The True Lessons of the Ratcliffe Affair

Last week in the UK a fairly typical modern ‘scandal’ occurred.

In the past a scandal tended to mean a politician had been caught lying, having an affair, being a traitor, being engaged in self enriching corruption, being grossly incompetent in a way damaging to the nation, or having sick and perverse sexual tastes.

Today all of those are more likely to be obligatory or an explanation for a rapid promotion rather than career ending.

So what constitutes a scandal today?

A scandal today signifies any statement, any act, any policy or any belief that isn’t a Globalist Progressive, borderline Marxist and undoubtedly treasonous, one.

If anyone dares to speak against Globalist policies and their consequences they are subject to varying reactions depending on their social position.

Those who are relatively unknown are somewhat safer than those who are widely known, simply because far fewer people pay attention to their statements and if they say something against the mandatory narratives, it might not be noticed.

However, if it IS noticed, those people are also going to face the harshest punishments for their thought and speech crimes. Those are the nobodies that form the bulk of the 12,000 people a year in the UK who are now prosecuted for offending someone, harassed by the police for verboten thoughts, and imprisoned by furious partisan judges.

This is how any unpopular and corrupt regime chills debate and controls the commentary of the public sphere. And in globalist nations, they already have the media enforcing the same rules on what can and can’t be said and vigorously spreading the same regime line. A globalist government doesn’t have to worry about truth or investigative journalism or damaging but accurate facts being spread about them in mainstream media, so they can concentrate, with full media support, on policing the thoughts and statements of the rest of us.

Now it’s also very evidently the case that virtually everyone at the top end of society, or even a significant chunk of the middle class, essentially all agree on Globalist narratives. Generally the opinions offered by these people will always be standard regime ones:

1. Trump is awful and we must hate him.
2. Russia is awful and we must support Ukraine.
3. COVID policies made sense and only nutters think otherwise.
4. The EU is a wonderful organisation.
5. The UN is a wonderful organisation.
6. Mass migration is beneficial and migrants and immigrants are all wonderful people.
7. Diversity is our strength.
8. Islam is a religion of peace and most Muslims are wonderful people.
9. Climate change is a man made approaching apocalypse and we need Net Zero to combat it.
10. White people have committed more evil than anyone else.
11. There isn’t a God, and if there is, She’s Woke.
12. Only racists, science deniers, xenophobes and bigots who have no place in society disagree with any of the above.

Now Sir Jim Ratcliffe, the current owner of Manchester United football club, managed to step into the minefield by directly and bluntly contradicting several of these mandatory Globalist assumptions.

Ratcliffe, when asked a question on immigration (somewhat odd in the first place, since one would think a football club owner would be asked questions about football) said:

“You can’t have an economy with nine million people on benefits and huge levels of immigrants coming in. I mean, the UK has been colonised. It’s costing too much money.

The UK has been colonised by immigrants, really, hasn’t it?”

I should probably first address the fact that everything Ratcliffe said is true, even if fact checkers were quick to pretend otherwise by focusing on his claim that the population has increased by 12 million in 20 years (Ratcliffe’s figures are closer to reality than his detractors assert).

Let us take ‘it’s costing too much money’ and see where that cost falls:

.

So if anything Ratcliffe was being mild. It’s not costing ‘us’ too much, meaning everyone. It is specifically costing the White British too much, who are losing their country while being the only people paying for it.

Or how about whether we are actually being subject to an arriving population mistreating us, assuming command and control over us, and dictating what we can say and think?

Doesn’t the response to Sir Jim itself illustrate this happening? Let alone the population changes and the cultural changes we see all around us?

Here is the reality in terms of our population replacement in 10 years:

.

Take the above two charts and the conclusion is very clear-the White British are being forced to pay for those replacing them, and are called bigots and racists if they object to disappearing.

Modern mass immigration is quite literally a case of foreign born people of different races coming to another land, taking resources from the people already there, and replacing them….while ignoring their wishes and attacking them if they object.

And unlike European colonialism of the 19th century, the numbers involved will make the majority a minority, something which never happened in, for example, Africa or India. Back around 2010 Prospect magazine calculated the White British would become a minority by 2060…..based on immigration levels at less than HALF of the current figures.

Finally here is the impact on just one of our infrastructure services in a single year:

So was Ratcliffe really wrong? Of course not.

The reason he has been so vigorously attacked is because he was RIGHT.

His remarks, the gist of which were aired at both a business conference and in a BBC interview, caused an explosion of regime response from the media and the institutional Establishment. The Prime Minister immediately demanded an apology (which he got). The Football Association condemned the comments. The Muslim Manchester United Fan Group condemned the comments. The Kick it Out ‘anti-racism’ campaign condemned his remarks. Woke sports personalities like the ever repugnant Gary Lineker condemned his remarks.

The condemnation either said ‘this is disgustingly racist’, or it said ‘Sir Jim doesn’t pay his taxes’, or it said ‘migrants built Manchester Football Club/migrants play for Manchester football club/Britain was built by migrants/migrants are all wonderful people’. Naturally these arguments all avoided the reality that a football club and supporting it is not the same as a nation state and living in it, or that playing for a team as a foreigner means you are paying taxes and invading the country in a dinghy means you are not.

The JOE media network, an extraordinarily dubious globalist outfit based in Ireland for tax purposes, told us all how Sir Jim, based in Monaco for tax purposes, has no right to speak on British affairs, without apparently being aware of their own hypocrisy in that regard.

The ‘tax exile can’t comment’ line was pressed by the rabid Marxist shock jocks of LBC radio, arguably the most successful London radio station, which is owned by Global Media….a company which has been in dispute over its tax avoidance since 2013. Similarly The Mirror, with one of the worst records for disinformation campaigns and gutter journalism in the UK, a paper which once published faked images of British soldiers committing atrocities and crimes that never happened and which was deeply involved in a series of old style controversies (those actually relating to misconduct rather than wrongthink) such as the 1990’s phone hacking scandal, was keen to let us know how dishonest and unethical and untrue Sir Jim’s comments were.

What we saw in response to what was essentially a single paragraph answer was a vast pile on of concerted attacks which still haven’t ceased after Ratcliffe issued the following apology:

“I am sorry that my choice of language has offended some people in the UK and Europe and caused concern but it is important to raise the issue of controlled and well-managed immigration that supports economic growth.My comments were made while answering questions about UK policy at the European Industry Summit in Antwerp, where I was discussing the importance of economic growth, jobs, skills and manufacturing in the UK. My intention was to stress that governments must manage migration alongside investment in skills, industry and jobs so that long-term prosperity is shared by everyone. It is critical that we maintain an open debate on the challenges facing the UK.”

The original comments of course are couched in the language of the ordinary citizen, giving a clear, honest and direct statement. The apology is delivered in Officialese rather than English, a turgid management speak that has to continually signal its own acceptable vapidities and expresses far less in longer sentences. In the transition from the first, where Ratcliffe showed he knows the objective reality and knows too how ordinary people think and speak about it, to the second, where vague positives are expressed completely avoiding core realities, we see Ratcliffe asking for re-admittance to the elite after his sinful transgression.

It’s obvious too why what Ratcliffe originally said caused such an intense reaction. Departures from the Globalist narrative are especially dangerous to the regime when they come from people in positions of authority, which is why as well as arresting some nobody posting online for offending a Muslim or a leftist the regime will also go to great efforts to slap down anyone prominent who questions multiculturalism, mass immigration and open borders.

The dangerous truth is especially dangerous if people of prominence break the consensus of lies which their class generally are (quite literally in the financial as well as emotional sense) invested in. And Ratcliffe managed in a few lines to directly assault points 6 and 7 on the list above, and give implied challenge to points 1, 4, 5, and 10.

All he needed to do to complete the sweep would have been to praise God for giving us borders and support fracking.

So far, so predictable. This might be termed a bog standard modern scandal. It doesn’t refer to any real crime (those are ignored). It isn’t corrupt (those are protected). It refers not to an error or crime by the target of the scandal, but to much broader errors and crimes he is pointing out. And it’s about policing what people can think and say so that Globalist policies can keep being delivered no matter how destructive and unpopular they are.

But it does confirm a few things worth mentioning. Which are:

1. There’s no real point to apologising. It’s true Sir Jim did try to partially reassert his point within the apology and it’s true he might have been threatened with responses that have been withheld at this stage (like prosecution under Britain’s insane public order and hate speech laws). But ultimately any apology is blood in the water and only feeds the frenzy.
2. Even when we challenge them, their language and assumptions often still control the terms of debate. Take that word colonisation. Sir Jim is using their language to criticise the policy they enforce. Colonisation is a Bolshevik term of abuse, which from its very outset was intended to delegitimise western civilisation and refer only to ‘western crimes’. Like imperialism, racism and words such as settler, to turn these words back on them implies an acceptance that these words are part of rational discourse when they really aren’t. They are, and always have been, creations of leftist propaganda.
3. Sport matters, precisely because it’s one of the most watched and most followed public spectacles. It’s the tribalist release valve, and it’s a grand and well watched canvas to paint your slogans on. This is why Bad Bunny plays the halftime show at the Super Bowl, and why a football club owner in the UK can’t be allowed to break the Narrative.
4. It’s virtually impossible to find any organisation or institution prepared to break the Narrative. One would think that on a topic where millions of people agree with Ratcliffe’s comments, there would be some fan group or club linked support that would publicly agree rather than disagree with his original comments. So far as I am aware, there are none, and condemnation was virtually universal wherever these groups are organised.
5. Ratcliffe’s immediate apology is a clear indication of just how bad things are now. This is characteristic of a regime, that people are frightened to publicly differ or can be immediately cowed by threats when they do.
6. The contradiction of the Prime Minister’s repeated claim that we have free speech in Britain with 12,000 arrests and harassments by police for offending people online is now joined by a repeated habit of leading intimidation and leftist mob justice responses to anyone voicing views he doesn’t agree with. Public demands for apologies by a serving PM should not be policing the statements of British citizens.
7. The intervention of a Muslim representing group is telling. I very much doubt there is an exclusively Hindu Manchester United fan club, a Christian one, or a Buddhist one. Muslims, like Leftists, impose their ideology on everything. There are no neutral, non political, non religious spheres for Muslims, leftists and Globalists. Everything must be expressing their propaganda, bowing to their demands, and acting according to what they consider inoffensive (when everything they don’t control offends them). Sir Jim didn’t mention Islam. He said nothing specific about Islam. But a Muslim group immeduately identified themselves as rhe people he was speaking about. Ironically, because this shows that they know they ARE the group most likely to be making demands on everyone else and radically changing British culture.
8. Dealing with open borders and mass immigration is impossible without dealing at the same time with media, Muslim, and leftist control of news and scandal and of public standards on what can and can’t be said. When words of truth provoke concerted media attack, policies of sense will provoke much more, and we have seen in the US already how the media are now propagandist inciters of domestic terrorism.

The response to Ratcliffe’s comments illustrates that we have reached the point where, no matter how prominent and successful you are, honest and accurate comment on immigration and replacement is now a dangerous activity. It imperils your freedom to speak about it….and it imperils that freedom even more, to remain silent. The first is a more personal threat, to which many will succumb. The second is a societal threat, to which we may have already, and collectively, fallen.

Ratcliffe’s comments weren’t even particularly fierce, just an acknowledgement of the economic and cultural lunacy of a welfare society with open borders. But words against mass immigration and ethnic and racial replacement are now violence, while the gang rapes and incessant demands that come from conquering incomers, are not.

This article (The True Lessons of the Ratcliffe Affair) was created and published by Jupplandia and is republished here under “Fair Use”