Wednesday 24 December 2008

David Milliband and Jewish Ethno-centrism

One of the things I most admire about Jews is their ethno-centrism and communal loyalty - unfortunately this is also the source of their biggest hypocrisies, as they condemn in other people and racial groups what they routinely do amongst themselves.

In his letter today in the London Times, and copied below David Miliband fails to name (and thus shame) the one man who he alleges owns the majority of the 21 British Companies that do business in Zimababwe.

He also refuses to block any action against the individuals who are doing business with Zimbabwe - is it because they are donors to the Labour Party through Lord Levy and his Jewish cabal of bankers that funded and controlled the Labour Party ?.

If the report on Pg-6 of the Times 2-days ago is anything to go-on....then we can assume that one man is John Arnold Bredenkamp - possibly allied to Billy Rautenbach.


Times Online Monday December 22, 2008

Gordon Brown's Africa minister hints at imminent action against blacklisted Mugabe 'cronies'


There could be a reason for this omission on David Miliband's part as Millband, Rautenbach and Bredenkamp, I am told, are all Jews of Flemish extraction.

Q: Where will David Miliband stand if the Israelis need to bomb the nuclear installations in Iran ......... because of the ex-USAF nukes that Bredenkamp sold them in 1995?


The Times Wednesday December 24, 2008

British diplomacy on Mugabe is loud and clear

The FCO have spoken up for the people of Zimbabwe, who have voted clearly for change
From the Foreign Secretary (David Miliband)

Sir, Your news coverage has over many years chronicled the death and destruction wrought on Zimbabwe by Robert Mugabe and his cohort. Any sane person realises that Mugabe’s misrule is only spurring Zimbabwe’s descent into chaos. But your leading article (“The failure of quiet diplomacy”, Dec 22) channelled frustration at his continued abuse of power into an attack on the FCO without logic, fact or justification.

You rightly say that “words do little to halt cholera”. But you are wrong to protest that the British Government has engaged in “quiet diplomacy”. On the contrary, our words have been consistent, clear and loud. The Prime Minister and I have spoken up for the people of Zimbabwe, who have voted clearly for change.

And Lord Malloch-Brown could not have been franker when asked about Zimbabwe on the Today programme this week: Mugabe is an absolutely impossible obstacle. If Zimbabwe is to haul itself — with the help it needs and deserves — out of its current meltdown, Mugabe has to go.

You cite the issue of British companies that do business in Zimbabwe. [Of the 21 companies you say have been placed on the US Treasury blacklist, the vast majority are owned by one man = Bredenkamp.] EU-wide action is most effective, and we will press for this in the new year. We have not argued for a total ban on business engagement with Zimbabwe, nor for a “fuel blockade”. I do not dismiss this argument but have so far concluded that further direct damage to the employment and livelihoods of ordinary Zimbabweans would not be right. The last to feel the effects of such blockades would be Mugabe and his entourage. Nor has the democratic opposition in Zimbabwe called for such measures. But we strongly encourage UK companies to ensure that they invest ethically in Zimbabwe and avoid those investments that prop up the elite responsible for repressive action and the subversion of the democratic process.

You also argue for greater action in the UN Security Council. We agree. Last July the UK called and voted for a sanctions resolution. But this was vetoed by Russia and China. They must now answer for their approach. Nevertheless we have persisted in keeping Zimbabwe on the Security Council’s agenda, most recently at the ministerial meeting I attended in New York last week. It is our strong view that this international crisis requires international attention, and we will continue to make that case. It is obvious to everyone that neighbouring states, especially South Africa, have most to lose from instability in Zimbabwe and most to gain from change. That is why we continue to emphasise their role and responsibilities and to urge them to take action.

As long as Mugabe rules Zimbabwe he remains a stain on that country. I acknowledge that he is also a stain on the international community, which has not been able to deliver the will of the Zimbabwean people. If attacking the FCO would help a single Zimbabwean I would understand that might be a price worth paying. But it does not.

David Miliband

Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

Add to Technorati Favorites


Anonymous said...

Why are we getting involved in Zimbabwian affairs? We're in the middle of an economic meltdown that's hitting our people hard. Why not let Africa take care of its own problems and we'll take care of ours?

Let's also call for the truth: The state that Zimbabwe is in - and the state of South Africa - has been caused by international interference, especially marxist/liberal idiots who have turned two of the jewels of Africa under white rule into two absolute shitholes that has caused more harm to blacks than apartheid or Ian Smith ever did.

Those involved have blood on their hands and it's funny how they are never made to answer for their disastrous folly. They wanted black rule - they DEMANDED it, they screamed about the oppression of white rule and the injustice to the blacks. They wanted it, they've got it now let them get on with it without expecting the west to bail them out. In fact, let their new soon-to-be colonial masters the Chinese handle it, black Africa can have another race to blame for its catastrophic failures.



JPT said...

Why are we getting involved in Zimbabwian affairs?

A good way of burying some of our own shit news perhaps?