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.


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.


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.


· 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!


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

Marching Orders, Let them march!

Let the elites and middle class march!

They are the signpost of our liberation, the evidence of successful ANC policies:

Their marching today confirms we freed them because under apartheid they had no voice, and could not march.

Let them march to defend this apartheid economy, let them march for white privilege and interest and an untransformed apartheid economy.

Let them march it’s their democratic right, let them have a slew of press conferences, let them be joined by embedded so called ANC Members.


Let those embedded journalists, analysts, economists, commentators and public intellectuals all march, they define this one dimensional narrative of intellectualism that call others fake when they sing for their supper.

Let them march, it all will end in a march and a press statement because the masses are wiser than they assume.

Let the convenejent clergy who can pray for a finance minister in exclusion of others march, let them deliver their usual one track mind analysis of SA. After all their foundations benefit from the untransformed apartheid economy.

Let them march, They never marched against the banks, they had nothing to say about Absa that confirmed its role. They never marched against gang violence in Cape Town a city that Remains white in economic description of ownership. They did not march with Esidimeni health crisis, they didn’t march when black women get raped in taxis by syndicates.

Let them march, They didn’t march when Helen Zille called South Africans economic refugees, They  didn’t march when at her handover to Maimane, Allister Sparks, the guru, expressed his unreserved admiration for Hendrik Verwoerd. They didn’t march when she justified colonialism.

Let them march, They never marched for anything that benefits the black masses today they want to march for Pravin Gordhan a “communist” whom they as capitalists love to death – why only they know !

Let them march, We have a Finance Minister his name is Malusi Gigaba. Swallow that !

Let them march, If you want Zuma out go to an ANC conference and vote him out – Go to a national elections and vote the ANC out, you will not get him out in disrespecting our votes.

Let them march, We voted the ANC to lead and no amount of white and black elite sentiment will disrespect The Thinking Masses of South Africa regardless to how illiterate they may be for you, they consciously vote ANC.

Let them march, The illiterate and poor didn’t trust the DA, EFF or all these one man band pension parties to lead SA.

Let them march, Regime change similar to what happened in Brazil and Dilmar Rouseff will not work here. S&P downgraded us in solidarity of a Finance Minister who made them a deity. We know what sits behind this.

So March we have long led marches, it’s your right, a right we fought for you to share, a right we defend. Just don’t think we are deceived by your claim of Saving SA.

Let them march, If SA needs any saving it’s from you, who are the signpost of ANC policy benefit. You are poorer today with this concocted junk status of convicted rating agencies (S&P was found guilty and paid R26bn for corruption – Moody’s too yet paid R11bn) not the poor has always been poor.

Please march, most of you will march in front of your TV duped by 403 and its hired ones. Send me the pics of your marching because you too scared to really march!

Mandela the myth!

Mandela the myth,

Mandela the yardstick,
Mandela the sjambok of every black soul,
Mandela the false conscience,
that must keep us in line.
Please give us back our lion?
Keep your icon!

Mandela, the founding myth

Mandela, our collective whiplash,

Mandela, the oft’ cited standard,
by which a false white identity,
keep every dark soul in guilt,
denying to make a rightful claim
never to make a people’s rightful demand on land -no ship brought!

Mandela, the fiction
Mandela, the mirage,
that one made by white interest,
Mandela the mystery,
Mandela the nightmare
Mandela the emaciated shadow
of a rightful economic freedom
Mandela our scarecrow!

Mandela, Mandela our curse,
they named him Nelson
for their convenience,
Rolihlahla the lion, that lost more than a roar:
He who lost his fangs and maulers,

Please give us back our lion?
keep your icon!

in life, their insurance
in death their protection
a haunted spirit -not allowed to rest
he is theirs, they know him best
then again they made him the icon
for us he is one of many of our own

Clyde N. S. Ramalaine
March 9,2017 (10h23pm)
All Copyright observed

SA feminists a political enclave of convenient sisterhood!

– not challenging a sexist EFF leader confirms agreement-

Cheris Kramarae reminds us ‘feminism is the radical notion that women are human beings’. This fundamental claim is perhaps lost, as it appears the SA feminists in a growing sense attest an enclave of convenient sisterhood. The oxford dictionary defines ‘a feminist’ simply as ‘an advocate or supporter of the rights and equality of women’. Yet we also know that the term ‘feminist’ remains contentious. Those who know argue such contention on an axis of two critical aspects for it partly connotes a militancy of an ‘anti-men’ stance and also its association with elite groups of women.

Recently the EFF leader Julius Malema proved bold to go public with a salacious claim of Nomvula Mokonyane, Minister of Water and Sanitation, as controlled by a younger male, colloquially referred in claim of a Ben 10, with whom she shares an intimate relationship. The claims levelled are that the chairperson of the Central Energy Fund controls the department in its expenditure and therefore corruption is rampant. The gist of Malema’s untested allegation is Mokonyane is a philandering corrupt minister. It is here that her identity in sisterhood is conveniently sacrificed at the altar of her political association.

I have previously noted in SA there is a general reluctance to call the EFF leader Julius Malema to order on the part of opposition parties, vocal religious leaders, public intellectuals, progressive civil society formations, foundations and individuals of so called standing in society. To this group one must now add the feminists both public and private. 

We not sure if the tactics of personal attack employed by Malema intimidates the vocal feminists. Perhaps on another level their collective hate for the political leadership of the ANC in agreement with Malema renders them compromised to condemn his misogynist attacks.

What our feminists heard?

Our feminists it appears only heard the word corruption; they heard a government minister in an ANC led government in corruption. They heard a so-called Jacob Zuma defender as our daily scripted narrative leads, caught in corruption. They heard a member of the ANCWL that irritating body is caught.

What did our feminists not hear?

What our feminists failed to hear was the claim that a man controls a woman. They failed to hear a matured woman who has held several political and administrative offices among others the Gauteng Province premiership, as incompetent to lead because she in this season is gullible and led by a man her junior. The feminists failed to hear the stereotyping of a sister who with this claim is rendered incapable to lead because she arrived in her current stand in society by favours to a worshipped male organ.

Is it therefore strange that not one of the usually vocal feminists across the apartheid race classification and identify configuration rose to publicly and directly condemn the attack on Nomvula Mokonyane in identity of sisterhood?


Perhaps the feminists forgot the poignant words of Simone de Beauvoir as she unequivocally declares, “I am too intelligent, too demanding, and too resourceful for anyone to be able to take charge of me entirely. No one knows me or loves me completely. I have only myself.”

It appears that it is more important to constrict Nomvula Mokonyane, to the narrow one-dimensional political persona for the totality of her humanity. Her identity as human being is therefore made subservient to her being an assumed political enemy by implication a corrupt foe.

Interpreting the pervasive silence of the feminists leads one to conclude, Mokonyane deserves every insult, assault, and denigration on her character as meted out by a clear chauvinist. She is denied her identity of sisterhood. –An identity obliterated because the elites have carte blanche on denying those it disagree with on a political level. The agreed silence not to reprimand and call out this convenient sexist attack on a fellow sister is a loud amen to the attackers vitriol.

Our feminists remained neutral when Elie Wiesel, reminded us “We must take sides, Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.”

The feminists usually decipher attacks on a common sisterhood, until you bring the dynamic reality of our scripted party and pseudo party politics into consideration. They therefore appear exposed not to discern a naked attack on a fellow sister by a male chauvinist-politician who leads the EFF.

I do not see our feminists writing opinion pieces or attempting to engage objectively in analysis on the EFF leader as he abuses fellow sisters in the ilk of Mokonyane and Mbete at the hand of his maleness. They won’t defend Nomvula’s identity as a sister because their hate for the party, “camp” faction she represents blinds them not to see this vicious attack on her character.

I thought the women who protested at the announcement of the August 2016 Municipal election results in the name of the late Fezekile ‘Kwesi Kuzwayo would equally have their placards on display in expressing their displeasure at the abuse of a fellow older sister. I expected them to say unequivocally to the EFF leader, not in our name. Certainly Kwesi cannot be used to condemn one politician in celebration of another who is leads this attack on a fellow sister.

This duality of interpretation of the emancipation of women lends itself to a convenient expression in South Africa as shaded by nothing but politics.

Perhaps it is time to question why we take the vocal feminists serious. My discovery of the feminists leads me to conclude:

The vocal feminists often speak as if mandated by the masses of women of South Africa. From their class disposition they assume a natural custodianship for the cause of women. This attitude confirms the assumption that it is the elites that know the cause, understand the plight, and have the solutions for the cause.

Many of them are feminists in sheer hate of males. This male hate laced analysis often results in feminists proving intolerant of fellow feminists from the male side.

Some are quick to cry foul in victimhood and seldom are willing to engage as equals. Others theorize on the complexities of the feminist cause, and prove only willing to go to some level to realise the aims of the cause, but out of their economic comfort never embrace the totality of the cause for which many had laid down their lives.

I still hold the emancipation of women warrants the active participation of man as counterparts as we together give content to a non-sexist society.

The convenient silence of feminists in not addressing the misogyny of a Julius Malema is therefore a direct indictment to our constitution that recognises South Africa as a country that works for a non-racial, non-sexist, and democratic paradigm.

We may therefore conclude that South African feminists are perhaps draped in convenient kaftans of choice as to when to make the cause of a common sisterhood count.

Clyde N.S. Ramalaine

Political Commentator