You are not yet 25 and we know you know it all.

Your views will change over time and you will realise the folly of your current views.

"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02

Doesn't exist, its a convenient phrase that's used to justify something as being an necessary truth, without the presentation of evidence - despite the fact that there is absolutely no real evidence of anything being classed as human nature outside of certain physiological reactions. To class a hypothetical concept as human nature is a poor rhetoric trick that is a secularised version of gods will or the right of kings etc.

The excellent [Link] is a good starting point for understanding the complexity of human nature as a subject (note that this has since been expanded to include twelve different perspective theories about human nature).

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Everything is geared towards the pursuit of making money for the haves and not the have not and f*** the consequences. People evicted from places so landlords can increase rents - rail against this Matt and it will help Sharon a lot more, food shipped around the world instead of being used locally - why are British apples being sent to south Africa to be cleaned then sent back to shops only a few miles from where they are picked, why does the U. S export as much beef as it imports? Isn't that a bit illogical? Workers being paid a pittance, unions being derided to make driving down wages and putting profits up for those at the top easier , hospitals built under exorbitant pfi terms, schools turned into money making academies.

When the banks and financiers f***ed up, were they punished? No, the debts of trillions were written off and they started again. Social benefits are being stripped to pay for it. Why don't we just wipe off the national debt instead?
Anyone who says that these things shouldn't happen are derided and ridiculed. The greens are anti austerity so they're not being included in televised election debates because Murdoch and his mates stand to lose the most. If the greens are so wrong, let them in on the debate anyway and let Joe public see the arguments for and against. Could it be the anti austerity groups have a point? The establishment are scared of the alternative arguments, so they sweep it under the carpet and deride it. Brand has a point, but instead of arguing why he is wrong, he's ridiculed.

Edited by nickgusset (08 Nov 2014 9.12am)

Do you read all of the news corp press every day? If not, how are you basing your assertion?

Fracking is controversial. Both sides are constantly aired in the media. The idea that there's a conspiracy to silence critics is frankly laughable.

More to the point, has Russell Brand said anything about fracking? Ever?

From what I understand his "thesis" is a hotchpotch of vaguely collectivist solutions to problems, such as energy supply in Brazil or whatever, to which he has added a tedious, anti-authoritarian cry for "revolution" against the "establishment", to which, one could argue, he actually belongs and is doing rather nicely out of it.

...we must expand...get more pupils...so that the knowledge will spread...

He mentions it in Revolution. Why would Murdoch publish anti fracking info if he would stand to lose from it?
Read the book, he covers the issues you mention. It's a bit wordy, but he has a lot of salient points. Get a copy from the library (if it hasn't been shut down)

Agreed... he certainly lost any respect he might of had when he did that stunt on air with Woss taking the p1ss out of 'Manuel' and his grand-daughter.