I had just typed up a damning article designed to build a case against voting Tory at the next general election when I decided to delete the whole thing and make a single, concise point. Frankly, anyone still voting for them after considering this sole piece of information which refutes their false pretences ought to be ostracised by the working class.

First a little background.

The party which gave us Thatcher's infamous speech, designed to encourage an individualistic, selfish and greedy mentality in the UK; "There is no such thing as society", has apparently had a change of heart since the capitalists benefiting from said disposition have royally buggered up their market economy.

At this week's Conservative conference, David Cameron suddenly concluded that there IS such a thing as society after all! At least, there is when you're doubled over a barrell with your pants around your ankles.

"We're all in this together" now, according to Team Cameron's new mantra. Teachers, firemen, doctors, nurses, the disabled - we all have to shoulder responsibility. We're all one big happy family. It would be wrong of us to allude to the role of the banking sector in helping to create the greatest economic recession in over 100 years.


If "we're all in this together", then it stands to reason, surely, that public sector spending has to be cut.

The saliva could be viewed slipping uncontrollably from Gideon Osborne's chin as he vowed to cut tax credits and baby bonds whilst freezing public sector pay and raising the retirement age. "Difficult times call for difficult decisions". How crestfallen the Tories musy be at the prospect of cutting state sector spending....


Of course, whilst we all need to be just that little bit more parsimonious and the public sector has to suffer whilst the country's priority is to claw back the fiscal deficit in the name of responsible budgeting.....there's something that the Tories aren't so quick to discuss........


The super-rich by sticking to his pledge to raise the inheritance tax threshold to £1million at a cost £3.1billion to the tax payer.


To put this into perspective, do you stand to gain £1,000,000 in inheritence? How many people do you know who do?

We're so desperate for the economy to recover that we have to cut health and education spending.....but we can afford £3.1bn in tax-breaks for the richest sections of our society?

I'm willing to bet that neither you nor anyone you know stands to gain from this tax proposal. But do you know who does? David Cameron and Gideon Osborne, as well as many parliamentary Tories coming from well-to-do families.

And there you have it. That single issue should tell you everything you need to know about the upper-class Tory slime. For all of their posing as the new compassionate party of the poor, they're still in politics only to fiddle the figures to suit their own interests.

We may all be "in this together", but we're in it together against the Tories scum.

Then Raise The Workers Bomb On High,
Beneath Its Cloud, We'll Gladly Die
For Though It Sends Us All To Hell,
It Kills The Ruling Class As Well

You gotta <3 The Sparts. Solidarity with the deformed workers' state of North Korea!!!!

Personally, I prefer the term "Demented" workers' state of North Korea.

Progressives often struggle to comprehend the logic of conservative pundits, including those within the establishment itself. There is a difficulty in correlating irrational predilections with seemingly well educated individuals. Indeed, many private schools, of which 50% of parliament attended (a statistical source of discontention amongst progressives in itself), teach courses in "logic".

Why then, the irrational homophobia and opposition to gay marriage amongst conservatives? Why the resistance to gender-equality regulation, the prevalence of the so-called "pro-life" movement or the pretence of love for the nation state, whilst simultaneously destroying its working-class industry?

None of the above being rational stances which a person trained in the use of logic, or well-read in the works of the great philosophers - such as many established conservatives are - would adopt. Such individuals are able to identify the sentimentality in such position, even if the culturally hegemonised should sometimes fall prey to it.

A wider analogy to this mentality can perhaps be found in the response of the United States to the democratically elected Social-democrat, Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala in 1953, the similarly elected Chilean democratic socialist, Salvador Allende in the 1970s as well as the democratically elected Sandinistas of Nicaragua in the 1980s (which lead to the Iran-Contra affair which threatened to bring down the Reagan regime in the Whitehouse) and the revolutionary socialist Viet-Minh in Vietnam.

It is important to understand the capitalist mentality in relation to progressive governments throughout the world. We need look no further than the words of Henry Kissinger, who described the Chilean democratic socialist model as "A virus" which could "spread the rot" to other nations in the hemisphere in order to do so.

One progressive government in itself may be tolerable. However, one should resist the temptation to believe that the ruling elite have never been introduced to the ideas of socialism's greatest thinkers. They are just as warey of the power of 'the domino effect' - that revolutionary ferver may spread to countries neighbouring the initial instigator - as socialists are hopeful of the phenomenon's manifestation.

It is for this very reason that the US was forced to install the 'School Of The Americas' trained fascist, Augusto Pinnochet, in Chile in order to quell the spirit of the contemporaneously progressive public. It is for the same reason that the CIA helped to overthrow Arbenz, to replace him with another fascist, this time in the shape of Carlos Armas, why the US supported the Contras with the money made from selling arms to their good-old allies, Iran, and why the otherwise senseless invasion of Vietnam, including some of the most gruesome biological warfare ever seen was necessary.


In relation to domestic policies, this must surely go some way to explaining the prevalence of irrational anti-politics and the resistance to progressive campaigns amongst conservative politicians. There is a legitimate fear amongst the bourgeoisie that the domino effect does not only apply to international events, but at home. One civil right gained has the potential to be the precursor to another right gained.

This is a treacherous pattern for capitalism. Contiguous with the international domino theory, one right may be tolerable, but the 'spreading' of the virus is utterly intolerable. If such a domino effect occurs, it may very well lead to a extensive movement for the implementation of pro-union laws, free and nationalised travel or other essential services. It could even prove the end to private property over the means of production and thus of capitalism itself.

Ergo, it is imperative that conservative forces stifle 'all' attempts to implement insidious progressive politics, irrespective of percieved levels of benignity. Hence aforementioned resistance to racial, gender and sexuality equalit