The Fate Awaiting Our Children

As our children become minorities in their own generation, any of them could share the same fate as Henry Nowak.

A blessing and curse of video streaming is that we see every atrocity perpetrated against our people. The shooting of Charlie Kirk. The stabbing of Iryna Zarutska. Now, the body cam footage of Henry Nowak. The eighteen-year-old student, beloved brother and son, drowned in his own blood because his murderer, Vickrum Digwa, told attending officers that Henry had been racist.

The world has seen the pallor of Henry’s lifeless hands, forced into handcuffs. Heard the police dismiss his laboured breaths and pleas for an ambulance with “I don’t think you have [been stabbed] mate.” Watched him read his hypothetical rights as his life ebbed away, because his killer’s family recited the magic words. The conclusion most will draw is that the British state will be indifferent to your suffering if you are white, and prioritise the face-saving indignation of violent tribal minorities. That their son or daughter could be the next Henry Nowak or Iryna Zarutska.

With visual media, the superficial characteristics of the victim and perpetrator become obvious. The internet is a pattern-recognition amplification tool — which is why it has been so heavily censored, and why a brief lifting of that yoke of censorship by Musk’s purchase of X has prompted apoplectic rage among the international bureaucratic class. Nothing breaks the illusion of the blank slate, the dream that all peoples can peacefully coexist, like a constant supply of footage of atrocities committed by the regime’s victim class against their scapegoats. The victim is one of ours; the perpetrator, one of theirs; the agents of the state side with them against us. The gap between their propaganda and the reality ready-to-hand to refute it grows with each new horror.

This pattern makes the state siding with the perpetrator communities all the more unjust. We begin to feel that we have been targeted for eradication for reasons unrelated to our actions. Whether that is the intent of the officers in Nowak’s case, they are the appendages of a system, and the purpose of a system is what it does.

We cannot rely on the services we pay for to keep us safe. The National Police Chief’s Council’s Police Anti-Racism Commitment promises to produce

equality of policing outcomes for people from different ethnic groups by responding to individuals and communities according to their specific needs, circumstances and experiences, with understanding that these will be racialised and with the aim of reducing harm.

It does not mean treating everyone ‘the same’ or being ‘colour blind’ (racial equality).

Police officers quoted by the BBC say, “We’ve had several reports about how racist we are in the last few years when it comes to black people and Asian people, and so we’re very cautious when handling cases involving different races - and so what happened in Southampton is easy to see why. Maybe we’re too cautious now.” They know the danger their antiracist ideology is putting us in. We have surrendered our capacity for violence, and now it is being wielded against us to inflict an ideology on us which considers us to be rightful subordinates beneath our imported replacements.

We get the sense that we are on our own — that, as Ernest Gellner wrote of those redistricting Eastern Europe, the state has decided that “a great deal of very forceful cultural engineering… population exchanges or expulsions, more or less forcible assimilation, and sometimes liquidation” is the price they are willing to have us pay to make a multi-ethnic society work.

Consider the attending officers at the scene of Henry Nowak’s murder a morality police for antiracism as a religion. Integration is salvation for the antiracist state; with that paradisal vision in mind, any action which advances equality is permitted. Non-whites like George Floyd are its martyrs, no matter how delinquent their behaviour. Casualties of diversity like Henry Nowak can say the same words, and die in worse circumstances, but are tolerated as the consequences of a fallen world, living under the delusion of division, rather than canonised. Any recognition of difference is blasphemy, any resistance to the brutalities committed in the process of integration is an unforgivable sin. They require denunciation and the reciting of the creed that “Diversity is our strength” to keep the faith.

To us unbelievers, the speeches crafted by the state, delivered by politicians and grieving family members, which sustain this belief system, are insensitive and obscene. What we interpret as insufficient anger and solidarity is often an evangelisation effort on behalf of a religion in crisis. Bodies like the Home Office’s RICU division, the internationally franchised nudge unit (the Behavioural Insights Team), and the US Department of Justice’s Community Relations Service, coach public officials and victims’ families to tailor their statements to preserve “community cohesion,” and to avoid inflaming racial tensions. We see the fingerprints of the state all over these statements — gloved though they are, like those of Henry’s captors.

The father of eleven-year-old Aiden Clark, who was killed when Hemanio Joseph, a Haitian immigrant on temporary protected status, crashed into a school bus in Ohio, told a Springfield City Commission meeting that then-candidate Trump and Republican politicians were “morally bankrupt” for using Aiden’s death to “vomit all the hate they want about illegal immigrants, the border crisis, and even untrue claims about fluffy pets being ravaged and eaten by community members.” Jeff Metcalf, father of Austin Metcalf, who was stabbed to death by Karmelo Anthony in April 2025, discouraged people from racialising his son’s killing, even as a GiveSendGo page raised hundreds of thousands for Anthony’s bail and legal fees from donors celebrating the killing online.

The most egregious example was the 2017 Manchester Arena bombing: when a Libyan Jihadist, whom a security guard suspected but didn’t search for fear of being called racist, detonated a suicide nail bomb at an Ariana Grande concert and killed twenty-two people, including ten children. The state responded with a “controlled spontaneity” exercise at a vigil three days later, with crowds singing a rendition of Oasis’ “Don’t Look Back In Anger”. (Liam Gallagher says the song “got hijacked” by the state after the bombing.)

The mother of Barnaby Webber — stabbed to death alongside Grace O’Malley-Kumar and Ian Coates in Nottingham by deranged Guinean Valdo Calocane — said onstage at a state-organised vigil, flanked by “faith leaders” and in front of banners reading “One City #Nottingham Together”, to “Please hold no hate that relates to any colour, sex or religion.” Since the trial and inquiry, which found mental health workers released Calocane from hospital based on racial bias training, Emma Webber has been more candid: blaming Calocane’s family for immigrating to Britain and raising a killer, and the state for trying to silence the victims’ families.

“The Calocane family are clearly aware and we were aware for many, many years how sick and troubled their son and brother was,” she says. His brother took phone calls from him the day before, the morning of and in between the murders. What did he actually do?

“We’ve had a letter from the family, written I believe on behalf of the parents and the brother. Dave and I are the only ones that haven’t read it. We can’t face it. But it’s there in the inbox.

“I know the contents of it, an overview, because James Coates and Sanjoy and Sinead have told me. From what I understand they don’t take any responsibility. They blame the authorities and the agency failings.

“I was thinking I will probably read it after the anniversary has passed. What I don’t want to do is inflict more anger upon myself. I have no compassion for the Calocane family. His mother hasn’t lost her son. He is still living and breathing. He is still there.

“I can’t think too much about them. It’s because of the Calocane family coming to the UK when he was 16 that my son is no longer alive.

“I wouldn’t trust myself to be near them at the moment. I don’t want to look into the faces of the people that brought this monster into the world. That sounds awful but it’s what I think.” ...

… Webber said she could not name a single institution, apart from the CQC, that had “acted with integrity, transparency and candour” since the attacks. “I would say, without exception, we’ve had evasive, defensive approaches from all of them,” she said. “Marking their own homework and closing of ranks to try to keep us quiet.”

In a joint statement, the families of Webber, O’Malley-Kumar and Coates said they had been met with “failure and silence” for too long and the inquiry “is about holding those who neglected their jobs to account”.

Since Nowak’s murder, Emma Webber has asked why Barnaby’s murder was not treated as racist, despite the obvious disparity between Calocane and his victims.

“What we do need to do is be brave and have those really difficult discussions in this country,” she continues. [Calocane] was a black man who killed three white people and tried to kill another three white people, and that was never part of the conversation. If it had been the other way round, it would have been.”

As Siobhan Whyte, mother of Rhiannon Skye Whyte — who was stabbed to death 23 times with a screwdriver by Sudanese illegal migrant Deng Chol Majek in 2024 — explained, the state instructed her family to stay silent, advising it could jeopardise court proceedings. Once Majek was sentenced, Siobhan said “Starmer has blood on his hands”, and demanded the government stop and reverse illegal migration to keep women safe. Starmer decided to ignore her family’s request.

The contours of this agenda appeared again in the statement delivered by Henry’s father outside the courtroom: that Henry “was one of the most inclusive individuals you would ever meet”; that seeking justice “doesn’t mean kneejerk reactions, this doesn’t mean going to extremes...”; that “This is not a case about Sikhism. This is not a case about racism…” That this appalling crime was purely a problem with knives, rather than the groups wielding them, and the cultures which do not consider your son’s life to be worth the same as theirs. This provides a convenient human shield to politicians who want to acquit the state and its imported client groups of any wrongdoing here, by citing the family’s words as why it would be disrespectful for you to probe the issue and draw inconvenient conclusions.

They decry “division,” as if there were some original position where we are united with migrant communities imported against our wishes, who kill our children, conspire to cover it up, and cry “racism” to claim special privileges from the state to evade consequences. The message remains, as Rotherham MP Denis MacShane said of his reluctance to prevent the town’s rape gangs, to look the other way and not “rock the multicultural community boat”. Never name the problem. That would be intolerable. Only seek to contain public outrage about the problem — otherwise, the state might be blamed for causing it.

The lesson from Henry Nowak’s murder is that the state will treat your children’s preventable deaths at the hands of one of their beloved minorities as an inconvenience. The state willfully bereaves parents and expects them not to complain. Your taxes will be spent on marshalling the resources of the state to persuade you to tell your countrymen to mount no resistance to your country being given away to other people’s children, as they kill yours. We are compelled to be colourblind individuals, dispassionate toward any loyalties to the extent that you should be indifferent about the loss of your own children; while these imported clans lie, cheat, steal, and kill to save face and preserve their positions of legal privilege over us in our own country.

The Digwa family epitomise this. Rather than call an ambulance for Nowak, or cooperate with the authorities, the Digwa family arrived at the scene and conspired to cover up the murder to shield Vickrum from consequences. His mother attempted to hide the murder weapon from police; his father held Nowak in place; his brother helped Vickrum concoct the lie of a racially aggravated assault, told during the 999 call to prejudice attending officers against Henry before they arrived. They didn’t know that a neighbour had also made a 999 call, reporting that Henry had been stabbed — but the police decided not to act on that. After Henry became unresponsive, the Digwa brothers were taken, without handcuffs, into police custody. In the backseat of the car, they conspired in Punjabi to ensure their statements during interrogation corresponded. During the exchange, Digwa admitted to the stabbing and didn’t mention the falsified racist rhetoric. Despite the lie, a member of his clan disrupted Digwa’s sentencing hearing, shouting “Racism!” at the judge, court, and Nowak family. They have learned that these are the magic words which allow them to escape consequences.

The same thing happened during court proceedings for the Pakistani rape gangs. Mohammed Siyab was convicted of two counts of rape, one count of sexual intercourse with a girl under 13 and one count of trafficking, and sentenced to 25 years imprisonment, with 12 months on licence, in September 2024. Siyab, who heard his sentence through an Urdu interpreter, waved to his family as he was taken out of the dock. One of his daughters shouted “I love you dad.” During a 2012 Rochdale rape gang trial, ringleader Shabir Ahmed from Oldham interrupted proceedings by tearing off his shirt, ripping out his chest hair, saying the charges were “all white lies,” and accusing the police of a conspiracy against Muslims during the trial.

“We are a civilised society. We are the supreme race, not these white bastards [Pointing to police officers in court] ... You will not get a CBE. You will not get an MBE. You will get a DM, a destroyer of Muslims. You were born one thousand years too late. You fucked my community. You destroyed my community and our children. None of us did that. White people trained those girls to be so much advanced in sex. They were coming without hesitation to Rochdale, Oldham, Bradford, Leeds and Nelson and wherever.”

He said the jury was “taking instructions” from BNP leader Nick Griffin. He pointed to prosecutor Rachel Smith and said:

“I curse you at night. I curse you and your family. You will understand (pointing at Judge Khokhar). I curse the juries. I curse the media and most of you bastards. Your family will get it. You have destroyed our community... Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Maggie Thatcher. They are all the same. They’re all on the take. They [looking at the police] are on the take. It’s true. They are all bent bastards. It has to be taken by average people like you and I. They take all the money and we take all the weight. These [pointing at the police officers] were pissed on by Theresa May. May you be more pissed on.”

Ahmed denied all charges. They always do, because admitting fault is disadvantageous in an honour-based, clannish morality. He then smiled as his verdict was read out.

Some blame Islam alone for this alien mindset. Richard Inman did, at the protest for Nowak in Southampton last Tuesday. But clannishness is not unique to Islam, with its concepts of asabiyyah and the Ummah. Izzat is an honour-based social currency, which affects your family’s social standing relative to others, impacting arranged marriages, business deals, and social debts. Dishonesty is morally permissible, even encouraged, if it preserves the Izzat of you, your family, and your ethnic group.

This explains why, even after the conviction of Digwa and his mother, Kiran Kaur, Digwa’s grandmother told the Daily Mail that “Kiran has done a good job raising those two boys and was very supportive of them… She only did what any mother would have done, which is to protect her child. And now she’s going to be punished for this.” And why have Indians online celebrated the murder of Henry Nowak, and the deaths of a family (whom they presumed were white) in Florida after a Sikh trucker performed an illegal U-turn on a highway last year?

These tribal populations are the ideal clients of the state, because although they owe loyalty to one another, they ultimately owe loyalty to the state, which brought them here, subsidises their stay, and shields them from the reputation damage incurred by their own violent behaviour. But this relationship between volatile clients and the state will only persist so long as the clients remain demographic minorities.

Consenting to wear this muzzle guarantees your children will become hated minorities among their own generation. New data from the Office for National Statistics confirms that white British births constitute just 53 percent of annual newborns. England and Wales has the lowest fertility rate (1.39) since records began in 1938, but those of immigrant diasporas — Indians by a fifth, West Africans by fifty percent, and Pakistanis by twice as much — are higher than native Brits. The percentage of live births (40.2) to parents where one or both were born outside Britain is also the highest since records began in 1969. Extrapolating from demographic trends between 2007 - 2026, my children, due in October, will be minorities among their own generation as early as 2031. That’s thirty years ahead of the date at which the national population will be a minority, in 2063.

Source: Charlie Cole, Datawrapper (May 2026).

Teaching them to be colourblind individuals will only disarm them. Their non-white peers have been taught that we are responsible for their civilisations’ failure to launch; that we perpetrated genocidal atrocities against their people; that our relative wealth is their plundered birthright. Encouraged to nurse these revenge fantasies, they will not be so generous to our children when they are the only white child in the classroom, as we were when it was the other way around. They will be targeted by their peers: a prey species, scapegoated by a state eager to self-flagellate for fabricated past sins. We are raising children in a groupish world, where their peers have whole clans to back them up, and where if they decide to form a defensive tribe, the state will side against them.

That projection is without taking into account the children accompanying the hundreds of thousands of primary visa applicants who migrate to Britain from beyond Europe every year. (627,000 in 2025.) The truth obscured by the falling net migration figure (still +171,000) is that British people are either fleeing or failing to have enough children, and being substituted by millions from the third world. Those of us who remain are increasingly at risk of being the parents coerced into reading statements ghostwritten by diversity tsars outside the trial of our children’s killer.

Let’s say our children survive the gauntlet of adolescence — our daughters manage to avoid being raped, and our sons are not slaughtered by a random foreigner who felt mildly disrespected and has no impulse control. They can look forward to being legally, culturally, and economically discriminated against — even by their ostensible advocates. If male, their female counterparts will be ideologically poisoned against forming loving relationships with them, taught to treat any demonstration of their competence as proof of patriarchal oppression.

The avenues for demonstrating that competence have been demolished. Their traditional vocations have been rendered obsolete by automation and offshored manufacturing. Cumbersome employment regulations make it fiscally infeasible for trades to take on apprentices. Their earning potential has been diluted by inflation. Their labour bargaining power has been depreciated by mass third-world migration. Twenty-seven of their counterparts from Africa, the Middle East, or the Indian Subcontinent are hired in Britain for every one young Brit, producing an eleven-year-high youth unemployment rate of 16.2 percent. Their prospect of owning a home has been indefinitely deferred to inflate asset prices and appease property developers (who happen to donate handsomely to political parties). Culture sends the message that they are burdensome, useless, and to blame for all the world’s evils.

No wonder suicide remains the leading cause of death for white men under fifty, particularly pronounced in the deprived northern towns ravaged by globalisaiton and the rape gangs. Their death or gradual disappearance will be celebrated as another step toward the amelioration of all inequalities and ethnic conflicts, even as their country becomes the same strife-ridden favela and filthy slum seen in the countries that its architects fled.

We will place an intolerable burden upon our children if we do not avert course. The obvious political response to this is to tribe up. To take our own side. The law prohibits that in ethnic terms; and even if it didn’t, the English character is so congenial and individualistic that ethnic politics is counterintuitive to most over forty. As Dave Greene recommends, the foundation of a sustainable political coalition must be securing a future for our children, and by extension our people, within our nation. This makes the importance of ancestry concrete, in that it resides within your personal relationships, rather than an abstract category which requires additional steps of justification to compel men to move in service of it.

Your family being your primary motivation creates an instant alignment criterion, estranging those interested exclusively in expedient enrichment, empowerment, or attention. The social dynamics of Westminster filter out those who are insufficiently ideologically aligned. Having a family precludes you from drinking in the same pubs, with the same people, who are both perpetually single and hooking up with one another, trading whisper campaigns to advance their careers, and smiling through stories told by people they know are complicit in ruining our country. Having standards for the company you keep, and who warrants your time and attention, precludes you from being a creature of SW1. Given that existing institutions proactively gatekeep against young talent, trying to recapture them is a fool’s errand. An insurgent movement can only be built outside the existing system, with different premises.

This is already underway, and migrating offline to formal social networks. Rosa Prince of Bloomberg laments how

The ubiquity of social media and the splintering political system have created the perfect conditions for the type of boorish, ethno-nationalist party that would once have been confined to the fringes to enter the mainstream. We’re all poorer as a result.

Paraphrasing Yeats, Prince says, “if the center cannot hold, then things will fall apart.” But social media has not invented divisions and imposed them on an otherwise cohesive society. Social media has only lifted the veil on the denied, pre-existing differences between peoples. The more interactions between peoples and cultures are cartographed on the internet, the more aware we become that the blank slate is a myth. You can only watch so many murders by migrants, see so much CCTV footage of black teens ransacking JD Sports, before admitting that we aren’t all basically the same, that group differences aren’t purely cosmetic, that inequality is a result of oppression, and concluding that we cannot coexist. And if you do not reach that conclusion, tough: the other side already has.

The centre Prince treasures has brought foreign strangers into Britain, against the expressed wishes of her people, and subjected our children to avoidable, foreseeable atrocities. It then tells us not to be angry about it, lest we inflame racial tensions. The divisions would still exist if we were unable to discuss them. I am indifferent to whether or not talking about them upsets those who would rather ignore them, at our peril.

I am willing to support whichever political solution provides a plausible means of securing a future for my children. That will necessarily mean the expulsion of imported communities who reliably produce those preying on my children, and who conspire to conceal those crimes. We must become impervious to their special pleading, their cries of prejudice and oppression, and to the Camp of the Saints characters in the media who call us racist for being unwilling to give our country away to strangers. We must prioritise loyalty to our families, our people, over out-groups and even our own reputation. (As seeking to preserve good standing in the rotten establishment requires out-group preference.)

Otherwise, our children will never forgive us. They will be right not to.

---