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 citizens.

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. 2)

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 to Sweden.

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 background.

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 of "racism".

Swedes are 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 a "multicultural 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 struggle.

Two things, though, soon was evident:

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 to the Project.

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 the reason.

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" 10) - 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 power.

1) 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.

2) 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.

3) The picture is complicated by the intense and protracted mediacampaign. This indoctrination may have had some effect.

4) 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).

5) Does this sound too fantastic? We can easily come up with a lot of examples!

6) MSG - "Medborgerliga Studiegrupper" - is linked to Blågula Frågor.

7) "Ny demokrati" means "New democracy".

8) This was related to the more pronounced criticism of the mass immigration from Ny demokrati.

9) "Det nya partiet" means "The new party".

10) The letters in "AFA" stand for "Anti-Fascist Action". Judging by their own deeds, the AFA-hooligans are the ones both thinking and acting like fascists.