Remigration, Part III: The Future That Never Got Built

This is the third essay in a series on remigration. The first examined how Sweden’s right softened on deportations after redefining Swedishness. The second looked at why Sweden’s only remigration party can’t fill the role it was created for. This essay lifts the question to a civilizational level.

---

An eighteen-year-old British student named Henry Nowak was stabbed to death on December 3rd, 2025. His killer, a Sikh man named Vikrum Digva, stabbed him five or six times with a twenty-centimeter Persian knife designed to puncture armor. While Nowak lay dying, Digva’s brother called the police and told them they had been attacked by a racist white man. The mother came and hid the knife. When the police arrived, they believed the family, and handcuffed Nowak. He told them he had been stabbed. The officer replied: “I don’t think you have, mate.” Nowak died in handcuffs.

We only know any of this because the bodycam footage was recently released during the trial.

This is the future we got, and it exists on the ruins of a future that never got built.

And as I am writing this I receive a message from a friend about an African man who just tried to cut the head off a young Irishman in Belfast. Fortunately bystanders intervened and saved his life.

I will take the Swedish examples over the British ones, because I know the climate here from the inside. But it is obvious that the climates are similar and lead to the same anti-white outcomes. In Sweden, the murder of Daniel Wretström, the brutality of which most people still do not understand, has never received public restitution. James Waite, killed a couple of years later, equally brutal, and equally forgotten. Tommy Lind, whose emergency call was dismissed by dispatch, reportedly because a distressed Swedish man using raw language about his attackers sounded like a drunk racist making things up. It took the police an hour and a half to arrive, and Tommy Lind died under terrible suffering.

In the period leading up to Daniel Wretström's murder, Prime Minister Göran Persson publicly vowed to "crush" the nationalist movement, and young nationalists increasingly saw themselves as legitimate targets rather than political opponents. And when we changed government and got a right-wing prime minister, he said that if you put group against group you should expect to face consequences yourself. He said this in the context of a Swedish patriot being attacked. That is the sentiment from the left and right alike.

These examples illustrate quite well why I was unfortunately not surprised when I heard about Henry Nowak. I have never dealt with British police, but I have dealt with the Swedish police during my years as a young activist, and I have my own memories. We were frequently attacked by AFA, Antifascist Action, recently designated as a terrorist organization in the United States, though not yet in Sweden or the rest of Europe. And when the police arrived, the modus operandi was to treat us as the guilty ones. We were bundled together, and questioned for disturbing the public order.

One example stands out, though it is far from the only one where we were attacked and one of us ended up in court while none of them did. Around ten of us were out distributing leaflets when we were stormed by roughly thirty masked AFA members carrying clubs and baseball bats. The definition of terrorism was met to the letter, silencing opposition through political violence. However, it ended with one of our attackers sitting in court as the plaintiff, one of our guys sentenced to five years in prison for defending himself, and no charges brought against the people who attacked us.

Europe has had violent internal conflicts before, communists against fascists, in societies that were entirely homogeneous. Group against group is not new, and is the core definition of politics. But the nature of this division is new to us. Those were ideological conflicts within a people. What we have now, to borrow our former prime minister's words, is group against group along ethnic lines. That is the new condition, introduced with the multicultural society. And it produces a new kind of state.

Take Sweden in the 1950s and 60s. It was not a perfect society, way too socialistic for my taste, but it was homogeneous. And more importantly, it was a society that believed in its own future and acted accordingly. Large investments and projects carried out in the spirit of the ancient wisdom that the older generation should plant trees whose shade they themselves will never sit under. We developed nuclear energy and world-class infrastructure in a small country with limited resources. We manufactured our own cars, our own fighter jets, and had a degree of self-sufficiency that today feels completely unreal. It was a country that was going somewhere. And to connect it to what we have today, to the situation that produced the victims Nowak is a symptom of, the police back then had one job: uphold the law.

Now look at what the police do in a present day fragmented society. They don’t primarily uphold the law. They manage relationships between groups. They calculate which community will produce the most backlash if confronted and which can be handled without consequence. Licensed by the state, as our former prime minister put it — we must not put group against group. That statement dissolves our own group. It frames the problem as though our society is failing because we Swedes, or Europeans, have not been welcoming enough. And when we express even a basic in-group preference, it is treated as hostility toward the outsider, and it falls on the police to sort it out.

In the Rotherham scandal, Pakistani grooming gangs sexually exploited young British girls for decades. The police knew. Social services knew. They did nothing, because acting would mean confronting a minority community and risking aiding the patriotic opposition. The cost of that calculation was paid entirely by working-class white girls whose protection was not worth the institutional discomfort.

This pattern is the product of decades of policy designed to manage diversity rather than uphold a single standard of law.

It used to be that the police responded to what happened, established facts, applied the law. In a fragmented society, every police action risks becoming political. George Floyd being the most obvious example. Every arrest, every investigation, every use of force is filtered through the question of which group the suspect and victim belong to. The law becomes secondary to the management of group relations.

The entire energy of the state goes into managing all the different groups constituting the new citizenry — mediating their competing demands, balancing their representation, suppressing the native opposition. We have stagnated. In many aspects we are going backwards, because the effort of administrating our own incoherence consumes everything else.

The concept of a neutral law that applies equally to all has within the multicultural state ceased to function, because the society is no longer unified enough to sustain it.

This is where Britain is. And where Sweden, a few years behind, is following.