Wednesday, December 1, 2010

The Myth of DA Liberalism

Since our liberation, the Democratic Alliance supporters are quick to position themselves as "liberal", "non-racist" and "left leaning" etc. Nothing could be further from the truth! Looking closer at absolute numbers of voters from 1981 to the most recent election in 2009, we begin to see a pattern of voting that brings to mind the old African proverb - "A leopard can't change his spots". Sad but true in SA.

The graph above depicts white voting patterns from 1981 to the most recent 2009 elections for parties garnering more than 3% of the white vote. NP(National Party)/NNP(New National Party) [red], CP(Conservative Party)/HNP(Herstigte Nasionale Party)/NRP(New Republic Party)/(FF)Freedom Front [orange] , PFP(Progressive Federal Party)/DP(Democratic Party) [green], DA(Democratic Alliance) [blue]. Its clear from the graph, where most of the NP voters landed after the 1994 elections. The data speaks for itself!

Those pesky blind spots that just won't go away!
Centuries of white supremacy and apartheid indoctrination has created giant blind spots to where our self-proclaimed "opposition" party actually think of themselves as the official opposition party. They fail to see that even an opposition party needs to be reflective of the demographics of the country otherwise its just another tribal party serving the needs of its own "tribe".

Is black leadership an oxymoron within the DA?
The DA has utterly failed to attract black (African, Coloured or Indian) voters in any significant numbers. The upper echelons of power in the DA are still dominated by whites who have immense difficulty promoting blacks into leadership positions. This is mind-boggling since we do live in an African country that is overwhelmingly black! Recently they DA had to stoop to the shameful ploy of "buying" its way into the Independent Democrats in order to window dress its leadership.

Anyone for some NP-Lite?
The DA is a hybrid relic of the old National Party (NP) mingled together with racists from the CP, HNP etc. and a sprinkling of liberals, depicted in green on the graph, from the PFP and DP. Most of the liberals, a small minority of whites, have either switched to the ANC or abandoned the DA altogether in disgust.

The DA train wreck.
Watching the DA leadership is like watching a train wreck in slow motion. They seem to be stuck in their old apartheid mindset and far more interested in parroting their racist counterparts, the neo-cons of the Republican Party in the US, by employing the politics of division to cling to power in the Western Cape not realizing the political instability they are inadvertently creating in the region.

Instead of taking responsibility and cleaning up the mess created by apartheid which, based on the graph above, they supported until the bitter end in 1994, the DA prefers to persist in engaging in petty politics to cling onto their ill-gotten gains - the wealth accumulated from their privileges and government handouts during the apartheid era and centuries of colonialism. Over the last decade, by hijacking the role of the opposition party, the DA have proved to be a hindrance to our transformation into a Rainbow Nation.


  1. mmm, I don't know Dave, I don't remember ticking a "white/black" block on my ballots. How on earth would they know this?

  2. The chances of a black (African, Coloured or Indian) voting for the NP, CP, HNP etc. or any of the other white parties is infinitesimally remote that it negligible. So you can't hide behind the fact that you were not required to state your race when you voted...we all know exactly where those NP voters went, don't we? LOL
    As I said before, the data speaks for itself.

    1. So does Malema but that dosen't mean that he is right

    2. Yes we do - they merged with the cANCer the way I remember it.

  3. The chance is not so remote, as the DA won the western cape (coloured is the major group).
    This data makes no sense - how do they know what percentage of the DA vote is white?
    I am not sold on its credibility. Like I asked - looking at a ballot, how do you know what colour the voter is?

  4. Oh dear! what disingenuous crap.

    You conveniently forget that 68.73% of white south africans voted "Yes" in the 1992 referendum, in answer to the question "Do you support continuation of the reform process which the State President began on February 2, 1990, and which is aimed at a new constitution through negotiation?"
    The voter turnout was 85.1%; that was a HUGE endorsement for change, multiracialism and reconciliation.

    Your blanket condemnation of the DA as a haven for racist whites clinging on to white privilege is ridiculous and disingenuous; just read the DA manifesto and debate the policy on merit, man. Your obsession with race and your insistence on harping on racial profiling and blanket assumptions of a previous generation is anachronistic, divisive, and quite frankly, irrelevant. The language of your piece is hysterical and bitter. It's pure propaganda.

    On one simple point; as the party that has garnered the second-most number of votes in the country, of course the DA is, by definition, the official opposition.

    Your article is poorly referenced: wikipedia is hardly a reliable or credible source- please cite origional data, especially when placing such a vitriolic spin on it. Anonymous above makes excellent points regading the credibility of your so called "data": how could you know the demographic of the DA?

  5. @Anonymous (DECEMBER 30, 2010 6:53 PM)
    "You conveniently forget that 68.73% of white south africans voted "Yes" in the 1992 referendum..."
    The stage was set for a bloody civil war and even if blacks disproportionately bore the brunt of the fatalities, the cycle of violence would have meant the end of the white population in SA - in short, they had no option!

    "..your insistence on harping on racial profiling and blanket assumptions of a previous generation is anachronistic, divisive, and quite frankly, irrelevant." "...DA is, by definition, the official opposition."
    The DA, whose leadership is dominated by whites, makes effective use of fear-based politics to cling to power in the WCape. Its hijacking of the the role of the "official" opposition party is what polarizes our communities, hinders transformation initiatives and prevents our democracy from being a true multi-party democracy reflective of our diversity.

    "..wikipedia is hardly a reliable or credible source- please cite origional data,..."
    If there is an error in the Wikipedia data, please feel free to correct it. Don't you know how Wikipedia functions?

    "... how could you know the demographic of the DA?"
    By the previous voting data on the internet, its racist policies and its actions that's resulted in the WCape becoming one of the most politically unstable regions in SA.

  6. Uhhh Dave - the political instability in the Western Cape you reference in the last paragraph is ANC political instability. The DA is pretty stable...

    And how exactly did the DA "hijack" the role of official opposition? Who did they "hijack" it from?

  7. "..wikipedia is hardly a reliable or credible source- please cite original data,..."
    If there is an error in the Wikipedia data, please feel free to correct it. Don't you know how Wikipedia functions?"

    Absolutely, I am well aware how Wikipedia works, hence my request for you to cite the original data to support you assertions.
    Assuming the data are correct, the real issue here is with the interpretation of the results.
    How can you possibly know the racial make-up of the voters from the DA, or any other party for that matter? This is pure conjecture on your part, based on your own non-objective observations. You make no allowance for voter attrition, new voters, nor for the changing political landscape. Might the nearly 5 % swing towards the DA in the last general elections have more to do with the lack of service delivery by the ruling party that closet (and now very aged) racists re-emerging from the woodwork?

    "The data speaks for itself?" No, Mr Harris, these are your MUSINGS (I'll give you credit for that at least), based on your own political agenda.

    You clearly have little idea of what the role of the official opposition is in a democracy.

    The rest is transparent and hackneyed “wit-gevaar” tactics that deflect from the very real issues of service delivery.

    Musings? Disingenuous propaganda more likely.

  8. @Anonymous
    "Assuming the data are correct, the real issue here is with the interpretation of the results."
    Throughout the years, the "liberal" component of the white voting population consistently hovered at a fraction of the total number of white voters - represented by the green bars in the graphic. Now suddenly, out of the blue, the DA is claiming to be "liberal"???
    Your weak arguments make little sense.
    Voter attrition through death/emigration... would only reduce the number of DA voters.
    New voters primarily through births mean that there had to be a MEGA-BOOM in white births (a whole lotta fucking around 1986) to account for the number of "liberal" DA voters i.e. all their parents would most likely have to be politically liberal too! LOL
    Listen, no matter which way you want to window-dress the DA as being a racially inclusive "liberal" party, its leadership speaks for itself. Its no surprise that Madam Zille had to stoop to practically BUYING the Independent Democrats (Coloured party) to:
    1. Consolidate those crucial votes in the WCape since their grip is at best tenuous.
    2. Put a black face on the DA to give it some sense of credibility.

    "And how exactly did the DA "hijack" the role of official opposition? Who did they "hijack" it from? "
    They hijacked the possibility of a natural formation of an opposition party that was racially diverse (reflective of our population) with the credibility to be taken seriously by the ANC.
    Cope, in spite of their problems, were still a true reflection of our Rainbow Nation and had/has the potential to become more of an "official" opposition party that can stand up to the ANC in a respectful manner. The election results showed their support across the board, geographically, racially etc. Notice after the 2009 election results were announced, how the Cope leader actually embraced President Zuma to congratulate him but Madam Zille, on the other hand, could not perform this simple act of kindness - congratulating another human being on their success. This alone speaks volumes of the level of humanity that inhabits the DA leadership.

  9. I think you mean to say:

    Voter attrition through death/emigration... would only reduce the number of NAT voters?

    The rest is pure conjecture Mr Harris, and you know it.
    Comemon, you seem like an intellegent chap. Debate the policies and results man! Personal attacks against Ms. Zille don't do your case any credit.

    A 10 year old can see you are reaching here!

  10. @Anonymous
    "Comemon, you seem like an intellegent chap."
    LOL...its a pity your apartheid education stunted your critical thinking ability. You should work with your doctor to procure one of those "mentally handicapped" signs to carry around so that you can continue to enjoy some of those special privileges and handouts that you and your ilk have gotten so used to from generations of white affirmative action. ;-)
    As the Brits would say, "You're punching above your weight, old chap!"

    1. "You're punching above you're weight old chap" who are you to say that you are more intelligent than somebody else. This has a stark resemblance to the ANC arrogance that has sadly dominated the political horizon and who mind you also take cheap and hypocritical potshots at the DA.

      Would you not say that an ANC, who has as few whites or non blacks for that matter as there are nuns in brothels, sets the stage to political segregation amongst parties by Bee-ing the so called example of what South African political parties should be like. In fact the DA has done remarkably well in terms of being a diverse democratic party despite the ANC's efforts to hinder this.

  11. A very good friend of mine in the Netherlands, when asked of the right wing political increase in his country made a very interesting comment. He responded by saying that although the right wing were bringing up important issues that required debating, they had in fact not brought any solutions forward. By merely stroking anger and hatred, a base emotion easily invoked, they were only causing damage by not contributing to solutions. Dave, whilst I agree that Tony Leon used this tactic to stir up the 'red under the bed' or 'swart gevaar' during his tenure, I cannot agree with you about Helen Zille. Sadly the important valid issues you raise Dave are destroyed by your very strong bias against the DA. Sad indeed and a missed opportunity to contribute to creating a better South Africa. I wasn't educated under the South African government and continue to believe that as Churchill stated that democracy is the worst form of governance , apart from all the other alternatives. An opposition is required for good governance in most democracies.

  12. Ah, the old ad hominem comes straight out, and with minimal provocation. Even a 6 year old knows that this is the last refuge of the out-debated.
    What on earth has my education got to do with anything? Once again, because I challenge your interpretation of the data, you immediately mud-sling and assume that I was educated under the apartheid government (which I was not, BTW). So you attack my credentials of which you have no knowledge, rather than honestly dealing with my probe.
    (I will of course concede the typo: "intelligent". Sadly my non-apartheid education did not offer typing- more's the pity).
    So why the acute hypersensitivity? Are you simply unable to be challenged on any of your assertions? Why should we blindly accept your rhetoric? I am not sure that I have encountered anyone with such thin skin- you take even the gentlest of prods exquisitively personally.

    As anonymous states above, your screaming bias, creative speculation and retro-fitting of the evidence to drive your own political agenda does absolutely nothing for your case.

    Sadly, it is simply just not possible to engage in an adult debate with you Mr Harris.

  13. BTW, Mr Harris, as you are such a fan of Wikipedia and laud it as a credible reference source, I am sure you will be in complete agreement with the wiki-article regarding the DA, especially as its role as the official opposition and it's stance a centrist LIBERAL party.

    And as a self-proclaimed staunch supporter of Wikipedia, you will also surely agree with the posting of Ms. Zille's commitment to a society where:
    "everybody has the opportunities and the space to shape their own lives, improve their skills and follow their dreams. The government’s key role is to expand and promote equal opportunities for all. People are not held back by arbitrary criteria such as gender, religion, or colour, or the prejudice of those in power. In the open, opportunity society, outcomes are linked to opportunity, effort and ability, not special favours dispensed by a ruling clique in the ruling party"

    Amen to that (especially the last bit, hey!).

    With those principles, the DA sounds like a very alien and uncomfortable place for right-wingers, dye-in-the-wool Nats and white- supremacists to me. Those types could always find a home with the FF.

  14. So really where did the Nats all go?

    Well, ironically, as of the fifth of August, 2005, all NNP members of parliament became members of the ANC, in accordance with South African parliamentary floor crossing legislation. Strange bed-fellows indeed!

    I suggest you go looking within the ranks of your own beloved party for your spot-morphing NAT leopards (Kortbroek and his makkers), hey Mr Harris!

    The joke's on you, old chap.

  15. Gosh Anonymous, with each of your desperate responses I grow younger - from 10 yo to a 6 yo..LOL

    With your denialist mindset, you are quick to accuse the victims of apartheid of being racist themselves. This old chap, is the height of delusion.
    Just like the apartheid government expected the world to accept the pariah apartheid state, you too expect the world to believe that the DA is a liberal party and that the staunch supporters of the National Party suddenly had a change of heart from their generations of white supremacist conditioning and decided to join the ANC???
    Now I KNOW you're a product of apartheid. LOL
    This is becoming incredibly boring now....

  16. Boring? Comeon, we are just warming up here, old chap!

    LOL. It's you in denial, Mr Harris.

    Your bizarre and quite frankly irrelevant "musings" of wit-gevaar are hysterical. These are nothing but transparent scare tactics and blatant attempts to smear the DA. You have not clarified or substantiated a single point; countered any of the questions posed to you with honesty or without resorting to personal attack; nor have you put forward a shred of objective evidence to support your 'musings".

    So why all the mud-slinging? Well, you clearly have some sort of personal axe to grind, and your obsession with "where are all the old Nats" seems like a surreal game of 'where's Wally".
    But besides that, it’s pure propaganda. I can only assume it's because you clearly perceive the DA as some sort of a threat. That's understandable I suppose. The ANC in the WP is in tatters, with no hope in hell of reclaiming the province in the foreseeable future. In the last general election, the DA made substantial gains in all provinces (except Limpopo) and a gain of 17 parliamentary seats (to the ANC's net loss of 15). And all that despite the emergence of COPE. In fact, the DA support grew by just over 1 million voters from 2004 to 2009. Boy, 1 million new DA voters in 2009! All those ex-Nats flocking to the DA must surely be the slowest spot-changers ever, hey?
    Or maybe, just maybe, the DA is finding traction with the general SA population who are fed up to the teeth with poor service delivery and rampant corruption?

    But of course, you would deny that.

  17. "With your denialist mindset, you are quick to accuse the victims of apartheid of being racist themselves".

    Uhh, Mr. Harris, apart from calling you thin-skinned, please could you point out exactly where I have accused anyone of anything?

  18. Sorry Dave, you need to be intelligent to make observations based on available 'data'. Unfortunately as such, I dont trust your 'observations'.

    Im afraid to say, that the ANC has lost the WCape forever and ever. Even now, you still cant have a clean leadership election. Its being disputed yet again. Ah, what a shame that your party and its cadres care more about their own bank accounts, than what they do about South Africa.

    The other provinces are curious about this thing called 'service delivery'. I think they might want a taste of it.

  19. Lol - generalisations and misuse of statistics...ahhh. The sweet smell of vitriol in the morning...

    This article does not work constructively in any way. I personally vote for individuals based on their track records, and although i am white, that included votes for the guys i thought would best run the local municipality - who were so-called black.

    the sad thing is how polarised SA is along racial lines - at least among the active commenters on the news sites, which are totally out of line.

    I hope you manage to find some happiness while realising that no political entity of any race group (or as you stupidly polarised it - Tribe) is, or ever will be perfect.

    Economics is a greater problem than colour, and it will take honesty and serious original thinking to get us out of our ticking time bomb of unemployment. Focus people!


  20. The victims of apartheid are now agressors themselves. And the world take notice Mr. Harris. History will judge your party in 20 or 50 years, none better, or even worse than the old NP.Seems all that is left of the ANC today is extreme ignorance and hateful supporters and "leaders". Building blocks for confrontation and more racism by the governing party. Eventually you and your ild will feel too embaressed to say you belonged to such a party. Like old NP suppoters. It will become harder and harder for people like your to defend your frankenstein party. Quite humilating I'd say.

  21. Or, or, it could just be that coloured voters, denied the vote before 1994, explain the huge jump in NP / NNP voters post-1994.

    You think?

    I think it's cute that you became a polling expert by citing one Wiki article, as opposed to understanding the Mid-Year population estimates ( and attempting to cross-reference them with the extensive voting data available on the IEC's website (

    But interrogating the facts in an honest, objective way wouldn't really fit it with your hysterical anti-white anti-DA agenda.

    You unbelievably arrogant and ignorant tool.

  22. Looks like Harris can't take the heat and has abandoned his blog to the wolves. I guess that's what happens when you try to peddle rabidly biased speculations wrapped up in childlike pseudoscience as political truth, and then overreact hysterically when probed.

    It is quite clear that Harris certainly does not believe in "a vibrant multi-party democracy", despite what he states in his politically correct, narcissistic and badly written "bio", littered with screaming grammatical errors.

  23. @Anonymous et al
    I find it incredibly boring arguing with apartheid indoctrinated pseudo-intellectuals who cannot provide any clear plausible explanations of these very clear shameful voting patterns. Simply questioning the validity of Wikipedia, or making wild assertions of "misuse of statistics", or asking me to "cross reference" the data to, or calling it "childlike pseudoscience" etc. just shows the cumulative effect of generations of white AA...LOL

    Oh, and regarding my grammatical errors...who cares! ;-)

  24. Nah, Harris. Sorry, but boredom, along with ad hominem, is not a valid defense. Perhaps if you framed your arguments logically with some semblance of balance, and were able to back them up when challenged with firm data, maybe you could salvage some credibility.
    The burden of proof still lies with you.

    Merely labeling anyone who disagrees with or queries your unsubstantiated speculations as an indoctrinated apartheid apologist is simply a non-argument; it also reveals your brittle ability to debate, and exposes your true nature and partisan political agenda.

    You are simply not believable.

    This piece of irrelevant and anachronistic propaganda deserves to be exactly where it is, lost in the obscure backwaters of pseudo-intellectual blogspace.

    If you take my advice (which I'm sure you will not), stick to writing about simpler things, like Zeitgeists and such.

  25. I have some questions about the actual data.

    1) You reference a Wikipedia article for your graph. Yet when I go to that article it lists only the last two elections. Your data for the other elections comes from where exactly?

    2) You leave out the 1999 election. Why?

    3) Where did you get your data for racial demographics? Pre 1994 is easy to understand, but you don't reference any sources for 1994+. It would be hard data to obtain since it is not recorded in elections, but you could get it through exit polls.

    4) You do not seem to adjust your figures to take into account new voters or deaths. Why? That would be critical to make the argument that voters don't change their internal values.

    Those are just a few of my data questions. They unfortunately poke big holes in your arguments since your conclusions seem to rest on a whole lot of data that you do not possess.

  26. Dear Anonymous,
    well, the obvious conclusion is that the whole analysis is fatally flawed.
    This is clearly apparent with the statement,
    "The graph above depicts white voting patterns from 1981 to the most recent 2009 elections". This simply untrue.
    The data, as it is presented, only reflects white voting patterns from 1981 to 1989. As elections were multiracial from 1994 onwards, the author's assertion that these are "white" voting patterns is patently false. As pointed out several times above, voting is of course made in secret, so there is no objective means of determining the demographic make up of the individual parties.

    The author's argument falls flat on its face at the first hurdle, and its downhill from there on. It is on this fallacious assumption that the rest of the diatribe is based, and vitriol aside, all subsequent conclusions and assumptions built on the initial false premise fall into the realm of pure speculation no matter how much the author believes them to be true.

    Even if for a moment we accept the author's assumption that the DP/DA and NNP are/were almost exclusively white parties (which they clearly are/were not) the numbers still do not support the author's simplistic analysis of voting patterns:

    Take for instance the votes in the WC from 2004 to 2009:
    2004: ANC 709 000; NNP 170 000; DA 425 000.
    2009: ANC 620 000; DA 1 012 000.

    Even if there was a wholesale defection of all the (assumed white) NNP voters to the DA after 2004 (which we also know is unlikely as their leadership defected en masse to the ANC in 2005), that still leaves a deficit of about 417 000 (assumed white) people who voted for the DA in 2009. Even if there was a net loss of 90 000 odd (assumed white) ANC supporters to the DA, that still leaves a sizeable deficit.

    So where did these new DA voters all come from?

    I find a mass immigration of nearly 417 000 white people into the WC over 5 years hardly believable, and the author himself has rather vulgarly discounted white procreation as a plausible explanation.

    As painful as it may be for the author to consider, perhaps a better explanation is that the DA's recent national groundswell of support comes from somewhere other than the "white electorate"?

  27. 1. You must have been educated by the apartheid system since you show ZERO initiative to seek out the historical election numbers which are so easy to find on wikipedia. You are living proof of why the architects of apartheid needed white affirmative action for people like you.
    2. The idea was to reveal the facts that whites want to hide - the majority of National Party voters went to the DA.
    3. Again, we are showing where the DA voters came from.
    4. "new voters or deaths"? No use trying to hide behind
    Again trying to use new voters or deaths to explain a major shift in voting patters is grasping at straws since people are not born racist, they are carefully taught racism by their families and societies - this is the result of apartheid indoctrination and centuries of white supremacy.

    The data speaks for itself. There is no place to hide the despicable voting patters of the MAJORITY of white South Africans!

  28. "As elections were multiracial from 1994 onwards, the author's assertion that these are "white" voting patterns is patently false."
    The whole object of my analysis is to show that the majority of white voters consistently supported the conservative white supremacist parties that continue their existence under the cover of the DA. Now they want to hide like chameleons undercover of "multi-racialism" (which cannot be proven) and call themselves a "liberal" party while they are perfectly in line with their philosophies with the neo-con parties found in many western countries - anti affirmative action, anti-immigration, anti-women's rights, anti-public education, anti-public health ....EXACTLY opposite to what the term liberal connotes throughout the rest of the world!

    "which we also know is unlikely as their leadership defected en masse to the ANC in 2005"
    Another lie, since the majority of whites still vote along racial lines for the DA.

    "DA's recent national groundswell of support comes from somewhere other than the "white electorate""
    "national groundswell"??? Absolute garbage, the majority of the DA is primarily white with a sprinkling of black faces primarily for the purposes of window-dressing its leadership to give this white DA party a semblance of credibility. They had to practically BUY these black faces by taking over the ID (another fringe party) in a desperate attempt to buy credibility among blacks! Sies!

    The DA's hijacking of the role of "official" opposition with a party that is not representative of South Africans across the board places our entire democracy at risk! But like apartheid, this short term thinking will be their own undoing on the long run.

    1. Dave Harris,
      Are you able to comprehend the difference between a fact and an opinion?

      Quote"which we also know is unlikely as their leadership defected en masse to the ANC in 2005"
      Another lie, since the majority of whites still vote along racial lines for the DA."

      The parliamentary leadership of the NP dissolved in 2005 - they crossed the floor and joined the ANC.
      That is a fact and a mater of public record, recorded in Hansard.

      You call it a lie.

      Your statement that the majority of whites still vote on racial lines for the DA is also an opinion, not a fact.

      True, it is an opinion that is probably true, just as it is no doubt probably also true that the majority of blacks vote for the ANC.

      Ok - now I am going to state an opinion of my own:

      Firstly, Dave Harris is not your real name.
      Secondly, you are employed by the ANC to troll cyberspcace and punt the ANC's position in blog debates / opinion pieces / responses to articles.

      C'mon , Dave tell us the truth - do you work in Government, or for the ANC? yes or no?

  29. Hmm, I see that rather than honestly deal with the commenters that dare challenge his sweeping statements, Mr Harris has instead cowardly resorted to censorship, much the same as the M&G that he so vigorously criticizes for exactly that reason.


  30. Dave

    You still haven't responded to the very simple explanation - it is coloured votes. Coloureds were not part of the universal franchise pre-1994.

    It's not hard. If you want to add gloss and interest, it's not too late to quote the official population stats (

    Or you could continue with the ad hominems and spin. I'm sure when the 11-year-olds are done with YouTube, they'll come and play with you on your little blog. It's pitched at their level.

  31. @Harris - "Shameful voting patterns"? What on earth are you alluding to? Should I vote ANC because I (should) feel guilty about the past, regardless of their very inept governance of our country (and, yes, it is my country - I was born here) or should I use my head and vote for a party that has shown competent use of the taxes I pay?
    I think that somehow you have donned blinkers and are not open to intelligent debate. One of the "useful idiots" that the ANC needs to push their agenda.

  32. The DA train wreck has arrived in Cape Town station and is in perfect working condition. The last vestiges of the rusting hulk of the ANC will be cleared out and removed in the next few years, clearing space for a new, shining and competent government. The people (of ALL colours, ethnicities and persuasions) have spoken!

  33. Please explain: "the despicable voting patters (sic)" - I assume you mean patterns.
    Do you wish to prescribe how voters should vote? The core of democracy is that anyone can vote anyway they wish. Should white voters not use their heads and vote for the ANC to please you? You make no sense whatsoever...

  34. Dave has gone very quiet.....
    The DA has proven itself to be the legitimate opposition. It now governs the Western Cape by majority vote. It seems that more than just whites have given their stamp of approval to Helen Zille and the DA.

    Dave, all your whining has come to naught....

  35. Mr. Harris, you have made your agenda abundantly clear: to discredit the DA. Your allegations are not surprising, but your rhetorical assertion that the DA are mostly white, therefore are probably old nationalists, therefore must be closet supremacists, therefore DA policies are aligned with rightwing neocon doctrine deserves further scutiny:

    Please substantiate your allegation that the DA is anti-public health care.
    Please substantiate your allegation that the DA is anti-women’s rights.
    Please substantiate your allegation that the DA is anti-public education.
    Please substantiate your allegation that the DA is anti-affirmative action.
    Please substantiate your allegation that the DA is anti-immigtation.

    Please substantiate your allegation that the LEADERSHIP of the NNP did not defect to the ANC in 2005, and your repetitive claim that this is in fact a lie.
    Please elaborate as to exactly how the DA determines, legislates or otherwise enforces the demography of its members in a democracy where the voters are free to choose whatever their party they wish.

    Please provide a plausible explanation for the additional 400 000 votes for the DA from 2004 to 2009 in the Western Cape , as well as the additional 17 parliamentary seats and 1 million additional national votes in 2009 vs. 2004 i.e. please explain how these facts are able to be reconciled with your assertion that the DA has “utterly failed to attract to attract black (African, Coloured or Indian) voters in any significant numbers”.

    The final stake through the heart of your racist vampiric diatribe must be the results from the 2011 municipal elections: 3.2 million votes to the DA: that's 1 DA vote for every 2.6 ANC votes- could these all be Whities?
    good grief, what are the odds?

  36. Dave reminds me of the Blue Bull supporter who said on the Friday before the Sharks centenary Currie cup final, "If only we were playing against somebody, but we are playing against nobody!".
    The Sharks won!
    Dave, the DA won in the Western Cape.
    From your previous posts, I must assume that your silence from here on will be deafening...

  37. "Its clear from the graph, where most of the NP voters landed after the 1994 elections. The data speaks for itself!" No it is not clear, the only way you can come to the conclusion hat you did, is to make it up out of thin air. Attaching some graphs to the made up garbage that you are spewing out does not add any credibility to it. My only question is how come you have never got to the point of getting past intellectual pre-adolescence. Or at least, taking a step back, and reviewing the conclusions you have come to, especially in light of the gaping holes in your information. And at least attempt to uncover the truth.

  38. Hmm, I'm not so sure about the authenticity of these 'stats'.

    And if this blogger's theory holds water, then what happened to nearly half the white voters between 1994 and 2004? They seem to just disappear.

    Seems to me like this is just anti-DA propaganda.

  39. @ anonymous June 8

    Geeze, you think!

  40. The only safe assumption in life is that the person who assures you that everything is all right is all wrong. ~ Robert J. Ringer

  41. OK Dave. Please tell us what other parties do whites have as options? (That is if I want to propagate your simple analysis, which I think is in principle simplistic at worst and limiting at best)

    I voted DA to prevent a vast majority for the ANC. It was a simple choice - choose the strongest (still very weak) party to oppose the government (that is called healthy democracy and it is followed in many other countries) Does this make me a racist?

    I am waiting for another party that has the management depth of the ANC (which is also failing our people). I don't care about its demographics, history or whatever. I care if they can get the job done. At the moment I don't see anything on the horison. So I'm afraid that I will have to stick to the DA - which in my books are doing a sterling job where given the chance. Far better that the ANCorruption.

  42. hahahahahahaha. blow me down, you are thick. do you honestly believe the tripe you write? seriously? this sort of sophomoric wankery is really tiring, dave. i think it's time you grew up and dabbled in a little bit of objectivity. i think you'll find it will lend some credence to the points you make. there are interesting things to pull out of that data, but you have you conclusions already, and twist the statistics to support your agenda. not all of us are retards.

  43. This explains Dave (and his disciples) erfectly.

    "It's important to note that while the *academic* performance of a black and a white matched for IQ are equal, the *social* performance of a black with a 70 IQ is within normal bounds and very different from that of a white with a 70 IQ, who is usually functionally retarded.

    Among blacks and whites with comparable cognitive deficits, blacks generally show a better ability to adapt to the rigors of everyday life. The difference is pronounced. Arthur Jensen observed in ‘The g Factor’ that black pupils with IQ deficiencies often socially integrate well with their brighter peers. They seem quite normal when engaging in non-cerebral activities like play. In contrast, many cognitively impaired white children have difficulty integrating socially and often have physical abnormalities such as flat-footed gaits. Jensen attributes this racial divergence to different etiologies that are transparent to IQ tests."

  44. Dave Harris, in his normal lying fashion, ignores the growth of Prog/DA support prior to 1994 from a few tens of thousand votes in the sixties (it broke away from the UP over the latter's racism) by more than tenfold in 1989 (the last "whites only" elections). It achieved over a million in 1999, despite the National Party also contesting the elections (the Nats subsequently found a home in the racist ANC, which Dave ignores).

    Fundamental to the Prog-DA thinking is that "the pen is mightier than the sword" (or spear) and that people CAN be persuaded.

  45. Your analysis might be more credible if you actually included 1999 data instead of ignoring this election entirely.

    Your responses to critique of your piece are bizarre.

    "The chances of a black (African, Coloured or Indian) voting for the NP, CP, HNP etc. or any of the other white parties is infinitesimally remote that it negligible".

    Oh really?

    So then how do you explain the massive jump in NNP support from less than 1.25 million voters In 1989 to over 3.75 million in 1994?
    As you say, that's a lot of white people fucking around to swell those numbers. LOL

    Furthermore, how can you possibly explain the 3,216,006 votes for the DA in the latest 2011 municipal elections. That's 24% of the popular vote.
    Could it be "gasp" that some non-whites actually voted for the DA?

    It may be because some people don't want to be associated with all those nasty Nats like Kortbroek who were absorbed wholesale into the ANC in 2005 for the noble cause of saving their own political skins, hey?

  46. Dave Harris. How many pseudonyms do you in effect have? Jester!

  47. Umm, aside from the fanatastic leaps of logic, where is the data from 1999?
    I suspect they did not fit with the forgone conclusions pushed by the author.

    Poor article with screaming bias. Nothing like fudging incomplete data to push your own agenda.

    A classic example of why peer review exists.

    Epic fail.

  48. This is not my first visit to the blog of the notorious "Dave Harris". But it is my first comment. A privilege? That would normally be considered correct. But the circumstance is highly abnormal... distasteful as it is to be here, I felt compelled to come back and add my two cents to the Corrective Treatment that Mr "Harris" so urgently needs.

    Today's dose is just to endorse what others here have said about the evil conspiracy concocted between the Afrikaner Nationalists and the African Nationalists, starting way back in the late 1980s.

    We all know by now that the "Arms Deal" was at the core of it, and that at least one very brave and honest ANC and MK leader was conveniently assassinated to facilitate the oncoming National Scam. Things are now changing rapidly, and Zuma and his props are running scared - very scared. Thank goodness for the honest parties in opposition, especially the future ruling party (the DA).

    And thanks for the "privilege" of posting a comment here....

  49. Anonymous gets my vote...