Abstract
Durrheim's core argument appears upon close inspection not to be very convincing, nor his use of rhetoric. His argument is now shown from the—presumably exemplary—four theories, he cites. He unwarrantly strengthens his argument by preselection, overgeneralization, oversimplification, and by confusing and misconceiving key concepts, and using an arbitrary selection of theories. His suggestion that he knows the vast literature of authoritarianism is not substantiated, considering the unbalanced use of citations, some along the line of Jaensch, Ray and Eysenck. Rhetoric is portrayed as an alternative scientific method, but seems in this way rather to regress into a neodogmatic approach devoid of empirical testing and emancipatory content.