By Imnokuffar-Back in the day we used to pay the Danes tributes to stop them from attacking us, known as the ‘Danegeld’. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica this was:
Danegeld, a tax levied in Anglo-Saxon England to buy off Danish invaders in the reign of Ethelred II(978–1016); it also designates the recurrent gelds, or taxes, collected by the Anglo-Norman kings.
The word is not recorded before the Norman Conquest, the usual earlier (Old English) term being gafol (“gavel,” or “tribute”).
Though the Danes were sometimes bought off in the 9th century in both England and France, the word Danegeld is usually applied to the payments that began in 991 and continued at intervals until 1016. Danegeld is distinct from heregeld, an annual tax levied between 1012 and 1051 to pay Danish mercenaries.
The Anglo-Norman and Angevin kings continued the geld until 1162.
If we look at the logic of our Foreign Aid policy, then it would appear that this is predicated on the same sort of logic.
For instance, look at the following quote from Mr Cameron:
“In the debate that we inevitably have in Britain about whether it's right to be spending money on aid, I would say this is a great example of a country that, if we walk away from and if we ignore and forget about, the problems come visited back on our doorstep.”
"How do we know this? Because we've done it before.
We walked away from Afghanistan in the past. The problem of drugs got worse. The problem of terrorism got worse. The problem of extremism got worse. The problem of asylum and immigration got worse."
By the logic as dictated above the more money we give to failed states such as Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen etc the less terrorism we will have and we can all sleep soundly in our beds knowing we are safe because we paid people not to attack us.
This is also known as blackmail and moral/political cowardice.
It also goes against this and previous governments’ policy of not paying ransom to terrorists – so how can this form of blackmail (foreign aid) be defended but not the payment of ransoms?
And in this article I make no overt reference to the corruption engendered by this ‘Aid’ but suffice to say that when Yasser Arafat died close to half a billion dollars was found to be missing – still, he is a hero of the Palestinian cause and was a ‘freedom fighter’ so this little matter can painted over.
Where is the evidence for this ludicrous claim that foreign aid prevents immigration, terrorism and drug running?
Home grown and foreign terrorists do not care whether we give the entire GDP of the UK to failed states or maybe they do as it might affect their benefits.
Terrorism and especially Islamic terrorism is ideological/religious in nature. There is nothing in the Koran to say that if Foreign Aid is given then attacks on the Kuffar must stop.
There is plenty said about paying the Jizyia – the Islamic tax on infidels that is paid precisely to stop the Muslims from attacking them. So Foreign aid could be seen as a form of Jizyia as well as having close similarities to the Danegeld.
As to the efficacy of this solution in terms of stopping immigration, it would appear that the more aid we give the higher the rate of immigration climbs.
I have no idea whether there is a causal link between the two but common sense says that if we give foreign aid to stop immigration and it keeps rising then this must be a failed policy.
Or is Mr Cameron implying that if we did not give foreign aid that the situation would be even more catastrophic?
If the aid “ we” give, and I use that term loosely because no-one asked us if we wanted to give it let alone increase it, is perceived by the recipients as coming from a rich country then not surprisingly these same recipients will want to come to this Eldorado.
The other issue that Mr Cameron mentions is drugs. Somehow giving aid is supposed to stop drugs from coming into the country. This is because the aid given is being used to help farmers to diversify into other areas of production such as wheat or other cash crops.
However, this policy has also failed.
This from a source:
‘The West is losing the heroin war in Afghanistan – ten years after Tony Blair pledged that wiping out the drug was one of the main reasons for invading the country.
Despite spending £18billion and a conflict that has so far cost the lives of almost 400 British troops, production of the class-A drug by Afghan farmers rose between 2001 and 2011 from just 185 tons to a staggering 5,800 tons. It increased by 61 per cent last year alone (2011).’
‘Ironically, the Taliban had overseen a significant fall in heroin production in the months before the invasion. Their leader Mullah Mohammed Omar – collaborating with the UN – had decreed that growing poppies was un-Islamic, resulting in one of the world’s most successful anti-drug campaigns.
As a result of this ban, opium poppy cultivation was reduced by 91 per cent from the previous year’s estimate of 82,172 hectares. The ban was so effective that Helmand Province, which had accounted for more than half of this production, recorded no poppy cultivation during the 2001 season.
However, with the overthrow of the Taliban opium fields returned, despite the destruction of crops by coalition forces and initiatives to persuade farmers to switch to other produce.
There was some success but, commanders said, the ‘reality’ was that forces were too thinly stretched to focus on crop destruction – a move that, anyway, turned farmers against the troops.’
So far from encouraging farmers to diversify into other cash crops this policy seems to be having the reverse effect and is fueling increased terrorism as well.
The fact of the matter is that whilst foreign terrorists are a factor the main threat comes from our indigenous Jihadists and one unique source, and that is Islam.
There can be no getting round this, no weaseling out; because eventually this issue will have to be faced and paying the Danegeld will not make this go away.
So, in the round, this policy has not worked and has only increased the problems but this government is in complete denial and ploughs ahead with this failed policy whilst at the same time cutting services, our armed forces and starving infrastructure programmes of cash.
The other argument that Mr Cameron uses is the Humanitarian one.
He alludes to but does not openly state that by not giving away billions of pounds we are somehow morally depraved, mean, base and heartless.
I would submit that by giving taxpayers money to other countries without the consent of those who pay that tax this government is being morally, socially and ethically corrupt.
Especially when our own people are suffering from the worst cuts in government expenditure in generations.
Even if Mr Cameron’s claims were true, does this mean that each one million pounds extracted from us in aid stops 2 terrorist attacks or three or four? Did this approach stop the 7/7 attacks in London?
Has it decreased the supply of Drugs? Has it curtailed Immigration in any meaningful sense?
The answer is, obviously, a resounding ‘NO’.
If an individual wants to give their own money to a worthy cause then that is their choice and I would applaud them for it. That is however, the choice of the individual and not a government imposed action.
If Mr Cameron wants to give his entire wealth away to these ‘worthy causes’ then he is welcome to do so. But he will not as he is content to give our money away to useless initiatives and to sacrifice our troops in a failed and corrupt war.
The solutions to the problems outlined by Mr Cameron are simple but unpalatable to him. But not, I would suggest to the British people.
Beef up the border agency and increase checks on all immigrants at the border. Throw out all illegals without right of appeal and institute draconian penalties for drug runners and distributors.
Put an immediate stop to all Muslim immigration and bring in the death penalty for terrorist offences resulting in the loss of life, with severe punishments for those collaborating in such offences.
There you are Mr Cameron.
And all this without getting involved in fruitless wars.
As Rudyard Kipling put it.
IT IS always a temptation to an armed and agile nation,
To call upon a neighbour and to say:
"We invaded you last night - we are quite prepared to fight,
Unless you pay us cash to go away."
And that is called asking for Dane-geld,
And the people who ask it explain
That you’ve only to pay ’em the Dane-geld
And then you’ll get rid of the Dane!
It is always a temptation to a rich and lazy nation,
To puff and look important and to say:
"Though we know we should defeat you, we have not the time to meet you.
We will therefore pay you cash to go away."
And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
But we’ve proved it again and again, That if once you have paid him
You never get rid of the Dane.
It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation,
For fear they should succumb and go astray,
So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,
You will find it better policy to say:
"We never pay any one Dane-geld,
No matter how trifling the cost,
For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
And the nation that plays it is lost!
If you agree with this analysis then JOIN US !