June 30, 2018 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
48:47
4132 'Makers' Versus 'Takers'
The battle for western civilization is defined as the battle between the economically productive 'makers' and the exploitative 'takers' - and our future hangs in the balance. Includes: the use of the state to externalize the forced transfer of health, the empathy & exploitation continuum and how this struggle causes people to root for failure in society. Your support is essential to Freedomain Radio, which is 100% funded by viewers like you. Please support the show by making a one time donation or signing up for a monthly recurring donation at: http://www.freedomainradio.com/donate
Do you ever have this in a relationship where you have some sort of intractable problem that you keep circling around, like circling the drain?
You can't really seem to make any progress on it.
Generally that happens because the real issues are not being talked about, but they're kind of being masked or cloaked in pseudo-issues that cover up the vulnerability and the desperation usually on Both parties.
And I remember once I had a girlfriend who was not jealous to begin with, but became kind of jealous, particularly as it became more successful as an entrepreneur.
She became more jealous and more insecure.
And there was all of this conflict.
It didn't last very long because I won't put up with that stuff for very long at all.
But in sort of stripping down the issues, what happened was she was feeling that I was sort of outstripping her, that I was gonna move beyond her, and she couldn't keep up, and she was not feeling like much of a success.
And that's a vulnerable position to be in.
It's a difficult thing to admit, and once that was admitted, we at least didn't have that issue to deal with.
So a lot of times, people get kind of aggressive and caustic and hostile because they don't want to admit their vulnerabilities.
And I do want to be sensitive to the vulnerabilities of significant portions of the Western population, because I really think that's what's driving the escalation, the aggression, the rage, and the incipient violence that is going along with questions of open borders and immigration and so on.
So let me see if I can help you understand what's really going on here.
Because if we can get to that place, then we can negotiate with people from a place of truth rather than And I think that's a very positive development.
So, first thing to understand is that there are, in the modern statist economy, the producers, right, those who are generating and creating and producing wealth, and those who are living off that generated and produced wealth through the power of the state, which transfers income from those who produce to those who Who take, right?
The makers and the takers.
Now, that is a very, very important distinction, and it is something that is the foundation of the cultural civil wars that are going on in the West at the moment, the left and right in general.
The right are the producers, the makers and the left are the takers, or those who manage that taking and thereby gain political power by being able to hand out gifts that they have not earned but are taking from the makers.
So we got the makers and we got the takers.
Now, this sounds, you know, in the sort of objectivist world, the producers and the looters or the moochers and so on, I think that's harsh, because there are people who have, either through some causality outside their control, through no fault of their own, or simply as a result of being propagandized up the yin-yang from day one, they've ended up in this situation where they are desperate for the power of the state to transfer income to continue.
Because they have become that way.
And if you think about the people who are dependent on state power for their survival, for their health, for their housing, for their education, and so on, I mean, it's a staggering number in America, it's close to half the population, it's either dependent or significantly dependent on the state for their income.
And, well, that's a lot.
And it is, of course, an unsustainable amount of people involved.
And that, of course, is why the hysteria is going along this path, why it's escalating so much.
I mean, just off the top of my head, I mean, of course, you've got a lot of government workers who gain, you know, significant increases in salary and benefits relative to the private sector.
And they've kind of gotten used to that.
And that's how they've Manage their lives.
Those are the debts they've gotten into.
That's the education they've pursued.
Those are the mortgages that they've assumed.
And taking down people's income, reducing people's income, is a very difficult thing because it's not like you say, okay, well, maybe I go from $80,000 to $60,000 because I go from the...
Government sector to the private sector.
But you've kind of calibrated your life around $80,000 a year.
And you may have to leave your house.
You may have to move neighborhoods. You may have to, like, and your kids are in school and they have their friends.
And how do you explain it to your kids?
And, you know, it's really, really tough stuff.
Think of all the people who are dependent on government-provided health care.
Now, in the States, of course, the government controls about half of health care spending in the States.
And that was before Obamacare, so it's gone up from there.
But you have people who are, and this is their perception, and whether we say it's true or not in the long run, it's not material as far as where the debate is right now, but their perception is that without government healthcare, they're going to die.
Without government healthcare, they're going to die.
Think of the people who are on disability, and they say, well, without government disability payments...
They will starve to death, live under bridges, be forced to sell body parts for food and so on.
That's the perception. Think of the single moms who are dependent on the welfare state.
The welfare state is basically the single mom state.
So yeah, they've made bad decisions with regards to who to have children with.
But that's where they are.
And if there's a diminishment in the welfare state or the welfare state has ended, there is a sort of foundational cornered animal panic that goes on in the hearts and minds of people.
Think of old-age pensioners.
They had money taken from them by force throughout their working lives, thrown into old-age pension schemes that are ridiculously insolvent, won't be able to make it past many more years to go.
But what do they do? They don't have a lot of savings, if any.
They have health issues that they require government assistance for, or at least that's their perception.
And so if the gravy train slows down or stops, They're going to get sick.
They're going to die. Like, this is very real perceptions, very real realities, if I can put it that way, that people are laboring with.
And government workers, they have these massive pensions that are like literally the Pac-Man eating up the years to come.
And these massive pensions, they're ridiculously underfunded.
They can't possibly be sustained.
And people are going to crank up The government's going to crank up taxes to try and pay for them.
It's going to drive people away.
You can't move countries very easily, but you can certainly move states quite easily.
So you've got this chase-away scenario, this circling-the-drain death spiral, where in order to pay for ridiculously inflated government pensions, the government's tried to raise taxes, cut services, but that drives people out of the state or the county or wherever.
And then what happens?
Well, They have a lower tax base to tax from, which means they have to raise taxes even higher, which drive more people.
You understand how all of this stuff fails to work in relatively short order.
So you can look at virtually any slice and dice of humanity, and there are people who are dependent on the state and its power to redistribute income.
Or just think of taking away, in America, taking away the problems of pre-existing conditions as a barrier to getting healthcare, right?
So if you go and apply for healthcare, if you already have a pre-existing condition, then the healthcare provider may say no, or it may be very expensive for your premiums and so on.
That is a big problem.
Now, of course, we all understand that if you force insurance companies to take people who have pre-existing conditions, Well, what happens?
Well, a lot of people will simply wait until they get sick, and then they will apply for healthcare insurance, which is going to destroy the healthcare insurance industry, because, like, you don't need to buy homeowners insurance for fire until after your house burns down.
Well, clearly, the whole point is you need to have the uncertainty.
Once the certainty is there, it's no longer insurance.
It's ex post facto. So, people have this desperate need, and they don't know You know, those of us who create and produce things in the world, it's hard, I think, to step into that sense of desperation and panic and anxiety.
Like, why are people going nuts with Trump?
What is Trump derangement syndrome?
Well, it's not ideological.
It's Darwinian.
That's my point. It is that these people view Trump as somebody...
Who is going to cut government?
Somebody who is going to stop the flow of illegal immigration.
We'll get to sort of why that's important in a minute or two.
But they're very concerned that the sort of free market principles that he embodies, and so on, that that is going to somehow diminish the resources that are going to be made available to them through the state.
Now, there's two levels at which this occur.
One is the sort of biological, physical Darwinian level, which is, you know, I have diabetes.
If I don't get healthcare insurance, if I don't get subsidized medicine, I can't afford my medicine, I'm going to die.
And that is, you know, I have a really terrible back.
I can't work. And if I don't get disability payments, I'm going to starve.
Like, there's this real cornered, panicked thing.
Base-of-the-brain, lizard-brain panic and anxiety that goes on when even conceiving a diminishment in government resources available to needy people.
There's that one level. Now, the other level is interesting, and it sounds quite different, but I don't think its experience is very different, and that is...
So, let's say somebody did work in manufacturing, say, five or ten years ago.
And then the jobs closed down because of bad trade deals, because of hyper-regulation, because of you name it, right?
Inflated dollars and all kinds of crap.
And that person then went unemployment insurance, then disability, maybe welfare and so on.
And they've been five or ten years out of the workforce.
And they've adjusted to that.
How? I don't know.
Because being that... Not busy, not being productive, not doing useful things in the world and exchanging value in your human community.
I don't get how that happens, but a lot of people are able to manage it.
Now, some people manage it with horrible depression and anxiety and addictions and drinking and opiates and so on.
But nonetheless, you can work, but you're really out of the habit.
Well, you've kind of adjusted to that.
If you work out, then your muscles grow or they maintain.
If you don't work out for a long time, I mean, I notice when I have the occasional workout injury and I have to take a bit of time off from exercise, I can feel myself turning to like warm, sunshiny, goo putty, slime collapse, pear-shaped in three minutes.
And so when you've been out of the workforce for a long time, there's this anxiety you have When jobs come back.
When job opportunities come back.
Because you've gotten used to this semi-aristocratic life of leisure.
And I do mean aristocratic.
People say, oh, well, you know, but they don't make a lot of money.
It's like, dude, compared to 50 years ago, they're fantastically rich.
Compared to 100 years ago, they're impossibly rich.
Even people who are on fairly low-rent government programs.
I mean... They're staggeringly wealthy compared to the past.
So you've kind of gotten used to this aristocratic lifestyle of no leisure.
And if jobs come back, it causes you anxiety because you kind of know that you should go get a job, but you're really out of the habit.
And it's like this old Mad Magazine.
I used to read Mad Magazine when I was a kid.
It was pretty funny. And I remember one of these little brain markers that kind of sticks in your head for use 40 years down the road when you have a philosophy show.
And it was this hippie.
So he had this kind of square Ward Cleaver father.
And the dad's like, the hippie's just lying on the couch.
And the dad's like, go and get a job.
It's summer. Go and get a job, for heaven's sakes, right?
And then the hippie guy kind of slouches up to a counter in a department store and says like, hey man, you...
You don't need any, like, help around the store or anything, do you, man?
And then the hippie goes back to his dad and says, well, you can't say I didn't try.
Well, you kind of can.
And so it's really hard when you've been out of the workforce.
It's hard to, I mean, your sleep schedule has gotten way dysregulated.
Your level of energy is very low because a lot of times there's not a lot of Exercise or activity, your brain's got kind of sluggish because you're not really challenging it, and you've just kind of slowed down.
You've gone from rabbit to snail.
And so when you think of, you know, commuting, going to work, and standing for eight hours or doing something physical, you're like, oh, my back, you know?
And also you may have physically decayed, you know, like the astronauts that go out into space where their sort of bones begin to soften over time.
You may have...
Physically decayed through lack of activity, lack of exercise, and so on.
A lot of people remember, I mean, I asked this question a while back ago on a video.
I said to people, what do you do?
You don't work, right? And I got a lot of, yeah, I spend a lot of time on the internet.
I play video games. I blog.
I check Twitter.
I, you know, like, I watch your videos and stuff like that.
And, well, that's a lot of sitting, my friends.
And sitting is the new smoking when it comes to sort of health effects, right?
And isolated, right? So loneliness is the health equivalent of smoking 15 cigarettes a day.
Being lonely is as bad for your health as smoking 15 cigarettes a day.
So people, a lot of people lonely, a lot of people low energy, low activity.
And so when job opportunities open up, it's really anxiety-provoking.
And now you say, well, it's not the same as people who physically can't work because of injuries or bad backs or whatever.
But in a sense, it's almost worse in a way.
I'm not trying to diminish any of the physical challenges that people are facing.
It's almost worse in a way because there's no excuse when it's psychological.
So it kind of tortures you or torments you a little bit more.
So there are people who don't want jobs to open up, who were quite comfortable with Obama saying, well, there's no magic wand, right?
Well, I guess for a community organizer who's never run a business, it would be magic.
But he said, there's no magic wand.
He said, Obama, those jobs aren't coming back.
And it's like, turns out, Well, anybody who knew anything about anything knew that all you had to do was change policy and the jobs will come back.
But for a lot of people, it's really tough that those jobs have come back.
It's really anxiety-provoking.
And nobody fundamentally likes being a burden.
I mean, you really have to be decayed in heart, mind, soul, and body to be fine with being a burden and being a taker, not a maker.
So a lot of people, it's really tough.
Trump comes along, shakes them out of their complacency, and the left, the Democrats, the NDP, the Labour Party, and so on, they represent the takers, whereas the right wing, the conservatives, they represent the makers, right? The makers and the takers. People producing and people using the power of the state, the compulsive power of the state, to take the resources from those who are making it for their own consumption.
Now, when you exploit someone, you have to dehumanize them.
Exploitation is the opposite of empathy, right?
Exploitation is when you take resources from other people, but dishonestly, right?
So if you honestly take resources from other people, then you're like a mugger, right?
You just gun to the ribs and give me your wallet or whatever.
It's, I guess, a disarmingly honest interaction.
But to exploit people is...
To pretend that they owe you, to pretend that they're bad and therefore shouldn't have resources, and to verbally abuse them to beat them down to the point where they kind of will cough up resources.
Or use the power of the state, of course.
But the power of the state isn't enough.
And so one of the reasons why you get comments like Hillary Clinton's sort of famous, you know, half of Trump supporters are racist, sexist, homophobes, Islamophobes, the basket of deplorables, is because the takers represented by the left...
Are exploiting the makers, right?
The left always cares so much about exploitation, they say, but they represent exploiters, people who use the power of the state to strip resources from those who've created them through hard and difficult labor.
And so if you're going to exploit people, you have to dehumanize them, because if you recognize the common humanity that we share, You can't exploit people then, right?
You cannot exploit someone you empathize with.
Empathy, exploitation.
At war, right?
It's like this seesaw, right?
As empathy goes up, exploitation goes down.
As exploitation goes up, empathy goes down.
And so this is why people put up this mental shield called the state.
The state. And this is something I remember from when I was a kid here in Ontario.
There is something called the GO train, and GO stands for Government of Ontario, and, you know, Tootles, it's marketing genius.
And I remember seeing a sticker the first time that I was on a GO train in my early teens.
And the sticker, this sounds horribly precocious, and I'm aware of that, but it's a punchable story, but it's an instructable punchable story, so I hope you'll forgive me.
And I saw the sticker, and the sticker said, the operation of this train...
It's subsidized by the government of Ontario.
Now, maybe it's because I had a job early and got, you know, I mean, I got my first job when I was 10, I got my first paycheck when I was 11, and You had to pay taxes.
So taxes being deducted, right?
So maybe, you know, like the longer you can get, the longer you can keep people from having a job where they pay taxes, the more likely they're going to be to linger on the left, right?
Because when you're on the taker side of things, as kids are, as a whole in the family and students are as a whole on the state, the longer you can keep people away from having a paycheck and get that first sticker shock where it's like, woohoo, I make it X amount of dollars.
And then you see that pitiful Beatles song leftover.
And you're like, ah, OK, so I think I understand this mystery of where all this free stuff comes from.
It's from me, my labor.
You know, you got to get up and go to work for four hours so that you can keep three and a half hours of pay.
Okay.
Sorry, you've got to go up and work four hours for the state, and then you get to keep the, you know, morning, you've got a late lunch.
Morning is for the state, afternoons is for yourself, so that you can pay more taxes to the state with your leftovers.
But This issue is very significant.
It's very significant.
This is why people have to create this thing called the government.
Well, the government pays me. The government runs this.
Like, they have to give this fantasy.
They have this fantasy out there that it's the government that's giving them money, right?
That it's the government that's paying for their social security or their welfare or subsidizing their student loans.
But it's not. It's not.
The government has no money. The government has no money.
So you have to have this mental shield called the state in order to exploit your fellow citizens who are being forced to pay for your continued existence, right?
And so this is why you see so much rage and hostility from the left towards the right.
The right doesn't...
Hate the left in the same way.
They fear the left because the left is pro all of this, you know, like those little claws on those little plastic coffins when I was a kid, you know, that little skeleton hand comes out and takes the coin and it was a funny way to save.
So the right fears the left, but the left hates the right.
And the left has to hate the right because the left uses the power of the state to extract resources from the right by force.
And therefore has to dehumanize the right.
Now, there is certainly that coming back.
I mean, don't get me wrong. I'm not sort of saying there's no dehumanization from right to left.
There certainly is. There's snowflakes and all that kind of stuff.
But it's hard for people who are robust and confident in their ability to produce and survive.
You know, I'm very confident in that.
I've had so many different jobs.
I've had a variety of different careers, and I am confident in my ability to find a way to make a buck to keep body and soul together.
I mean, drop me on a desert island, I'll be fine.
Drop me in Japan, you know, give me a couple of months, I'll be fine.
And so if you have that sense of confidence and robustness about you, you don't Fear.
You're not dependent.
You're willing to do what it takes and you have the capacities and talents and skills.
And certainly now, like I'm in my 50s and I've got so many different skill sets, it's not an issue.
But for those who don't, it's a big problem.
They're terrified. Physically and existentially, they're terrified.
And that kind of terror comes from a catastrophic loss of confidence.
It's a mindset, you understand.
It's an old thing that Henry Ford said.
And I remember this when I first read it in my teens.
It's a very powerful statement. Henry Ford said, if you think you can or you think you can't, you're right.
If you think you can, or you think you can't, you're right.
I remember thinking, damn, that's cool, that's powerful, right?
Now, I mean, I get it, I'm not going to be a soprano anytime soon, nor be the lead in the Bolshoi Ballet, but when you're young in particular, if you think you can or you think you can't, you're right.
And if they think they can't versus they physically can't, in other words, if the problem is not frailty but insecurity, That's, in a sense, a distinction without a difference.
Because sometimes it can be harder to talk someone out of insecurity than out of frailty.
Because the person who's frail, let's say you've got a bad back or a bum knee or something like that, you know about that injury, you dislike that injury, and you do almost anything to overcome that injury.
If someone can find you a way that you can be productive, in the face of that injury, you'll be like, great!
They'll get behind you, they'll...
Be thankful. Whereas confronting people's insecurity is very different because most people don't even know how insecure they are, how unstable they are, how much confidence they lack.
They don't really understand it because they can project that.
You know, like there's this old internet joke that I'm not crying, you're crying, you know, when somebody posts something really moving.
Well, you can't project your back injury onto someone.
You know, if you've got a bum leg, you can't project that onto someone.
You have a bum leg, you know, but...
When you have an insecurity, you can project that onto other people, right?
And so if you hate and fear those who you're exploiting, I mean, think of the master and the slave.
The master and the slave.
The master hates and fears the slaves.
He must hate them because he has to dehumanize them in order to exploit them.
He has to say they're in a fundamentally different category from me.
They are not human in the way that I'm human.
Because recognizing common humanity means, well, I wouldn't like to be owned.
I wouldn't like to receive virtually no pay for my work.
I would not like to be bought and sold and separated from my family like a head of cattle.
And so you have to dehumanize those you're exploiting.
And you fear them because you're dependent upon them.
Because the master is, you know, and this sounds all kind of zen and loo, you know, up is down, black is white, sound of one hand clapping.
But the master is enslaved. Right?
To the compliance of the slaves.
And there is a dependence.
And when the slaves get restless, when the slaves start to question the value of slavery for them, the bastard gets quite anxious and doubles down on the propaganda.
That's what's happening. At the moment, the makers...
Really, really sick and tired.
Not just of being exploited, but of being insulted.
Because exploitation and insults go...
Insultation, I was going to say.
It's a good word for both, right? Exploitation and insults.
Economic abuse and verbal abuse.
They go hand in hand. They go hand in hand.
So... The makers are getting...
The peasants are revolting.
The makers are getting sick and tired of being exploited and insulted.
And this is Donald Trump.
So if we understand that there are people who existentially or psychologically are terrified of the revolt of the makers and are terrified of expansions of opportunities within their own lives.
I mean, think of some single mom.
She's got three kids by three different guys.
She's dependent on the state, so she doesn't need to stay pretty.
She doesn't need to stay attractive to a man to hang on to him, so she's let herself go physically.
She is slovenly because she's not had to keep house for anyone.
I mean, the husband will nag at her to keep house.
The kids, you know, the kids are kind of comfortable when things are messy because then they don't have to tidy and clean up either.
So this single mom...
Let's say that there's a cessation to the welfare state or a significant diminishment to the welfare state.
Can you imagine? Like, just picture how much anxiety that woman is going to feel.
And where does the anxiety come from?
Why are so many attractive women...
On the right and so many unattractive women on the left.
Because attractive women on the right can get a man to...
I don't want to say take care of them because that sounds like parental, but they can get a man to provide resources while they're raising his kids.
So they can trade in their physical beauty and often charm and intelligence for a man's resources and therefore the state is their enemy because the more...
A man is taxed, the less his wife receives in take-home pay, right?
So if you are an attractive woman married to a man who's making good money and you're taking care of his kids, running his household, doing all that, supporting him, doing all the wonderful stuff that makes him so productive and allows for the continuation of the culture and the ethnicity, well...
You don't like the state because the state is taking money away from your household.
If you're a welfare mom, then you love the state because the state is giving you resources.
You understand, this is the opposition.
This is the, you know, the gun-toting hotties versus the pussy-hat toadies, right?
I mean, this is... If you marry the state, then you want the state to be bigger because it gets you more resources.
If you marry a husband that the state takes from, you want the state to be smaller because it takes away from your...
You understand, this is the civil war.
It's about resources. It's not about ideology.
The ideology is a distraction from the actual resource allocation theft that is going on.
So imagine you're the single mom and you've got three kids.
And you're overweight, say.
You haven't exercised in forever.
And your friends are all kind of the same.
So your community is that.
You don't have to provide for anyone.
You don't have to service.
I don't want to say service anyone.
You don't have to provide any services to anyone.
And this is your entire community.
Now let's say that welfare gets cut in half or there's no welfare state.
What are you going to do? Like that's what I'm talking about, this existential panic.
What if there is a revolt of the producers?
What if there was an atlas drug revolt of the makers?
That's what Donald Trump represents.
That's why people hate and fear him.
The Trump derangement syndrome is the anxiety of what do people do if the gravy train stops pulling in to Needy Station?
What do they do? What is this woman going to do?
What kind of man is she going to get?
Because she's going to, I mean, okay, so you could say, and I've made this case before, and this is probably what would happen, is that this single mom would get together with like a dozen other single moms, and they would each say, okay, well, I'll watch your kids while you work, and then you watch my kids while I work, and, you know, we'll find some, and, you know, people will find a way.
This is an old cartoon I remember.
Every little, I don't know what's happening in my 50s.
Every little scrap of history is popping into my head, but I remember seeing this cartoon.
When I was a kid, it's one business executive looking at a room full of befuddled business executives, and he said, Reminder, Hannibal got elephants over the Alp.
With that in mind, think of something.
That was a famous challenge for military logistics.
Oh, I've sat across like it too long.
But, um... They would find a way, but they don't know that they would find a way, because necessity is the mother of invention.
Until you're cornered, you don't know what you're capable of.
Until you're bullied, you don't know what courage you're capable of.
Until you're insulted, you don't know what strength of character you have.
And until you're in need, you don't know what kind of friendships you have very often.
So they would find a way, but they can't conceive of that at the moment.
And so if you're some young...
Attractive, doesn't mean physically, but a young, attractive woman, then you'll be like, yeah, okay.
I mean, well, first date, I'm never planning on using it.
You know, I work for myself or, you know, can get a quality man who can provide for myself, his kids, the family, you know, while I do wonderful things to enhance his life.
But again, or let's say that you're some, you know, middle-aged woman and you don't really have, you don't have any kids.
You haven't really saved much money.
You're not particularly attractive because your fertility window is passed and men pay for, not for women, but for children.
What are you going to do? Are you going to be able to find some guy who's going to help provide for you?
No, because you can't really provide that much value to him if he doesn't Need you for children, right?
If you're going to have children with a woman, she provides massive value in raising those children for you.
If she's past her fertility window, and a lot of American women, a lot of Western women that haven't had any kids, where are they going to get their retirement?
Where are they going to get their companionship?
Because they didn't cash in their lottery ticket when it was very valuable, and now they've just got a piece of expired nothingness in their liver-spotted hands, right?
A woman uses her sexual attractiveness to...
Build her sexual, familial and marriage bond with a man.
And then as she ages, you've got all this accumulated wonderful times together, these negotiated situations and so on.
I mean, I've been married for like 15 years.
The idea of being out there in the dating world again.
No, do not want.
So there's a real panic in the West.
There's a real panic in the land.
What happens if there's a revolt?
I hate to use the term parasites, because it may be somewhat accurate, but it is kind of dehumanizing, and I sort of recognize that.
So the takers understand that if they overwhelm the makers, everybody dies.
I'm not kidding.
If the numbers of people dependent on the state vastly outstrip the capacity of the makers to fund it, which is absolutely what's happening.
You've got unfunded liabilities in America more than 10 times the GDP of the country.
You can't possibly.
It's not possibly sustainable.
But if you've become a dependent, if you've become a taker, you don't really think that far.
It's the next welfare check.
It's the next visit to the doctor.
It's the next social security check.
It's this down-the-road stuff.
Well, if you had that capacity, you probably wouldn't have ended up becoming a taker in the first place, right?
Because you would have said, well, you know.
Like smart people, it's, I guess, tempting to be on government dependence, but you say, okay, well, maybe I'll get a bit more money and resources now, but it's going to cost me down the road.
But there's no progress.
There's no upward slope on the welfare state, and there is a downward slope.
When everybody runs out of money, of course, right?
So with that in mind, makers, takers, dependents...
Physical or existential terror at diminishment of government resource transfer.
Put all that together, what does this have to do with immigration?
Well, the takers understand that as job opportunities open up for the makers, then they're going to lose their team.
They're going to lose their voting base.
You understand how this works, right?
So you have these takers, and they've got to hang together because they need a majority to vote for continued government programs that they believe or they are actually dependent on for their survival.
I mean, look at all these government workers.
They're so overweight. Can they survive without free healthcare?
Well, they'd have to change a lot, and it would be for the better, but certainly not all of them would necessarily make it easily.
So they have to keep their numerical superiority because what happens if the revolt of the makers or enough people slide over from the takers to the makers to the point where the makers are determining policy?
The makers are determining taxation.
The makers are determining government programs and how much and how many resources gets transferred from the makers to the takers.
Ooh, that is terrifying because if the takers take over There will be a return to charity.
Americans in particular, and the takers are not generous.
The makers are generous.
Christians are generous.
The wealthy are generous.
Productive and intelligent people.
We all know, like those of us who are productive and intelligent, we all know that, yeah, some of it's hard work, but I didn't earn all the horsepower between my ears, so some of it is luck.
I understand that. Which is why I try to be as generous as humanly possible with all of these resources that I can produce.
Although, freedomainradio.com slash donate.
Nothing is free, you understand.
It's very helpful to help me out with this.
So, if people start to transfer from the takers to the makers, which is what job opportunities do, They begin to panic because they don't have enough political ballast to maintain the programs if there are fewer of them.
They need to maintain their political strength so that the conveyor belt of resources being force-extracted from the takers and sent to the makers doesn't get interrupted.
This is why the election of Donald Trump was so terrifying because it revealed the strength of the makers and the makers got a sense of their own political strength.
Now, there's desperation because there's demographics and stuff I've all talked about before.
But the takers are terrified that they will lose their political superiority, their political weight, and that there will be a transfer of, quote, generosity from the welfare state to charity.
Because takers want to help the poor.
They want to help.
Sorry, makers. Makers, my apologies.
Makers want to help the poor.
But they recognize that the welfare state is not doing it.
It's enabling.
It's corrupting.
It's causing the poor to harden into a near-permanent underclass.
Because the welfare cliff means it's almost impossible to get out poverty, right?
A woman with two dependents, two kids, single mom with two kids, has to earn like the equivalent of over $60,000 a year just to come equal with the benefits she gets from welfare.
And that's not going to happen because she doesn't suddenly just wander out of being a single mom usually and just get a job for $60,000 or $65,000 a year.
It's not going to happen, right?
So it's a roach motel.
You check in, you don't check out.
They're not roaches. I'm just using that as an analogy, right?
But it's a one-way. Right?
The thing of the welfare state, like when you're driving back your rental car, you know, you go over those spikes.
You can go one way, you just can't go.
You can't back out.
So they're terrified.
They're terrified that the makers are going to take over.
Sorry if I got the maker-taker thing wrong.
I'm sure he did once or twice. I shouldn't use words that rhyme.
It's bad. But you understand the idea.
Now, where does immigration come into this?
Well, quite simply, immigration is the importation of more takers to balance out the equation.
Why does the left want open borders?
Because as a society gets wealthier, fewer people are takers and more people are makers.
So you have to keep importing New takers to balance things out so that you can maintain the political redistribution, the forced redistribution of wealth that the welfare state, the redistributionist state represents.
Because you're constantly losing your takers to the other side.
You're constantly losing your takers to the makers.
Because, I mean, my goodness, I grew up in an extraordinarily poor household, and let's just say there's...
Well, there's a taker or two in the mix.
And you look at that kind of life.
If you've got any oomph or ambition or smarts, you're like, well, that's horrible.
I want anything to do with that. I want that kind of life.
So people are clawing to get out of the taker world and into the maker world.
And that's... The wealth is increasing.
Opportunities are increasing. People are trying to get out of the taker world and make it to the maker world.
So they're losing people all the time.
So what do they do? Well, they import people to make up for the loss of people to the taker world, to balance it out.
They keep importing people.
You know, 74% of immigrants from Mexico, they end up on welfare.
Among migrants, it's over 90%, 94% I think it was, of welfare or food stamp consumption, right?
So as people are escaping to the maker world, the takers are terrified that the makers are going to outvote them and take away the taking.
Oh, this is going to be too complicated.
You understand? You understand what I'm saying?
The livestock is getting away!
The crops are burning!
Stop that happening!
Now, another thing that's unfair is that, in general, the takers have way too much time on their hands.
People who don't have kids or who don't have to work for a living have such a ridiculous advantage over those of us who have kids and work for a living that it's absolutely unfair in any democratic society for that situation to occur.
You know, there's an old...
Well, it used to be the case for democracy as a whole where he said, well, you have to be a property owner.
You have to be making some money in order to vote because voting in general is about the transfer of property.
And if you're on the receiving end, you have a conflict of interest.
You can't vote objectively for the welfare state if you're dependent on the welfare state.
So there used to be a requirement that you would have to be a property owner or make a certain amount of income because the argument was, well, if we let everyone vote, well, the poor outnumber the rich, the poor will vote to take away the property of the rich and everybody ends up destitute.
So if you don't have to work, and we've all, you know, we've all seen this or we've all thought this, I'm sure, those of us who are on the maker category, probably the takers as well, but, you know, you see some big rally at like two o'clock in the afternoon on a Wednesday and it's like, don't you have a job?
And it's true. So people who don't have kids, this is one of the problems with the gay lobby as well, is that a lot of gay people don't have kids.
So it's kind of tough to compete with how much time and energy and activism and money that you can pour into politics.
If you don't have kids, then you have more time and money and energy to pour into activism.
If you don't have a job and you're dependent on the state, you have both the means, the motive, the incentive, and the capacity.
To go out and protest like crazy, whereas everyone else is like, oh, I've got to get up early.
I can't go out to a protest tonight.
Oh, my kid's not well. Oh, I didn't get much sleep last night because the baby was up.
And you're too tired, actually continuing civilization, to go out and complain about things and demand things that you did not earn.
It's just unfair. So, if the makers take over, the takers believe they're going to suffer, believe that they might die.
So they've got to keep importing Members of their team.
You understand? It's as simple as that.
So the debate about immigration, people saying, well, the free movement of people is hot.
Borders are open borders.
Like, yeah, open borders. Right.
If there's no such thing as borders, then can the taxpayers just say, hey, you know, somewhere in the world, there's a lower tax rate that I'm paying right now because borders don't matter.
I'm just going to pay that tax rate.
Of course not, right? Oh, you can't.
Suddenly, when it comes to tax rates, everyone like the left is all about borders.
The left isn't about borders, but if you try sending your kids to a better public school outside of your district, you're shut down, man, because those borders matter.
The left is professors.
For open borders, go try and teach their class.
You're not allowed in here?
You don't have the paperwork to come and teach here?
But everyone should be able to cross over the borders without paperwork.
Come on. So it's not about borders.
It's not about some globalist, universalist philosophy.
It's not about sympathy for the propaganda children of Caged Obama-ness.
I mean, come on. It's nothing to do with any of that stuff.
And people don't get motivated fundamentally by abstractions.
Okay, it's a few of us, like you, me, and probably a couple other people.
But for the most part, people are just motivated by sort of base Darwinian thirst for survival and dominance and power.
And the makers get power through freedom.
And the takers get power and resources through government force, through the immoral system.
Evil violation of the property rights of the makers.
And the takers are running out of people, as wealth generally rises and so on.
And they also instinctually recognize that with the debt and the revolt of the makers, there's a big problem.
So why do they want open borders?
Why do they want people from the Third World to come pouring into the country?
Because those people will vote to maintain the taker state.
Those people will be natural allies who come in from the third world.
They will be natural allies against the terrifying domination of the makers.
And this is why the left is like, oh, you want to deport people.
There's all of these court cases.
Oh, if you want to come into the West, here's a list of all the places you can go and get welfare money from and food stamps from and free health care from.
And here's how we're going to lock you in.
We're going to give you a quick snort of that good old fiat state currency money drug.
And then you'll be addicts like us and you'll vote with us.
And to hell with the makers.
We are the takers. We wish to rule over.
We wish to indulge in our dependence and our contempt and our hatred and our dehumanization of the other.
Because we have become dependent.
We are no longer independent autonomous human beings.
We are dependent. Upon the kindness of strangers, as Blanche Dubois talked about.
Now, of course, it's not kindness.
Kindness would be charity. Kindness would be, you know, if you care about the poor, go start a business and hire some of them.
Or go over to their houses and talk them out of their insecurities, if that's what's keeping them back or holding them down.
If you care about the poor, stop using the welfare state to generate more and more and more of them.
It's going to overwhelm the welfare state, and then the poor are really going to be harmed when the government runs out of money.
It's how you help the poor.
I very much care about the poor, which is why I advocate for freedom, not coercion.
So you understand, this is, it's all it's about.
It's all it's about. You know, you see those, let me use a non-poor analogy, right?
So you see those sailboats, right?
When it really, really tips over, what are they?
They go lean, right?
They go lean to the other side to balance it out.
Well, the takers are losing their numerical superiority.
And they're losing credibility.
Because the whole way that the takers sold the program to the makers was like, hey, give us a bunch of money and there'll be fewer takers.
Right? That's how it's going to work.
See? We've got a welfare state that's going to solve the problem of poverty.
So, hey, makers, give a bunch of money to us takers, and you will have virtually no takers left.
And people were like, well, that sounds good.
I would like to help the poor.
Boom! A couple of generations on.
It hasn't worked. Quite the opposite.
Quite the opposite. The middle class is being hollowed out.
The rich are getting richer, and the poor are getting poorer.
Certainly if you count government debts as important in the calculation of assets and liabilities, the poor are definitely getting poorer.
Debt is just deferred poverty, you understand.
So that scam is up.
The idea that the welfare state eliminates poverty, that if you just have the government take from the makers and give to the takers...
You're going to eliminate the takers. Well, any basic...
I was going to say economist, but you don't need to be an economist.
Anyone with a basic understanding of human incentives.
Do you buy something if it's on sale rather than if it's not?
Right? It's not that complicated.
Whatever you subsidize, you get more of.
Whatever you tax, you get less of.
If you tax the makers and subsidize the takers, you get more takers and fewer makers.
And Trump is an attempt to reverse that.
And they're terrified. And they can't make the case ideologically, they can't make the case factually, they can't make the case economically, they can't make the case morally.
So what do they do? They import allies from the third world so that the takers can crush the rebellion of the makers.
They're just trying to keep their numbers up so that they don't have to confront their limitations and find ways to be productive in the society they feed off through force, through state force.
And that's what immigration is about.
It's about the panic of the takers who are running out of numbers and a desire to thwart and crush the rebellion of the makers.
Now, we all understand that if the makers go bust It's a huge, horrifying hellscape on Earth.
And everyone recognizes that in a time of scarcity and want, ethnicities will turn totally tribal and prey upon each other in the most horrifying ways imaginable.
So also by importing third-worlders into the West, there is an implicit threat.
