Calling Out Dinesh D’Souza’s Domesticative Propaganda About Slave Reparations.

  In the video I’m responding to the premise of debate is in regard to the justification of retribution payments to descendants of African American slaves as well as the reclamation of wealth to descendants of slave owners. First I would like to address the fallacy that African American slaves were freed. African American slaves simply traded their physical chains for mental ones by joining the ranks of the wage slaves. All that has been accomplished was to give the illusion of freedom to those in physical chains. This illusion of freedom effectively silenced the outcry for liberty and justice by the masses. That being said it goes without saying that the masses, the proletarian class specifically, justifiably have every right to retribution. The proletarian class has had the fruits of their labor stolen from them for generations, by means of wage slavery. The time for the proletarian to reclaim the means of production has long passed.

   D’Souza begins by claiming that retribution payments to former chain slaves involves wrecking the freedom of a free society. So he begins by trying to claim that the society we live in, our industrial capitalist society, is a free one. This is the next fallacy I would like to address. Industrial capitalism is a system dependent on wage slavery, unemployment, oppression, and extortion. As opposed to communist anarchism, which is a system dependent on brotherhood, ensuring equal opportunity to all to provide for their family, lacking oppression and extortion. In other words D’Souza is defending the system that wrecks freedom while attempting to demonizing those who expect change.

   D’Souza then claims such retribution means stealing personal possessions from our neighbors. Implying that all would face retribution. This is a fallacy. Retribution does not mean we are to force the proletarian class to relinquish their personal property. The Retribution sought is nothing more than the proletarian class reclaiming what is rightfully theirs, this is not stealing. As the great Pierre Joseph Proudhon once said the possessions of the rich are stolen property. D’Souza is defending the true thievery while claiming we lack the moral conviction to defend ourselves.

   D’Souza then claims those oppressed by the industrial capitalist system lack the moral confidence to lead by example and act on their beliefs. I find this very insulting. Don’t get me wrong, I absolutely believe in leading by example. However is it really wrong for one to desire acknowledgement from their fellow man that their belief and actions would be justified before acting on them? Rather than resort to action immediately upon being possessed by passion for an ideal? There is no better way to do so than by engaging in conversation with our fellow man. “Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.” Mark Twain.

   Honestly it is asinine for D’Souza to claim that one lacks moral conviction when they are attempting to act on their believes by participating in conversation with their fellow man. In what way is bring up concerns about inhumane treatment to their fellow man not acting on their moral convictions? Resorting to action alone should be a last resort, not a first measure like D’Souza would like you to believe. The first resort is attempting to converse your concerns to your fellow man. Then should they prove that nothing you can say will make them see the error of their ways they must be held accountable for perpetuating, condoning, and encouraging tyranny. Together we are strong!

Video being responded to: https://youtu.be/Ogej6pj4_8w?si=pJ2UtZoUk3o_vy7w