Ramifications

 

 

Ramifications

When I first applied for my firearms licence, it related only to the firearm I owned, identified by its number, and I needed a reason to own one. This was law for all firearms except shotguns… I have no idea why shotguns were exempt but it may relate to the protection of farmers and their responsibility to controlling rabbits on their land. If I wanted to borrow a firearm from another person, or loan my firearm to someone else, a permit was required from the police which identified the firearm and the people involved. There was good control of firearms, but of course, the government noticed that the management costs were high for a relatively small sector of the population, so they changed the law. The outcome was, a reason to own a firearm was not registered nor was the firearm number and a licence meant a person could own any number and type of firearm. This contributed to, though was not the cause of the gunman shooting members of two mosques, which in turned led to the government changing the law to something just as unworkable.

We have more access to more news than ever before, and it comes to us more quickly than before, and it is less balanced than ever before. When I was young, to actually see the news, we had to go to the movies, whose Pathe and RKO newsreels were always a month or so behind. The first current war news we witnessed was the Vietnam war on television, and although I was less cynical back then, I didn’t think what we saw was slanted then… but it was. While there are a number of conflicts going on round the world as I write, our media focuses on two, the two that are arguably most important to our nation. Consequently, we generally see the impacts of those conflicts on our allies, meaning we see the damage happening to Ukraine and far less of the damage to Russia… unless something happens out of the ordinary. But with the Gaza conflict our news bulletins take more video and press releases from Hamas, than they do from Israel… and I ask myself why would that be?

There’s news right now is about riots in the US, where the government is cracking down on illegal migrants, which makes me ponder two questions; why are local people (so-called) siding with illegal entrants against law enforcement of the land and how do we differentiate between genuine refugees and young men who have an agenda? There’s another question: what is the difference between an asylum seeker and a refugee… in this country, I’ve seen both categories returning to their home country for extended periods, even returning with wives and doing business with their home country. Is it not basic human tradition for the refugees to be women and children seeking shelter and safety while their menfolk… or at least the younger menfolk, sort out whatever is that their families are running away from, with the aim that sometime the women and children are able to return home?  Most western countries, particularly Great Britian and Europe and the United States are being swamped by illegal migrants, most of who seem to be young men and of them, that very question could be asked. In Britian’s case, being islands, they should have the ability to keep illegals out, but the government seems unwilling to… raising the question, why not? What are the ramifications of local citizenry having to step aside for illegal migrants?

Perhaps Northern Ireland’s Ballymena gives a clue. The citizens have accepted various ethnicities as legal migrants for years, so racial discrimination is not an issue, but when they see busloads of illegal migrants coming into their territory, they became concerned. The British government then, to house the migrants, offers landlords high rents, that the locals have no hope of affording, thereby making them homeless. Pleas to the government have fallen on deaf ears but the Irish have grit. The spark occurred when a girl had been interfered with by, can we say, allegedly, by a couple of illegal migrants, which went to court requiring interpreters. This resulting in a migrant’s house being burnt and when the police arrived, riots ensued… but were they riots or is it a fight for Irish identity?

During my working life, I used to plant seeds… literally and figuratively; I have always educated, and in doing so told anyone who would listen that I was planting seeds in their heads about the benefits of caring for the environment by the planting of trees and shrubs. I told them that in the fulness of time, the seeds might germinate and their interest might be stimulated into action. I have seen the results, even a small percent, is enough for me. I have been fortunate enough have stood on this Earth for a long time, and have been associated with older people I thought of as wise, and I kept my ears and eyes open. During the 1960’s, young men, youths, wanting show they were ‘radical’, wrote away to be sent a free copy of Chairman Mao’s Little Red Book. No, I wasn’t a radical and I never read one, but I did hold the book and flicked through the pages, which were a compilation of Mao’s thoughts. I wondered at the time, and do so today; how many seeds Chairman Moa planted into impressionable brains around the world.?

I can’t say if the Little Red Book influenced it, but also during the 1960’s I noticed a brewing criticism of capitalism, especially among academics, and I remember the discussions we had in the workplace about it. As country folk, we were no-nonsense people who agreed that although capitalism had its faults, the alternative was far worse, mainly because we equated capitalism with democracy. The rich people of our time were sheep farmers because wool and meat prices were high, allowing our local farmers to buy new tractors and cars thus stimulating the economy… we recognised that when the farmers were doing well, the rest of us were doing well too. The other realisation was that everyone can’t be the boss, nor in fact be farmers.

During the sixty’s and seventies three of us in the office had many and varied debates during our breaks… we were diverse politically. I remember the three of us laughing about the foolishness of a couple of academics, professors I believe, from the United States who documented that the way to bring down capitalism was swamp the economy with people on welfare. We were perplexed about the need to bring down capitalism, which probably introduced my first distrust of academics. But the idea seemed implausible that there could be large numbers on welfare because at the time, it was true, our prime minister, Keith Holyoake, knew the names of all the people in the country who were on the dole… because the rich farmers improved the economy, so unemployment was rare. Those professors promoted the rhetoric, that bringing down capitalism would ‘make the world a better place’… where have we heard that before? Anyway, we laughed because under capitalism we were doing fine. But those guys had sown the seeds, and at that time, we didn’t realise that some people dressed in good clothes, were actually in disguise. We are witnessing the ramafications.

As far back as the late 1980’s, the logic of carbon dioxide being the main influencer of climate and weather escaped me and the closer I looked, the more it became obvious that it was ruse to change societal behaviour and our way of life. People from the United Nations saying things like capitalism was a major contributor to the climate emergency, which is why we have to break it down; or climate policy is not environmental policy, it is economic policy; or countries will have to give up sovereignty to effectively combat climate change further convinced me. Behind the rhetoric was to ‘make the world a better place’, and all the while, they were sowing weed-seeds of climate fear.

Sometime in 1992, around the time of the Earth Summit at Rio de Janeiro the United Nation’s Agenda 21 was formulated, and because I kept hearing a commentator lambasting it, I looked into it myself. Good intentions perhaps, but it was obvious it needed something to prod the populus to go along with it; the fear of a climate catastrophe seemed to be that prod. But Agenda 21 wasn’t quite going to eventuate so in 2015, Agenda 30 was proposed. Both look good on paper, but looking more deeply there’s a wealth transfer involved, and of course, it’s ‘to make the world a better place’. Meanwhile, behind the scenes, the World Economic Forum was bringing together young world leaders, also to ‘make the world a better place’… you know, ‘you will own nothing and be happy’. A pact of cooperations was signed between the United Nation and the World Economic Forum and among their goals is globalisation and no borders. They are both on the same page.

To them, Great Britian’s Brexit was a backward step as far as the no borders was concerned, but there has been a cosying up of late, helped by the Ukraine war. The covid experience here in New Zealand showed that people dressed up as good, set about instituting the most draconian measures of population control in the world, and the propaganda had the population complying and even now the players haven’t faced scrutiny for their abuse of our basic rights. We were being led by a scholar of the World Economic Forum, and the United Nations noticed… so now their World Health Organisation wants full control to manage the world response to any further pandemics… of course to ‘make the world a better place’.

Part of the fear created about a changing climate was that western nations would be overrun by refugees; but the climate hasn’t changed in an alarming way, nor have sea levels risen more than a smidgin, nevertheless we see refugees rushing into the west… not into other areas of the world, and for good reason. They tend to be better off west. If it is reasonable to expect men to stay behind in their own country to sort out any problems, and if they don’t, how else can their country ever be liveable? The western morals, ethics, empathy and human rights, don’t exist where the illegal migrants come from and as we’ve seen in Britian and elsewhere, advantage is being taken of those qualities among the indigenous people.

Fifty years ago, an old mentor told me, ‘There’s only one certainty in life… change.’ And sure enough, change is occurring before our eyes, so the question is, ‘What are the ramifications?’

 

 

 

 

What th'

  

 

  

 

 

 

What th’

 When I opened my newspaper this morning, there was a tiny insect crawling across a picture of an explosion in Ukraine, so I readied my index finger to squish it. But I didn’t. This was the second such insect that had crossed my newspaper within the last few days, and yes, I did squish the first one. This time I had second thoughts… these little fellas probably wandered into the paper as it was lying outside on the path and were probably surprised by the light when I opened it. They were tiny flies; they could run fast and fly as quickly, but they were small… about four times the size of one of the full stops on this print, yet vibrant life was packed into them. Although I couldn’t see them, this little fellow has sensory organs, a mouth of sorts, it defecated, so must have had internal organs, it had legs and wings. Actually, the tiny insect is one of those miracles of nature we don’t think about. I let it go with some care.

 I then read the article about the explosion in Ukraine. In a way, I had some power over that tiny insect just as Putin has with the people of Ukraine, although his power has dire consequences for the people and the country. If his reasons for the war are fathomable, I’m not privy to them, but they seem to be flimsy excuses rather than an honest justification… if there was justification, solutions are more possible. Does death and destruction, and the acceptance of his own people’s casualties justify Russia’s need for whatever it is Putin thinks they need? The killing and displacement of the people is tragic, and the wanton destruction of infrastructure and homes is a separate crime. According, to international law, the aggressor in any conflict is responsible for the rebuilding once peace comes, they are also responsible for the protection of civilians. Good on the lawmakers… and Russia did face up the its responsibility after their insurgence into Afghanistan. In the past, international aid has also come forth… but where does the money come from? The thing is while the welfare of people is of paramount importance, people can’t survive without bricks and mortar and the necessities of life.

 The other conflict reported on in the newspaper was the Gaza situation. I’m not sure media informs us with balance on this issue, and this report mentioned the word ‘genocide’. When strong words like that are used, it is often used as an inflationary tool to embarrass the supporters of one side. Israel hadn’t been an aggressor and is responding to an attack… and from a humanitarian point of view could be argued that the response is too strong, but if Hamas hadn’t attacked that day, there would be no killing and no infrastructure damage. Is Hamas’ excuse for the attack a legitimate protest? No, attacking civilians is a criminal act, and their dogma of ‘wiping Israel off the face of the Earth’ is at least dangerous rhetoric. The end result is civilians being killed, and infrastructure being demolished for which most feel great sorrow. There is long history in and area, that is important to each side, but there is a glaring elephant in the room that needs addressing. For the past thirty years or more, the people of Gaza have not been able to sustain themselves making them reliant on aid, and donations from various countries. If the current conflict had never happened, the aid would have continued… so how long do their leadership expect such aid to continue? Accepting continual aid creates an unhealthy dependency, yet they have no way of changing the situation. In the unlikely event of Israel suddenly disappearing, would the returning Gazan population be able to support themselves after decades of not having to use any expertise, especially in food production or working collectively?

 At least the media reported about President Trump blindsiding President Ramaphosa of South Africa about the treatment of white farmers in his country, but the media didn’t show the video which justified Trump’s assertion. * There some context to this – I wrote about it some time ago, but here’s the guts. Ain 1995, a young Israeli man came to Tanzania with an American who was working with me. At the immigration counter, he was arrested and held in prison until his release was won, but his passport was stamped ‘undesirable alien’. This happened because of a throwback to when the Israeli government cooperated with the apartheid government of South Africa. The present South African government recently complained to the International Court of Justice about Israel’s treatment of the Gazan people, which was arguably a revenge act rather than humanitarian. Trump was made aware of this. *  Ramaphosa had taken along a couple of white golfers, which he hoped might elicit some United States cooperation, if not funding, but when asked by Ramaphosa, one of the golfers confirmed that white farmers were indeed being targeted with violence. The media seemed not to take as fact that Trump had taken in white farmer refugees from South Africa, who were fleeing from the violence there, echoing similar events in Zimbabwe. Behind this is the United Nation’s declaration on indigenous rights… as toothpaste that can’t be put back in its tube. Despite Nelson Mandella trying to establish a free, multiracial democratic state in South Africa, the present administration has passed a law where land can be taken without compensation, and the video Trump showed was a stadium-full of people shouting, ‘Kill the farmers, kill the Boer.’ I saw a group of South African people being interviewed about the future of South Africa and three people stood out to me. A young man believes that all land should be returned to the people with tribal chiefs in charge. There was a white farmer who told of the challenges of farming, the expertise required and the need for access to finance. A young woman who farms a small holding agreed that the farming economy and food security are based on the expertise of white farmers. She thought all Soth Africans should be able to work side by side to feed the nation. It is apparent that cool heads are certainly needed. Back in 1900, the African population in South Africa was around four million, and the white settlers had already been there for a hundred years. Now there are sixty-three million Africans and many of them want the land back… the irony being the rapid increase in the populations is partly due to the food production carried out by the white farmers. But the land the people want, is the land already under cultivation by white farmers. In 1900 if all of the people wanted to farm land, they would have had small subsistence holdings, which would have been gradually been divided among the family until they become too small for sustainability. As happened in Zimbabwe, there is a large population to feed and traditional farming methods no longer suffice. The South African white farmers have reduced in number markedly over the last few decades, mainly because farming is a difficult business to be in… some have been forcibly removed, so there is the safety consideration as well. The young woman is wise… the poverty among the poorer people will not be solved by the return of land, except in a few instances. They’ve never had land, so have no farming expertise and don’t understand the responsibility of ensuring the nation doesn’t go hungry. Only by working together with the white Africana farmers will they be able to feed the nation… if violence continues, widespread chaos will be the inevitable result.

 This little snippet is timely but wasn’t in the newspaper; I still receive news from my Tanzanian friends, news which the mainstream media is unlikely cover. Tanzania has been progressing well, quietly minding its own business. I’m told that the European Union, pulled on its big-boy boots to threaten the withholding of funds if Tanzania didn’t lift its ban on homosexuality. Tanzania has many religions and the parliamentarians pray before each session; they believe that according to all the religions I parliament, legalising homosexuality would be blasphemy, so they have said so. Kiwi lingo probably says it best, ‘If that’s the basis of your funding, (respectfully) you can stick your funding where the sun doesn’t shine!’ The folk I know over there support their government’s point of view on this issue.

 My old Tanzanian mate Loti used to say that politics is a dirty game, and from what I’ve seen in my eighty-odd years is that there’s nothing new under the sun, just different players and occasions. There have always been tyrants who think that killing people will somehow change things for the better… but they never do. People become involved in politics because they are deluded enough to think they can make a difference, but they are hamstrung by a system where the unnamed drive the main engine. Children cry, but outrage is always brief.

  

 

  

 

 

Training

 

 

 

Training

 

There was light drizzle though not enough to stop me going for my morning walk, but it did seem to stop others; except for a few of the usual dog walkers. I had a brief talk to the guy I refer in my mind to as ‘Brown-dog-man’, and as usual his dog was pulling him along. We often talk, and as usual I referred to his dog as a horse, because of his size. As I’ve noticed with many dog owners, this fellow had justifications for his dog’s behaviour. I sympathised with him, but didn’t tell him what I thought… and that was that the dog was in control of him.

The dog in question is a Labrador, a chocolate Labrador, and the man had told me the reason for his size is the new-fangled nutrition with vitamin-rich, processed food… as against the old way of feeding pets on household scraps. A sheep breeder once told me that ninety percent of the breeding goes down the throat; meaning, the better the tucker (food), the better the animal, so that tallies with what Brown-dog-man said. The other justification the man had was that the young dog had needed some surgery for an injury, so he had been locked in a cage for a few months, thus missing out in formal training. I pondered on that as I continued my walk.

I’m not sure I agreed with Brown-dig-man. Having worked with a whole range of animals, there’s one fundamental to understand for animals to behave well, and that’s for them to know who is the boss. It’s also important for owners to understand that all animals have a level of intelligence, but different levels, and you have to give them time to understand what you want them to do. It’s also worth noting that animals are not humans, have no understanding of human emotions, nor do they don’t understand your language… but they will quickly cotton on to repeated learning, sounds, and recognise your habits, even your mood.  We’ve seen how giving titbits as a reward can be very effective, but I’ve never needed that ploy, nor do farmers that I’ve known.

The term ‘breaking’ is applied to horses and to heifers that are going to be milked, and sure enough there are those who use harsh treatment to achieve their goals of breaking the animal’s spirit. And yes, animals do respond to harsh treat yet aren’t inclined to carry a grudge… unless the harsh treatment is prolonged; but there’s no need to use harsh treatment. Breaking in a horse may well mean breaking its spirit, but it might also mean getting a horse familiar with wearing harness or carrying a rider. Being patient, calm and gentle is effective. Usually.

 I was logging with horses and the boss wanted me to train another horse from another forest. He was a big docile fella, and placidly allowed me to put all the logging harness on him, but when I put a load behind him, he just kicked all the harness off and had no interest in actually pulling. Time and again we went through the process with the same result, so finally I roped the big fella to Jimmy the most reliable of horses and Jimmy taught the big fella what to do in no time at all. I couldn’t take any kudos except for the idea. I have no idea how horses communicate, but something went on there.

The same went for my pig hunting dogs, I’d had plenty of time to train Wally from a pup, and he learned more when, each morning and evening as we walked through the sluicings of old gold workings. I liked him to walk at ‘heel’, so I could touch his head, but as a reward, I would allow him to run something most dogs like to do. But I taught him that he could only run on my say so. How did I do that? Simply by repeating the commands and giving him the ‘good boy’ in a soft voice. On command he would even stop panting when we were listening for game. When I introduced him to another dog, Fred, an adult dog I acquired from the pound, I knew they needed to sort out dominance sooner or later, so I tossed down a piece of possum, and sure enough they fought. But I quickly broke them up… and rather roughly, which showed I was the boss and that Fred was at the bottom of the pecking order. I didn’t train Fred any more than that. Wally did the training; they would both stay at heel so I could touch their heads unless I said otherwise. But Fred had three other traits that he brought of his own accord. If there was a creek, he would drown pigs by holding their head underwater. He would look at me for which direction he should run and he’d go off wherever my raised arm indicated – a trait from the collie in him. And if I left an item of my clothing and told him to stay… he would, for as long as it took.

My mate Andy was a sheepdog competitive trialer and his room full of trophies was testament to his skill, yet he risked his dogs buy using them for pig hunting… because the loved it. They could bail pigs, but were gentle with sheep as required in competitions. Books have been written about working farm dogs, they are bred for their inherent characteristics such as eye, huntaway and heading. My dog, Bess came from Andy as a pup and apart from a tweak of two, she instinctively knew what was required of her. The eye-dog in her would help me catch a ewe that was lambing… similar to the way a stoat hypnotising a rabbit. She was a heading dog and would bring the whole mob of sheep towards me. She was a yard dog, helping me to move sheep in the yards… she would bark when I said, ‘Speak up,’ which helped me fill the pen when I was crutching or shearing sheep.

Breaking in a heifer for hand milking as a house cow will upset a new mother because her calf is usually taken away… not always. Before she calves, it is helpful to yard her regularly and acclimatise her to the bail and having her udder touched. Curiously it is an urban myth that if you hit, or treat a house cow roughly, sooner or later she will get you back… and that is in the back of mind always. They get you back by kicking the bucket, or crapping on the bucket or you. I’m not sure if the bucket of bran at the head of the bail is an enticement; it adds to her diet and reduces spring-growth watery flatulence. But cows are usually easy to work with, probably through breeding, I saw the same thing in Africa.  With age, they can often be milked in the open without a bail. But slow actions, being patient and gentle works best.

If you think about it, the same techniques work with children and people, mind you I’ve known farmers who aren’t good with people… but they don’t seem to have much luck with their livestock either. I suppose it can be summed up by saying that every action generates a reaction in kind.