101 Dalmatians SA – Bitter Puppies Since Polokwane

101 Dalmatians SA – Bitter Puppies Since Polokwane

101 Dalmatians is an animated film that tells the story of a litter of dalmatian puppies who are kidnapped by the villainous Cruella de Vil, who wants to use their fur to make into coats.
We use 101 Dalmatians in this instance as a play on the odd number of 101 veterans and moreso the utter childishness in behaviour as puppies of this group who claim a special veteran status.


It is time we red-card the now clearly self-obsessed 101 Dalmatians who today were at it again in their demand to the NEC to have the president removed.
Attitude of the veterans
The childishness of the veterans is in the narrowness of their understanding of how ANC leadership is elected. This childishness is further underscored by their confused interpretation of the powers of the NEC
The third dimension of this childishness is their individual and collective anger towards the democratically elected president of the ANC for their own, in many instances, personal reasons.
They have consistently shown no respect, let alone reverence or time for the ANC branches who ultimately decide ANC leadership.
The so-called ANC veterans clearly have also shown no respect for the democratically elected ANC in leadership and have shown this time and time again.
They somehow believe they have uniquely earned a right in the superlative to be heard and listened to as the final authority in the ANC.

They behave as if they suffered for our freedom, when we suffered and liberated ourselves.
They have on this day, Friday May 26, 2017, given notice that they will submit to the office of the Secretary General a request to have the NEC engage the removal of the President at its NEC meeting this weekend.
They go further and repeat the refrain of the opposition to blackmail ANC MP’s into voting with their individual conscience.
Who are the 101 veterans?
The question is who are the 101 veterans – or Dalmatians – and what is their individual and collective interest in the current political equation?
If you thought these were 101 wise men and women, selfless and totally absorbed in wanting to see ANC unity and therefore a ANC leading SA further, you may be violently mistaken.
If you think these are working for the unity and interest of the ANC, you are mistaken. They have done nothing constructive to build unity in the movement in the last 10 years.
These are economically vested elite politicians, former officials and some who claim to be veterans – who sell us the sophism that they ran the ANC and South Africa in dignity and honour.


These are leaders who believe SA is their constituency, that they were elected by SA when they were leading – a claim they deny others who by the same token equally were elected by that same SA constituency.
So we ask again, who are these so-called veterans?
Don’t be fooled, some of them are very intimate friends with Atul Gupta to this day and still enjoy dinners together.
Others have spouses who work as senior officials in a Helen Zille-led DA administration.
Some, for no apparent great entrepreneurial or business acumen of good reason, have earned the status of being the richest woman Goldfields has ever produced.
Some were compromised in Multi-choice deals they made whilst leading.
Some used to work for De Beers and were long captured by the Oppenheimer and Sol Pienaars of this world.
Some, when they worked for Madiba, compromised him because they charged capital for meetings they organised where Mandela would attend.
Some made extraordinary concession deals with Mervyn King when they led SARS.
Some were arrested for knocking down a pedestrian whilst driving a vehicle in a state of inebriation.


Some were implicated in a car scam while deployed as part of the diplomatic core in Kenya.
Some were seriously implicated in gross financial irregularities collapsing the ECDC for millions, yet today their words are the final authority, used as one of the reasons for evidence of state capture.
You tell us if these are not the signpost of capture?
What will they tell us?
They will tell us in fairytale of Mandela and Mbeki eras as if we did not live through those periods.

They will tell you the current ANC leadership deserves not being respected, and that ill-discipline is justifiable, therefore violating ANC constitution and policies.

They are the ones who will tell South Africa that Treasury cannot but be run by a former Gordhan and Jonas.

They will tell us the ANC will lose the 2019 elections only because they as the 101 are not taken seriously.

What they will not tell us


There is no unity among them, as 101 so-called veterans; They have all diverse agendas informed by self-interest.

They won’t tell you some of them have clear personal political ambitions to run South Africa although they remain untrusted in ANC in elections.
They will not tell you how vested they are in this apartheid economy we seeking to transform.
They will not tell you they make up the bufferzone that delays and denies our radical transformation of the economy. Their white business partners along with them are the frontline of resistance to change for the current status quo that currently serves them.
They will never tell you they make up the thin slice of very wealthy black individuals – the signpost of our liberation as benefactors of colonial and apartheid white capitalist trickery of Jewish, English, Indian, and Afrikaans-speaking whites who claim an Afrikaner identity wealth.
They won’t tell us how their spouses and families are serving for no reason but their political association in strategic boards that confirm the disparity and inequality of the SA societal expression.
They won’t tell you that some of them in 2009 followed Zuma to Europe to facilitate and force a meeting with Ariva, a French-based nuclear company. Clearly swayed in wanting the nuclear deal to go there. At the time the ANC had not even discussed the mixed-energy approach.
They won’t tell you some of them privatised Telkom and sold the stake in Vodacom and today they are billionaires and philanthropists.
They won’t tell you that some of them were dry-cleaned by the very multinationals of apartheid making.
They won’t tell you that some of them, whilst being officials had their sisters and brothers hold their stakes in mines in sister African countries; or how they abruptly removed their own siblings with much animosity to move their spouses into these companies when the time allowed it.
They won’t tell you that they benefited to build roads in countries like Madagascar whilst leading as top officials in state entities pretending that they were not involved in any business.
They won’t tell you that since the advent of the Zuma administration they have not been able to control and benefit; They represent a class of people concerned with capital until they will fill newspaper front pages complaining how they are being sidelined.
They won’t tell you that corruption was born with them in control, that they raised the boy corruption that today is a grown man.
These won’t tell you how they sold us out to white interests for as cheap as a holiday home somewhere.
They won’t tell you they don’t respect ANC branches as the critical structure to ensure leadership.
They won’t tell you they disrespect and refuse to submit to the official veterans structure in the ANC.
They will never tell you where they sought as so-called elders to engage the ANCYL.
They won’t tell you they have ever engaged the Women’s League.
They won’t tell you their fight is political in which SA and it’s people are not the focus but mere tools.
What they are responsible for:
They are responsible for this duly capitalised Save SA, the surrogate womb if Ramaphosa loses at the December elective conference.
They are responsible for the so-called politically driven “National Dialogue” in which an apartheid illegitimate De Klerk can categorically state this dialogue is about the Post-Zuma presidency era. When we know this was about removing Zuma.

They are behind this irrelevant and directionless SACC panel that can claim they have proven state capture when it is silent on the scourge of violence on our most vulnerable.

They are responsible for the so called academic research that apparently scientifically and empirically claims to have proven the presence of a yet-to-be-engaged state capture.

What now?
It’s time we tell these 101 Dalmatians: your time is up and you have overplayed your roles and significance. You need to enjoy your retirement, your grandchildren and your wealth attained by means of your political connectedness.
Stop telling us you are doing this out of your concern for the ANC. This is all about you, in attempt of recapturing the ground you lost forever because you refused to move on and honour the ANC constitution post-Polokwane.

You are a ageing group of revenge-thirsty, self-centered, megalomaniac individuals who share no common morality but are on a trip to the Sun in your makeshift spaceship of veteran claim.

They will deny that they are all captured. Yet we know they are the signpost of capture!



Pastor, You need a Sabbatical!

Advise to Pastors: You need a sabbatical!

Every pastor at some stage must take a sabbatical, I am not talking about a holiday at the beach, I am talking about stepping away from the pulpit to regain perspective, balance and renewed insight.

If the world understands you must take a break. If the sports world know there is a need for half time, if the work environment has a tea break and a lunch break, why do Pastors believe God called them and didn’t accommodate a break ( sabbatical).

God rested on the 7th day, Jesus often withdrew from the crowds. Why do you feel you must be there 24/7/365 as if you have more resource and sense than Elohim?

I deal with pastors all the time trust me I can see in many of their eyes despair, doubt, the edge of giving-up and the fear of failure.

I see their wrestling with what was interpreted as promised by God and what was physically realized, the simmering dialectical tension ever so pervasive.

This is no prophecy, it’s common sense, God wants you to take a break. If the church you pastor collapse because you stepped aside it was your church not God’s because he sustains whatever he started.

When ever have you taken a sabbatical, I am not talking about getting on to a plane to go overseas to attend a Conference of your favorite preacher or your bishop you submit to whom you see a few days a year, take a few pictures with and assume you very tight.

Research is showing an increasing number of preachers and pastors don’t believe anymore and go through the mechanical process of a humanist world as drifters. Many more have lost the respect of their families because they simply are not breadwinners.

A bigger group of pastors children simply don’t want to hear about church and church people because they have been so hurt by people that made their parents suffer.

To crown it all the pressures of a capitalistic and greed based system fueled by TV ministry in which a handful appear phenomenally successful and claim they on their way to billionaire stature as juxtaposed to those who don’t even know from where the next meal will come is a stress factor that has bearing on the physical, mental and spiritual lives of pastors.

Pastors end up living lives of deceit pretending to have it all together when the bottom gave way a long time ago.

To add insult to injury the behaviour and worship of hedonistic pleasure by some who have violated the moral code of being called does not help pastors either. The recent foolishness and outright crime around pastors places enormous pressure on those who seek to walk right.

You are running on empty Sir, you know you going through the motions and the Sunday getting up is long no more enjoyable. Is it not time you go on a sabbatical ?

I am talking about a Sabbatical. A time to pensively and calmly reflect, a time to rekindle your first love, a time to forgive yourself for thinking you are superman. A time free from the fallacies of the trend of conferences and convocations, programmes and initiatives. A break from your billboard presence of  a crafted “perfect” picture of you and your spouse neatly choreographed.

A Sabbatical is an openness to let God reveal to you the full extent of your ministry as not narrowly based on four walls that defines for most the totality of church, but a universe He created and you live in and always will have to work, play and relaxing to do.

Discover new dimensions of you learn to write, do some art, play in the sand, find a place of solitude, read more than what you deem your spiritual favorite authors and have fun! Break with the idea of worshipping ordinary human beings who have found their rhythm in life.

It’s a time to cry at your so-called successes and laugh at your so-called failures

You running on empty and crashing is very possible – you need to consider a Sabbatical – I truly am finding mine refreshing

Bishop CNSR

Is there a Crisis in Black Intellectual Praxis in Post Apartheid Context – The Crises of the Black SA Intellectual!

Is there a Crisis in Black Intellectual Praxis in Post Apartheid Context – The Crises of the Black SA Intellectual?
By Bishop Clyde N.S (Khoi-Khoi) Ramalaine on Friday, July 29, 2011 at 12:25am

It is my contention that the most misplaced group of people in a post apartheid context is necessarily those who constitute by design or default what I shall call Native Intellectuals. Black Intellectualism as a researched topic is not a new concept; the challenge of Intellectualism is the proximity of its nuanced historic affinity to the concept and subject of elitism.

Such challenge appears to hold for the African Intellectual, finds himself, no different to his American counterpart in a quandary, where his intellectual prowess is often a measured one in relation to and implicitly concomitant to what the prism of white intellectualism seems to portend.

Today we know Intellectualism is understood in manifested paradigms of organic intellectuals and academic intellectuals. To make matters even more complex there are those who talk of the public intellectual. I am not going to attempt to claim, I know the difference, for I think even those who advance this distinction have yet to define the term intellectual.
To understand the challenge and path I am charting I shall use two significant figures in Black American History. These are respectively Martin Luther King Jr, and Malcolm X. The upbringing of these two, their economic status and family lives, their faith persuasions determined the picture we have of them in eternal grasp. James Cone, in his Book on these two giants, “Martin & Malcolm the Dream and the Nightmare”, shows us how it made sense for King to dream of a day when all men will be equal, a day when children of former slaves and slave owners will sit together in the circle of goodwill. Yet X, could not see such dream for X believed until America accepted the equality of humanity of all races in which the Anglo-Saxon mind afforded others what it afforded himself, there could not be a dream but a nightmare.

To understand King and X we must ask who was King and who was X. King being raised in a middle class family with access to a good education even in a time of oppression, him being the son of a Baptist preacher, when Preachers in black context were a venerated group of people associated with the educated. King’s dream therefore was to argue for an acceptance into an established white world.

Juxtapose this with X’s, upbringing him being robbed as a son from his father when the latter was brutally killed, the unstable almost dysfunctional upbringing of the young Malcolm Little, in which the teacher told him he will never amount to anything.

King clearly was crafted to ascend when X was given no chance – hence the premise for a dream vs. a nightmare. (It seems with adopted last names such as King and Little, these were indicative of their future destinies as wrought in birth)

These left indelible prints on the black history of the USA for a particular epoch. King represented the integrationist notion and X the nationalist notion. King could argue for an acceptance into such society for there was little that separated King from John Wilson who was white, accept that he could not sit on the swing benches of the parks, which were marked for whites only.
X was dealing with the fact that America rejected his right of existence such because he is black. These two stood with an elongated and celebrated history manifested in Integrationist and Nationalistic Ideology of intellectual construct, each making their own contribution, each celebrated by their own constituencies.

King went on to become a Nobel Peace laureate swayed by the Ghandian Philosophy of non – violence. X mostly remembered for his vitriolic speeches in which he castigated whites – calling them hogs – pulling no punches on supporting the typical violence of a Nat Turner (the slave who killed more than sixty whites and who was executed in the early 19th Century).

Yet what cannot be contested these were both intellectuals, both with a perspective and epistemological take on America, both with a vision of an America, both talked about black people, both understood the experience of black though such came coloured by their personal class situations.
Both conversed on the journey of being black in the USA, yet such conversations had distinct different departure points and paths that are even more distinct but yet the same vision. King reached the echelons of academic pursuit and X we not even sure completed school after he dropped out for a while.

I am saying this to postulate, Is intellectualism approximate to elitism, confirming an emphasis on class, and therefore can intellectualism not find meaning devoid of such class mellifluous confinement?

Is this therefore not the crises of the Native Intellectual? That though we are in transformative developmental state the reality is the Native Intellectual has either absconded into the hidden world of theory or calibrated himself to a class defined liberalist notion. In what is black, is conspicuously questionable particularly defined in government, business, and political or civil society context.

These necessarily miss the opportunity of making a connection between our collective history, present and future. I shall argue the Native Intellectual thinks a certain way of Black People, the Black experience, the Black future and the Black relations with others. It is my unequivocal assertion that the Native intellectual has reinterpreted his personal black experience in an evanescent manner in which such abdicates the responsibility to work for this transformation across all platforms.

The Native intellectual in South African context is almost compelled to adopt a liberalist notion in praxis for such is considered sanguine with true astuteness defined in intellectualism. The most radical of Black intellectuals have mellowed and integrated to the extent that being radical is not astute even proves uncouth.

The question must be asked, who determined or what informs the meridian of such accepted notion? Is the liberal notion as indicative of astuteness not the disjuncture replacement for the liberative mandate?

I shall ask again, what is the role of the Native intellectual in the distinguishing epoch we find ourselves? Can the Native Intellectual take of the proverbial singing diva ‘Mary Mary’ shackles of elitism in which his soul was cast for life?

Can the liberalist ethos make way for the exacted liberative mandate to truly free the minds of those who had not been as privileged. The thoughts of Black Consciousness as advanced by Biko and Fanon – asserts the true freedom required is that of the mind of the Black person for this mind, proves a partner for the permeating slavery practice.

I shall assert such mind regardless to being exposed to formal education or not can remain imprisoned, such I claim as attested of the silence of the Native Intellectual. I ask these tough questions of all of us defined across the spectrum as organic intellectuals, public intellectuals and academic intellectuals, even though we have not yet defined the meaning of such.

For today in South Africa the intellectuals are quiet, if they talk its from the vestiges of liberalist enclave, necessarily proving attacking our democratic narrative and discourse the native Intellectual seems to have lost his voice, unless such voice is usurped to speak in congruence with those who advance the enslavement of a people that cries to be free.

Why has it become necessary to castigate, to speak down from a calibrated and almost mendacious vantage point?

It appears the Native Intellectual’s thought-construct and paradigm is immured and coloured in need to prove the opposite of that which is Post Apartheid.
This, regardless at what price. The Native intellectual proves less objective in his critique and analysis of the road we had traversed, in congruence with the individualism that informs western civilisation the native intellectual has lost the moral compass defined in communality. The Native Intellectual analyse from the bedrock of a liberalist-vested contention.

The Native intellectual fails to participate in the evolutionary process of the collective ideal of Freedom as a lived experienced less than a theorised one. He is straightjacketedinto the conjoined denigrated role of affirming the construct of paradigms that he had no say in design. It is almost as if one picks up a sense of truculence in the silence of the Native intellectual.
The Native intellectual derives meaning from being the opposite in what we know our history embraced and defined as Ubuntu, the Native intellectual is endangered specie, and such endangerment is from within, which despite his success proves enslaved by not drawing a distinction between individualism and an independent mind.

I know my assertion as stated in this prologue of thinking, which I have no idea where it will end, accept for the desired hope to hear more intellectuals share with us their vision of this great nation. If we can hear them speak for their silence is audible and proves discomforting for they belong to this unfolding democratic narrative where the liberalist notion has hijacked the towers of reason as necessarily that which is the opposite of what we have been painstakingly building in this young democracy.
I shall ask again, what is the role of the Native Intellectual in our development context. This question is addressed to both organic and academic who manifest in public embrace.
Are we not robbed as a developing nation because no one wants to admit the CRISES OF THE NATIVE INTELLECTUAL, the same we desperately need to make a meaningful contribution?

Those who will necessarily see this as a myopic cry for what they will a subliminal call for proverbial blank Cheque Regime support – even suck up, in which we speak on behalf of the ruling party and defend such to the hilt, would have utterly missed my contention and necessarily dilute our debate. For the objective is to let the native intellectual speak, to let the Native intellectual engage, and critique – but such must be cognisant of the greater good we seek to attain as collective. The challenge of the Native intellectual is unlike his Afrikaner counterpart, who has been able to write textbooks on every subject matter, that spans the panapleas of complex disciplines the black child, is yet to have calculus in Venda. The black child is yet to study economics in IsiXhosa. Whilst there will be those who will use my latter stated examples as an indictment against the Native intellectual in contempt even as blind-sided contention, the reality is the black child is robbed of experiencing subject matter in his mother tongue where it matters most, yet the native intellectual is alive but even proves silent there to.

This critique stands in the same tradition of a Harold Cruse, James Baldwin, and WD Wright where such argue the crises of the Negro Intellectual and Black Intellectual respectively.

According to Wright “Cruse was critical of Black intellectuals for being integrationists and not nationalists, he said this made them susceptible as well as submissive to the thought of white intellectuals, especially Jewish intellectuals”( Wright (2007:3a)

One is not pretending to write a manifesto or sequel or a declaration on the factuality of such contention of assimilation to integrationist thinking on the part of the Native Intellectual in Post Apartheid context. Though I shall admit that I appreciate the axis of Cruse’s contention to have a salient point the same, which may direct our problem, which is becoming what I choose to call the Crises of the South African Native Intellectual.

Yet I shall ask can we journey towards this desired outcome of participating in this democratic process of nation building by admitting there is a crisis in Native Intellectual role post in post conflict. Let us analyze, argue, investigate and pronounce what should constitute the role of such native Intellectual. Forin the absence of such, we shall perpetually seek to prove congruent with those who want to measure our astuteness against the meridian of elitism necessarily devoid of the masses and negating the truth that the masses are THINKING. Perhaps the only presence of the Native Intellectual in the public discourse is his absence.

Clyde N.S. Ramalaine