Monthly Archives: March 2015

MITCHELL’S FOLD — a neolithic stone circle?

TWENTY MILES distant from the town of Ludlow, on a windswept common beneath Corndon Hill, is a quaint circle of some fifteen standing stones.

MITCHELL'S FOLD [photo credit: Derek Harper; 2009]

MITCHELL’S FOLD STONE CIRCLE   [photo credit: Derek Harper; 2009]

MITCHELL'S FOLD: south-west Shropshire

MITCHELL’S FOLD: south-west Shropshire

Known locally as Mitchell’s Fold, it is one of several Stone Circles which stood in this district, once upon a time.   Or so the story goes!

Ninety feet in diameter, the Circle’s largest stone monolith being just six feet tall.

This modest but evocative monument dates back, according to the history books, to Neolithic times; an incredible 3,000 years old.  Or so we’re told!



LYDHAM HEATH STATION: [credit: B.Castle Railway Society]

With the arrival mid-19th century of the railway to rural south Shropshire, the Stones became a popular local attraction. Just a short pony-trap ride from Lydham Heath, the nearby halt on the long-defunct Bishops Castle Railway.   [1]

The Stone Circle brought within reach of enthusiasts and professional antiquarians from Birmingham, London and beyond.

MITCHELL's FOLD: 1841 sketch

1841 SKETCH OF MITCHELL’S FOLD    [Hartshorne; 1841]

A megalithic magnet drawing visitors from afar, beating their path to our early human history. A haunting link to our Bronze Age forebears.  And yet a reassuring relief from the ethereal nature to life itself.

A remarkably preserved relic of primitive man, and his religious rituals, evident even today on the bleak Marches landscape. A sacred site where ancient Druids gathered in worship of their mystical Sun God, all those millennia ago. How romantic. Or so the story goes!

ENGLISH HERITAGE [photo credit: Humps & Hills blog; 2011]

ENGLISH HERITAGE GUARDIANSHIP   [credit: Humps & Hills blog; 2011]

The Stone Circle is protected today under the guardianship of English Heritage (scheduled ancient monument no. 107448).  [2]

Unsurprisingly, the Circle has grown a folklore of its own. Legend that serves well to reinforce and emphasize its apparent antiquity.  [3]

MITCHELL'S FOLD: myth and legend

MYTHS & LEGENDS OF MITCHELL’S FOLD    [Burne; 1883]    [3]


One tradition has it that — “during a time of dreadful famine, a fairy left a magic cow to provide villagers with endless milk. One night an evil witch milked her into a sieve. When the cow realised the trick, she vanished. The witch was turned to stone, and this circle of stones was erected around her, to prevent her escape.

Another fable — “in quite recent times a tenant removed one of the stones to use in his cowshed, but was so alarmed by a violent thunderstorm in the night that he returned it the very next morning.

More folklore to warn meddlers — “There was a farmer who lived by there, and he broke up some of the stones, and took away the pieces to put round his horse-pond but he never did no good after.”

A modern Shropshire tourist guide even claims that — “King Arthur drew Excalibur from one of the stones here to become king of the Britain’s.(sic)    [4]

So there is the authoritative official history, and the underpinning folklore, too. Fact and fiction fudged together; all rolled into one.


For those visiting Mitchell’s Fold today, the circle stands some 1,200 feet above sea-level, on a stark but flat plateau of Stapeley Common, in the parish of Priest Weston. Not readily accessible by motor vehicle; an unmetalled track leads westward towards the Circle from the White Grit road. GPS coordinates are (52.5787,-3.0282). The nearest Google Street View is here:   [5]

Google Street View: track to Stone Circle

GOOGLE STREET VIEW:  dirt track to Mitchell’s Fold Stone Circle


The Mitchell’s Fold Stone Circle has been documented by many. In reverse chronological order, we shall examine literature from the following authors:

Dr Harry (Aubrey) Woodruff BURL MA, DLitt, PhD, FSA, HonFSA Scot; 1926- — British archaeologist; authority on megalithic monuments; prehistoric rituals associated with them; and author of more than a dozen books on Stone Circles.

Dr William (Peter) Francis GRIMES CBE; 1905-1988 — Authority on the pre-history of Wales; Professor of Archaeology, Univ. of London; Director, Institute of Archaeology.

Miss Lily “Lal” Frances CHITTY OBE FSA; 1893-1979 — British antiquarian, amateur archaeologist of prehistoric sites in the Welsh Marches; local gossip; distant relative of Gladstone.

Rev Charles Henry HARTSHORNE MA FSA; 1802-1865 — local Anglican curate; author of Salopia Antiqua (1841): An Inquiry from Personal Survey into the “Druidical” Remains of Shropshire & The Marches.

Mr James DUCAREL, Esq; late-C18 — alleged descendant of Du Carel dynasty of Huguenot bankers, family friends and business partners of Robert Clive of India, Oakley and Walcot.

Those are the learned men and women behind the documented history of Mitchell‘s Fold.

Yet, perhaps, as with so much of our history, Mitchell’s Fold may not be quite what it seems…


Could this Stone Circle be a much more recent fake? Let us examine the evidence for ourselves as we find out.

Our first hint, in fact, a huge hat-tip of historical foul-play, comes courtesy of Dr Aubrey Burl.

In his 2005 book  A Guide to the Stone Circles of Britain, Burl obliquely remarks that — “aerial photographs have revealed mediaeval ridge-and-furrow plough-marks not only running up to the ring, but also through it as though this ‘prehistoric’ megalithic ring might postdate the Middle Ages! It does not.”   [6a]

Good grief, Dr Burl!    The reader deserves to see for himself the aerial photography of this site; to be his own judge of these extraordinary plough-marks!

That is what this blog shall do.


KEVIN DIDLICK: on the red team

SKY-BOUND PHOTOGRAPHER KEVIN DIDLICK (L): on the red team   [photo credit: Claverley Group 2014]

Graciously taking up our request to photograph Mitchell’s Fold Stone Circle from the sky was professional Ludlow photographer, Kevin Didlick. [7]

Kevin used a remote-controlled quadcopter fitted with a digital video camera to capture high-quality footage of the stones.

Indulging us with a unique low-altitude, birds-eye view of this “ancient” Stone Circle.   [8]

The results are as impressive, as they are revealing!   Thank you, Kevin!


BURL: mysterious plough-marks

Sure enough, Kevin’s aerial camera-work captures those distinctive plough-marks which Burl noted.

Plough-marks running right through this “Neolithic” Stone Circle; a monument dating allegedly to 2500-4000 BCE.

Ridges and furrows that are clear evidence of recent agricultural use.

Gauging those furrows by their depth, these deep wounds to the soil are surely from powerful, modern ploughing.  Indicating recent cultivation of the land under the Circle; certainly not the legacy of Neolithic man.

Furthermore, on closer scrutiny, some of those plough-marks pass actually beneath the standing stones themselves!

How ever can that be, if this Stone Circle truly is “Neolithic”?

But please don’t take this author’s word on it; please study Kevin’s amazing aerial footage on Youtube for yourself.  [8]


Let’s explore deeper into the official history. Let’s try and discover the very first printed reference to the Stone Circle of Mitchell’s Fold.    Hopefully gaining us a clearer insight into this “ancient” monument, and its true antiquity.

WF GRIMES: drawing

1963 DRAWING:  WF Grimes

In the 2005 edition of his tome on megalithic monuments, Dr Aubrey Burl references a 1963 essay by Professor WF Grimes on these stone circles. Grimes’ essay is here. [9]

Grimes was a career archaeologist. In 1955 the Palace bunged him a gong for services to the rogue industry.   Professor Grimes CBE claims to have conducted field-surveys of Mitchell’s Fold in 1933 and 1935.

As his authority, Grimes cites Rev William Stukeley FRS FRCP FSA; 1687-1765.     Stukeley was an Anglican cleric, and apparently a practising Druid, like ex-Primate Rowan Williams.

Purportedly, Stukeley was also the antiquarian who “pioneered the archaeological investigation of the prehistoric monuments of Stonehenge and Avebury.”   [10]


Grimes claims that Rev. Stukeley made a 1754 drawing of the Mitchell’s Fold Stone Circle.  That drawing, reports Grimes, shows the stones “in exactly the same relationship as today.”   But then it gets very curious.

In a brief footnote to his 1963 essay, Grimes qualifies that alleged “Stukeley” drawing of Mitchell’s Fold with the following comment:

A photograph copy of this [“1754”] drawing was in a small quantity of papers on megaliths given to me some years ago by O.G.S. Crawford. It is not labelled and I have not been able to locate the original.”

So there we have it!   In truth, Grimes never saw any earlier drawing of the Stone Circle; nothing that was verifiably drawn in 1754!    And since his photograph copy was “not labelled”, how could Grimes know it was even a drawing of Mitchell’s Fold?   And how was he sure the “original” was drawn in 1754, over two centuries earlier, by Stukeley?!

Grimes expects us to trust him on blind faith. Yet Grimes, like most of his contemporaries, had plenty form for archaeological fraud.  Evident from his involvement in the Sutton Hoo hoax, and the “Roman” London Wall fraud in the City.   Grimes, an accomplished charlatan; a persuasive hoaxer. Which is doubtless how he procured his CBE.   Ahem!

With that “Stukeley drawing of 1745” discounted as an unattributable, undated, unlabelled modern photographic “copy”, we must continue our search elsewhere for the true antiquity to Mitchell’s Fold.


In 1841, a Rev. Charles Henry Hartshorne published Salopia Antiqua.    Which he subtitled his “Personal Survey of the Druidical remains of Shropshire and the Marches”.    A digital copy of Hartshorne’s book is here: [11]     Mitchell’s Fold is explored from page 30 onwards.

Wikipedia tenders the following character reference for Rev. Hartshorne:  [12]

The popular 19th century periodical [John Bull magazine] repeatedly hinted that Hartshorne was in a homosexual relationship with Richard Heber [a wealthy Shropshire landowner and High Sheriff of the county]..Hartshorne had thought of applying to work at the British Museum, but after the scandal had little choice of career [so] he was ordained.” (!)

It’s likely that Hartshorne, a homosexual in 19th century England, was compromised with little scope for academic integrity. The gay cleric probably wrote what ever he was told!   Just to preserve his living and his liberty.

In his 1841 Personal Survey of Shropshire’s Druidical Remains,  Hartshorne cites an undated, “Addenda” to Camden’s Britannia. That unidentified Addenda, claimed Hartshorne, carries a much earlier reference to the Stone Circle,

However there were so many revisions of Camden’s Britannia. And, worse, there were also countless Addenda to the main work itself. Many of those Addenda being unofficial; some published only privately; none peer-reviewed.

Hartshorne makes no attempt to illuminate his readership here. Neglecting, wilfully, to identify his precise primary source. Frustratingly, denying us the chance to verify his claims of the supposed antiquity to Mitchell’s Fold.


In a separate footnote to his 1841 Personal Survey of Shropshire’s Druidical Remains, Hartshorne quotes what he claims was a “1752” letter mentioning Mitchell’s Fold as “Medgley’s Fold”.

Except that letter wasn’t published until 1822, at its earliest.   See page 621 in [13]   Nevertheless and perhaps with reservations, that later date of 1822 can, tentatively, become our new date-stamp for the earliest printed reference to Mitchell’s Fold.

Yet that “1752” letter (published seventy years later in 1822)  feels very curious. Unnatural and forced. Very possibly contrived and fabricated much later than the date it bears. Engineered to lend credence to those dubious claims of antiquity to Mitchell’s Fold.   Using a pre-dated letter shifts suspicion of fakery of the Circle from that present time to generations past.

That “1752” letter about the Circle was originally penned, supposedly by a “Mr James Ducarel, Esq.”, writing to his brother. By the time of the letter’s publication in 1822, conveniently both men were long dead.

The Ducarels were wealthy French nobility; originally the Du Carel dynasty of Château Muids in Normandy. With rising hostilities towards French protestants, the Ducarels, a family of Huguenot bankers, left France. Moving first to Rotterdam, before naturalising in England.


ROBERT CLIVE: British East India Company victory at Plassey 1757


The Ducarels settled in south Shropshire; to serve the Clive (of India) family of Oakley Park and Walcot Hall.

The Ducarels were intimately involved in the swindling South Sea Company; helping to direct the fraudulent “Bubble” itself. [15a] [15b]

As well as engaging in the murderous activities of the British East India Company, which secured the Clives their vast fortunes and international opprobrium.

The British East India Company was the vast mercenary force which Robert Clive used to subjugate India, massacre her people, and loot her wealth for the British Crown.   [16]

Countess Marie Coltée Ducarel, was Governess to the Clive children; her husband James Morrice is believed to have been chaplain to Lord Clive.   The Ducarels were integrated closely in the Anglo-Dutch financial establishment of the day; eager players in the Liberal Imperialist “slimemold” system.


Notably, the Ducarels were self-promoted luminaries in the new discipline of Antiquarian Studies.   Yet also quite notorious for their dishonest approach to the historical sciences.

ANDREW COLTÉE, MARQUIS DU CAREL: disreputable antiquarian and Clive ally

Ducarel family patriarch Andrew Coltée, Marquis Du Carel was one of the first fellows of the Society of Antiquaries of London on its incorporation in 1755.  Described as:

“a very weak man, and ignorant, though he was ambitious of being thought learned .. Among the many publications which bear his name, none were really written by him…He was so very illiterate, that on receiving a Latin letter from a foreign university, he took his chariot [to an expert Latin scholar] and got him to write an answer.”   [15]

That scathing quote, above, perhaps perfectly describes the wider Ducarel family: dishonest, disreputable, and dumb.

The Ducarels were just the sort of characters who would fabricate the ancient “Druid Temple” of “Mitchell’s Fold” in south Shropshire.  With the connivance of the landowners and family friends and business partners:   the Clives (of India).


Let’s finally examine that Ducarel letter published 1822, but allegedly written 1752.  It is duplicated on page 621 at [13]

That 1822 publication is candidate for the earliest printed reference to the Stones.

DEAR BROTHER, Shrewsbury, May 11,1752 I thank you for your account of the Society of Antiquaries, and congratulate you on your being elected of the Council of that Corporation. One Mr. Whitfield, an eminent Surgeon, and a good Scholar, who is a man of very good fortune in this town, has told me that he had given a friend of his a rough draft that he himself took of Medgley's Fold above two years ago. As he came home one night, he fell in amongst the stones by chance, and, thinking it a Druid Temple, returned there the next day to view it, when he was confirmed in his opinion; and took the above draft, which he gave to a friend, to do out neatly. He has promised me a copy of it, if his friend, who is a Lawyer, has not thrown it away. I must tell you that the country people have many legends, fables, and traditions concerning Medgley's Fold, where they say a great personage, I believe a Giant, used to milk his cows in that inclosure, &c. I remain, dear Brother, yours sincerely, JAMES DUCAREL.

FIRST PRINTED REFERENCE (1822) to ‘Medgley’s Fold’

The letter is allegedly from a “James Ducarel”, who curiously doesn’t show up in any genealogical searches.

The letter is addressed to an unidentified “Dear Brother”; possibly Andrew Coltée Ducarel, whose image is above.

Let us go ahead and dissect this letter.



Firstly, the letter confirms that the Ducarels – friends and associates of the Clives – were established members of the Society of Antiquaries.   Suggesting, perhaps, a key motive for fabricating this Stone Circle, and then “discovering” it.  The scam elevating their prestige among their new social set of historical scholars.

The author of the Ducarel letter claims that he learned of the Stones from an “eminent surgeon” who somehow “fell in amongst the stones by chance” when “he came home one night”.     Is that a credible account?

It’s most unlikely that a surgeon and man of “very good fortune” would be in that neighbourhood of south-west Shropshire any way.  Least of all at night, making his way home (by horse) to Shrewsbury; some 16 miles away. It’s an extremely rural district. And the Circle is far from the road to Shrewsbury. Not a likely account.

And what relevance in that letter to a Lawyer who may, or may not, have destroyed an earlier sketch of the Circle? Could that perhaps be a coded reference that the hoaxers awaited a green-light on the legality of their historical fraud?

Further, it’s unlikely that in just a few decades, the name of this Stone Circle had corrupted so rapidly from Medgley’s Fold to Medgel’s Fold to Mitchell’s Fold.  Could that name-corruption be artificial?   Another ruse to create a false antiquity to the Circle?  A pretence?  The mutating of place-names normally occurs over many years; centuries usually.  Yet, here, the name-corruption is clearly rapid. Another device to authenticate that false antiquity? Like their weaving of fake folklore around these Stones?

You decide, dear reader!


That hopefully sets out the case for the fraud that is Mitchell’s Fold.   This is no “Neolithic” Stone Circle of 3,000 years antiquity.  Much more likely a fabrication of the Clives and their dubious antiquarian associates of the time.

Mitchell’s Fold: an historical hoax that probably dates back only to the 19th century!




















CRÉME DE LA KЯEMLIN — Rifkind & Straw

This blog was founded originally to flush out the creepy-crawlies in our local midst, of which, alas, there are many.  That shall remain its overarching aim.  Keep it Local. There being plenty better venues for analysing national and international topics.

However, in the following case we’ll make an exception to that locality rule. The national scandal below is being thrust offensively in our faces by the local media. Who’ve dressed it up with the barest local slant to get us biting, and to keep the story alive.

The article below was published today in the Ludlow Advertiser (12 Mar).

STING OPERATION:  Targets - Malcolm Rifkind & Jack Straw

STING OPERATION: targetting Jack Straw & Malcolm Rifkind

MEDIA CARTEL: controlling what you think

MEDIA CARTEL: controlling what we think

For those outside Ludlow, The Advertiser is a media sewer-hole output for this district; one of the many local rags published in Britain by Virginia-based media giant Gannett Corporation.

Gannett has a deep and long-standing relationship with the hawks in the military-intelligence apparatus on both sides of the pond. In fact, the apparatus runs Gannett top-down.  [1]

Taken at face value, this story – about Rifkind and Straw – might seem like a common-or-garden political sleaze scandal. Evidently that’s how Adrian Kibbler, editor of the Advertiser, was ordered to hack it out for his local readership.

Superficially, what we have here is Malcolm Rifkind MP, a veteran Tory, and Jack Straw MP, a veteran luvvie of “New” Labour, both caught up in a media sting operation. Busted for trying to secure bungs or kickbacks for themselves. Secretly arranging dodgy contracts for what turned out to be a fictitious company. Silly billies. [2]

A classic sting that has the hallmarks of intelligence community handiwork; an exercise in statecraft. Further, an operation relying on the connivance of assets in Channel 4 TV. Those media con-artists who cruelly lured in these two sticky-fingered halfwits. Capturing them on camera in flagrante delicto, secretly shaking hands to seal their dodgy non-deals.  Kerr-ching!  Not!

Recall that C4 is state-run; the Government selects its board; making it Britain’s second state broadcaster.  Her Majesty’s intelligence community effectively ordered and ran this entire operation.

But why pick Straw and Rifkind for the sting?  What do those two gentlemen have in common? Other than being a pair of sleazy parliamentary has-beens?

On those questions, the counter-intelligence work has already been done for us by cold-war turncoat Peter Pomerantsev.   Pomerantsev writes in the London Review of Books, in an article titled “Friends Like These”.   [3]

The answer is Rifkind and Straw are both long-standing friends of Russia. Or they were until rudely interrupted by this sting. Both men had been warmly extending the diplomatic olive branch towards the Russian Federation.  The Kremlin openly acknowledged them both as friends; assets even.

In the current clime, it’s not surprising that Moscow is cultivating all the friends she can get in the West. Relationships with the likes of Rifkind and Straw are key to halting the relentless march for war on Russia;  sabre-rattling that emanates largely, it has to be said, from London.  Perfidious Albion, as ever. Bless her.

Malcolm Rifkind was honorary president of the Conservative Friends of Russia. A group now known by a more bipartisan title of the Westminster Russia Forum.  Same agenda, but today drawing Friends of Russia from both Left and Right.

For his part, Straw recently gave a speech to that Russia Forum. Profusely thanking Russia for her involvement in Syria, and calling for an end to gunboat diplomacy from all sides.  The speech, Pomerantsev notes, went down well with the Russians in the room.  But evidently it annoyed the huffing-and-puffing militarists in the West.

So there’s the motive for targetting Rifkind and Straw with this sting. They were both in the way of the war machine; irritants of the military-intelligence apparatus which today pushes Europe dangerously towards a military confrontation with Russia.  As with most British-inspired conflicts, this would be a war fought through proxies. The blood-letting happening far from Blighty’s shores but using costly British hardware. Kerr-ching!




DUKE OF YORK: “we’re now back in the thick of playing the Great Game…And this time we aim to win!”

Like the 1980s conflict in Afghanistan, we witness today the same “Great Game”. [4]     As ever-so-randy Prince Andy so ineptly put it.  [5]

A Great Game which lures Russia into an inescapable quagmire. The aim, once again, to bog Russia down in a military offensive to internationally isolate her, and then destroy her. This time in the Ukraine.

Dragging out the agony until Russia finally expires, militarily and economically, from exhaustion.  Allowing the Empire to march in, re-define the spheres of influence between East and West, and then loot her natural resources – those vast fields of oil and gas.


Wiesbaden-based Helga Zegg-LaRouche, founder of the Schiller Institute, provides us with further useful intelligence background.  [6]

This media sting of Rifkind and Straw must be understood in context, says Zepp-LaRouche. Read in parallel to the countless earlier provocations towards the Putin government.  Psychological warfare operations which have been ongoing for years now. A downright tedious hate-fest for those who’ve seen through the obvious perfidy.


LITVINENKO: a Bell-Pottinger production

The Litvinenko Hoax is perhaps the most glaring and enduring example.   A phony polonium poisoning psyop run out of London by Lord Tim Bell, chief propagandist to Baroness Thatcher. Bell, an old-school Tory, notorious for taking his willy-waving far too seriously.  [7]


According to the Litvinenko narrative,  Putin ordered the poisoning as a birthday present for himself!     Who writes this stuff?!   Silly question. Lord Bell does.  Put it away, Tim!

Back here on planet earth, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, analyses the latest alleged assassination of one of Putin’s critics, Boris Nemtsov.   Nemtsov was deputy PM during the Yeltsin presidency.  Mysteriously gunned down this week, with seven shots, in broad-daylight, in the shadows of the Kremlin.  While Putin “pissed himself laughing” (phsl) obviously.

Zepp-LaRouche chalks this one up as a false-flag job;  a brutal slaughter carried out by rogue elements desperate to incriminate Putin and start WWIII.

Let’s be more daring and call it out as an outright hoax;  one in which no one died.  A hoax in which “murdered” Nemtsov, a burnt-out ex-politico with no chance of a political come-back, was secretly spirited out of Russia; possibly to live out his days as an “officially dead” exile in London.  With the staging of his fake murder scene – and nobbling of the “investigation” – left to rogue apparatchiks embedded within the security-intelligence apparatus of the former Soviet Union.   Footsoldiers of those hawks in Russia also pushing for war.

Much the same gameplan plays out today in Argentina, aimed at overthrowing—if not killing—the President of Argentina, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner. [8]

GENERAL SMEDLEY BUTLER:  war is a racket.

GENERAL SMEDLEY BUTLER: war is a racket.

At this point let’s remember Smedley Butler‘s warning that war is a racket in which a handful of oligarchs – on both sides – make a fortune at the expense and ultimate sacrifice of the many.  General Smedley Butler was the most decorated Marine in US history. So he should know what he’s talking about!

Months later we are still being dosed up with that god-awful Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 narrative – another provocation.  Did beastly Putin really order the airliner to be shot down over Ukraine?   Killing all those innocents?  Demonising himself throughout the world media, as you do?  Or was it maybe an engine failure after all?  Or perhaps a “remote-controlled crash” with none aboard; the so-called “Von Bülow Theory” ?   Or maybe airplane debris was scattered across the Ukrainian “crash site” to look like a plane disaster?  Or was it just another photosloppery job?  A photo-fraud by some spotty-faced “media student” sitting at his Apple iMac Pro, and trained in the art of deception?

Stop!  More than enough chatter on this “load of old fanny”, as one wag puts it.


BRICS LEADERS:  grounds for war?

BRICS COOPERATION: grounds for war?

Zepp-LaRouche’s article is well worth a read;  she briefly covers the BRICS Agreement which is rapidly taking shape between the component nations of Brazil – Russia – India – China – South Africa.

The participants in BRICS aim to build a new, just world economic order.

The advent of BRICS is important for understanding why Russia is, today, permanently in the cross-hairs of the Anglo-American financial-military empire.  The BRICS Agreement gravely threatens the empire’s continued hegemony.

As BRICS grows more teeth there’s more trouble for the empire. If BRICS pushes ahead with the ratification of a $200bn New Development Bank; a New Bretton Woods agreement pegging currencies; New Glass-Steagall laws separating retail banking from speculative finance, and further collaboration on “New Deal” infrastructure works, not least that New Silk Road plan for a transcontinental rail route linking Russia’s Pacific coast and China with European seaports —  then the hegemonic grip of the whole Anglo-American financial system is seriously jeopardised.

In fact, BRICS could leave the entire financial future of the City of London-Wall Street nexus in a state of irreversible ruination.

Yet there aren’t really many options here.  The Anglo-American empire has almost completely de-industrialised us.  The US, and more so the UK, have no physical economies of their own any more. The cancerous Empire produces nothing. Instead it thrives on looting raw materials from foreign lands, and from plunging the world ever deeper into debt. The City and Wall Street – the modern Venetian Empire – has survived only until now by plundering other nations on all continents, as well as its own hosts. And today it is essentially bankrupt.  The Empire desperately needs this war with Russia just to survive financially.  [9]

If there is any ‘local slant’ on this story – it is the palpable failure of all election candidates, including our sitting MP – the War Minister Philip Dunne – to be candid about these provocations on Russia, and their real purpose – to start a war to save Wall Street and the City of London from collapse.

BRICS:  a new, just economic world order

BRICS: a new, just economic world order  [10]