Europe Is Shy On Surveillance

Lesson Learned: Multicultural low-trust countries quickly become police states in order to keep a lid on crime, terrorism and inter-sectarian violence.

_________________________________________________________________________________________

This was surprising:

Belgian and French police, who had worked intensively together since November 13, carried out a midday check on what, according to several officials, they thought was a defunct terrorist safe house. The utility bills hadn’t been paid in months, officials said, leading police to assume the apartment in the Forest district of southern Brussels stood empty. The six-person team didn’t expect to meet resistance and brought no police backup or special forces support.

When the police opened the door, they were shot at with a Kalashnikov and “a riot gun,” according to the Belgian authorities. Four officers were wounded, including a French policewoman. Heavily-armed police pursued suspects across the rooftops. One gunman was killed. Two fled the scene, evading capture even though police had sealed off the area.

This means either ISIS didn’t use any wireless devices from the house, or the counter-terror forces didn’t check to see if anything had linked into the wireless network from that GPS location, or they didn’t have the ability to check. My guess, based on the facts that at least a minor spot of surveillance, maybe with thermal-imaging or a fake meter-reader walking up wasn’t deployed on the site prior to the police, and that terrorists escaped an area which should have been blanketed in covert surveillance by the time SWAT arrived and began chasing people across rooftops, makes me think they simply didn’t check. The very fact an old safe house hadn’t been staked out at some point and activity noted, is itself a sign. This kind of sounds like how police in America in the fifties would have handled things.

I have suspected for a couple of reasons over the last year, that at least France was seriously lagging in the deployment of their surveillance state, especially the in-person element, and by a considerable measure. I suspect Belgium is as well. I also wonder just how lacking in surveillance the rest of Europe is. I’d assumed Britain, and especially London is saturated, partly a vestige of their terrorism past, and partly from the cold war, but other nations, perhaps not so much.

The problem is, you either have a free society of wolves, who adhere to K-selected virtues (like showing loyalty to their nation by not importing Muslim immigrants and the high numbers of terrorists they will conceal), or you have a society of moronic rabbits, who import every threat possible, and preach how not doing it is anathema to their virtues. If you have wolves, they don’t need surveillance or restrictive government control to keep them safe, nor would they want it. If you have moronic rabbits, unless they are guarded by the most powerful, restrictive surveillance state imaginable, you are asking for a bloodbath – and truth be told, rabbits love nothing more than a government they can fear.

If the rest of Europe outside of Britain has as weak a surveillance state as I suspect, then given the migrant flood we have seen over the last year, the fun there is just getting started. It is good, as a society blanketed in surveillance may continue to think you can import Muslims without cost.

But a society without the gross intrusion of government into everyone’s private lives will eventually realize you either keep all Muslims out to prevent the entry of terrorists, or you get used to a few hundred citizens dying and being maimed here and there in horrific attacks. As the Apocalypse begins, that will get much worse.

Europe is going to K-ify, hard.

http://www.anonymousconservative.com/blog/europe-shy-on-surveillance/

Sent from Mail for Windows 10