Ratcliffe's Folly

(My apologies that this has taken some time to complete. I was ill for two weeks.)

In a healthy society, there would be no “scandal” here. Billionaire businessman Jim Ratcliffe’s comments would have been water off a duck’s back. People would consider them, or not, they would agree, or not, the discourse would adapt to them, or not, and civic life would hum on regardless.

The outrage that his comments ignited is itself a symptom of how far-gone British society is. It’s like an alcoholic enraged at someone politely, gently suggesting he has a drinking problem. Suddenly shelves are being torn from the walls, furniture up-ended, and the accuser’s financial arrangements being dissected in order to “prove” that the accusee is definitely absolutely not an alcoholic. But simultaneously, there is also the argument that it wouldn’t be a big deal if the accusee were an alcoholic, because there are historical factors that supposedly justify alcoholism.

Anyone watching the above spectacle would conclude not only that the accusee was almost certainly an alcoholic, but also that he was without a shadow of a doubt irrational, vengeful, dishonest, manipulative, delusional and deranged.

Welcome to Britain in 2026.

Ratcliffe’s exact words were:

You can’t have an economy with 9 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 mean, the population of the UK was 58 million in 2020, now it’s 70 million. That’s 12 million people.

Immediately, a storm erupted. Politicians (including Rachel Reeves, the Prime Minister, and the mayor of Ratcliffe’s home city Manchester) rushed to voice their disgust at what he had said. The loathsome Emily Maitlis came out with some typically stupid and loxist remarks, saying that Britain had an empire therefore the dissolution of the British people is (somehow) inevitable. But across the entire mainstream media, there was near-total lockstep. From the Morning Star to the Times to Have I Got News For You, from Ash Sarkar and Owen Jones to Piers Morgan, all were united in one purpose: discredit Jim Ratcliffe.

There were six prongs to the attack. The basic truth of what he said is irrefutable, so instead the focus was on nitpicking and fatuous character assassination.

“He’s a billionaire!”

The joke here is that the very people saying this are either billionaires themselves, or the loyal lackeys thereof. But the weakness of the argument is that it isn’t an argument. It is a mere statement of fact, with little if any bearing on the matter. If it does have any bearing, that hasn’t been explained. It seems we are meant to hate and distrust people simply for being billionaires - that is, if they oppose mass immigration. If they instead celebrate it, then they are wise and experienced people who should be listened to, and their wealth is a sign of intelligence and good sense.

The Communists being as gormless as ever - condemning a billionaire who has their interests in mind, to benefit billionaires who don’t

“He doesn’t even live here!”

Indeed, he moved to Monaco in 2020. However, again, this is stated without any explanation of why it is being stated. Presumably it is supposed to imply that a) he doesn’t know what he’s talking about since he isn’t in Britain every day, and b) he himself is an immigrant (to Monaco) and thus a hypocrite for criticising mass uncontrolled immigration of violent unemployable unassimilable 75 IQ Africans and Arabs. This is a version of the moronic canard about “Brits not integrating in their Spanish enclaves”. Both of these implications fall apart as soon as they are examined, so they never are. They are simply stated, over and over again. (Our mainstream media has become a brain-washing and truth-denying industry.)

“He doesn’t pay UK tax!”

Indeed, having moved to Monaco, he no longer pays UK tax. Again, so what? What bearing does this have on his ability to understand Britain’s situation with immigration?

I think the implication is that, by not contributing tax, he is worsening Britain’s economy and thus reducing its ability to accommodate immigrants. But if so, surely the correct course of action is to reduce immigration in line with what the country is able to accommodate? Of course progressives don’t think of that; they think only of how selfish a man he must be for having moved abroad (like the immigrants whom they adore have done). Clearly, Ratcliffe should pay UK tax so that the country he obviously cares about can more thoroughly destroy itself.

But of course, all of this drags us into the repugnant territory of thinking about immigration purely in economic terms. Ratcliffe himself did this - opposing it not on cultural, racial or ethnic grounds but only economic ones. In that, he is united with the Establishment - but perhaps he was only couching his “bigotry” in economics so as to make it palatable to ordinary, good-thinking people? Either way, I think it is ridiculous, when we know about the other effects of immigration, to fret about its economic impact. Whether it is economically good or bad, it is bad in every other way, and that should outweigh economics for any sensible person.

“He got the numbers wrong!”

Indeed, the population statistics he cited were inaccurate. Had he said 2000 instead of 2020, his numbers would have been irreproachable, but he said 2020 so he is an ignorant lying fool. (And if he had said 2000… they’d still hate him for it.)

For 12 million migrants to arrive over 25 years is obviously less turbulent than over 5 years, but the end result is the same: supplanting, absorption and eradication of the native population.

I think, at this point, if you are quibbling over the exact numbers around immigration or are somehow unsure about where the demographics are heading, you should be in a padded cell. We simply don’t have time to debate how many Somalis can dance on the head of a pin - or rather, stamp on the head of a Brit.

“His own team at Manchester United has immigrants in it!”

Ratcliffe is 25% owner of the football club Manchester United, whose team mostly comprises immigrants (13 out of 21 players). How much that is due to Ratcliffe personally is unknown, but people rushed to accuse him of hypocrisy.

This is a terrible thing, not a good thing

This is actually a silly argument, because immigrants in a sports team do not do the same damage as immigrants in a population. However, clearly one is meant to reflect the other. I actually agree that it is ridiculous for an English sports team to be majority non-white. I think it should represent its local area. But I also think its local area should be majority (or completely) White. If the Man Utd team’s demographics are representative of its local area, that only proves Ratcliffe’s point. If the demographics are not representative, that only compounds the absurdity of allowing international acquisitions for sports teams.

“Diversity has improved Britain and the economy depends on it!”

This is the standard defence. Keir Starmer, among countless other cretins, used it in desperate tweets “responding” to the “outrage” of Ratcliffe’s remarks. Anyone can see that it cannot possibly be true.

But, while few ordinary people believe this drivel in 2026, the wearing and religiose preaching of the chatterati suggests that they still do - or at least, that they are still prepared to pretend that they do. In the offices of the Guardian and the BBC, they might be running obsolete software, but they are doing so with pious determination and it is understood that he who comments on the fact will lose his career.

And unfortunately chatterati opinion still matters, for now.

---

Disappointingly but unsurprisingly, soon enough, Ratcliffe apologised. But he did so in a clever way which gave little ground and admitted no real fault. His wording referred to the feelings of those he had offended, not to the words with which he had offended them. He was implying that the onus was on them for objecting to a thorny issue being discussed, not on him for discussing it. He apologised for nothing more than failing to find a gentler way to say what, he asserts, needs to be said.

Of course this wasn’t nearly enough to placate the Establishment. But, had it been a full-throated apology, would it have worked? In other words, having made those controversial remarks, would Ratcliffe ever have been forgiven? Was there any possible “path back” for him? Of course not. The wound is real and it remains. The Establishment will never forgive him for pointing out its folly.

Moreover, he can’t be allowed to just do this and not suffer. It’s not personal; they need to make sure that other men, in a similar position, are sufficiently discouraged from following suit. If that takes Ratcliffe’s ruination, so be it. Better that enforced and unnatural silence than the British Establishment has to acknowledge what it has done to the country.

All of this happened while Rupert Lowe’s rape gang inquiry was going on, every day uncovering more terrible details of what immigration has subjected our girls to, by the thousand. But the mainstream have entirely ignored that inquiry, with only the Daily Mail making a cursory mention of it. If you relied on the mainstream to keep you informed, you wouldn’t even know this inquiry was happening.

But if you relied on the mainstream media, you wouldn’t have much idea about anything. And that, really, is the whole point here. There is a tissue of lies that we are all expected to believe in, especially if we have any prominence in society, and Ratcliffe, perhaps off the cuff without really thinking about it, pointed out that the emperor has no clothes on.

For how long can a society operate like this?