f the way a proletarian society works.

This is one of the prime reasons for the mass emotional health debate of the 0’s. People are guided financially, told how to go about being a productive member of society from an economic perspective, yet the only help with their emotional health comes from feeble written propaganda, citing “positive thinking” and other such drivel to be the 21st Century Saviour of our minds.

The problem lies much deeper, the powerful governmental figures cannot expect a state service to work just by throwing m

Society in 2007 is a strange thing to be a part of. Somewhere between the bourgeois and the homeless lies a modern day phenomenon, the middle class man. Working strenuously for his pay check, Generously helping out the poor, paying out his taxes for the benefit of the rich and powerful, is this a man surrounded by (potential) success,? or trapped in economic quicksand, forever struggling to rise higher than the plateau that has been granted to him, remaining trapped within the confines of his own environment.

He remains first and foremost, a human being. Let’s paint a picture of him, his name is Sam, just 28 years old, slaving away to little avail at a prominent insurance company, earning but a slither over the ?24,000 average pay check. A lifestyle so common that we all know or perhaps exist as someone in this position. He loathes his job and hates his life. The degree in business didn’t allow Sam to follow the exciting path he once wished it had, instead leading him to a mind numbing office, a tyrannous boss, and a cup of cheap coffee every morning. In societies eyes, Sam is doing very well for himself, and he is not alone. Many of his generation earn as much as him, work in equally boring jobs, and are unsatisfied in a plethora of ways. Good society? The powers that be seem to think so.

But is this really a beneficial society to everyone? The simple answer is: no. No society can be totally beneficial to every single member of it, the nature of a progressive system just does not incorporate that into its nature. In my opinion, Britain (and America) in this day and age are prime examples of Darwinism. The survival of the fittest mentality is certainly evident in every corner of society, oozing from the very people that make up the numbers, and thrusting aggressively into the faces of those that reject it.

From an objective point of view, the conclusion is relatively simple; the state looks upon it’s inhabitants from a higher plateau, seeing only methods of implementing and maintaining the political theories that they learnt from their prestigious universities, making decisions based on these such methods, as opposed to a genuine understanding of the way a proletarian society works.

This is one of the prime reasons for the mass emotional health debate of the 0’s. People are guided financially, told how to go about being a productive member of society from an economic perspective, yet the only help with their emotional health comes from feeble written propaganda, citing “positive thinking” and other such drivel to be the 21st Century Saviour of our minds.

The problem lies much deeper, the powerful governmental figures cannot expect a state service to work just by throwing mo

, a human being. Let’s paint a picture of him, his name is Sam, just 28 years old, slaving away to little avail at a prominent insurance company, earning but a slither over the ?24,000 average pay check. A lifestyle so common that we all know or perhaps exist as someone in this position. He loathes his job and hates his life. The degree in business didn’t allow Sam to follow the exciting path he once wished it had, instead leading him to a mind numbing office, a tyrannous boss, and a cup of cheap coffee every morning. In societies eyes, Sam is doing very well for himself, and he is not alone. Many of his generation earn as much as him, work in equally boring jobs, and are unsatisfied in a plethora of ways. Good society? The powers that be seem to think so.

But is this really a beneficial society to everyone? The simple answer is: no. No society can be totally beneficial to every single member of it, the nature of a progressive system just does not incorporate that into its nature. In my opinion, Britain (and America) in this day and age are prime examples of Darwinism. The survival of the fittest mentality is certainly evident in every corner of society, oozing from the very people that make up the numbers, and thrusting aggressively into the faces of those that reject it.

From an objective point of view, the conclusion is relatively simple; the state looks upon it’s inhabitants from a higher plateau, seeing only methods of implementing and maintaining the political theories that they learnt from their prestigious universities, making decisions based on these such methods, as opposed to a genuine understanding of the way a proletarian society works.

This is one of the prime reasons for the mass emotional health debate of the 0’s. People are guided financially, told how to go about being a productive member of society from an economic perspective, yet the only help with their emotional health comes from feeble written propaganda, citing “positive thinking” and other such drivel to be the 21st Century Saviour of our minds.

The problem lies much deeper, the powerful governmental figures cannot expect a state service to work just by throwing m

doing very well for himself, and he is not alone. Many of his generation earn as much as him, work in equally boring jobs, and are unsatisfied in a plethora of ways. Good society? The powers that be seem to think so.

But is this really a beneficial society to everyone? The simple answer is: no. No society can be totally beneficial to every single member of it, the nature of a progressive system just does not incorporate that into its nature. In my opinion, Britain (and America) in this day and age are prime examples of Darwinism. The survival of the fittest mentality is certainly evident in every corner of society, oozing from the very people that make up the numbers, and thrusting aggressively into the faces of those that reject it.

From an objective point of view, the conclusion is relatively simple; the state looks upon it’s inhabitants from a higher plateau, seeing only methods of implementing and maintaining the political theories that they learnt from their prestigious universities, making decisions based on these such methods, as opposed to a genuine understanding of the way a proletarian society works.

This is one of the prime reasons for the mass emotional health debate of the 0’s. People are guided financially, told how to go about being a productive member of society from an economic perspective, yet the only help with their emotional health comes from feeble written propaganda, citing “positive thinking” and other such drivel to be the 21st Century Saviour of our minds.

The problem lies much deeper, the powerful governmental figures cannot expect a state service to work just by throwing m

ival of the fittest mentality is certainly evident in every corner of society, oozing from the very people that make up the numbers, and thrusting aggressively into the faces of those that reject it.

From an objective point of view, the conclusion is relatively simple; the state looks upon it’s inhabitants from a higher plateau, seeing only methods of implementing and maintaining the political theories that they learnt from their prestigious universities, making decisions based on these such methods, as opposed to a genuine understanding of the way a proletarian society works.

This is one of the prime reasons for the mass emotional health debate of the 0’s. People are guided financially, told how to go about being a productive member of society from an economic perspective, yet the only help with their emotional health comes from feeble written propaganda, citing “positive thinking” and other such drivel to be the 21st Century Saviour of our minds.

The problem lies much deeper, the powerful governmental figures cannot expect a state service to work just by throwing m

f the way a proletarian society works.

This is one of the prime reasons for the mass emotional health debate of the 0’s. People are guided financially, told how to go about being a productive member of society from an economic perspective, yet the only help with their emotional health comes from feeble written propaganda, citing “positive thinking” and other such drivel to be the 21st Century Saviour of our minds.

The problem lies much deeper, the powerful governmental figures cannot expect a state service to work just by throwing money at it. Real plans need to be devised and put into action before it is too late, a generation with so much potential to make money, the fuel of life, is going to be obliterated under an umbrella of drugs, immigration and the need for instant gratification. Something needs to be done.

As aforementioned, society will always reject a number of alternate souls, yet I am not alone in thinking that this number will rise profusely within the next 20 years. We are facing the daunting prospect of turning into an emotionally lost, paralysed generation. This is due to certain governmental decisions such as the relaxed attitude on cannabis, mass immigration from the new EU countries such as Poland and Bulgaria, and a new generation of young people being spoon fed information and choosing the instant gratification that “myspace” provides, rather than working towards an ultimately satisfying end goal.

Sam might not be doing so badly for himself after all...