The popular inspirational saying, "When you want something the whole universe will conspire together to help you get it?" has inspired and uplifted many in times of doubt and self-subjugation to challenges they encounter in their lives. However, the fundamental base message perpetuated by modern self-help literature rests on the often irrational and illogical notion: 'if you want something to happen, you have to crave it wholly, without distraction, disregarding anything else, casting aside all doubts, or let criticisms get the better of you, and your vision shall materialise'. This is not to say focus is not a desirable virtue to achieve aspirations; aiming high will more likely than not raise your potential lower bound. Nonetheless, the warning resides in the absence of empathy, narrowed vision and emptiness once you get there.

Monomania was identified in nineteenth century psychiatry as having a single pathological preoccupation in an otherwise sound mind. The way self-help advocates this notion of fixation is not only false, but adverse too. Desire often holds connotations with lust, greed and envy. These together represent carnal impulses which may derive from the early Christian church's belief in 'cardinal sins'; translatable today into the millennial 'capital vices'. The impression that accumulation of wealth and capital at the expense of anyone and anything else is somehow a virtuous ideal is inherently flawed.

We are habitually told to 'follow our heart' or 'pursue our dream'. However, these philosophies tend to be adopted from societal convention. In the 'West', these 'dreams' are typically the mere received osmosis of capitalist materialism, void of query or reservation on the principle that what we hear is our inner voice - only if we listen attentively enough.

Reliance upon our hearts as the guiding light in the murky wide world as the ultimate arbiter of truth - grander and more dependable than logic, doubt or reason - leaves us with desires gone sour, dreams not in our best interest, or worse harmful to those around us. One such individual known to possess sincere integrity was Andrew Jackson. True to himself, he followed his heart and gut instincts; and yet orchestrated the 'Trail of Tears' project to resettle Native Americans into reservations. The precedent he set has led to much pain and suffering. In America today, the Native Red Indians have some of the highest alcoholism, unemployment and unsavoury addictions in American society. All this from doggedly pursuing a blinkered vision to its apex.

Furthermore, the belief we cannot mull over doubts, be those our own or others is a significant failing in modern society. The needs of the community and wider society are overlooked, while too much emphasis is made on the wants and entitlements of the individual. People may become so focused on themselves, to the extent that their actions are to the detriment of others around them.

While on occasion, the crowd is not always right, as the dictatorial Ataturk, founder of the Republic of Turkey showed the world in the 1920s. He diligently pursued his dream for a liberal, scientific and secular Turkey. Ataturk transformed the landscape of the archaic Ottoman Islamic doctrine, enhancing the country's modernisation into a state built on objective, conducive and unifying science.

Adopting a deliberate visor to shelter us from our own immoderation should we pass too close to the sun and suffer an Icarian fall may not cost us our lives. Nevertheless, foolhardiness by design has its associated expenses. Whether these materialise as blissful ignorance to the worlds' ills, of which you now contribute toward, or simply a dishonest means of living. Advice, criticism and introspection all merit their place in society. After all, if you are not part of the solution, then you are part of the problem. And perhaps, maybe just occasionally, the group may just be right for once.

The didactic obsession certain monomaniac groups holds, such as the Westboro Baptist Church (godhatesfags.com) may well be seen as heroes or successful groups when self-help material is brought to bear. Collectives holding a wholly irrational stance, persevering through rain or shine to their ideals; regardless of criticism and defiant in the face of objection.

Certain corollaries arise with individuals pursuing their life ambitions. It may be assumed those who fall short are unhappy or perhaps fearful; while others refuse to take the risk altogether. The apprehension, warranted or otherwise, self-help and inspirational messages reinforce, lead to individuals taking the message literally. The outcome may serve to reinforce societal inequalities where those who are unfortunate will blame only themselves for their misfortunes, leading to low self-esteem and depression. The other end of the spectrum leaves the narcissist self-inflated and the affluent patting themselves on the back, yet always looking over their shoulder at their next competitor: be it their neighbour with more money, or their colleague with more drive and ambition. A society in which the utter absence of morality and compassion is perverse.

A more equitable and advantageous outcome may be to get to know yourself better, and then you may influence those you meet with your positive outlook, as Jack Ma, founder of Alibaba once said, “If we want to change the world, easier to change ourselves first”.

Once one achieves a state of personal fulfilment, purposes are realised. One can be bold and determined to face failure or new, daunting challenges without the perverse dialogue of instructioned panaceas. Albeit, a questionable idea in a western society where millennials are deemed disinterested in long working hours or making the necessary sacrifices to attain independent achievement. Taken with a pinch of salt, certain young individuals, too hemmed in by parental expectations to seek out their own paths, may appreciate and benefit from the allegories of hope and courage in self-help literature: the little extra nudge to venture forth. However, as far as chances and personal legacies go, perhaps we should all acknowledge one last refrain from Joe Rogan, “If you ever start taking things too seriously, just remember that we are talking monkeys on an organic spaceship flying through the universe”.

Richard Bolton is chief writer at The Manchester Magazine. He is a second-year Politics, Philosophy and Economics student at the University of Manchester

Cancer, the bane of the 21st century. It is not one disease, but a generic term for hundreds of neoplastic diseases. Breast cancer in both mammary glands in one woman can be two distinct variations.

Cancers are distinctive to the individual and should be treated as such. To label one broad spectrum revolutionary drug cocktail or therapy as the definitive "treatment to cancer"  is misleading. The plethora of its manifestations and the genetic diversity of the human race alone necessitates a one track solution is simply not feasible.

When we refer to cancer, we are talking about a very complex and inhomogeneous collective of diseases. Each case for each and every person requires individual care, treatment and therapy.

Advancements will, and are, being made. However, the progress toward unlocking the methuselah gene protocol or effective localised in situ stem cell injection therapy is laboured. Headway is drawn out by regulatory red tape and for a lack of viable identified volunteers.

Cancer cells are living cells. Lifestyle choices focused on benefitting healthy cells will also improve the cancerous growths. Healthy, active lifestyles with balanced diets, exercise, non participation in smoking and over indulgence in recreational drugs and alcohol do assist the body. However, the impact depends upon the healthy cells in question utilising these vitamins, minerals and anti-degenerative compounds to tackle and stem the tide of disease faster than mutations spring up and take root.

The other end of the spectrum for targeting tumour growth is via chemo therapeutics. The downside is the side effects. On the one hand, they need to be toxic enough to locally damage the rapidly mutating tissues while equally spare more stable body tissues. The ravaging effects of chemo manifest in hair loss and intestinal damage. Both of these types of body cell experience a high rate of turnover. Intestinal walls by peristalsis friction and hair loss necessitating replacement.

The ultimate message is to not be misled into thinking the next revolutionary 'wonder drug' will be the cure for all ails. Rather, work on the basis not everything is at it may appear at face value. Internet posts and shares are often nonsensical or misleading. Videos and sponsored pages spreading false hope, often to further promote a pharmaceutical brand's newly patented and approved treatment therapy. The incentives are nearly aligned for these companies at the whims of profit motivations, struggling in the maelstrom of current economic scepticism and competition, to promote by any means necessary.

When you or those around you reach dire circumstances, often any path may seem reasonable, or worthy of consideration.

Those who believe a change in diet may prove the answer to cancer once already embedded should not delude themselves this will outright make all your troubles fizzle away. Soursop leaves have been identified for their miraculous medicinal properties. Alleged to be one thousand times more potent in tackling cancer cells than chemotherapy. Yet, the proponents have no medical evidence as such to validate their findings.

Instead of seeking professional advice and guidance, opting for home remedies and homeopathy may be unnecessarily fatal. Ignorance or stubbornness just puts off the reckoning and potentially endangers the patient's life.

Medical progress today has led to particularly effective new antibody therapies for many incarnations of cancer. New treatments with few detrimental to long term side effects are revealed in frequent cycles.

One should question whether their testing has been rigorous enough to detect longer term undesirable effects should these therapies be successful in extending life beyond the predicted window.

Ultimately, choose wisely and as the wise Spock once said, "live long and prosper."

Richard Bolton is a senior writer at The Manchester Magazine. He is a first-year Politics, Philosophy and Economics student at the University of Manchester

POLITICS
Richard Bolton

The Caliphate of Saudi Arabia is a British creation. British arms and diplomatic support forged her in the 1920's anarchic post war environment. For that reason it lacks a fundamental label of legitimacy beyond a 'Muslim State'.

Labour and Conservative governments alike have pursued the 'national interest' abroad, colluding with radical Islamic forces, including terrorist organisations. 

Our governments simply could not face the demise of Imperialism and the Empire as we knew it in a world with two rising hegemonic States, the USSR and USA. Instead of this ultimatum, they devised tenacious and strategic measures to cling onto their foreign influence within a newly emerging bipolar system. Since we could no longer unilaterally impose our will and lacked local allies we sought other means to maintain influence in the world. We have worked alongside terrorism, connived and colluded with them, trained and financed them. All of which in order to promote specific foreign policy objectives, namely energy security for Britain. Permanent, strategic alliances allowed for British influence to dictate temporary outcomes in this dysfunctional amalgamation of destabilised States displaying Nationalistic surges. 

The very fabric of the Middle East was divided and split by British planners so as to deliberately achieve politically and socially charged disparities and defunct divisions between faiths, tribes and sects. 

Whitehall has colluded on British soil, granting asylum to terrorists our secret services had trained in 'Londonistan'. A de facto 'green light' to jihadi terrorism. 

Subsequently, one or two have become so disenchanted with their curators, it has led to 'blowback' suicide bombings on British soil. It begs the question as to whether we were ever justified to shape the world in the occidental 'western' orientated ideals we bestowed and often forced upon the rest. 

Two objectives have been fulfilled through our collusion: 

1. Control over energy resources - primary priority in the Middle East. 

2. Establishing pro-Western global financial exchange between the Saudi's investing billions in the British economy and banking while we invested in extraction, infrastructure and trade. 

The tacit arrangement to bankrupt or impoverish other nations in 1973-5 guaranteed Britain would turn a blind eye to Saudi expenditure on bankrolling anti-nationalistic jihadi causes as long as the rich oil revenues continued to flow freely into Britain.

Our policy for the past 100 years has contributed to the present threat of terrorism we see today. Our government and mainstream media relationships in Britain run thick. Those who should be unfortunate enough to elaborate on whims of classified stories are sued for libel and super-injunction where necessary. These tight lip measures all to preserve the illusion and pretence Whitehall is exempt and detached from the chaotic mismatch of fundamentalism and conflicting ideologies we see today. 

This hails back long before this 'government'. The decision making processes are often detached from the annals of Whitehall in order to incorporate a modicum degree of plausible deniability long enough to silence those whistleblowers. 

Governments are presumed to act in their citizens best interests. In order to achieve such an outcome, compromises are necessitated. This course of action often leads to collateral damage ligaments, from the whistleblower to the frontline.

While we rant and rave over the occasional domestic terrorist attack our own government has put us at risk of, this is essentially a small price to have paid for the successes in maintaining British post colonial dominance in the world. Governments have an obligation to all their citizens to preserve boundaries, ideals and identity.

The inevitable fatalities are merely a factored in and anticipated collateral ligament from expedient ad hoc dealings with individuals devoid of liberal social values. 

The tenacity with which Whitehall has preserved Britain's faltering posture on the world stage, given our imminent decline into oblivion, could only be deemed as successful for the nation as a whole. Whether the decision makers could morally justify the political upheaval and unrest their deliberations have caused is a question for their consciences. They have made the tough decisions for our nations' better interests so we did not, and continue to not, have to.

Richard Bolton writes about politics for The Manchester Magazine. He is a first-year Politics, Philosophy and Economics student at the University of Manchester

It appears that fateful day has come when we lost our morality. A Muslim man was forced off the London Underground train by a fellow passenger who felt ‘threatened’ by him switching off his iPad surreptitiously. 

The Evening Standard was informed the individual switched off the device when the accuser attempted a glance, and was subsequently forced out of the Piccadilly Line tube. The scene did not pass unnoticed. “Shocked” passengers defended the student on his iPad, reportedly calling the accuser racist. Regardless, the individual left the train shortly afterward.

The incident came after a Muslim Open University student was allegedly thrown off a National Express coach because he 'looked shifty'. Eyewitness stewards and supervisors on scene at the time of the incident, when questioned, said he looked 'Arabic'. The individual was treated in this manner because he looked a certain way. He 'resembled' the image that the dominant narrative and imagery of a stereotypical Islamic terrorist portrays.

British Transport Police's follow up comments were expectedly unaltered and noncommittal in encouraging "victims of or witnesses to hate crime on public transport across the UK to come forward."

While not isolated incidents, these are the latest in a string of incidents involving Muslims and non-Muslims alike on public transport in Britain in the wake of the Paris and San Bernardino attacks. Spikes in discriminatory, Islamophobic, 'hate' crimes have been reported consequent to Paris, mirroring similar rises after terrorist atrocities around the world.

Racial profiling and discriminatory incidents have not been confined solely to the UK. Swedish terror police officers arrived to find a meeting of an international facial hair appreciation organisation the "Beard Villains" after a group of bearded men in dark clothes were seen raising a black flag in October.

While being alert and mindful for suspicious behaviour or unattended luggage seems prudent and proactive, the caution and fear often leads to disunity as basal fears consign certain profiles to generalised extremists. Fellow citizens from many walks of life, while part and parcel of our communities, are subjugated to these assertions in greater frequency in the aftermath of paranoia induced media frenzies.

The populist rhetoric labelling certain individuals as different only serves to divide the nation. Segregation is the desired outcome since xenophobic behaviour plays into the hands of the extremists ailing propaganda machines since coalition bombing campaign targeted their oil revenue streams. Where we discriminate and polarise society at home only furthers justification to their claim that such a hostile environment exists within the UK. Ultimately, the odd disenfranchised individual becomes the perfect western born target to indoctrinate. Reduced funding from the oil supplies leaves ISIS seeking any means necessary to spread their messages, values and influence across the globe.

The alienation of the Islamic faith or in this case "Arabs" in generalisation to a cue point. Those left out of society's inclusive embraces and acceptances, or who fail to conform or reflect its expectations face a rough ride in the wake of terrorist attack instilled fear and irrationality. Those who openly accept and rally to extremist groups, do not act so because of shared ideals, but to express their frustrations and anger toward the society which has cast them out.

The underlying message we can glean from this and other such incidents, indicate people are scared. Whether they realise this or not, and whether it is warranted are questionable and uncertain. However, the intentions of the radicalising groups naturally stretches beyond the immediate vicinity of the fatalities and victims of their attacks. Instilling fear, racism and uncertainty in the surviving population is the ultimate goal. This only serves to further disenfranchise these individuals from the remainder of society. 

Isolation and discontent can be powerful breeding tools for resentment. In turn, this breeds hatred, and on occasion, action, as the anger is expressed through any desperate plight to be accepted. Failure to lend the same treatment to an individual, regardless of creed or colour, is a recipe for disaster. Whether it be rights, values, freedoms and virtues as the next, regardless of political, cultural, secular sway or distinguishable identification, the outcomes are sub optimal however one chooses to look at them.

The counter terrorism campaigns are condemned to fail where Muslims, Arabs or 'different' minorities in society are labelled as such and placed broad brush in the same basket. 

The barbaric acts of a few have been allowed to stigmatise Islam as a religion of hatred ideology and barbarism unfit in this modern day and age. This rhetoric is inflammatory and yet is reinforced by posturing politicians, mass media representation, such as this articles' forerunning publications. The establishment circle the proverbial bandwagons, in eager attempts to put out the heat on our governments, and finger point Russian misgivings alongside terrorists as the primary culprits for civilian casualties in Syria. The spotlight all the while glosses over the DSEI World Arms Fair held in London. Dubious "trade visitors" and military delegations, inclusive of human rights abusing regimes and countries involved in conflict, were welcomed with open arms to support our economy and preserve British values and securitisation. Naturally, an event subsidised by the UK taxpayer.

The day that we as a nation divide ourselves based on creed or colour as assumptions for absent misgivings is the day the terrorist win. Given the western dominance in foreign affairs and military might, ISIS' options are limited to infiltrating western societies and dividing them by whatever means necessary. As Voltaire once said, “Misunderstanding arising from ignorance breeds fear, and fear remains the greatest enemy of peace.”

Richard Bolton writes about politics for The Manchester Magazine. He is a first-year Politics, Philosophy and Economics student at the University of Manchester