Articles – Rational Standard http://rationalstandard.com The Logical Alternative Tue, 28 Mar 2017 08:00:35 +0000 en-GB hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=4.7.3 https://i2.wp.com/rationalstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/cropped-RS-Logo.png?fit=32%2C32 Articles – Rational Standard http://rationalstandard.com 32 32 94510741 Political and Cultural Hegemony – A Battlefield of Minds (Part 3) http://rationalstandard.com/political-cultural-hegemony-battlefield-minds-part-3/ http://rationalstandard.com/political-cultural-hegemony-battlefield-minds-part-3/#respond Tue, 28 Mar 2017 08:00:35 +0000 http://rationalstandard.com/?p=5156 Stefan George was a German poet and artist active before and after the Great War, until his death in 1933. First bound to symbolism, he turned away from pure aestheticism […]

The post Political and Cultural Hegemony – A Battlefield of Minds (Part 3) appeared first on Rational Standard.

]]>
Stefan George was a German poet and artist active before and after the Great War, until his death in 1933. First bound to symbolism, he turned away from pure aestheticism and founded the ‘George circle’ for cultivating his own aesthetic, philosophic and life-reforming considerations. His most prominent follower was Claus Count of Stauffenberg, the last German hero, who nearly succeeded in killing Adolf Hitler and overthrowing his regime. For non-Germans, George’s thinking may appear obscure, romantic, of typically Teutonic deepness, and gothic, and surely it is strange to Anglo-Saxon pragmatism. Therefore, I will try to introduce the essentials in a few words – the logic behind it may then be easily grasped.

From 1907, George turned against the principle of l’art pour l’art and saw himself and art as judge or accuser of a world more and more seen as shallow. His poems became activist through tending into metaphysics, apocalyptic, expressionistic and esoteric, obviously sensing the great upheaval for civilization coming with the Great War. To become effective, his circle was reformed into a federation of followers of the ‘higher master’.

After the defeat of the German Empire, the pressing Versailles Treaty, hyper inflation, civil war, near Bolshevism, a pauperisation of large parts of the population and growing materialistic and nihilist tendencies, he embodied, according to Klaus Mann “a human and artistic dignity in which order and passion, elegance and majesty had been united within a rotten and crass civilisation.”

He turned around Plato who said that the artist orders only change with the order of the state. Obviously, he tried to organize his circle as a think tank, not secret but discreet in its endeavours aiming at men inspired by his art then go and change political orders. But it was not party politics, which was considered as pity but an elitist approach of serving the state, of course, guiding and steering it.

He had followers, especially in the youth, from various and often very divergent ideological backgrounds. The “dreaming the Reich” was a very strong political emotion due to the specialities of German history. In his work The New Reich he pronounced a hierarchic reform of society based on a new spiritual moral aristocracy. In his concept of a ‘secret Germany’, he constructed the idea of a German cultural nation beside the present state and politics, being the carrier of the German spirit. Being that it is the other pole of the visible, from day to day political world but shaping it by influencing the spiritual and ideological fundaments of state and society.

In short, we recognize a pragmatic, from day to day working element in the body politic and the idealistically inspired elements which give that organisation a higher form and purpose, differing between the ordinary state and the state of the idea, of the fundamental philosophical concept which had to nourish the ordinary state to give it substance, shape and ideas. So a superior philosophical or spiritual frame order is given to the secular order. That should remind us of Von Hayek’s concept of spontaneous order within a framework of general order. The essential point is that the whole concept is not pale esoteric, but aimed at forming and influencing the most promising men to become active formers of politics and culture.

The list of outstanding men influenced and activated by George is long;  philosophers, academics, historians, officers, artists like Ludwig Klages, Hugo von Hoffmansthal, Ernst Kantorowicz, Berthold, Alexander and Claus Count of Stauffenberg, Friedrich Gundolf are just some of them, and it seemed that a circle of men came into existence that could have renovated Germany in cooperation with the pragmatists from the ordinary state.

George could have been of tremendous influence were it not for national socialism, which had been much more successful in annihilating genuine right thinking than Marxist thinking. After 1945 the Marxists, having disguised themselves in the United States as representatives of ‘Critical Theory’ – one of the most impertinent and blatant lies of the 20th century, but due to that, incredibly successful – came back from emigration but the realm of independent conservative and rightist thinking was utterly destroyed by the national socialists, especially after the failed putsch of 20th July 1944.

Further, this was also possible due to the fact that all left wingers most vocally and most intensely describe national socialism as a ‘right wing’ or ‘extreme right’ movement and ideology. How a totalitarian, collectivistic, materialistic, deterministic, historicist (in the meaning of Karl Popper) and militant ideology which referred to itself as ‘socialist’ and taking anti-free market positions can be called ‘right’ instead of evidently being ‘ultra-left’, is beyond serious consideration, beggars belief, and can only be explained by the fact that the more blatant, crass and cheeky the political lie is, the more it is accepted. Since 1789, the leftists get away with nearly any lie, and the slope to the left (Ernst Juenger) makes that possible.

Dr Harald Sitta is a Contributor at the Rational Standard. He is an Austrian attorney emeritus and business owner who immigrated to South Africa in 2007. He obtained his postgraduate law degrees at the University of Vienna.

The post Political and Cultural Hegemony – A Battlefield of Minds (Part 3) appeared first on Rational Standard.

]]>
http://rationalstandard.com/political-cultural-hegemony-battlefield-minds-part-3/feed/ 0 5156
Actions speak louder than words with Zille http://rationalstandard.com/actions-speak-louder-words-zille/ http://rationalstandard.com/actions-speak-louder-words-zille/#comments Mon, 27 Mar 2017 07:00:00 +0000 http://rationalstandard.com/?p=5149 In what is a seemingly a faux pas by the former DA leader, Helen Zille, on Twitter, the inexorable attention from pundits, opposition parties and those who opportunistically waved with […]

The post Actions speak louder than words with Zille appeared first on Rational Standard.

]]>
In what is a seemingly a faux pas by the former DA leader, Helen Zille, on Twitter, the inexorable attention from pundits, opposition parties and those who opportunistically waved with great glee across cyberspace for an ‘Aha!’ moment to disenfranchise the DA black voter, had a resurgence of doubts for the future of the DA and indeed in the body politic. Such utterances receive a lot of memorial than one can care to recall.  But equally so, facts – not skewed personal anecdotes – should inform us that the DA is not a white man’s party nor by any putative standards, are black DA members ‘puppets’ or ‘sell-outs’.

Actions, not tweets, speak louder than words.

It is not as though the question of inclusivity and the perception of the DA was not entertained during all these years. In 2006, a former DA strategist, Ryan Coetzee, compiled a seminal document entitled “Becoming a Party for All the People: A New Approach for the DA”, in it, Coetzee tackles the identity politics set within contemporary South Africa and ways in which the obstacles can be removed to win (black) South Africans.

Zille’s endeavours to grow the party and selling it as more inclusive should not be underestimated. Under her leadership, the DA had a substantial increase in the black voter share. Through its year-long Young Leaders Programme, the DA has attracted and essentialised the skilling and honing of young black leaders, some of which occupy prominent leadership positions both in the party and in government.

As a political correspondent for the Rand Daily Mail, Zille’s tenacity helped uncover the untold story behind the death of Black Consciousness movement leader, Steve Biko, in 1977. Consequently Zille, alongside with her editor, Allister Sparks, were found to be guilty of ‘tendentious reporting’ by the Apartheid government. Her family house in Cape Town was an apparent hideout for ANC veterans such as Mcebisi Skhwatsha, Cameron Dugmore, Nyami Booi and Tony Yengeni during the dark history of our country. Her resistance to apartheid during her time in the Black Sash movement in the 1980s, further accentuated by her endeavours to learn isiXhosa, is anything but an action of a racist.

Amidst the invective that culminate the race debate, in this milieu, Helen Zille should have known better, especially given her prolific recognition and membership to a party which has employed strategies to coalesce South Africans under the banner of non-racialism, albeit met with resistance, grown as one of the strong political parties in the country. At any rate, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. The DA’s growth in black townships areas: Ntabankulu ward 4 grew from 0.2% to 45.3% , Umzimvubu ward 23 from 1% to in 2011 to 45% and Tshwane ward 38 in Mamelodi from 7% to 30.6% in the local government elections of 2016. To an ordinary observer of politics, the DA brand is not that of a white madam, and black DA representatives are not stooges as racial politicking adherents like to pontificate. Whether Zille dented the DA’s image is yet to be reflected in 2019 and, indeed, how the party goes about this will be the biggest test for the DA and is learning this the hard way.

Twitter has become a favourable platform for commentators’ and the electorate’s engagement with public faces. More often than not, crassness and frankness occupy the discussions with 140 characters. Twitter compounds this challenge, not only because it favours short bursts of content, but also because it is an emotional medium. Zille is an epitome of this idiosyncrasy.

While the ongoing tweet furore populated the social media space, there were high-pitched chords from the DA’s dissents on questioning the always touted ‘blackness’ of black DA people, one which would inspire a repertoire of essentialists scripts on blackness. From quoting Fanon’s Black Skins, White Masks as a psychoanalysis for black voters to irking trolls on social media, the Black Thought Police had a great deal of suspicions and warning labels for black people who vote for the DA.

The racial essentialism is also manifest in the implicit assumption that Mmusi Maimane is a poster boy who will take no disciplinary measures against his predecessor. This has enabled proponents to show disdain for the leadership of Maimane. While there might be contention on what decision the Federal Legal Commission of the party will take, this need not, and should not, translate into racial chauvinism. What the DA needs now is to show agility to unity and present a better alternative for South Africans  in 2019.

We dare not underestimate the future.

Author: Kamogelo Mangena is the DA Youth Chairperson in Hammanskraal, Gauteng and writes in his personal capacity.

Non-permanent writers and guests can submit their articles to us and we’ll publish them. If a writer proves their writing skill, they may be invited to come on as a permanent writer.

The post Actions speak louder than words with Zille appeared first on Rational Standard.

]]>
http://rationalstandard.com/actions-speak-louder-words-zille/feed/ 1 5149
Zille and the DA’s Fall http://rationalstandard.com/zille-das-fall/ http://rationalstandard.com/zille-das-fall/#comments Sat, 25 Mar 2017 13:05:44 +0000 http://rationalstandard.com/?p=5132 Despite some distractions by Spur losing its 2-for-1 burger special, South Africa has spent the last while sharpening their collective pitchforks, ready to roast Western Cape Premier and ex-leader of […]

The post Zille and the DA’s Fall appeared first on Rational Standard.

]]>
Despite some distractions by Spur losing its 2-for-1 burger special, South Africa has spent the last while sharpening their collective pitchforks, ready to roast Western Cape Premier and ex-leader of the Democratic Alliance (DA), Helen Zille. The witch hunt comes, allegedly, because of this tweet:

For those with a bare amount of common sense and historical knowledge, this tweet could easily be ignored in the chaff of Twitter. Not because of anything negative, but because of how abundantly true and unimpressive the statement is.

On Colonialism

Of course, the legacy of colonialism brought us positive aspects! Any non-UK citizen who tries to decry such a fact in English is immediately proving my point. As myself and other commentators have had to point out – what seems like countless times – history isn’t some simple dichotomy between good and effective and evil and ineffective. Life is a lot more complicated than that. Computers found themselves developed due to war. The atom bomb ended the Second World War. The Nazis invented Fanta. Bad people can do good things. And bad things can lead to good things.

A defence of Zille’s statement is not a defence of colonialism, but of the decent things it left behind, and of an honest examination of history. Petty playing with virtual history is irrelevant. Africa was not given the opportunity to establish liberal democracy and industry by itself, but we cannot act like it would have. What we do know is that colonialism did bring these aspects to Africa – and if we wish to be intellectually honest, we must accept this fact.

Yet, this argument shouldn’t even be necessary. In no way was Zille praising or even trying to justify colonialism. She was decrying blanket condemnation of history, without respecting the nuances. She shouldn’t have to apologise just because other people wanted to misunderstand her.

Zille’s Response

Helen Zille has since defended her Tweet and viewpoint in a magnificent article discussing why Singapore succeeds while South Africa has failed. The article possesses many gems, such as:

“South Africa’s version of “transformation” — bribe-based black elite enrichment, masquerading as black economic empowerment — is an incomprehensible amalgam of racism and corruption designed to ensure economic failure.”

“While travel broadens the mind, I tend to forget that, on returning to South Africa, it is best to shrink your mind again to fit the contours of political correctness. Especially if you are white. We pay lip service to equal citizenship. In reality, every opinion is judged on the basis of the colour of the person who expresses it.”

The article is filled with more of these quotes, but the essence of them is found in this:

“I have always known that African racial nationalism is the central tenet of the ANC. But is it becoming the philosophy of the DA?”

And that is the crucial part of this discourse. Zille’s own party has condemned her and called her in for a disciplinary hearing.

The DA’s Witch Hunt

The DA, the apparent liberal vanguard of South Africa, is punishing one of its stalwart builders because she said something that shouldn’t offend anyone. Not only are they capitulating to the outraged Twitter mob, they are genuinely joining the witch hunt!

But for what?

The ANC has called for the DA to fire Zille from her positions. This is to be expected. The ANC has a lot to gain from Zille’s fall. She is a powerful critic of their regime and has been unshakeable for a long time. She is also a symbol of the DA, for many, despite her no longer being leader. The ANC also have no qualms about the use of historical fiction. Their rhetoric tends to revolve around blaming everything on Jan van Riebeek and their own shortcomings on other irrelevant figures and phases of South African history.

It is no surprise that the ANC has capitalised on this tweet to attack Zille, but it should come as a surprise that her own party jumped on top of her as well. One would think that the opposition would oppose the demands of their rivals.

The reason I am not surprised is that the DA is no longer the liberal vanguard of South Africa – if it ever was. In its quest for votes, it has become a soulless mass party. But this isn’t new information. The downfall of the DA’s principles has been a long time coming. The only reason that many liberals still cling on is in hope that the few genuinely liberal DA leaders (of which there are a few) will be able to regain dominance.

Politics without principle

But, you might say, it doesn’t matter that her statement was not wrong. It matters that the electorate may see it as wrong.

It is abundantly clear that the DA only cares about votes. It is no longer about the goal of a freer and prosperous South Africa. It is only about what was once only a means. Damn freedom, damn reason, damn the truth – all just for an X in a box. For this reason, it is clear why the witch hunt has been supported by Zille’s own camp.

As an editorial by Business Day stated:

“To many DA supporters, her comment that colonialism was not all bad would be regarded as forthright, but arguable. But to others and particularly most black South Africans — precisely the voters the DA wants to attract to the party — the comment is, apart from anything else, offensive, especially when delivered with a haughty, declarative, dismissive demeanour.”

It doesn’t matter that she may have been right, or that her statement wasn’t that bad at all. It matters that the DA, and much of the politically-correct media, perceives that the electorate will be foaming at the mouth at her utterances. It is not so much that the ‘black electorate’ has called for Zille’s head. It is only that her party and some media buffoons have presumed the ideals of the South African population and fabricated outrage.

The average South African doesn’t go on a rampage whenever they hear colonialism mentioned in anything but a negative manner. The majority care about facts. But when you treat an electorate like idiots, they become idiots. And this is what shapes the South African discourse.

This outrage was fabricated, as people were told that they should be offended, or at least condemn Zille for a PR blunder. But Zille did nothing wrong. Her party did. Her party, who should have stood up for the truth and reasonable discourse (as liberalism demands!), betrayed its principles yet again. They kindled the outrage. Any damage done by this episode is because of party disunity and a betrayal of principle.

But the DA won’t care about the liberal moaning. Much of its ranks no longer care — or never did — about freedom, sound policy and truth. They care about marketing and votes. In their quest to gain these votes, they will patronise the entire population. It is easier to get the votes of children than thoughtful adults – so the DA, the ANC and all other mass parties have turned politics into a purely cosmetic façade – where policy doesn’t matter. Where it is all about the makeup, the deceptive lighting and the lies.

When the DA says that Zille must be punished so as not to alienate the black electorate, they are dehumanising and patronising the voting public. They are treating them like a mindless morass, with pre-programmed opinions. They don’t care about the fact that black voters can think for themselves. So, they would rather play the ANC’s game and destroy some of the last vestiges of reason in the party.

Conclusion

Zille isn’t perfect. She is by no means the best liberal – or maybe even a liberal – in South Africa. But being condemned and disciplined for tweeting the truth is simply unjust. What her fate will decide is if the DA is worth any more hope that it will retain some liberality, or that it will just become a blue ANC.

Zille said it better than I can:

“The real danger is that the DA, in its quest for votes, may start to swallow every tenet, myth and shibboleth of African racial-nationalist propaganda, including the scape-goating of minorities, populist mobilisation and political patronage. Then the institutionalisation of corruption will only be a matter of time.”

And with the fall of the DA, hopefully there will be a replacement, because I know that if Zille is ousted along these grounds, I will no longer be able to put my X next to that logo.

Nicholas is a co-founder and Marketing and Technical Director at the Rational Standard. He is a Council Member of the Institute for Race Relations as well as the Regional Coordinator for African Students For Liberty. Nicholas has written two science fiction novels. He is currently studying Politics, Philosophy and Economics at the University of Cape Town.

The post Zille and the DA’s Fall appeared first on Rational Standard.

]]>
http://rationalstandard.com/zille-das-fall/feed/ 69 5132
Food Security: Communist Style http://rationalstandard.com/food-security-communist-style/ http://rationalstandard.com/food-security-communist-style/#comments Fri, 24 Mar 2017 10:21:50 +0000 http://rationalstandard.com/?p=5104 Norman Naimark (1) in his book Stalin’s Genocides concluded that there was more similarity between Hitler and Stalin than usually acknowledged: “Both chewed up the lives of human beings in the […]

The post Food Security: Communist Style appeared first on Rational Standard.

]]>
Norman Naimark (1) in his book Stalin’s Genocides concluded that there was more similarity between Hitler and Stalin than usually acknowledged:

“Both chewed up the lives of human beings in the name of a transformative vision of Utopia”.

The Bolshevik “transformative vision of utopia” (communism) was based on beliefs that set capital in opposition to labour, denied property rights to individuals and favoured centralist state intervention in the economic, social and political lives of its citizens.

The kulak farmers fell foul of this utopian vision. The kulaks were independent, relatively wealthy, prosperous peasant farmers, who owned farms and often employed hired labour. The number of such farmers amounted to 20% of all and they produced some 50% of marketable grain. They were in effect ‘capitalist’ farmers.

Lenin issued a directive in 1918 instructing the Red Army to “Hang (hang without fail, so the people see) no fewer than one hundred known kulaks, rich men, bloodsuckers. … Do it in such a way that for hundreds of versts [kilometres] around the people will see, tremble, know, shout: they are strangling and will strangle to death the bloodsucker kulaks.”

Naimark writes that “The kulaks were called “enemies of the people,” as well as swine, dogs, cockroaches, scum, vermin, filth, garbage, half animals and apes”. Activists promoted murderous slogans:

“We will exile the kulak by the thousand when necessary – shoot the kulak breed.”

“We will make soap of kulaks.”

“Our class enemies must be wiped off the face of the earth.”

One Soviet report noted that gangs “drove the kulaks naked in the streets, beat them, organized drinking bouts in their houses, shot over their heads, forced them to dig their own graves, undressed women and searched them, stole valuables, money, etc.”

“In the process of collectivization, for example, 30,000 kulaks were killed directly, mostly shot on the spot. About 2 million were forcibly deported to the Far North and Siberia”.

The forced requisition of surplus grain (and other food products) from this group of independent, highly productive peasantry culminated in a human disaster. These measures negatively affected agricultural production. With no incentives to grow surplus grain (since it would just be confiscated) the kulaks’ agricultural production collapsed. According to Naimark, the destruction of the kulak class triggered the Ukrainian famine, during which 3 million to 5 million peasants died of starvation.

Reporting on a gathering to discuss land reform, the Mail & Guardian (May 2016) reports; one young man, in his 20s, rises at the table after everyone returns to their seats and the ambient chatter dims. “If white people cannot relinquish their power, their privileges, they must be forcefully removed from the position from where they come. That’s something that we need to understand,” he says. “We cannot just sit around a table discussing this issue; we are going to take the land the way Mugabe and his people did.”

Malema, leader of the EFF, recently told Parliament “We all know that the Dutch gangsters arrived here and took our land by force, the struggle has since been about the return of the land into the hands of its rightful owners.”

“We need to take bold steps that will transform our economy, including land ownership, very fast,” Zuma said in a speech outlining agricultural policy. “We are busy amending (laws) to enable faster land reform, including land expropriation without compensation as provided for in the constitution.”

Ben Cousins from the University of the Western Cape writes (M&G Thought Leader, June 2016), “Political rhetoric on land draws on a narrative in which white farmers and foreigners are villains, black South Africans are victims, and government (or an opposition party, or civil society activists) are heroes riding to the rescue. A political imaginary centred on race tends to dominate land discourse. For many young activists today, “land” seems to connote the nation, sovereignty and control of the economy as a whole, rather than a resource used for food production.”

The pursuit of ‘radical transformation’ of land ownership is a call aimed at igniting popular sentiment. Such inflammatory populism stokes fires that cannot be controlled. “Shoot the Boer” and “one settler one bullet…”

The Russians (and Ukrainians) learned that the hard way.

Are we to repeat this history, tragically?

References

1. Norman Naimark is the Robert and Florence McDonnell Professor of Eastern European Studies at Stanford University and is a respected authority on the Soviet regime. Quotes above are extracted from a review of his book by Cynthia Haven; “Stanford News” September 2010.

The post Food Security: Communist Style appeared first on Rational Standard.

]]>
http://rationalstandard.com/food-security-communist-style/feed/ 3 5104
The Elitist Pretence of Critical Theory http://rationalstandard.com/elitist-pretence-critical-theory/ http://rationalstandard.com/elitist-pretence-critical-theory/#comments Thu, 23 Mar 2017 17:29:16 +0000 http://rationalstandard.com/?p=5123 A movement has been growing within Marxism since the 1920s; and it has become known as ‘neo-Marxism.’ Neo-Marxism moved beyond Marx in the sense that its focus was ‘late capitalism’: […]

The post The Elitist Pretence of Critical Theory appeared first on Rational Standard.

]]>
A movement has been growing within Marxism since the 1920s; and it has become known as ‘neo-Marxism.’

Neo-Marxism moved beyond Marx in the sense that its focus was ‘late capitalism’: the diffusion of ownership by shareholding; the role of managers, the self-integration of the working class into the semi-military economy; the all-round security search of the individual and the one-dimensionality of a life manipulated into sleepy obedience.

The traits it shared with traditional Marxism, as envisaged by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels were:

  1.  The base-superstructure materialistic worldview: This states that the material relations in the base – that is, the relationships of power of the haves over the have nots – give form to the mental relationships of culture, ideology, art and science. It is a complete worldview dogma – the form of matter makes the form of mind.
  2. The dialectical method of Hegel: mind is the opposite of matter. If matter is the source of mind, then one needs Hegel’s dogma that opposites come from opposites – but you present it as a realistic method – it simply mirrors what happens in objective reality. With this method, they could simply divide the world into two groups: the oppressors and the victims; and, depending on the circumstances, one could shift the oppressors and the victims to suit one’s cause.
  3. The idea that a revolution is necessary: this assumes that some people are suffering and those in power will never relinquish any of their power without violence – again, a dogma, because in the US and in Europe since early in the 20th century, negotiated settlements became widespread.
  4. Elitism: Marx always maintained that the Communist International did not instigate any working class action. Instead, the workers supposedly acted on their own initiative. Initially, Marx believed in international workers’ unity, but towards the end of his life he had to admit that one needed national diversification. The neo-Marxists had to admit that, over time, the workers did not “see” their revolutionary mission – so what to do? Back to elite doctrinary leadership by the communist parties.

The neo-Marxists made the following elitist claims:

  1. They are the vanguards of the revolution against late capitalism.
  2. The majority of the Western working class have been happily included into the global late capitalist system.
  3. The people on the fringes – the students and in some Western countries, the blacks – are the possible new vanguards.
  4. They renamed themselves ‘Critical Theory’ – all those non-Marxist theories were establishment positivists of a dogmatic. By using the term ‘Critical’, they could distance themselves from Marxism’s history of violence.

The name ‘Critical Theory’ is itself a malicious, dogmatic misrepresentation of the idea of ‘theory’, especially of the term ‘critical’, and also a misrepresentation of analysis. My concern is with the apparent elitism of Critical Theory – the idea that it is the “only way” – and I desire seeing the proponents of Critical Theory be honest about the fact that they are Marxists. The dogma of Critical Theory is so hidden behind a veil of ‘method’, that many proponents do not realise that they think dialectically and that they use a kind of materialist dogma.

All decent philosophies – from the mythological philosophy of Hesiod over Xenophanes critique of mythology over Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle – up to positivism and pragmatism have been critical. The issue is not if they have been critical; instead, it is the range of analysis that is important, and the criteria used. Materialist dogma, even in its dialectical format, is one-eyed and suffers from skewed proportions. Theory is to be in interaction with fact; skewed proportions cannot account for facts.

As a youth I was influenced by Marxism, and this article should not be seen as a crusade against Marxism, however, it irks me that these nuanceless and proportion-skewed Critical Theory explanations claim to be the only valid explanations. That proponents of Critical Theory are so denigrating and damning of disagreement that they would see academic departments cleansed of those who oppose their dogma, is perhaps even more concerning.

That which calls itself ‘Critical Theory’ is actually malproportioned analysis for the sake of targeting. It is, in fact, bad scholarship hiding behind great-sounding terminology.

Author: Dr Ponti Venter is a former professor of philosophy at Potchefstroom University and the University of Fort Hare.

Non-permanent writers and guests can submit their articles to us and we’ll publish them. If a writer proves their writing skill, they may be invited to come on as a permanent writer.

The post The Elitist Pretence of Critical Theory appeared first on Rational Standard.

]]>
http://rationalstandard.com/elitist-pretence-critical-theory/feed/ 2 5123
Enjoying Your Internet Freedom? Take Note of New Government Policy http://rationalstandard.com/enjoying-internet-freedom-take-note-new-government-policy/ http://rationalstandard.com/enjoying-internet-freedom-take-note-new-government-policy/#comments Wed, 22 Mar 2017 17:00:02 +0000 http://rationalstandard.com/?p=5044 I recently had a fiber to the home (FTTH) line installed at my new residence in Johannesburg, and so far, I’ve been very pleased! My service provider is affordable to me […]

The post Enjoying Your Internet Freedom? Take Note of New Government Policy appeared first on Rational Standard.

]]>
I recently had a fiber to the home (FTTH) line installed at my new residence in Johannesburg, and so far, I’ve been very pleased! My service provider is affordable to me as a first-time employee, and the package I am getting is – to me – quite unprecedented, in that I am on an uncapped, virtually unthrottled account. I have never experienced this level of internet freedom before.

However, while on the surface, technological expansion and development seems to be continuing apace, the unseen reality is that a dark future awaits internet freedom in South Africa.

Last year, the Department of Telecommunications and Postal Services (DTPS) published their National Integrated Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) Policy White Paper. The White Paper is mind-numbing 160 pages long, which is likely why very few people have bothered to take notice. The curious thing is that nothing in the White Paper will jump out as grave threat to internet freedom. Instead, if you managed to read through it all, you will either not remember what you have read, or, as is more likely, you will be completely bewildered.

The White Paper is confusing, ambiguous, and the consequences of its translation into legislation and regulation, are mostly unpredictable.

Contrast this with the proposed Hate Speech Bill. It is, for the most part, perfectly understandable, and its consequences are mostly predictable (the total destruction of freedom of expression). It is badly drafted, but assuming the drafters intended what they wrote, you know more or less what you’re getting.

This leaves us with the bizarre state of affairs where the Hate Speech Bill is ‘better law’ than the proposed new telecommunications legal regime. While the Hate Speech Bill is totalitarianism incarnate, the ICT Policy White Paper’s consequences are so unpredictable that it is safer to simply adopt unambiguous, draconian Apartheid legislation instead.

What can be gleamed from the White Paper – although it is unclear – is the following:

  • The government will establish a new monopoly, or it might not
  • The government will engage in price control, or it might not
  • The government will expropriate radio frequency spectrum, or it might not

Radio frequency spectrum (or simply ‘spectrum’) is the lifeblood of the international telecommunications industry. Spectrum is a limited resource, and consists of frequency bands (something we’ve all seen, such as ‘800 Mhz’) over which the radio signals which enable things such as radio, television, and internet, travel. The more spectrum an internet service provider is assigned, therefore, the greater its capacity for expansion will be, and, potentially, the better its service will be – less throttling, cheaper packages, etc.

In the White Paper, the government has made its intention known to establish what looks like a new monopoly. It is known as the Wireless Open Access Network (WOAN), and will apparently be owned by a joint public-private consortium. Government, being the ‘custodian’ and allocator of spectrum, will now assign all high demand spectrum to the WOAN. High demand spectrum are those spectrum bands which have a higher demand than there is availability of. In other words, the government has seen what the private sector needs, and has decided that it will appropriate it for itself. This is akin to a monopoly grocery store owner opting to keep all the caviar his store has in stock, to himself.

Unallocated spectrum will go to the WOAN, and the government appears to intend to not renew the licenses of service providers which currently lease spectrum – since it’s unownable – and then use that spectrum for the WOAN as well. While technically this is not ‘expropriation’, it is quite akin to it, because it has become an industrial custom for government to renew spectrum licenses. This is the same as government simply deciding to no longer let anyone out of the country at border posts. It is under no explicit obligation to let people in or out, but it is expected that it will do so. It goes without saying that if the high demand spectrum of existing service providers is not renewed, those service providers will likely be forced out of business, or, equally bad, forced to merge with other service providers.

The Electronic Communications Act, which has been in force since 2005, allows ICASA (the Independent Communications Authority) to engage in price control; however, the White Paper goes further. The government will now enforce cost-based pricing on service providers. This means that prices for services will no longer be determined competitively or according to market forces, but based mostly on the cost the company incurred in providing the service in the first place. This also reinforces the White Paper’s commitment to so-called ‘service-based’ competition, whereby service providers will compete on quality of service alone, rather than price or infrastructure.

The ICT industry is perhaps the industry most needing of a free market, given how quickly things change with the developmental pace of technology. However, with the government’s micromanaging of price policy and its clampdown on spectrum allocation, we stand to see our internet freedom evaporate.

Neil Emerick and I recently co-authored a monograph on the ICT White Paper, called The Real Digital Divide: South Africa’s Information and Communication Technologies Policy, wherein we explore existing South African telecommunications law – which, unfortunately, is not great either – as well as the problems with the proposed new policy.

But we also write extensively about how ICT is not always what it seems on the surface. Take, for instance, ‘net neutrality.’ A few years ago this became a controversial topic in ICT circles, with most people thinking it’s simply an obligation on internet service providers to treat all traffic equally. While this is true on the superficially, technological development, especially the internet of things, has complicated matters, which makes pursing net neutrality as the White Paper does, dangerous.

Imagine, for instance, remote medical surgeries and self-driving cars. Should someone who is trying to watch cat videos on YouTube and someone who is having a remote heart surgery done deep in the Congo really have their connections treated equally? What about rush-hour traffic, where thousands of people are busy on their cellphones on the internet. Should the self-driving cars in the vicinity be treated as ‘equal’? Surely not! Things like surgeries and self-driving cars should have priority over other connections. The White Paper does not take the nuance of ICT into account.

The book is available, for free, here.

I leave you with the blurb which I wrote for the book: “South Africa has had a tumultuous history since apartheid central planning ended in 1994. Unemployment has skyrocketed and economic growth has recently come to a virtual standstill. However, one of South Africa’s few success stories has been its ICT industry, which is widely regarded as being of first world quality, with 98% mobile coverage and the recent speedy rollout of fiber. The South African government, however, with its new telecommunications policy, stands to reverse this progress, by seeking to re-introduce a monopoly into the sector and placing burdensome obligations on an industry which has only now begun to see a healthy proliferation of small and emerging service providers.

In this monograph the authors tell of the success of the ICT industry and how government regulations should not act as a barrier to what has become the most viable vehicle for socio-economic transformation in South Africa.”

Martin is a co-founder and the Editor in Chief of the Rational Standard. He is the Legal Researcher at the Free Market Foundation, the Academic Programs Director for Southern Africa at Students For Liberty and the Editor in Chief of Being Libertarian. Martin holds an LLB from the University of Pretoria. His articles represent his own views and beliefs, and not that of any of the aforementioned organizations.

The post Enjoying Your Internet Freedom? Take Note of New Government Policy appeared first on Rational Standard.

]]>
http://rationalstandard.com/enjoying-internet-freedom-take-note-new-government-policy/feed/ 2 5044
Life, Liberty and Logging On? http://rationalstandard.com/life-liberty-logging/ http://rationalstandard.com/life-liberty-logging/#comments Wed, 22 Mar 2017 08:00:32 +0000 http://rationalstandard.com/?p=5045 In recent years the calls for governments around the world to declare and promulgate Internet access to a human or civil right has increased substantially. As our lives are increasingly […]

The post Life, Liberty and Logging On? appeared first on Rational Standard.

]]>
In recent years the calls for governments around the world to declare and promulgate Internet access to a human or civil right has increased substantially. As our lives are increasingly becoming not only Internet-orientated but Internet-centred, it remains important to maintain perspective. Should the ability to log in be considered at the same level as the ability to speak your voice or the right to not be arbitrarily killed by others?

Often, when people discuss and debate various aspects of human rights, it becomes clear that there exists quite a lot of ambiguity about what a human right is, exactly. Many times when people talk about human rights they refer to certain rights that are articulated in various international charters, such as the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, or the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

On the other end of the ambiguity, there are people who talk about human rights, and what they refer to are actually natural rights. These natural rights could be described as universal moral rights that are held by all humans simply by virtue of being human. Quite often people talking about human rights are actually equivocating between these distinct concepts. It’s important to avoid this equivocation, however, because legal human rights and natural rights are different sorts of moral entities, with different roles. The question that, therefore, begs to be answered is whether Internet access could be considered either of these two moral entities.

Vincent Cerf, considered the “father of the Internet” famously argues that the Internet is an enabler of rights and not a right in itself. To many, especially those who argue vigorously in favour of making Internet access a legal right, this argument by Cerf does not gel well with their worldview that all things need to be handed out and made available to all, regardless of consequence or costs.

However, a simple analogy supports Cerf’s views. 400 years ago, a donkey was a powerful tool which could be used to achieve freedom of movement, support an adequate standard of living, and by extension was a mechanism to easily practice personal free speech. Yet, no calls were made to have donkeys declared a human- or legal right. A donkey was merely an enabler of rights, a means to fulfil certain rights.

Natural rights are rights that are needed to lead a healthy and meaningful life. If Internet access is argued to be a natural right, historically millions of people have not been granted a fundamental right, even though it was impossible for the right to have been granted. Natural rights are supposed to be held universally by all humans simply by virtue of being human. It, therefore, does not make sense to say that there is a natural right to Internet access.

A stronger case could be made for a legal right to Internet access. This is also seen around the world, with some courts and legislators concluding that the ability to log in should be guaranteed for all individuals. The main issue with this logic is that, as a consequence, it opens up various other questions and complications. If Internet access should be a legal right because the Internet is important for individuals to practice their free speech, free access to all newspapers should be a legal right for an individual to be guaranteed their right to information as well as receiving speech.

Furthermore, if the legal right to Internet access is secured, does this legal right include the right to the electricity needed to power the device to access the Internet? Should individuals be guaranteed devices to practice their legal right to Internet access?

At this point, many would counter argue that just as other rights, a legal right to Internet access does not entail that the right must be positively ensured or actively worked towards, but that the right merely ensures that Internet access is not arbitrarily obstructed or impaired. In other words, many proponents would argue that the right to Internet access on be guaranteed in so far that your right to Internet access may not be obstructed or impaired by others. The irony of this argument is self-evident. The argument looks like this: you have a right to actively gain a platform for your freedom of expression by having unhindered access to the Internet, but your right to Internet access is only guaranteed to the extent that others may not impair your access.

Like many third generation rights that newer constitutions guarantee, the tangibility of each right comes into question. The same is true with the Internet. Not only do countries need to realistically consider whether or not certain rights are within their respective means to guarantee, but do countries have to take into consideration the complications of it.

In the classical sense, the right to freedom of speech entails that this right should not be encroached or impaired in any way, not that everybody has to go out of their way for you to have the tangible effect of the right. Had this been the case, what do plan to do with your donkey?

Daniël the News and Multimedia Director at the Rational Standard. He is currently part of the Democratic Alliance Young Leaders Programme, co-founded the Tuks Leadership and Individual Program and the UP Debatsvereniging and also served on the executives of the UP Moot Society and TuksVillage. Daniël is and a postgraduate Constitutional- and Cyber Law student at the University of Pretoria.

The post Life, Liberty and Logging On? appeared first on Rational Standard.

]]>
http://rationalstandard.com/life-liberty-logging/feed/ 2 5045
Dissecting a quote: Big lies vs small lies http://rationalstandard.com/dissecting-a-quote/ http://rationalstandard.com/dissecting-a-quote/#comments Tue, 21 Mar 2017 11:07:38 +0000 http://rationalstandard.com/?p=5101 (Featured Image Source: http://www.ranker.com/list/notable-and-famous-lies-and-lying-quotes/reference) “It is easier to macrobullshit than to microbullshit” – Nassim Taleb If you want to deceive others, make sure you go big. A single big lie can […]

The post Dissecting a quote: Big lies vs small lies appeared first on Rational Standard.

]]>
(Featured Image Source: http://www.ranker.com/list/notable-and-famous-lies-and-lying-quotes/reference)

“It is easier to macrobullshit than to microbullshit” – Nassim Taleb

If you want to deceive others, make sure you go big. A single big lie can take you very far. And people are more likely to believe you, because ‘he wouldn’t blatantly lie about something that big?’

The problem with small lies (‘white lies’) is that they grow in complexity, and they require more and more additional lies to cover up the previous lies, and at some point others will invariably start noticing the inconsistencies, that things simply don’t add up. It becomes impossible to cover all the angles, and to cover your tracks. It snowballs, and those who are perceptive enough are bound to notice.

It is much easier to get away with the odd lie about something big and possibly vague than it is to get away with multiple small lies. This is why we are more likely to believe analysts when they make big predictions about GDP growth, or whether markets will go up or down, than we are to believe those same analysts when they make smaller (micro) predictions about whether a specific stock will go up or down in the short term. This is not to say that these analysts are lying, it is just easier to identify that they are wrong when they are wrong about little, specific things.

And you can lie to some of the people some of the time, but you can’t lie to everyone all of the time. For example, often when someone is having an extramarital affair, they can often hide it from their spouse for a very long time, but they can’t hide it from their children.

The problem with continuous lying is that it becomes pathological. The more you lie, the more you structure your brain in such a way that you find it easier and easier to lie, and you lie more often. Not only does this erode the trust others have in you, but you end up starting to lie to yourself more and more, to the point where you normalise it, and you can no longer rely on your perception of reality. You will become dysfunctional. For every lie you tell yourself you are effectively digging a deeper and deeper hole from which it becomes more and more difficult to escape. There is now scientific evidence to prove it. A recent study at University College London found that self-serving dishonesty leads to a slippery slope of more and more dishonesty, with the amygdala (a part of the brain) becoming desensitised to lying, with lies escalating. Truth needs to be your highest value, if you want to be able to trust yourself and your own judgement.

Truth vs Honesty

There is a difference between truth and honesty. Truth is objective and based on fact. There is only one truth relating to any single event. Honesty is subjective, and always comes from a person. A person who is being honest may still be factually incorrect, but they are not lying because they sincerely believe what they are saying, and they are not trying to mislead or deceive.

So what it comes down to is this: Don’t lie. Nothing good will come of it.

 

Post Script: In this article I am only sharing what I believe to be the consequences of lying. I have left out any moral or religious considerations about lying. I did this to show that there is a pragmatic argument to be made for not lying, as there is certainly also a moral or religious argument to be made for not lying. 

Christiaan is the Financial Director of the Rational Standard. He graduated with a degree in accounting from Stellenbosch University. Christiaan is a Libertarian and InfoWarrior.

The post Dissecting a quote: Big lies vs small lies appeared first on Rational Standard.

]]>
http://rationalstandard.com/dissecting-a-quote/feed/ 3 5101
Guadalupe: Cheapening an Honor http://rationalstandard.com/guadalupe-cheapening-honor/ http://rationalstandard.com/guadalupe-cheapening-honor/#comments Tue, 21 Mar 2017 08:00:46 +0000 http://rationalstandard.com/?p=4878 I am keenly following the deportation proceedings of one Guadalupe Garcia de Rayos, an illegal immigrant from Mexico. Notice I didn’t say ‘undocumented’ or use any of the other euphemisms […]

The post Guadalupe: Cheapening an Honor appeared first on Rational Standard.

]]>
I am keenly following the deportation proceedings of one Guadalupe Garcia de Rayos, an illegal immigrant from Mexico. Notice I didn’t say ‘undocumented’ or use any of the other euphemisms for breaking the law. I am paying attention to this specific case because I am a legal immigrant and I am astounded at how mainstream news articles are subtly condoning lawlessness.

A society that flouts the law is doomed. Or is it? My first instinct was to dismiss Guadalupe and support her deportation. After all, she had broken the law. But I understand there are many degrees of illegality, so exactly how illegal is it to do what Guadalupe did? As the facts became clear I tried to look at her side of the story.

She was found guilty of identity theft in 2009. Many would agree that a felony conviction should clearly lead to deportation. But the argument against that was that she only faked a social security number to get a job. I remember the paperwork, the fees and the line I had to stand in to lawfully apply for a social security card. Why did I do that when it seems to be okay to fake a social security number? I had needed a job too. I was a poor student with a huge tuition bill. Why did I respect the law? It would seem following the rules is for suckers.

The next fact that seems to count in her favor, if you read the New York Times that is, is that she had had two children since ‘sneaking into‘ Arizona from Mexico. I have made sure to practice safe sex and not to bring a child into this world until I was emotionally and financially ready. But now it seems if I had just knocked up a girl when I got here, I would’ve been able to stick around. That’s because deporting me would’ve ‘ripped my family apart’. I understand the idea of an ‘anchor baby’ better now.

Other criticisms against this deportation of a felon included the idea that there are more violent, more ‘serious’ criminals to deport first before this benign mother-of-two. I can’t really fault this line of thinking, except that focusing on low-hanging fruit could indicate to serious criminals that their time is almost up. After all, if they finish with Guadalupe and others like her, you can bet your bottom peso that cartel members will be next.

Legally immigrating to this country is expensive and hard to do for a reason; supply and demand. There is only a finite amount of resources in the republic, while the ranks of desperately poor people around the world could comfortably double the population of the United States. If we start saying it’s okay to break the law to get in, then be prepared to kiss America as you know it goodbye. It could quickly become just like the other lawless hellholes around the world.

I tried seeing both sides to this story. I tried to put myself in Guadalupe’s shoes. But I still don’t think my first instincts were wrong. It really boils down to a simple tenet: If you want to immigrate to the United States, you have to do so lawfully. And once you are here, you need to continue to respect the rule of law. Otherwise, you cheapen the honor of living in the greatest country on Earth. Don’t think the US is exactly that? Ask the thousands of people willing to break the door (and the law) to get in.

Author: Dirk Scheepers is a South African living in New York, and runs his own podcast known as the Dirk Scheepers Program.

Non-permanent writers and guests can submit their articles to us and we’ll publish them. If a writer proves their writing skill, they may be invited to come on as a permanent writer.

The post Guadalupe: Cheapening an Honor appeared first on Rational Standard.

]]>
http://rationalstandard.com/guadalupe-cheapening-honor/feed/ 1 4878
Political and Cultural Hegemony – A Battlefield of Minds (Part 2) http://rationalstandard.com/political-cultural-hegemony-battlefield-minds-part-2/ http://rationalstandard.com/political-cultural-hegemony-battlefield-minds-part-2/#respond Mon, 20 Mar 2017 08:00:02 +0000 http://rationalstandard.com/?p=5086 Political and Cultural Hegemony – A Battlefield of Minds (Part 1) Antonio Gramsci, Stefan George and Saul Alinsky are outstanding in their influence and their respective will and intention to […]

The post Political and Cultural Hegemony – A Battlefield of Minds (Part 2) appeared first on Rational Standard.

]]>
Political and Cultural Hegemony – A Battlefield of Minds (Part 1)

Antonio Gramsci, Stefan George and Saul Alinsky are outstanding in their influence and their respective will and intention to be masterminds and guides for their followers. They had been clear, concise and brilliant thinkers with a tremendous impetus to influence the political and cultural minds of others aiming at creating a dominium spiritualis on which, according to them, the material world rests in all aspects.

Gramsci might be the most well known. He was Italian and a high ranking functionary of the Communist Party in the first and second decade of the last century. He was confronted with fascism, a phenomena not foreseen by any Marxist grandee and a well-established and influential Church which centred political considerations especially also of most militant anticlericalism and  mangiapreti. In addition, the political endeavours in Italy in the 19th century had been centred around the Risorgimento, the quest for national unity Italy had not experienced since Roman times. Gramsci was arrested by the fascist government, and he developed his philosophy in jail.

According to Gramsci, every group who intends to rule in a modern society must be ready to evaluate their economic and political interests and refrain from trying to enforce them one hundred percent. Further, it must be able to compromise with a multitude of political forces and to be able to form alliances. His tactic is therefore that of a ‘grand coalition’, or, as he called it, bloco storico. This block is the basis for an order of society in which the hegemony of the dominant class – which in itself is a coalition – is secured by an intense network of institutions, social relations and ideas. It is interesting that Benito Mussolini who started out as a radical Marxist followed this tactic during the pragmatic days of fascist rule until the mid of the thirties. We can easily defect in this concept a tactic which tries to unite an economic class with an intellectual class, in which the media, schools, universities, enterprises, trade unions and a certain stable block of voters are united. The concept aims to form an overwhelming majority which is able to isolate smaller groups and classes.

Basically, he turns Marx around, this ‘grand coalition’ is the superstructure which then influences and forms the fundament. Intellectuals are most important, not only the traditional ones, but the organic intellectuals which not only describe the life in society according to the rules of science but articulate through their cultural lingo the sentiments and experiences of the broad masses which those cannot yet articulate. This is, more or less, the creation of an intellectual priest cast which has the task to form the conscience of the masses. Of course, these ‘givers of sense and purpose’ are not inspired by the emanations of the masses, but create that which they know in their indisputable wisdom the masses should think. Gramsci did see the need to form a working class culture, but is this really a need of the masses or of the intellectuals?

The whole thing smells of establishing a cult following the example of the well-structured Roman Catholic Church. He aims to intellectualize nearly everyone, thereby producing a large social class consisting of producers of hot air. Therefore, he asks for a revolutionary change in the education system which can develop intellectuals from the working class. A new system of education free of the old, hierarchic and bourgeois type which follows the principles of the future society and of the Marxist theories.

We can see that since the 1960s these kinds of concepts and ideas had been step by step realized in Europe and North America, producing the intellectual types of millennials and bobos – hippies with money – which inhabit all the subsided realms of the state. In fact, at present, society and state are divided in the subsided segment full of organic intellectuals who by all means try to dominate the public discourse and the real productive part which labours and pays taxes to support the ‘givers of sense and purpose.’ In short, Gramsci was highly impressed by the ability of the Catholic Church to exercise a cultural hegemony and asked Marxism to start to satisfy the spiritual needs of men in order to be able to inherit the position of the Christian religion.

Marxism must be experienced by the masses as a part of their own experiences, must express the feelings and considerations of the masses. So what we can see is that Gramsci emphasises the mental and intellectual propaganda more than changing ownership within industry. Therefore, the base is following the ideas, not the base forming ideas.

His influence is far more evident outside Marxism or established Marxist or Leninist parties. Within that movement he was frustrated by Stalinism which corrupted Marxist thinking far beyond communist parties, as many leftist intellectuals remained and remain in shuddered fascination of brutal, uncompromising, terrorizing power. There is a slavish tendency to serve without any reservations, especially under intellectuals which call themselves critical, a need and a wish to slavishly serve the most brutal tyrants.

But if we look at the policies of social democratic parties and various left wing splinter groups, his advice has been followed. By now, in many countries, even centre and centre right parties are mentally ‘progressive’, not daring to challenge the basic assumptions of the left.

What Gramsci overlooked was the question of productivity – not an untypical error of Marxist intellectuals.  How productive the organic intellectuals really are and how much do they hamper productivity in the remaining ‘real’ segments of society and the economy. I believe this new class is rather an assembly of spongers who are eating away the moral, intellectual, spiritual and material substance of our societies.

The men trying to realize Gramsci’s doubtless brilliant concepts have proven themselves to be less realo than more and pure political romantics as defined and described by Carl Schmitt doing a finally sterile “thinking in occasions” based on subjectivity. Now we experience that this romantic class of organic intellectuals finally serving other unromantic energies, being Islamic fundamentalism, demands of militant migrants or concepts developed by globalists who really believe the whole world can be organized in one immense commando structure.

Dr Harald Sitta is a Contributor at the Rational Standard. He is an Austrian attorney emeritus and business owner who immigrated to South Africa in 2007. He obtained his postgraduate law degrees at the University of Vienna.

The post Political and Cultural Hegemony – A Battlefield of Minds (Part 2) appeared first on Rational Standard.

]]>
http://rationalstandard.com/political-cultural-hegemony-battlefield-minds-part-2/feed/ 0 5086