SHAMIMA Begum, a pregnant teenager of Bangladeshi descent who wished to return to England to give birth to her third child, is a classic example of the manner in which the Establishment and its media wing initiate public debate on its own terms. Begum, who claims to have been groomed by Islamic activists at just 15, went to Syria in the hope of becoming a ‘poster girl’ for the so-called Islamic State (ISIL). This, apparently, was her excuse for wishing to return to East London from the Middle East, although she was thoroughly unrepentant about her support for the low-life filth who have been murdering people of all colours and creeds in the name of Islam. Including, of course, thousands of genuine Muslims – both Sunni and Shia alike – who choose to reject their oppressive ideology and thus paid the ultimate price.

Now consider this. Imagine if a man wished to discuss the terrible conditions at a factory with his employer, not to mention the low wages, and the employer refused to listen to any of his complaints. Consequently, after many years of being exploited in this manner the worker is approached by the factory owner and told that he wants somebody to work alongside him on the factory floor and that he just happens to be a convicted paedophile. As a result, the employee is completely outraged by this suggestion and yet the workers as a whole are divided on the matter. Most are strongly opposed to the mere presence of a paedophile, whilst a minority think the child molester should be given a second chance. Fights break out, brother is set against brother and everybody loses sight of the real issue: the fact that conditions are awful and the rates of pay truly abysmal.

Let us now apply the rough framework of this fictional example to the real-life case of Shamima Begum and the fact that the Establishment has been either ignoring or covering-up the damage caused by mass immigration for many years. Not simply the widespread loss of English identity, but the rampant child abuse and political corruption within certain immigrant communities. However, by feeding on the public’s increasing obsession with the exaggerated threat of Islamic terrorism, something that is also stoked-up by the mass media for its own Zionist objectives, the debate is nonetheless kept away from the more important issue of long-term racial colonisation and, instead, turned towards the matter of an immigrant – or, in this case, a descendant of immigrants – who has a particularly unpalatable side to her and, at least if the engineered hysteria is to be believed, a biological time-bomb ticking away inside her womb. In other words, just as the factory worker’s attention was diverted away from wages and conditions and made to focus on a fellow worker, so too did the case of Shamima Begum move away from the capitalist system’s exploitation of mass immigration at the expense of the indigenous English population and towards just one immigrant in particular.

Her having been in England in the first place was not questioned, merely the fact that she holds extreme opinions towards those who do not share her faith. Shamima Begum, just like the factory paedophile in our story, is merely a tiny worm in an entire barrel of rotten apples. By encouraging people to discuss something comparatively trivial, therefore, the Establishment has already got people to go beyond the question of immigration itself. As a result, immigration is seen to be perfectly acceptable when it is measured against a single bad apple. If Shamima Begum goes shopping, watches X Factor and perhaps scores drugs like Tommy Robinson, she’s ‘one of us’.