The news you're not supposed to know...

Austrian Economics: Understand Economics, Understand the World
The Century of the Self: The Untold History of Controlling the Masses Through the Manipulation of Unconscious Desires
The Disappearing Male: From Virility to Sterility

The Obama Deception: The Mask Comes Off
Operation Gladio: The Hidden History of U.S. Sponsored False Flag Terrorism in EuropeThe New American Century: The Untold History of The Project for the New American Century
Analysis posted Jul 16 2012, 12:55 PM Category: Commentary Source: InformationLiberation Print

'Protected' Great White Shark Bites Young Man in Half

Chris | InformationLiberation

The enviro-fascist Australian government is literally throwing it's citizens to the sharks.

Due to their "protected status," great whites are not allowed to be killed in Australia, same goes for New Zealand, South Africa, and even in America. Penalties differ, but in New Zealand if you dare to kill one of these beasts you face a potential $250,000 fine and 6 months in prison.

Thanks to the government, these vicious predators are allowed to roam free, and they've already killed five people off Australia's western coast this year. The latest victim was a 24 year old surfer who was literally bitten in half by one of these "protected" predators.

Moron environmentalists have managed to concoct a ridiculous fantasy these killers are some gentle creatures who are no threat to anyone. Please tell that to this young boy who just got bitten in half. While I wouldn't dispute a fully fed great white may be gentle and relatively harmless, being in the water with a great white while it's out feeding is an entirely different scenario.

The fact of the matter is people have no idea how many of these sharks there actually are in the ocean, there could be hundreds of thousands of them, or as some estimate as little as 3,500. No one has any actual clue, as the ocean is unimaginably massive there is no way to know with any sort of certainty how many are out there.

The issue here is one of self-defense and whether or not humans should be allowed to advance as a species. Should people be allowed to defend themselves against the dangers of the outside world, or do we have to just accept life as it is now and forgo any hope of progress?

We build houses out of steel to defend against hurricanes, we put up mosquito nets to defend against mosquitoes festering with disease, yet when it comes to great whites the government says we need to "swim with the fishes."
Chris runs the website, you can read more of his writings here. Follow infolib on twitter here.

Latest Commentary
- Let's Talk About...The Plague
- With Mass Shootings, The State Makes Us Less Safe
- Good News: 27% Of Americans Say Government Is Their 'Enemy,' Not Their 'Friend'
- Fear Is The Name of The Game
- This Thanksgiving, Let's Say 'No Thanks' to The Tyranny of The American Police State
- Donald Trump's Presidential "Heel Turn"
- Katniss Vs. Power: The Lessons of Hunger Games
- Tracking ISIS to DC's Doorsteps

Comments 1 - 20 of 66 Add Comment Page of 4 >
Bubba Boogins

Posted: Jul 16 2012, 1:57 PM

678 The Great Whites need to be protected. They are a part of the ocean's ecosystem where all creatures fill a certain need.

Man is not an aquatic animal and can avoid sharks by not entering in their domain.

Yeah sure, let's kill all dangerous creatures you moron.

Posted: Jul 16 2012, 2:16 PM

I was considering writing a bit about just that "perfect eco-system" lie you're reciting, it really makes me laugh.

Sir, if the eco-system was perfect, how does dinosaurs fit into your model of the world? Because they covered the entire earth, and yet now they're all wiped out, and yet all sorts of creatures are still alive and thriving, despite the eco-system changing completely.

Also, maybe you enjoy being some sort of land slug, but I am an aquatic animal. There is nothing I love more than being in the ocean, it's my favorite thing in the world and I would love to bodyboard/surf all day if I could. There is no reason not to take protective steps to protect humans who are swimming in these waters. I never said anywhere to kill all dangerous creatures, I merely said that we should be able to protect ourselves from them, rather than rolling over like whipped dogs and consigning the world to a bunch of wild animals.

If we took no steps to eradicate mosquitoes, malaria would still be thriving, but I guess according to your stone-age mentality everyone having malaria would somehow be part of a "perfect eco-system."

Posted: Jul 16 2012, 3:30 PM

71118 Skark bites human (who looks and acts like a seal) and it's the big bad gov't fault??? LOL Chris, your reaching.

I would have expected that you looked into the predators role in purging the sick and maintaining the health of the herd. Sharks are a vital part of the ecosystem who are targeted by mans fear and lack of understanding. Yes the would be docile if you approached them properly and did not behave like their prey.

Chris would you rather promote a government that kills all great whites to protect humanity? Or is there a sufficient business model to eradicate the species, to save us from them of course, that you could help us understand? Post a recipe for shark fin soup maybe and stop crying "big bad gov" at every issue.

Posted: Jul 16 2012, 4:34 PM

I'm not saying this particular incident was entirely the government's fault -- though there's no way to know for sure if this would have happened absent the state's prohibition -- I'm merely stating these animals should not be "protected" while humans are forbidden from protecting themselves.

>>"Sharks are a vital part of the ecosystem who are targeted by mans fear and lack of understanding. "

Well, were dinosaurs a "vital part of the ecosystem" too? Because nature seems to have survived despite them all being wiped out. There is no "perfect ecosystem," it's constantly changing, in fact, the only thing constant is change.

The whole planet could be destroyed from an asteroid or solar flare tomorrow, what good would it be then that we all acted like slaves and "became one with the earth," meanwhile we could have colonized space and survived just fine if we actually made the best of our situation and concentrated on human progress rather than "sustainable" socialism?

Of course, I don't want to promote any government, any policy a government enacts has to be funded through theft, therefor it's all evil from square one. What there should be is the freedom to fish these creatures just like every other, or even just to outright kill them if it's a safety issue. I would recommend reading about seasteading if you want to know alternatives to our current communist system of "publicly" owned oceans.

Posted: Jul 16 2012, 4:46 PM

121216 chris i'm suprised, I would have thought that one who is so critical of gov't interference through the use of force/violence , would be more reluctant to jump to violence/killng in response to a human situation. Perhaps this examples why indeed we need Gov't to temper the violent reactive impulses of individuals. I get the emotional sentiment you have, I've had it myself but like the vast majority of surfers we wouldn't seek vengence upon a shark or whale, we accept RESPONSIBILITY for the choice to play around in dangerous territories and respect those places too. But we are also thankful when the Gov't erects nets to help minimise the risk. Just another example perhaps why Gov't is not just ALL BAD!

Posted: Jul 16 2012, 5:06 PM

I don't care about vengeance against an animal that's incapable of conceptualizing, they're just doing what they're programmed to do, I wouldn't blame one for attacking me nor anyone else, I'm just saying people have a right to defend themselves from predators, both in government and in nature.

To simply say, "oh well, that's just the way things are" and forgo the possibility of actually improving the human condition is to resign humanity to mediocrity and misery, if everyone believed such nonsense we wouldn't have air conditioning (which relieve us from heat), internal heating (relief from cold), heck, even housing to get out of the elements. We'd be living outdoors covered in bugs and being bitten by mosquitoes.

There is no reason to say, "well sure some advancement is good but lets just not advance in the realm of the oceans," the oceans are 70% of the earth, we need advancement there desperately, instead we're living in the stone age and everyone just spews nonsense like "it's the shark's domain," or "that's why I never go in the ocean."

Posted: Jul 16 2012, 5:10 PM

121216 if "sustainable socialism" saves the whales then I'm all for it. Gov't is often bad when acting as safe guard for big business such is the case of japan doing scientific research 'WHALING'. Humans are PART of an ecosystem chris, its best respect that fact and not be humancentric.

Posted: Jul 16 2012, 5:23 PM

Well, like I said to everyone else, how do the dinosaurs fit into your "perfect ecosystem" theories? They populated the earth, now they're wiped out, yet nature is still thriving. Also, you say screw humanity we need to save the whales, but what if you hitched your wagon to some other majestic creature that was wiped out as a result of nature itself?

Meanwhile, socialism doesn't protect anything, when everyone owns everything no one owns anything, read about "the tragedy of the commons" and how the buffalo were almost wiped out thanks to the U.S. government and "public" property. Private property and private ownership is what protects things, see this episode of 60 minutes, "Can hunting endangered animals save the species?":

Posted: Jul 16 2012, 5:23 PM

121216 The answer chris as always will be technological. The shark nets have really helped alot around the cities though the business plan for gov't or private sector in remote locations is just not ever going to be there. Best bet for remote locations are the anti shark devices being developed. Anyhow life is risky and death is assured so chris why all the fuss, from a staunch libertarian it's surprising. I understand though.

Posted: Jul 16 2012, 5:25 PM

Because self-preservation is very high on my list of priorities! :D

Posted: Jul 16 2012, 5:26 PM

121216 And chris protecting the oceans is advancement sorry you don't see that.

Posted: Jul 16 2012, 5:28 PM

But yes, the solutions to the problem will be from the private sector thanks to technological advancements driven by people who want to improve life and advance humanity, it won't come from socialists who want everyone to "accept things as they are" and "fit in their place."

Posted: Jul 16 2012, 5:33 PM

I want to protect the oceans, that's why I support seasteading, people need to be personally invested in the oceans, until then it will just be a common dumping ground and/or looting ground, just like all other "public" property.

(And of course, the biggest polluters in the world are governments.)

Posted: Jul 16 2012, 5:43 PM

121216 Your a good man Chris but your idealism that private ownership of everything is the answer to all things is just to much of a simplistic theory, just as Gov't is the answer to all things is to simplistic. I've got a theory ill get back to you about later in the day. Really must leave just now. Its an original theory from myself and one your've not heard before. Respectfully D

Posted: Jul 16 2012, 10:12 PM

81161 Cars kill FAR more humans than sharks do, is it OK if I 'protect myself' by killing motorists ? Why not ??

Besides, I don't know what's worse, 'socialists' who want me to 'accept things as they are' or Libertarians who want me to accept things as they say they are ! Because they aren't . When will you understand that ALL dogmatic ideologies are evil ??

Posted: Jul 16 2012, 10:54 PM

Cars don't kill people -- Road socialism kills people.

>>"is it OK if I 'protect myself' by killing motorists ?"

Um, how does that protect you? Seems to be going around killing people would make you more likely to be killed yourself.

>>"When will you understand that ALL dogmatic ideologies are evil ??"

Really, *ALL* dogmatic ideologies are evil?! Don't you think that's dogmatic anti-dogmatism?

Posted: Jul 16 2012, 11:48 PM

193200 chris again showing his absolute ignorance as something to be proud of.

ooopss - a snake bit me... governments fault
oooops - spider bite! ahhh the fuck! - kill the government!
boxjelly fish! - blame the fascist government!

you really bring stupidity to a whole new level

Posted: Jul 16 2012, 11:56 PM

193200 a conversation between an aussie and a yank on the banks of a queensland river..

Yank: Howdy Pardner!
Aussie: Gday
Yank: Can you tell me if there are any crocodiles in this river?
Aussie: Too bloody right mate, as a matter of fact, one of them ate a sheila from your country just the other day...
Yank: Wow! Did it eat her whole?
Aussie: Nah mate... spat that bit out.

Posted: Jul 17 2012, 2:27 AM

193200 it seems more innocent people are shot in their own homes by police in the usa than are eaten by sharks in aus..

look up the definition of "hyperbole" and "priorities"

Posted: Jul 17 2012, 7:24 AM

Here's how it really is:

"Oops - a snake bit me... better just lay down and die and accept that as life!"

"Oops - a snake bit me... better get some antidote and thank those who worked tirelessly to create it rather than 'accept it as life'!"

"Oops - spider bite!... better just lay down and die, the spider is part of our perfect ecosystem and if I killed it or tried to save myself I'd be putting it out of whack."

"Oops - spider bite!... better take some antidote then lay some spider traps around the house to try and prevent it from happening again!"
Comments 1 - 20 of 66 Page of 4 >

Add Comment


Verification *
Please Enter the Verification Code Seen Below

Please see our About Page, our Disclaimer, and our Comments Policy.

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the DMCA and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.

About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy

Advanced Search


Remember Me
Forgot Password?

Video Of Chicago Cop Murdering Teen Shows Another Shooting of Convenience - 11/25Downing of Russian Su-24 Looks Like a Planned Provocation - Russian Foreign Minister - 11/25California Police Used Illegal Wiretap Warrants in Hundreds of Drug Prosecutions - 11/25VIDEO: FSA Rebels Destroy Russian Chopper With US-Made TOW Missile - 11/25Good News: 27% Of Americans Say Government Is Their 'Enemy,' Not Their 'Friend' - 11/24Singapore: The Power of Economic Freedom - 11/25Undercover Cop Dressed In All Black Shot While Placing GPS Tracker On Car - 11/20With Mass Shootings, The State Makes Us Less Safe - 11/25

Man Follows Speeding Cop, Finds Out He Was Speeding To Buy PeanutsMission Creeps: Homeland Security Agents Confiscate Women's Panties For 'Copyright Infringement'Cop Shoots Couple's Dog, Threatens Jail For Trying To Save Dog's LifeSWAT Team Shoots Teen Girl & Her Dog During Pot Raid On Wrong HomeDurham, NC Cop Testifies Faking 911 Calls To Enter Homes Is "Official Policy"Indiana Sheriff Says US A "War Zone" To Justify New MRAP Military VehicleTampa Cops Surveil Pot Dealer, Catch Him Selling Pot, Raid His Home & Kill Him"You Just Shot An Unarmed Man!": Witness Says Police Shot His Friend With His Hands Up