Klipspruit West Crisis: Are We Getting It Wrong Again?

We are back here again and it seems we will be walking around this mountain for a tad longer than we all anticipated.

It was Davidsonville last year, now it’s Klipspruit West, evidently a manifestation of a much bigger problem and not one to be confused in narrowness of education.

Our children are denied schooling and we are told the teachers are on a go-slow. In all of this we hear some community leaders stoking the fires and threatening mass mobilisation to spread wider. As a parent and lifelong activist for equal education, I detest our children losing one hour of schooling in a cramped curriculum and academic year. I detest a politicised organised labour that has less interest in the advancement of our children but their personal made sacrosanct rights to organise.

Yet I am not immune to the plight, frustration, and agony of former Coloured communities. No matter how you look at it, how it’s understood or heard from the mouths of the people, we dare not be dismissive of their claims. It would be sheer ignorance and even blatant arrogance to assume you from outside these communities understand what it means.

On the subject of appointment of principals after all the necessary steps and processes are followed it should not matter who is appointed in a ‘normal society’, however our society is not normal and to pretend it is to be deceiving. We are a society which battles the toxic combination of colonisation and colonisation of the special kind commonly called apartheid. As if that is not enough, we also dealing with the reality of the new anomalies that the democratic state in some instances inadvertently produced in other instances in glaring arrogance.

It would appear; on the one hand all that Gauteng Education MEC Panyaza Lesufi must do is provide the hardcore evidence to show the people of Klipspruit West, Davidsonville and others that there are Coloured principals in apartheid geographic spaces such Soweto, Laudium, Katlehong etc. This evidence, if it exists, is crucial to assist the misconceptions and claimed contradictions.

You will notice I refer to these racial labels, but not because I endorse them. I consciously identify as Khoisan hence I reject the apartheid labels for a means for classification of identity configuration. I do so because the democratic State has in bad advice continued to uncritically appropriate the discredited race frames for identity formulation. A subject I have raised in my submission to the recent ANC National Planning Conference. All Coloureds may not be Khoisan but all Khoisan were classified as Coloured, hence my natural involvement in these circumstances.

For as long as the GED does not share the statistics if they exist as reality, the argument of apartheid Coloured communities being the only playground for a forced cross-pollination will continue to stand.

If I were MEC I would start there, nothing beats evidence that the non-racial stratification is not just focussed on so-called Coloured areas but also on so-called Black and so called Indian areas.

To advance the argument that South Africa is a non-racial society is on the one side true yet on the other a founding myth. We cannot deny that despite our claims of non-racialism, South Africa’s former townships remain racially stratified in dominance of its apartheid demographics. Meaning you still have the majority of people in Soweto people as black and Eldorado Park as Coloured and Laudium as Indian. We must engage what this means and how we can attempt to make transformation and social cohesion stand in these apartheid communities.

The implications therefore remain, that language will be factored in as a cardinal departure point for these communities no different to others. If people go to a local clinic, police station, and even a school and cannot be heard in their mother tongue it may be argued their human rights are encroached upon if not violated. We know for example the Police Station in Eldorado Park is a classic example of this anomaly.

Therefore, resorting to labelling people racist and disbanding the SGB is perhaps the easy way out but does not solve the problem. You may win the cheap debate and right to stand on your tomato box, as the one who told Coloureds they are racist, but it does not exempt you from your own plausible racist mind in attempt of dealing with a community.

One may choose to disband the SGB because one can, because they floatedon one or other policy regulation and therefore prove dysfunctional, hardly an uncommon challenge in SA. That is short-termism and attempt at immediate crisis-averting tactics. It does not deal with the real problem that we all who claim sensibility know exists.

We had Davidsonville; what have we learnt and not learnt. We clearly haven’t learnt anything because we are back here again.

What is indisputable is exacted punitive inequality (epi), the case we lodged with the SAHRC on May 28, 2017 stands. Exacted punitive inequality suggests while the constitution demands an equality informed by an equality of humanity, politicians, civil servants and officials claim a right to exact punishment on Coloured communities for a multiplicity of reasons from as narrow as sheer disrespect for the identity to a means to show them for voting a specific way.

This issue of a school principal appointment makes up part of that exacted punitive inequality that is understood in colloquial sense of marginalisation.

Again I suggest, provide the Soweto scenarios where Coloured Principals are appointed. Show how there are both Indian and Coloured principals in former black areas. If the Department can show it, the case may fall flat.

However, if the department cannot show it then we must accept former Coloured areas are used as the testing grounds, if not laboratory, of a one-dimensional social cohesion utopia and not other areas. Why then? Hence it can be argued the department has a specific agenda.

The collective frustration of Coloureds is underestimated and completely miscalculated by some in government. I hate being a prophet of doom, but my conscience and reading of the mounting pressure confirms we are sitting on a time bomb and it won’t be long when we will ask in embarrassed if not tragic sense why didn’t we see this coming.

How many times do we have to come back to this part of the mountain?

Advertisements

Making Sense Of “The Gathering Media Edition 3rd August 2017” Hosted At CTICC

Last week I attended the publicised Daily Maverick “Gupta leaks” presentation. As in the case of the preceding event that failed to take off in Braamfontein last week I had gone representing the Inkuleleko Foundation whom I consciously associate with for its core values and its principled publicised mandate. I went to understand, engage and make sense of what we are pummelled with daily in snippets of salacious news advantage tit bits. I wanted to ask some questions and engage this section of the media that considers itself the anointed non-propaganda based pristine Fourth Estate.

Well we arrived and at the entrance to the actual venue room security guards were deployed. Clearly this event was not going to be derailed by the BLF or anyone the organisers identified as a threat – real or fake. At the security check-in some BLF members led by its leader Andile Mngxitama were present and although they, like all of us, paid to attend this R1800.00 per delegate event were refused entry.

The BLF was not the only denied entrance. We can confirm the vice chairperson of the Inkuleleko Foundation, Lulamile Jack, despite paying for flights, renting of a car and registration, was also refused entry. I suspect his Inkuleleko Foundation baseball cap was the reason he was denied entry. The event had as one of the sponsors Nando’s. It is clear after the embarrassment Gordhan and Jonas suffered at the UJ event; the organisers realized the event could be derailed only by those who would be inside the venue. Hence, they took much more precaution.

Inside it became quickly evident as with the Braamfontein event that these events are weighted in favour, by as high as 70-75%, of what South Africa defines as whites. We are still not sure what the overarching aims of these events are beyond a gathering some may rightly consider a talk-shop where the public is yet to be afforded the opportunity to speak or engage the panellists.

The programme was made up of an assortment of panels with a 60/40 distribution of white and black identities. The venue was jam-packed. First to kick off was the panel moderated by Bruce Whitfield where he had Sipho Pityana, the face and mouthpiece of the Save SA, Mike Abel, business matriarch Wendy Applebaum and Styli Charalambous, the Nando’s king.

This panel essentially attempted to look at what the role of capital is and should be in support of the media. Let me qualify media. Media in this sense means those present at “the gathering” and excludes what they colloquially define as Gupta Media, meaning ANN7 and New Age. Needless to say, the latter – after being denied entry – became the soft target and laughing stock of this gathering. We also were entertained to comment on the Independent Media of Iqbal Surve, whom it was claimed were invited but did not come. Not missing a chance and opportunity to poke fun at what is generally in this group accepted as propaganda media, Pityana wasted no time to promote the upcoming week’s key events, the August 8 vote of no-confidence marches.

This session was followed by a presentation of the press ombudsman Joe Tloloe. The truth is an aging Bra Joe, besides starting a nice story on his previous arrest, said nothing more than to defend his personal job. He took his aim at the ANC government which he identifies as the problem. The press ombudsman said nothing in challenge to this crowd, but came to uncritically endorse them. He attempted no counsel, neither solicited or attempted any intruding questions on the challenges of self-regulation, thus he failed to make the case for a self-critical media.

I thought the Ombudsman would ask the gathering ‘how can you claim to be independent when you have denied others of your sector access to this gathering?’ I figured the press ombudsman would throw a stone into the bush of a self-righteous media present to ask how independent they are from capital’s true influence? Well none of that surfaced or was remotely on the radar of Ombudsman Tloloe. He gave them a true endorsed free pass, therefore robbing our discourse from what it perhaps need as honest input from his venerated office.

Next up was Mark Heywood and Jay Naidoo, moderated by Xolani Gwala. This combination of former trade unionists didn’t help the debate at all. Their own glaring contradictions stand paramount and if I am correct Naidoo was not well received, not sure if he had the wrong mind or presentation for the day. In some circles, the man dubbed super wealthy ‘Dalai Lama’ of democracy spares no opportunity to tell all-and-sunder about his work on some farms in the Northern Cape. Thus, Naidoo was not going to be critical of the gathering in attempt of objectivity. He failed to engage even what they brought him for. Mark Heywood is Mark Heywood. He was not the bodyguard and doorkeeper he was at the Braamfontein event. On this day he was a panellist where his opinions fitted perfectly into this space because the media present here made up a section of the politics of Heywood.

In between breaks and standing in groups of those one may know, we had occasion to briefly chat with among others Mcebisi Jonas, also on the programme with his former boss Pravin Gordhan, and many others like Ferial Haffajee, also a panellist on the fake news and media sustainability slot.

I took time to engage some new acquaintances from the media space and found a number of Cape-based young black journalists just as lost on the motives and programme of this gathering. Another panellist was Sam Mkokeli. He reiterated the general mood of the gathering, when he labelled ANN7 and New Age as fake news outlets that must be stopped and suggested independent media the appropriate way forward. The challenge with Mkokeli’s conclusion is that he, like so many at this gathering, is yet to explain this independence which they in convenience and almost arrogance parade.

Beyond lunch it became clear that questioning the panels was not part of this gathering, it was neatly crafted to ensure that the agenda of the day was attained and not what is considered true public participation.
We came to hear the Fourth Estate of SA in self-righteousness lamenting the threats of an intruding ANC that wants to regulate them. The gathered engaged an ANC that it sees as useless in all its facets of governance, yet a government that must consider sponsoring the Fourth Estate. The next panel was made up of Jackson Mthembu (Chief whip of the ANC), Phumzile Van Damme (Communications Member for the DA) and Mbuyiseni Ndlozi of the EFF. I enjoyed Ndlozi he in his gifted sense of articulation registered sensible and salient points.

Yet, Jackson Mthembu was driven into an unnecessary corner to admit (which we all know is a sophism) that he does not watch ANN7 of read the The New Age. I fail to understand why Mthembu, as communications specialist, could not easily deflect this subject by saying as a South African I read and watch all news because I don’t have to agree with it but must hear them for they have a following. Mthembu was made to look lethargic by the younger and more agile Van Damme and sensible Ndlozi. Ndlozi had the presence of mind and courage of conviction to tell the gathering they warrant self-introspection, something not a single other panellist had the presence of mind or the honesty of heart to attempt. Ndlozi told them it is white monopoly capital, even venturing to say Thabo Mbeki would agree. So, for the day Ndlozi for me was the one that made my trip perhaps worthwhile.

The real reasons for the gathering as per the programme was going to start between16h30 – 18h30pm, with the last two slots dubbed respectively ‘#GuptaLeaks’ and ‘Joining the dots: Media and Dirty Tricks campaigns.’

The #GuptaLeaks panel was completely white: Sam Sole Stefaans Brummer, Adrian Basson and Richard Poplack. Let us not be overtly race conscious a counter argument could easily be made that they broke the story, hence them leading it.

Before the last two panels sat, I had a chance to engage John Vlismas, somewhere at the back of the venue. Vlismas was also tasked to entertain us to some comedy. I enquired as to when there would be a chance to ask questions. Vlismas politely thanked me for the question and informed me the event was not organised to entertain any questions but really to come and listen to the panellists and those on the programme. I retorted, “how public in participation is the event if we are not afforded a chance to engage panellists but essentially are here to listen?” To that there was no real reply.

After this we as Inkuleleko Foundation delegates decided to leave the event, because we had already heard Gordhan and Jonas and thought it merely a political campaign unfolding. In the end, I concluded as I anticipated before going, the event was a political gathering hosted by the media. It is certainly part of the campaign that leads us into Tuesday August 8, 2017.

It was hardly an attempt at true self-introspection of the self-righteous media; it denied ANN7 and The New Age legitimate and active members with undeniable following in the SA citizenry an equal opportunity that they afforded themselves. Somewhere during one of the breaks I remarked to Stephen Groottes from 702 and Primedia, this gathering is toxic for its self-righteous attitude, and there was no humility present or any appreciation for the ambiguity of those gathered. Particularly for denying their opposition access, the gathering confirmed its own compromised state. I asked him how different a 403 ENCA is to a 405 ANN7, which he clearly had a different view on. I enquired as to how 403 is accepted as objective and devoid of propaganda, when ANN7 is naturally accepted as bias. Groottes indicated he had to go.

I left the gathering with my few questions, key of those:

What an independent media presents?
As to what independence means, independent from what and in relation to what?
Is it independent from Government (the natural demon as led by the ANC)?
How independent can media be when capital owns media in some instances in stark confirmation of white monopoly capital?
How critical can media be when it is depending on capital for its livelihood-advertising and sponsoring of these events?
How independent can media houses be about their owners in honest reporting?

Sam Sole said on 702, the day after the Braamfontein event, that the so-called Gupta emails were obtained when two whistle-blowers approached them. Collecting a trove of emails is no small feat:
Who then qualifies to be hacked?
Will we for example also have access to emails delivered by whistle-blowers, of every president, minister, deputy minister or politician’ s emails since they assumed public office?
What will amaBhungane and Scorpio do when files stolen from the offices of the CJ of the CC and Hawks respectively surface at its doorstep? What would be the applied ethics to engage that information, which it can be accepted will eventually be publicised?
May we ask Jonas as panellist why we have to believe his version, since he like so many stood accused not just once on corruption?
Why is he silent on some nagging questions on the PIC, which he chaired?
Why no one in this section of self-righteous media find it odd not to engage Gordhan on the Treasury Internal Audit report that is public for more than sixty days?

Yes, you may assume I have too many questions. You are right, I have a ton more, but these events will not allow some of us to raise them despite our willingness to hear them, they just do not want hear some of us.

The 26+ who voted against the ANC line betrayed being a cadre!

A cohort of opposition in the SA Parliament brought its eighth motion of no-confidence in President Jacob Zuma. The Speaker is afforded by the constitution and the subsequent Constitutional Court ruling the power to choose a secret ballot, which is what transpired. The result of the motion confirmed 384 members of parliament in attendance on the day, 198 votes against, 177 votes for the motion, and 9 votes abstaining.

 
In the aftermath of the defeat of the motion many began to make interesting deductions and analysis informed by the calculus they prefer to use. The fact is the eighth motion failed despite the cited mystical numerology of the eighth motion on the eighth day of the eighth month – for those who read numbers as indicating a specific sign.

 
The ANC defeated the motion, but not without cause for grave concern. It became clear that at least 26+ ANC MPs decided to vote in favour of the motion, thus adhering to the opposition’s call for a “conscience vote”, though this can also be made out as cheap blackmail if not sheer tactics of intimidation.

 
It is perhaps important to begin to ask what does this result mean if the critical factor of an ANC Cadre is brought into play? The ANC is confronted with the undeniable reality to ask itself tough questions, one of them we attempt engaging in this musing centres on the type of cadre it may representing it in parliament.
It is then here that we must accept the ANC before 1994 and the ANC entrusted to lead in political office marks decisively distinct organisations regardless to how we from a romantic sense demand the opposite. The ANC before 1994 needed all and everyone to support or join it, because the liberation cause was for the emancipation of those oppressed. The ANC in political power as leader in democracy can afford to be more circumspect, forthright and picky as to whom it wants to accept as its member and afford the claim of its cadre.

 
The ANC has currently approximately 1-million members yet it is common knowledge the ANC is held in political power by the more than 11-million that gave it a mandate. It then must make natural sense to remonstrate is it possible that the ANC rethinks its criteria to give due consideration to include in deployment some of the 10-million that may not be members but have shown a deep sense of commitment in cadreship to the ANC?

 
It would then mean we must begin to unpack, how to interpret the behaviour of the 26+ Members of Parliament, so as to ascertain if their behaviour embodies that of a true ANC cadre?

 

 

In closing the 53rd ANC Conference held in Mangaung, President Zuma informed all that the Conference dedicated the next decade as the “decade of the cadre”. Clearly the conference saw a need to engage the subject of being a cadre as a cardinal aspect of giving effect to the values and mandate of the ANC as entrusted by the masses to lead SA. This resolution was not necessarily new and should neither be separated from the one issued by the ANC’s longest-serving President OR Tambo in the January 8 statement delivered in 1985.
President Tambo in his call for a year of the ANC cadre went further in warning of a treacherous path, in his own words a “path we traverse”, one “fraught with numerous dangers and hazards”. We may comfortably and consciously assume in both instances of the ANC leaderships of 1985 and 2012, a call for a year of the cadre proved sensitive for the challenges the ANC was confronted with given the shifting context of struggle.

 
Chris Maxon in his opinion piece in January 2013 asserts, “first and foremost the ANC has always been a movement of cadres. The criterion in this assertion is whether or not a cadre is resolute in carrying out the ANC line, keeps to ANC discipline, has close ties with the masses, has the ability to find his/her bearings independently, and is active, hardworking and unselfish. That is what has been imparted to people who wanted to become cadres of the movement.” I tend to agree with Maxon on this score.

 
One involuntarily thinks of the collective words Presidents Tambo and Zuma and that of Maxon, when one attempts to make sense of the result and the voting patterns of ANC members in Parliament in this vote of no-confidence. That resoluteness to carry out the ANC line and keeping the ANC discipline is especially challenged when we hear the chairperson of the NDC, Cadre Derek Hanekom attempt to justify not keeping the line and ANC discipline when he invokes the seniority of Members of Parliament. Meaning one’s seniority affords one to break with the party line and still be justified in one’s actions.

 
It is important to link these two presidential statements at this crucial time and in the aftermath of a very challenging few weeks. President Tambo warned of a ‘path we traverse fraught with dangers and hazards’. President Zuma announced the year of the ANC Cadre, yet in 2008 in addressing the Youth League, he explained ANC discipline as follows: “To us discipline is everything. It means that you must have a grasp and understanding of our theory of revolution and the ability to articulate its strategic objective, that of building a non-racial, non-sexist, democratic and prosperous society.

 

 

Discipline to the ANC means that we must learn to listen and respect the opinions of others whilst maintaining the fundamental principle of collective decision making and a respect for a culture of democratic centralism.”
In the aftermath of the defeated motion the DA buoyed by the support of the 26+ ANC parliamentarians shared its intentions to bring a motion to dissolve parliament. It therefore must be accepted that these ANC deployed ones placed the ANC in definite harm’s way of looing its entrusted right to govern thereby plausibly disrupting the implementation of critical policies and projects. The case can be made that their self-centeredness potentially jeopardised the ANC’s legitimate leadership of the society and the country could have been forced to an early election.

 

 
The heart of the ANC is best understood in those who are defined as ANC cadres. Have we this week seen that ‘path fraught with dangers and hazards’ in full manifestation? President Tambo reminds us who that cadre is with this apt summary: “Who are these revolutionary cadres about whom we speak? Where are they? They are not special people. It is we – men and women, young and old, black and white – who are involved in daily struggles, making sacrifices in pursuit of the people’s cause. It is we, the workers in the factories, the mines, the farms, the commercial establishments and offices of various kinds; we, who work in health and educational services as well as those of us occupied within the residential areas.” Have we not this week lived through the defiance of that culture of democratic centralism by ANC cadres?

 

 
To join the ANC remains a personal and voluntary decision. By one’s own volition a membership form is completed, a small fee paid and a membership card issued. Yet to become a cadre of the ANC one signs up to a life of loyalty to the organisation, its values, constitution, its philosophy, ethos, democratically elected leadership and culture of governance immanent in centralised democracy. One signs up to have an opinion, which the Movement values and needs, yet one signs up for a contestation of views in designated and duly afforded spaces, to persuade others and to equally be open for persuasion. Signing up to be a cadre is to recognise and respect the party leadership, its structures and to adhere to party lines when directed.

 

 

One therefore signs up to learn and to teach, where your age whilst respected, does not automatically translate to a rightful claim of authenticity of cadreship, instead one’s conduct.
In light of this summary of what makes a cadre, we are compelled to ask: are the 26+ that decided to reject the party line, and acted out in ill-discipline prior to and during the actual vote acting out this cadreship or were they acting as members?

 
Let us then attempt to appreciate one of the adopted and sacrosanct blueprints on ANC Leadership immanent in title of the ‘Eye of the Needle’. In its preamble and rationale, as third aspect asks the following challenging questions: “How do we deal with individual ambition, lobbying, promotion of friends and pursuit of selfish interests? How do we ensure that electoral processes do not tear the movement apart? How do we prevent attempts to use the movement as a step ladder towards self-enrichment?”
How do we deal with individual ambition, lobbying, promotion of friends and pursuit of self-interest?

 

 

We must ask those who decided to risk the ANC in legitimate power with their individual and group conscious break away from and disrespect for leadership direction, did you not with this so called ‘conscience’ vote place your personal ambition, yielded to opposition lobbying (tactics and strategy) as paramount? Were they not in pursuit of self-interest, when they dared to risk exposing the ANC because they can? Were they not parading a self-centeredness in their respective media interviews?

 
The 34th aspect of the Eye of the Needle, poignantly outlines as broad requirement of leadership the following: “An ANC leader should understand ANC policy and be able to apply it under all conditions in which she finds herself. This includes an appreciation, from the NDR standpoint, of the country and the world we live in, of the balance of forces, and of how continually to change this balance in favour of the motive forces of change.”

 
Clearly those in parliament constitute beyond doubt ANC leadership to the legislative dimension of our democracy, hence we dare ask of them how was the national democratic revolution served with their choice against the ANC decision immanent in Luthuli House and its Caucus? How did ANC MPs who consciously decided to vote with the opposition read, interpret and understand the balance of forces at play in our political context that seeks to unseat the ANC in using its President as the door.

 
The 40th aspect of the Eye of the Needle binds ANC cadres to the following: “An individual with qualities of leadership does not seek to gain popularity by undermining those in positions of responsibility. Where such a member has a view on how to improve things or correct mistakes, she should state those views in constitutional structures and seek to win others to her own thinking. She should assist the movement as a whole to improve its work, and not stand aside to claim perfection out of inactivity.”

 

 

We are involuntarily compelled to ask from the cadres who chose to go with the opposition in the vote including those who chose to abstain, as to their individual and collective wisdom in consciously undermining those in positions of responsibility (the Secretary General) and their actions not to be interpreted as an attempt to be popular.

 

We must ask of them as to why they have not raised their views in the respective and designated constitutional structures. We equally have to ask from those who had the presence of mind to raise their views but were defeated in the ANC designated structures why they could not accept the defeat and continue to serve?

 

We warrant asking from those the ANC deployed how their individual and lobbied stance have helped the cause of the ANC when they absolve themselves in a sense of claimed perfection?

 
The ANC throughout its history, including during exile, afforded opportunity for even its soldiers to act in democracy, meaning there was a designated chance, time, and place for cadres to critique and self-critique leadership. The fundamental premise for this is the conviction that all critique must be constructive and it necessarily starts by first owning up to one’s conjoined role. We must ask where the 26+ fits into this self-critique and where they have owned up to their role? We must know how constructive their critique is when they absolve themselves and demonise others?

 

The 51st and 52nd aspects of the Eye of the Needle, warn against the role of media for ANC leaders: “Media focus on government and the ANC as a ruling party also means that individuals appointed into various positions are able to acquire a public profile in the course of their work. As such, over time, they become the visible members who would get nominated for leadership positions. This is a natural expression of confidence and helps to widen the base from which leaders are elected.

 

However, where such practice becomes the main and only criterion, hard-working individuals who do not enjoy such profile get overlooked. Artificial criteria such as acceptability to the media, eloquence specifically in English, and warped notions of “sophistication” are then imposed on the movement’s approach.”
We are thus compelled to inquire from the ANC deployed cadres to parliament that considered themselves distinct from the ANC and only mandated by the South African public in claim of the exacted oath as to why they allowed themselves to be hoodwinked by a media presence that works for a different agenda? The various captured incidents of media events that ANC cadres share with opposition tendencies as a means to enhance their personal political and public profiles warrants an explanation.

 

It is therefore imperative for the ANC to know from its deployed members as to why the ANC must trust them to continue to serve at the pleasure of the ANC when they can agree with the opposition and adhere to the proverbial general(s) of another army in a war situation. The fact that the ballot was secret does not naturally absolve those who voted with their crafted oppositional consciences, to answer the ANC and its leadership that deployed them. Equally it does not exempt the ANC to consider engaging its deployed, especially those who were vocal and taunted the ANC that they would vote with the conscience.

 
The ANC cadre is a cadre that has an ANC conscience, he / she is a cadre that places the ANC first and will not attempt to put the ANC in harm’s way because self interest, imagined or real, as the centre.
We ask again what type of cadre does the ANC have that can go to Parliament on an ANC mandate and decide to vote against the ANC in concert with the opposition under the guise of a ‘vote of conscience’. We must ask again who and what determined this ‘conscience vote’, does it mean the members never voted with their consciences before?

 
The ANC therefore must help us identify with it as to how it will respond to those who have placed their personal interest and popularity in defying the ANC discipline and line in this regard.
It is abundantly clear the organisational discipline President Zuma so eloquently reminded the Youth League about in 2008, in 2017 is not upheld by those who regard themselves as senior parliamentarians, as confirmed with their individual and group choices of defiance of the “fundamental principle of collective decision making and a respect for a culture of democratic centralism”.

Is White Monopoly Capital Active Behind The Scenes Ahead Of Vote Of No Confidence?

In the aftermath of the Constitutional Court ruling on the powers of the Speaker in the legislature to action a vote of no confidence by means of a secret ballot, the opposition rejoiced as if in victory march that they will get a secret ballot.

 

 
We have always known that the court could not rule for a secret ballot because that was not the case before it and neither would it that would be over-reach – one arm of the state interfering in the business of another. It’s work therefore was purely to give clarity as to the powers of the Speaker on the subject matter. In fairness to the applicant, the UDM, it’s case was about the Constitutional Court confirming the Speaker is empowered to institute either a public ballot or a secret ballot.

 
With that done, the Speaker has announced the date for the vote of no confidence as solicited by the opposition for August 8, 2017. We have also been informed that the Speaker is consulting with the parties to arrive at a means for the vote. In the end it remains her prerogative and she is not held hostage by the Constitutional Court ruling or anyone in force of a secret ballot. When the speaker said “I am not averse to a secret ballot”, as also recorded in the court ruling she confirmed that she has no bias for or against it, meaning it was a neutral position, it cannot be assumed she is now under obligation to use a secret ballot come August 8, 2017.

 
We are a month away from parliament entertaining its eight vote of no confidence. All previous seven were defeated through a public ballot. It is therefore clear the opposition wants a secret ballot, for this in its estimation and prism will free members of parliament to vote with what they have conveniently called a “vote with conscience.”

 
What then could be happening in the silence of hours, behind closed doors as an unfolding strategy to influence the efficacy of a secret ballot and how could that strategy and tactics be falling out?

 

 

We must not for one moment assume this is just a combination of opposition parties seeking a secret ballot. We must not forget this strategy and its outcome holds claimed fruits for a constituency even in the ANC. Hence, beyond a narrow opposition circumference some in the ANC made by white monopoly capital equally desire this secret ballot. For some it will be a pure settling of scores of 2008, for others it’s about the way forward in which their preferred candidate must be shifted into the office of leading SA as soon as yesterday, for others it’s about maintaining the status quo of the skewed apartheid economy and delaying the implementation of radical economic transformation.

 

 

To assume that this is a battle playing out only in the legislative space is to negate the reality of the multifaceted presence of those who seek an ANC removal by any means with its president as the proverbial door.

 
The forces of white monopoly capital, yes you heard right, the forces of white monopoly capital, which only those who conveniently blind and feeding from the trough of WMC deny, expressed in known and unknown forms, are hard at work to ensure this secret ballot. When we say forces we refer to the role of capital in the buying of votes with the plausible threat of prosecution to members of parliament.

 
It is clear that the forces of white monopoly capital will rest at nothing but to see the Zuma presidency brought to a screeching halt. They have long determined that it is not in their interest to have this president completing his term. They have accepted that the road of radical economic transformation, the ANC had charted under his leadership will redefine this economy and upset the 1994 Consensus which left the masses with a political vote but bereft of any true and meaningful economic emancipation and inclusive participation in definite aim of fundamental redress. They are primarily averse to give effect to the adopted ANC policy of radical economic transformation.

 

 

What then plausibly could constitute a strategy as happening far removed from the general public? Is it far-fetched that members of parliament in particular of the ANC are being blackmailed with handsome retirement packages, guarantees of no prosecutions and possible extended political lives beyond August 8, 2017 if they choose to vote with what has been termed by these forces as a vote with their conscience?

 
The conscience vote as we have long concluded is a ruse for it assumes members have necessarily contrarian convictions to their party line on a subject before parliament. It furthermore assumes that an agreement with the opposition constitutes a vote of conscience, meaning it’s really the opposition parties stance that pre-determines the width and boundaries of that claimed conscience.

 
On Sunday at the ANC’s national policy conference Fikile Mbalula vehemently re-echoed the consistent words of Gwede Mantashe when he made it emphatic that ANC members of parliament will not have an option to agree with the opposition to remove its president and by so doing itself from power.

 

 

Why is it then necessary for the ANC leadership to keep reminding its members of parliament to remember their loyalty in a multiparty democracy is to the ANC and SA?

 

 

One school of thought claims there is a carefully developing wedge premised on a combination of blackmail, threat, money and a promise of extension of political life beyond Zuma.

 

 

Is it plausible that the intensity and work of white monopoly capital is to cause havoc and disarray in the ranks of the ANC by seeking to solicit ANC MPs to defy their party line come August 8, 2017?

 

 

Are ministers and members of parliament, even the Speaker, psychologically being threatened and coddled behind the scenes by anti-ANC forces to break with the party line in hope of saving themselves at a personal level?

 

 

Well what then could be the means how this campaign is being run? Firstly the establishment of the private prosecution unit of Afri-Forum was not accidental but the clearest sign that cases are being developed to attempt prosecuting political leaders, the Speaker, ministers, deputy ministers even director-generals in their personal capacities. These cases are long in the making and may never really fly, or stand any legal scrutiny of a court, yet they are delicate tactics in this season serving the desired intentions in a game of mind control, in the art of war.

 

 

We also know that a private prosecution still would need the NPA to issue a certificate for each of them and that may be a long drawn out process by itself, yet the threat that possible cases may be looming in which the Speaker, ANC leaders, ministers, deputy ministers and director-generals in their private capacity could be charged for one or other culpability can be very unnerving if not outright intimidating for some.

 
Is it possible that at this stage the intention of those who are hell-bent on destroying the ANC has reached a number of 103 as a critical mass number? These may very well include ministers and deputy ministers that know they won’t come back at a political level due to various reasons, as a key instrument for creating the intended disarray in the ANC and thus delaying Radical Economic Transformation?

 
This possible threat of plausible personal prosecution therefore may be the chosen tool for the achievement of this vote against the party line. The benefit in offering on the other hand could be a handsome package with a proviso that all potential prosecutions will be be halted. For those who seek a political life beyond Zuma the promises could possibly include and be made in the frame of “we will remember you”.

 
Need we be reminded we are a month away and only those who sleep will not understand that August 8, 2017 is for some of White Monopoly Capital and it’s denialists the biggest chance to attain by secret ballot what they hitherto have failed to achieve.

 
The ANC must be vigilant to know that its members of parliament and leaders, all those who can vote in the House, are possibly under clouds and potentially personally targeted for defiance of the party line at the hand of a combination of threats and promises of soft landings.

 

 

White Monopoly Capital is hard at work and it has these scaremongering tactics in its artillery to use to secure a critical mass number in the pending vote.

 

 

That very weapon could also be unleashed against the Speaker of the House to force her hand to pronounce a secret ballot.

 

 

We must wait and see, yet I am not assuming White Monopoly Capital is at rest but rather very active in breaking the ANC up. It is wiling to see even a split to ensure radical economic transformation do not happen in our life time.

 

Clyde N. Ramalaine:

(The opinion piece first appeared in the Weekly Xpose publication )

Rothschild’s, Manuel claims WHITE MONOPOLY CAPITAL doesn’t exist!

 

What is in a name, unpacking the construct?

Friedrich Nietzsche reminds us “Sometimes people don’t want to hear the truth, because they don’t want their illusions destroyed”. I thought of this poignant summation of why people refuse to engage what is not in their interest to engage, when I heard Trevor Manuel unequivocally denying the existence of any claim of white-monopoly-capital.

Manuel the longest serving Finance Minister last night at an engagement dared to say there is no such thing as white monopoly capital he reduced it to be the invention of a public relations company Bell Potting. Manuel was hardly the first to arrive at this dismissive conclusion so he cannot get the credit for originality since he is merely re-echoing from the comfort of his Rothschild’s captured position this untruth. For the record, Manuel would know that white monopoly capital existed long before a Bell Pottinger, hence we are not that easily hoodwinked into believing the beneficiaries of that very white monopoly capital regardless in what colour they may come.

White-monopoly-capital is a construct no different to others – it’s perhaps time we unpack the construct. At an elementary level, which is perhaps where we must start if we to do justice to understand the construct, consists of three nouns that also may be used as adjectives, white – monopoly- capital.

I will henceforth attempt to deconstruct the term in its components, forgive me that I spent a little more time on the monopoly immanent in land aspect.

THE WHITE NOTION

White at a basic level refers to a colour no different to others. White at a scientific level is un-refracted light. However those who regard themselves much more than a colour but an identity, from Eurocentric origin, assume white within the historical trajectory of the human race distinct from others in measurement of supremacy. James Baldwin the American essayist and social critic reminded us decades ago “there are no white people, only those who think they are white”.

White therefore as a construct and identity is a living reality the world over as functional in expression of supremacy, which suggests dominance therefore control. Therefore to deny that white identity in relation to its historical and prevailing context is to be consciously oblivious to that reality.

Trevor Manuel the child from Kensington on the Cape Flats’ life defined in claim of liberation struggle was because there existed a white identity in SA that implemented a heretic system of apartheid that declared Manuel and his family Coloured. In resistance to that he as adolescent of his time was influenced by black consciousness and he therefore adopted a black identity in resistance to that white supremacist notion. He may in this season like many others have a rethink of that adopted black identity.

His adoption of that black identity was in full acceptance that there is a socially constructed white identity, a white being that thrives on a claim of a false nonetheless superiority therefore oppressing others whom they regarded as less of human. Subjugating and debasing their rights in denial of their full humanity therefore denying them their legitimate and rightful agency, the same they comfortably and rightly claim for themselves.

Hence Manuel cannot in 2017 out of the comfort of his personal economic fortune and class disposition in association with those who defined that white identity in convenience attempt this disingenuous venture to deny the white identity he as per record fought against.

MONOPOLY (defined in land ownership)

This brings us to the next word monopoly the second word in the construct. Webster’s dictionary defines a monopoly beside the game we play as “the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service”.

The history of South Africa attests that of a monopoly, the fundamental assets immanent in land and therefore economy is the epicentre of that monopoly claim.

The education of South Africa two decades into democracy confirms the reality of a monopoly. At tertiary level this is evident in both designations senior academic staff and content for curricula. The South African student today still studies information and knowledge as curricula that confirm a monopoly of a virulent Eurocentric 500 years of control and dominance.

Therefore when the students of this generation call for a decolonized education it is more than just free education it about the reality that education in all its facets remains colonized and therefore still monopolized.

The fundamental asset of any nation is land. Land is and remains owned by the same white identity that subjugated others they found here. We know that no ship contained land when they arrived here be it the Portuguese in 1483 that attempted the first project of colonialisation who met our forebears that fought them gallantly into defeat. The Dutch in 1652, the French Huguenots in 1671, the British 1820 never brought no land. They came to dispossess as Europeans the southland of Africa for their group trade interest.

The extent of the white identity of European descent is wealth defined in land. When we talk of land it’s not just land surface but land that contains minerals, whilst some may argue the State since 2002 owns all mining rights, the reality is before we arrived at this the identity of white in supremacy of being possessed and owned this land, all that goes with and this apartheid based economy. The current reality of land ownership confirms that over 83% of the land is still controlled by 12% of the population and that percentage carry the denotation of white for their human agency.

A quick review of how the idea of nationality on the part of the Afrikaans speaking whites took form and became rooted confirms the centrality of the advancement of capitalism in South Africa in the interpretation and defining of a claim of being a nation on the part of the Afrikaans speaking whites.

Motala and Vally, in their reflection of Neville Alexander’s epistemology on the Unresolved National Question help us appreciate, how for Alexander the National Party’s theory and reasoning for nationality was informed by their struggle for hegemony against the backdrop of the post-war development of capitalism in South Africa. They advance it was the developing interests of among the Afrikaans speaking (white) population in South Africa that gave rise to their sense of nationality predicated on their common language.

Alexander asserted the overall intensions of the Bantustan strategy on the part of the Afrikaans speaking whites shows definite direct linkages to the growth and development of capitalism in South Africa. The Bantustans were crucial for forcing labour into the emerging industrial, agricultural, and commercial economy. More significant was the fact that it became the base for the presence of legislation of various land acts that necessarily and consciously limited land access for the majority of the population nor excluding laws that controlled the movement of and supply of black labour and restraining its resistance to exploitative and oppressive conditions. Manuel this is the control of land and economy therefore monopolizing.

Let us also not forget that the Progressive Federal Party the progenitor of the current DA had an orientation of South Africa as made of a plurality of groups. They had a challenge with the Bantustan strategy of the Afrikaners and consider it a Trojan horse danger to the growth of capitalism.

When we therefore assert a monopoly it is against this historical but still prevailing reality of how the identity of white monopolized every dimension that defines society, they did so for personal self-serving survival and self-interest of supremacy.

We refer to the economy as apartheid based because the economy was designed around and for the prevailing interest of those who consider themselves white and therefore supreme. Everything that defines life and space in the sphere of mobility for anyone outside the frame of white was determined by the monopolized control of those for whom the economy was designed.

It is in the light of that reality of monopolized dominance that policies like BEE, BBEEE Employment Equity etc., came to see the light. Granted these have their own anomalies and contradictions yet it remains a serious attempt at dislodging that monopoly.

Clearly these could not have come about as dreamt up in a vacuum Mr. Manuel.

It intended to contend with the disparities and dualities of that monopoly. Every sector that defines the SA economy till today reflects this monopoly. Twenty-Three years on the JSE reflects the reality of that dominance in monopoly.

Despite the thin slice of black ownership immanent in a contested 19-23% of the JSE, that confirms a buffer zone the economy of SA is monopolized in white control and ownership. Trevor was part of the ANC that attempted to break this monopoly. He in his mandated roles and functionary assignment advocated against this known monopoly of everything that defined life in SA be it sectors like the financial sector, mining, manufacturing, industrials, property ownership, education etc.

For Manuel today to argue that the South African society is not monopolized is to either hear someone who has betrayed his own ideals and is backslidden from what he was known to fight against. On another level Manuel cannot argue that the mere dawn of democracy obliterated all of the deep-seated and entrenched synapsis of carefully constructed and weaved architecture of segregation and apartheid. The fact that we had done away with over 670 pieces of legislation that defined apartheid as an intricate system of oppression does not automatically mean we have dealt with the challenge of white monopoly.

CAPITAL

This brings us to the last word that makes up the construct, namely capital. Capital is defined as “wealth in the form of money or other assets owned by a person or organization or available for a purpose such as starting a company or investing”.

The centred efforts of all forms of colonialism was always dispossession of the indigenous people, it was always about robbing those who owned with the aim of translating that into capital. South Africa therefore as a country fits the profile of a country that successfully served the interest of white monopoly and the ultimate product of that white identity that sought to monopolize everything that remotely was defined in its capitalist interest.

The ultimate aim was capital, wealth of assets owned by white individuals and the group that sees themselves as white. That capital today is measurable in the land, and every sphere of what constitute an economy as the JSE and other indexes show.

WHAT MANUEL KNOWS BUT TODAY DENIES !

· Manuel knows that all if not the finest wine farms where he had his second marriage consummated to the new love of his life is controlled by that same white identity that have monopolized and therefore own today.

· Manuel knows the University of Stellenbosch where he serves, as chancellor is the bastion of white interest. His presence there does not alter that not in the least. No different to the few black academics who through gate keeping made it for they spell no threat to the remaining status quo of white establishment. That same institution that sent Professor Russel Botman to his early grave.

· Manuel knows that the vast tracks of land, that defines the arid Karoo land or the pristine coastlines that defines a SA from the warm Indian Ocean to the cold Atlantic is owned by that same white identity that long ago have monopolized land as earlier alluded to.

· Manuel knows that the game farms where he may have hunting expeditions are exclusively owned by that white identity confirming the monopoly.

· Manuel knows that the banks in South Africa regardless of a white approved thin slice of black faces remain white controlled, owned, and managed at a critical level.

· Manuel knows that the media was for a long time controlled in monopolized ownership by that same white identity. Manuel knows that the construction companies that define the construction economy the same who colluded to rob government in the erection of sports infrastructure for the 210 World-Cup confirms attests this white dominance.

· Manuel knows that rugby a sport he loves is still white controlled as abnormal in a society of black majority hence his defiant support for the All Blacks New Zealand rugby team.

· Manuel knows that the high-heeled fully capitalized new pseudo civil society formations like SAVE – SA with its explicit political agenda of removing it a president is controlled by the benevolence of white wealth.

So Manuel with his new doctrine on capital denies there exists a white identity that has monopolized the economy, and controls the vestiges of what makes up a South Africa in landmass.

It is amazing what being associated with the Rothschild Family the USA bastion of white monopoly capital does to a former activist. They first render you a black diamond (the ultimate insult of the black identity) then they pummel you with resources and access. Finally you speak for them and repeat their claims in stark contrast to your upbringing and fight for the factory workers of the Cape Flats.

Yes, one who purely by accident became very important in a sphere of financial management and economy for which he was not remotely qualified?

I am on record for categorically asserting Trevor Manuel rose to be in Mandela’s racially inclusive Government of National Unity (GNU) cabinet thanks to the false notion of a Coloured identity, no different to the Tricameral leaders of Allan Hendrickse in the apartheid system. An identity that remains a Trojan horse in democracy that attests an easily discardable notion when its purpose has served. He owes his political and now economic success to that social constructionism of a Coloured identity no matter how he may protest. It was his visa to fly in the now retired Concorde.

Manuel who is today the Africa-face and voice of that same colonial, white monopoly capital have the audacity to lecture us from the comfort of his exceptional wealth, that there is no case for a claim of white monopoly capital.

Permit me to borrow from Mandela, when he in 1962 in the Rivonia Trial engaged a witness Mr. Moolla, his exact words perhaps today more poignant, “Well, Mr. Moolla, I want to leave it at that, but just to say that you have lost your soul.”

I am tempted to say well Mr. Manuel, you have lost your soul, to defend today an untransformed economy in which you and those who share close ties like a super-wealthy Cheryl Carolus are today gross beneficiaries and make part of the buffer zone that arrogantly can tell the poor and those of us who like them hail from the same Cape Flats who are yet to benefit like you, that there exists no white-monopoly- capital, when you in the same breath categorically claim “state capture” is real.

You will not tell us who coined state capture, I will tell you who coined it was white monopoly capital that gave us this yet to be unpacked construct.

You Mr. Manuel have come a long way from the activist that sported a receding hairline, that bearded yellow UDF T-shirt, beltless -jeans and hush puppies cadre who addressed us in the mid – eighties in places like Spinedale High in Mitchell’s Plain. You have made the transition with ease and now pontificate in the ears of the people of the Cape Flats that there is no white monopoly capital.

You are the signpost of the presence of that very white monopoly capital; no one more defines that than you Trevor Manuel. So if you would ever have to admit its existence you would have admit it made you.

There are of course those who argue Manuel is doing just enough to get white monopoly capital to extend him the loan for his acquisition of the

Barclays share in ABSA. Be that as it may, I simply have no view on that.

In the end Trevor Manuel is playing his crafted and designated role for which he was recruited as the proverbial ruse if not Trojan horse of Colouredism, a functionary role in a much bigger picture that is not always visible for the undiscerning eye. Yet, we see Manuel in all his colorful dimensions.

(We will in a follow-up on deal with specific aspects where Manuel was actively at work during his tenure to give meaning to that white monopoly capital he today denies).

Clyde N.S. Ramalaine

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!

CNSR

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
24/5/2017