Par2386954 So, dear reader, the election results are almost in, and pretty much, with the exception of Patrica de Lille, it was as predicted by TheTroublemakerTimes. The ANC has soared ahead, with the will of the South African people boldly etched on the world consciousness, a vote for the ANC that has titanic resonance.

Where in the world, in any democracy does any electorate send such a resounding vote of support?

Now, there are all kinds of analysts, with all kinds of responses as to why this happened. Mostly, the reasons are thinly coated in deeply held contempt for the South African voter. Mr. Hitchens and his neo colonialist, racist, rubbish rag, the Daily Mail would have you believe its because South African voters are savages, ignorant, tribal pretenders to the throne of democracy, who voted for their chief, with no thought.

You know already, what I think of that twat.

The other viewpoint is that the ANC is so uber-fabulous that one can only vote for them, the messianic answer to Africa’s ills.

Twat too.

The simple answer is the same as it is anywhere in the world.

They won so many votes, simply because, there was no credible opposition.


Consider the recent elections in the USA. Here Obama won barely 53 percent of the vote, next to McCain’s 45 percent.

This was interpreted world wide, as a massive shift in American opinion.

A landslide victory.

We were told, “The American people have spoken.”

McCain was roundly portrayed as a pathetic campaigner. Out of touch with his electorate.903857667-supporters-african-national-congress-president-jacob-zuma-celebrate-johannesburg1

It was a republican failure.

Everybody blamed Bush.

Yet here in South Africa, the media speaks less of victory for Zuma, and rather the “crushing defeat of the ANC in the Western Cape. “

What do you call 65% of the vote next to 16%.

A tsunami ?

Helen Zille, botoxed up, out of her senses, dancing like a gin-addled chimp, while her white supporters in Cape Town, are crying victory.


Today’s newspaper in Durban puts Mrs. Zille on the front page, next to Zuma, with the headline “The Z wars!”

Talk about the twilight zone.

Mrs. Zille and her cabal have one small province, by a slim majority, and this they maintain is success.

Mrs. Zille, where I went to school, 16% meant you did not go to the next level.

This despite a campaign that promised voters the country. “The ANC is weak”, Mrs. Zille spat in her alienating way, from shore to shore. “We will win. Vote to win.”

And when the country gives you the finger, what do you say?


Delusion and politics combine into a heady mixture of insanity and idiocy.

Mrs. Zille’s disco dancing celebrations are in, the light of even cursory examination ,as ridiculous as McCain holding a victory party  in Washington after losing the elections because the Republican’s won Texas.

See what too much botox can do to you ?

He had no party. And too, retired in shame from the world stage. Unlike the uber power hungry Zille, he did not snatch a Governorship from one of the states that voted for him.

Zille will become premier of the Western Cape.

Who leads the opposition?

They will tell us later.


And Mr Hitches was worried about Zuma.cape-town2

Zille calls Zuma a threat to the constitution. Her “Stop Zuma” campaign less successful than the smokeless cigarette or new Coke.

And now, because she can, she takes up the premiership of a province.
Bugger the rest of the country. Forget the promises you made.

As for a threat to the constitution, Mrs Zille’s exploitation of a loophole that lets her chop and change from leader of the opposition to home bred Queen of the Western Cape, is alarming.

Really Helen, have you no shame?

Do you really think that our constitution ever contemplated a ruling position in province as a consolation prize?

To have run with 3 possible jobs, the choice being your whim is incredible.

Its practically a constitutional crisis.

I mean can you imagine if the ANC had lost, what would happen if JZ installed himself as premier of Kwa Zulu Natal?

Haaibo ?

In any event, it shows her true colours. Her campaign for national politics lies in tatters in the wake of her new position, snatched through constitutional loophole and damn entitlement.

“So you won’t be in parliament, to represent those who voted for you nationally, Helen?”

Premier is better. That way you can get rid of pesky disagreement.

Nice new car too.

Sies man !

I expected as much.

Instead of being deeply embarrassed by her failure to provide any kind of credible opposition in her national campaign, she will treat this like a local election where she was feted for ruler, when in fact, it was a national spit in the face for her.

Mr. McCain’s failure included winning 22 States, and almost half the vote. He conceded defeat graciously. Just like they do in sophisticated democracy.

Here in South Africa, the real savage, is white.

She has failed the ideals of her party, she has failled to deliver her promises. Her national aspirations look like the IQ test results of a retard. She has run an election campaign that has been a dismal failure, but rest assured, because of one small victory she will transmogrify from leader cum mayor to Baas, in two easy steps.

She has failed to back a horse, choosing to be mayor, leader of the opposition and premier now too.

She tramples on the constitutional idea of separation of powers.

Talk about exploiting a loophole.

The self-important empire of the Western Cape and Cape Town is born.

The White Tribe Dreaming.

  1. Fed Up says:

    I would love to know who you voted for, my guess would be ANC. You are so very misguided in your views.

    After reading your blogs I truly believe that it is you who has the IQ of a retard. An interesting fact to take note of is that the IQ of the average sub Saharan African (the black ones) is 70, which is classified as mentally handicapped in the western world.

  2. thetroublemakertimes says:

    Where on earth did you get that figure ?

    Rubbish…the argument about black and white IQ’s has been well refuted. The Bell Curve is an outdated argument.

    Actually, less than a hundred is considered handicapped.

    Did you pick 70 because it was just below yours?

    I did not vote for the ANC, by the way.

  3. thetroublemakertimes says:

    Dear Mr Fed Up

    I have received your comments, and your questions:

    The following has relevance:

    TheTroublemakerTimes will no longer engage you, Mr Doberman, and his racist ideas, until our court date. I will no longer consider any comments or questions that flounder in the murky puddles of racism. I will not spend my time explaining the complexities of IQ and culture.

    And, by God, I don’t have time for your idiocy.

    You, have every right to your opinion, however uneducated, and your comments reveal your lack of graduate education.

    I will not defend my degrees, nor my qualifications to you.

    The Troublemakertimes holds the following undebatable:

    1 Race
    2 Evolution
    3 The opinions of unemployable white, uneducated, rejects from South Africa.

    In short.

    Piss off.

  4. thetroublemakertimes says:


    Helen Zille would agree.

    You see, we differ on hairsplitting issues.

    I have respect for her.

    Believe it or not, Mrs Zille is a consumate politician, she is undeterred by my comments.

    But I can promise you this, she finds them amusing, and too, she would stake her life on my right to critique her.

    If she thought you were her voting for her, she would most likely jump off a building.

    This is politics, you twit.

    Robust debate.

    Thats all folks.

  5. thetroublemakertimes says:

    Ps 2

    As for the rest of the many racist, ignorant comments that I keep getting. They will not be published.

    We don’t like racism.

    Not because its immoral.

    But because its stupid.

    Just because you have a keyboard and can write does not mean you have the right to be heard.

  6. John says:

    After reading some of my comments realise that I have gone too far and let my emotions get the better of me. In no ways do I have anything personally against you, we just have differing opinions.

    Please accept my sincere apology, and keep the posts coming.

    After all I do read your blog regularly as it is so confrontational and in some ways straight to the point.

  7. Atom says:

    While listening to the news recently I heard that the ANC is trying to push though a bill that will limit the powers of the provinces even further, which Zille claims they are doing because they knew that they were going to lose control of the Western Cape.

    Surely this must be unconstitutional.

  8. thetroublemakertimes says:

    I am unsure of this bill I will look at the white paper, if it is there, and get back to you on the nuts and blots.

    But let me say this, if Helen Zille plans to use a premiership as a podium for opposition politics, inappropriate as that would be, then realpolitik (on the ANC side) might be a motivating factor thereto, but let me say this, there are cogent reasons for limiting local government power, particularly considering the massive failure and corruption historically, the Eastern Cape in particular, so I doubt that its about Helen Zille.

    As for unconstitutional, well that would depend on what kind of limitations, I think however that, unless they involve entrenched provisions that it would be highly likely that they would be unconstitutional.

    Personally, I would like to see what Helen Zille does with the Western Cape, she has the experience and the work ethic, as well as the vision to turn it around. If she does that, it could serve as a model for the rest of the country.

    I would personally be very opposed to any new limitations being placed on her. I think that the Zuma government has much to gain from leaving her alone. A successful working relationship is what we need here.

    I hope too, that Helen Zille, as premier stops the alienating nature of her national politics, if she leaves the national face of the DA to better suited individuals (yes I am sticking to my guns on this) and she focuses on a successful Western Cape, while the DA presents a real, multiracial and inclusive image to South Africans nationally, with the Western Cape as an example of their commitment to their electorate, and not a bashing rod of tit for tat, then, well then, then the DA becomes what Helen Suzman always wanted it to be.

    And a huge success. I believe millions are waiting for the DA.

    I’ll put my balls on the line, if that happens I will vote DA next elections. And I’ll photograph my ballot paper and I’ll publish it here.

    We can only hope and pray.

  9. Au Contraire says:

    Sir, not that I want to pursue a tedious argument. IQ and culture are complex issues, to the mainstream media at least. If you took the time to read the peer reviewed academic material you will find that there is very little debate. It is broadly accepted that there are massive differences, not only between whites and blacks, but also between whites and Ashkanazi Jews. Denying these findings does not make it any less true, or any more racist.

    As regards education, an often cited personal axiom of yours, as if it confers some type of privilege. It doesn’t. You should well know that education does not preclude one from presenting a good argument. Education is a by-product of intelligence, not the other way around, and one does not have to be educated to argue. I, however, detect some issues regarding education. Is it possible that you are projecting? Is it possible that you feel inadequate? I do however believe that you are intentionally being a polemicist, in order to garner responses.

  10. thetroublemakertimes says:

    Dear Au Contraire

    Not true. I have read the your so called peer review, and the overwhelming conclusion is that the so called differences in IQ have nothing to do with genetics or racial overtones, the so called difference lies in interpretation of the questions, i.e. the IQ test is a western based, culturally loaded test, and participants who are broadly western or westernised, score better, this does not mean they have higher IQ’s, it merely means that the format of the test is insufficient to measure intelligence outside of a cultural norm.

    Which means that, believe it or not, they are UNSUITABLE for interracial comparison, or even better, irrelevant in the intelligence argument, which is by the way, the very, very obvious discourse here. Lets stay on point, the underlying, perhaps not so, point is not about scores, its that blacks are less intelligent than whites. Your deeply held, and yes, uneducated (flying in the face of science and history) beliefs drip from every word of your pretentious, self serving and wannabe erudite comment. Simply put, I prefer Mr Doberman, at least he has the courage of his convictions, unlike your smarmy, under the radar, implications. Coated too, in the veneer of science.


    As for your comment about peer review and consensus,

    “IQ scores have been shown to be associated with such factors as morbidity and mortality,[2] parental social status,[3] and to a substantial degree, parental IQ. While its inheritance has been investigated for nearly a century, controversy remains as to how much is inheritable, and the mechanisms of inheritance are still a matter of some debate.[4]” – Wikipededia

    And too,

    The opinion that there are differences in the brain structures or sizes of different racial and ethnic groups was widely held and studied during the 19th and early 20th centuries.[8] During this time period, research on race and intelligence was often used to claim that one race was superior to another, justifying the poor status and treatment of the “inferior” race.[9]
    The writings of Sir Francis Galton, a psychometrician and polymath (1822–1911), spurred interest in the study of mental abilities, particularly as they relate to heredity and eugenics.[10] Galton claimed from his field observations in Africa that the African people were significantly below Anglo-Saxons’ position in the normal frequency distribution of general mental ability; these claims continue to spark controversy in academia today.[11]
    The scientific debate on the contribution of nature versus nurture to individual and group differences in intelligence can be traced back to at least the mid-19th century.[12] Beginning in the 1930s, race difference research and hereditarianism — the belief that genetics are the primary cause of differences in intelligence among human groups — began to fall out of favor in psychology and anthropology after major internal debates.[13] By 1961, the mainstream view was that there were no race differences in intelligence, or if there were, they were solely the result of environmental factors.[14]
    also Wiki.

    If, you would like a more in depth, and particularly cutting angle on this I recommend, Freudian historian, Peter Gay’s seminal masterpiece “The Cultivation of Hatred”

    In any event to suggest, as John does, that black people have an average IQ under 70 is so massively stupid, I am left breathless. 67.

    Only 2.2% of the world populations languishes under 70, severely retarded.

    Now, here’s where a good education helps, if one has one, then one can see clearly through the thinly veiled, euro-centric nonsense that both you and John feel is factual.

    What makes it racist, is that you make the claim that different races have different IQ’s, which is racism:

    • noun 1 the belief that there are characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to each race. 2 discrimination against or antagonism towards other races.

    — DERIVATIVES racist noun & adjective. (OXFORD)

    Oh look, here education helps yet again.

    So, by throwing out a result, like IQ differentials, as an absolute, and relying on the public being uneducated in the specific matter, you twist and turn a shaded conclusion, retroactively into a premise argument and conclusion. On top of that, you present your racist conclusion as a scientific fact, by suggesting that it is simply true and therefor not racist. You stoop even further into dogma when you suggest that disagreeing with your deeply flawed interpretation, amounts to a denial of the facts, implying that your interpretation of the results is as factual as the results themselves.

    Your assertions lead to the titanic absurdity of suggesting that genetic and heritable distinctions in intelligence on a racial basis are accepted now, by academia and science.


    “These mundane matters seem to have taken us far from the cleanliness of philosophy. Yet there is no clear boundary at which we could have stopped. Our purest conceptions about human intelligence and development are inseparable from the research paradigms and instruments we use. These in turn are inseparable from the applied questions that guide the research, and the policy questions are inseparable from the society’s values and myths, which finally reduce to the purest conceptions about human development.”

    R.S. Cohen et al. (eds.), Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. XXXII (Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, University of Notre Dame, November 1974), pp. 181-188.

    As for your twat about education, of course it confers a privelege, your argument suffers from degree. You need to be educated on some level to discourse, in fact one of the biggest problems in the world is this nonsense idea that evry idea is valid, regardless of which black hole it climbed out of, errors of reasoning, fundamental misunderstandings of logic and the simple rules of argument are educational issues.

    If you have not studied the wealth of ideas that have gone before, then you have no business putting together an argument. IF you do, you are ignorant and conceited in the extreme. Pigs and pearls and stuff.

    “philosophers [must] become kings…or those now called kings [must]…genuinely and adequately philosophize” (The Republic, 5.473d).

    And no, I do not write anything I don’t believe.

    You really should not make so many assumptions about me, you will find sir, that I am well versed, and never prone to enter the fray in the uneducated fashion you suggest.

    I shan’t assume you have not read the “peer review of academia” , just that you did not understand it.

    Of course, if I am insecure and projecting about education, then all I would need to do would be go out and get one, thats the lovely thing about education, its all about time, love and tenderness.

    I shall go and buy one today.

    Oh yes, and the Ashjkinazi are not a race, you idiot, they are as white as the driven snow. Caucasians too.

    Thats the problem with you racists, you can’t even get racism right.


  11. Au Contraire says:

    Sir, you must have an extraordinarily creative imagination. How you manage to reach so many conclusions from my two paragraph response beggars belief. No doubt with the use of some flawed assumptions.

    How do you arrive at me having a deeply held belief that whites are superior to blacks? Somehow you delude yourself into believing you are the moral benchmark, and therefore should anybody object to your reasoning they must be flawed, possibly a supremacist and definitely a racist. I simply pointed out the overwhelming findings of the research on IQ. You sir are choosing to remain ignorant and uneducated. You cherry pick from the body of evidence according to your beliefs, using Wikipedia as your main source. Horror of horrors.

    Frankly, your fulminating shows you are the one with the prejudice. At no stage did I mention race, other than in the context of research findings. Apparently, according to you, it seems that if research findings are morally unjustified then we should ignore them. Moreover, I did not make a mistake to mention the Ashkanazi Jews, I highlighted the findings pertaining to groups you cretin. Perhaps you are the racist given your propensity to define everything in racial terms.

    Nevertheless, this argument is tedious.

    As a liberal (Oxford definition), I am willing to accept your point of view, and will continue to read your material, along with drink a good glass of Dimiersfontein Pinotage.


  12. thetroublemakertimes says:

    Dear Au Contraire

    I arrived at my conclusion that you were a racist from the following:

    You responded and commented on a race debate, by providing a defence for Intelligence differentials:

    You said “f you took the time to read the peer reviewed academic material you will find that there is very little debate. It is broadly accepted that there are massive differences, not only between whites and blacks, but also between whites and Ashkanazi Jews. Denying these findings does not make it any less true, or any more racist.”

    Of course that is racist. My God, you separated the Ashkanazi Jews into “non-white”. You announced that there were MASSIVE differences between whites and blacks. YOu said that this was broadly accepted.

    So, I apologise if I misunderstood.

    Are you saying that there are no differences between races when it comes to intelligence ?

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s