media, nor from the police.
The above-mentioned hooliganism
has the same function as the warveteranactivity in Mugabe´s
Zimbabwe. No opposition is to be permitted.
These hooligans - "AFA"
- have been named heroes in the media and it is obvious that they
have official support. A sign of this is the fact that the Swedish
Parliament has not posed a ban on wearing ski masks during demonstrations.
This reflects a new conception
from the advocates of the multiculturalism project. They still
confess to democracy, formally. But they claim that for certain
kinds of abominable opinions, democratic principles - like freedom
of speech and the right to hold gatherings - do not apply.
The decision of which opinions
are to be considered abominable then rests with the people in
The neighbour at our
eastern border, Finland, neither has any party in Parliament opposing
the country's immigration policy. This, though, is no surprise.
In Finland there is nothing in that policy to oppose, for those
who advocate a restrictive line.
Drugs, violence and
other crimes as well as language - and school problems. The rate,
for instance, of violent assaults and of robberies and muggings have increased at an alarming rate in Sweden
since the 1950´s - not only due to immigration.
The picture is complicated
by the intense and protracted mediacampaign. This indoctrination
may have had some effect.
In 1997, if we look
at the group born outside of the nordic countries and with foreign
citizenship, only a little more than 1/3 had
a job - the rest either were openly unemployed or did not even
seek a job (although aged 16-64).
Does this sound too
fantastic? We can easily come up with a lot of examples!
MSG - "Medborgerliga
- is linked to Blågula Frågor.
means "New democracy".
This was related to
the more pronounced criticism of the mass immigration from Ny
9) "Det nya partiet" means
"The new party".
The letters in "AFA"
stand for "Anti-Fascist Action". Judging by their own
deeds, the AFA-hooligans are the ones both thinking and acting