Sacramento To Pay Danegeld

Just when I think California has hit rock bottom they inevitably break out the jackhammers. This time the Sacramento City Council called for explosives to deepen their hole.

Sacramento City Council Approves ‘Advance Peace’ Program

By Staff, Fox40 Sacramento

SACRAMENTO — After a violent weekend of suspected gang-related shootings, Tuesday the Sacramento City Council took action to reduce the bloodshed.

It approved a controversial program called Advance Peace, which offers cash stipends to gang members who remain peaceful.

The program is already in use in Richmond and is also being considered in Stockton. Some believes it can help curve [sic] violent crime.

Right. Heaven forfend they should curb violent crime, or prevent it. Let’s call this what it really is. These cities have decided to pay the Danegeld, and they seem to be to ignorant of history to understand the consequences of doing so. I turn to Kipling to explain the matter:


A.D. 980-1016

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 for 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 the Dane-geld
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!”

I think tar and feathers are called for.

No Man Is Above The Law
Confederacy Apologists Still In Denial
  • Retired military

    Substitute Dane-Geld with the confederate statues and you will see exactly what is going on today. Too bad folks like David will never understand. I wonder if Neville Chamberlain understood after Hitler had defeated Europe and was bombing Great Britian to rubble.

    • yetanotherjohn

      I can make a better case for Chamberlain buying time to build up the RAF and chain home system.

      • TheyTukRJobz

        Chamberlain came to that point rather late in the German rearmament cycle, which may have been stopped by doing something other than letting Hitler consume Austria and reoccupy the Rhineland. After all, he was still calling Churchill a paranoid war-monger until he made that sad realization of what he’d done.

        • yetanotherjohn

          You can make a lot of valid criticism of Chamberlain before Munich. But what would you have had the UK government do after Munich that they didn’t do? Remember, the UK public was still very much against the idea of going to war at that time. Just as FDR struggled against isolationist pre-world war II himself.
          A strong Churchillian response to the Rhineland would likely have stopped Hitler in his tracks. But a strong Churchillian response to Munich would likely have been a military disaster given how far behind the allies were vs the Germans at that point.

      • Brett Buck

        That’s a tough sell, since he really didn’t do anything else that that concept entails, particularly, building up the defenses on an emergency basis. In fact he went out of his way to block efforts to step up to a war footing in the intervening months.

        Fortunately, other people did see it coming and acted accordingly. As it was, it was a close-run thing but greatly aided by Hitler/German waffling during the sitzkrieg and after Dunkirk, and bumbling and lack of preparation by the Luftwaffe. That did provide the necessary time to get *just* enough preparation to win the Battle of Britain

        Ultimately, however, barring some very bad fortunes of war, there is NO WAY that Sea Lion would have worked, and without defeating the RN (which was never in their capability, nor even close), there wasn’t going to be a successful invasion.

        • yetanotherjohn

          I’m not so sure that there was no way for Sea Lion to work.
          First, look at Crete where the primary attack was by air. Yes they took horrendous casualties, but the issue isn’t the cost but could it be done at all.
          Second, consider air superiority. The Hawker Hurricane was just starting in 1938 and there were 0 spitfire squadrons when Munich occurred. Is it really so hard to imagine the air ministry dithering for a couple more years to enable Germany to have air superiority.
          Third, if Germany has air superiority and the initial attack is made by air, then the RN has to come to the Germans. The Stuka was slow, but it certainly could sink anything the RN had. Add in U-boats and the question isn’t Germany defeating the RN, but the RN being able to sustain the losses to close the channel and keep it closed.
          Churchill genuinely saw an invasion as a real danger in 1940. Now imagine the UK kicking off the war in 1938 over Czechoslovakia and the allies that much less prepared.
          The odds were definitely against it, but I think that same analysis would have said the Germans couldn’t take Crete.

      • Please do (make your case).

        • Brett Buck

          Agreed, I would love to see something along these lines. We are looking back at something with 70 years of hindsight and it’s the story written by the people who later proved to be correct.

          My assessment is the same as most, Chamberlain and co were just naive bumblers, but it’s awfully easy to come to that conclusion ex post facto.

        • yetanotherjohn

          As an example, Munich agreement September 30, 1938.
          Spitfires adopted for service August 4, 1938. RAF went from 0 Spitfire Squadrons September 30, 1938 to 9 spitfire squadrons in service and more coming up in September 1939.
          3/4 of the chain home system and the central clearing room that took in the reports and fed them to the fighters was created after Munich.
          I agree that Chamberlain was not the best man the UK could offer for meeting the looming NAZI threat, but he was the head of the government that was behind (in large part because of what his government did) when Munich happened and was the head of the government that made enormous strides to get what was needed for the early days of the war.
          He was also the head of the government that went to war with the invasion of Poland.
          If the city councils have a plan that could effectively address the gangs a year from now, then like Chamberlain using the year to get ready when they aren’t ready now would at least make some sense.
          Unfortunately, I suspect they will not only be unprepared a year from now, but will just dig the hole deeper year after year. Like Chamberlain would have done if he hadn’t gone to war over Poland.

          • Most of the Sorties flown during the Battle of Britain were flown by Hawker Hurricanes. Most of the German bombers shot down were shot down by Hurricanes.

          • yetanotherjohn

            Hawker Hurricanes were about 60% of the fighters in the RAF for the Battle of Britain and they had about 60% of the kills. They tended to take on the bombers while the Spitfires took on the fighters (though both fought both). The first squadron of Hawker Hurricanes went into service about 6 months prior to Munich. They had about 10% the total in service when Munich occurred vs what they would have at the start of the war a year latter. The numbers to support the RAF fighting immediately with Munich just aren’t there. The battle of Britain, which was almost 2 years later was a very close run thing. Assuming that Munich had signaled the start of WWII and the Germans would have taken Czechoslovakia in 1938 and then France in 1939 with the BoB in August of 1939 (lots of assumptions int here) would have likely seen the Germans win the BoB based on quantity alone.
            You can throw lots of stones directed at getting into a position that you had to accept the Munich Agreement in 1938 (e.g. not standing up to Hitler with the Rhineland annexation in 1936), but it is wishful thinking to say that the UK could have just started the war a year earlier instead of Munich and the results would have come out the same.
            Likewise for California except I don’t see them acting to be able to do something about the gangs next year.

  • yetanotherjohn

    It would be an interesting case to look at this through the lens of RICO statutes. Has the city council become a part of the criminal enterprise through their payment scheme to obtain services?

    • Jwb10001

      Or are they the victims of an extortion racket? Nice little town you got here be a shame if anything happened to it.

      • yetanotherjohn

        Since they are the ones going to the gangs, I don’t think they can claim to be the victim.

        • Jwb10001

          preemptive victims

  • Brett Buck

    +1 for invoking Faust, if nothing else!

  • Olsoljer

    Great article!! Strange how history keeps repeating itself.