If it happened to a company, it would be illegal. Why is it allowed to happen to voters?
If you appreciate articles like this, sign up for our daily email newsletter and support us with a donation.
Imagine you are a shareholder in a company. You and your fellow shareholders have a certain amount of say over the direction and future of the company. You vote on who will lead the company. You vote on the general direction of the company. And overall, your perspectives matter because you have a stake in the future of the company.
Now imagine that, without your consent, the company issues new shares to new shareholders. These new shareholders had nothing to do with the early risks of establishing the business. They had nothing to do with the actions taken since then to make the business prosperous. In fact, many of them come from companies they ran into the ground, and still others come from direct competitors that would love to see your company undermined and destroyed.
You should have had a say in whether this was permissible, but your say was overruled by the executives you trusted and their connection to outside bodies that support their decision.
Now, your ownership percentage decreases, even though you still hold the same number of shares. This process, known as dilution, means your influence over the company weakens as more shareholders are introduced into the equation.
It would be one thing if you were asked before such a change was made; it would still be bad, but at least it would have been fair. However, to have it imposed on you and your fellow shareholders because the executive teams you voted in had sweetheart deals with outside powers and no longer cared about serving their company – but, rather had their eye on being part of a new, larger, global monopoly, in preparation for a hostile takeover – would surely make you upset.
This is what has happened to the American voter (or to be more accurate, the voter of every single Western nation.)
Like in the case of the corporate shareholder, in a political system, each citizen’s vote is a "share" in the decision-making power of the country. When large numbers of new voters (through immigration or other means) are added to the electorate, the weight of an individual vote is diminished.
Even more concerning is the fact that the vast majority of new shareholders do not have the best interests of the nation in mind. As seen with racial and religious lobbies (AIPAC, LULAC, NAACP, INPAC, CAIR, and AAJC, to name a few), new shareholders very quickly form voting blocks that preference their racial, religious and national preferences – including those of their home nations – above the interests of their new nation.
With the shift in the balance of political power, chances of retaining sovereignty diminish as election outcomes are altered based on the priorities, preferences and perspectives of the new voters.
In both cases – stock dilution and immigration-driven electoral change – the original stakeholders (whether shareholders or voters) have their influence "watered down."
Just as stockholders might push back against too much dilution, citizens with any sense of awareness will equally voice their concerns over the rapid changes.
Some of the worst examples of this were just brought to light when Donald Trump spoke about the newly imported Haitian influence in Springfield, Ohio. The small city of about 60,000 people had its population drastically increased when the Biden/Harris government dropped 20,000 Haitian migrants into their town.
But, Springfield is far from the only place where this has happened. Thousands, sometimes tens-of-thousands, of foreigners are being dropped off in small towns and cities across the nation – particularly in swing states – against the wishes of the citizens.
According to recent estimates, net migration into the United States surged to more than 3.3 million individuals in 2023, compared to 376,000 in 2021. Much of this increase has been absorbed by smaller communities across America, particularly in states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin and Michigan – key battleground states in national elections.
For instance, in Hazleton, Pennsylvania, a town of about 25,000, migrants now make up over 50% of the population. Similarly, towns like Dover, Ohio, and Schuyler, Nebraska, have seen migrant populations exceed 30% of their total residents, driven largely by "asylum-seekers" and economic migrants.
In Wisconsin, cities such as Wausau have been identified as key locations where a large percentage of the new residents are migrants, creating strain on local housing and education systems.
In Michigan, Hamtramck now has a majority migrant population, largely composed of Yemeni and Bangladeshi immigrants. This has fundamentally changed the town's identity. It is no longer an American town, but an increasingly foreign city within America's borders.
These changes also come with substantial cost to taxpayers. Ohio has seen a similar shift in towns like Dayton and Youngstown, where local governments struggle to adjust to the challenges posed by the increased need for services, education and healthcare; often without federal support.
These trends aren’t isolated to the Rust Belt. In southern swing states like Georgia and Arizona, cities like Dalton and Yuma have similarly become focal points of migrant resettlement programs.
In many of these places, the rapid influx of foreign migrants means that English is no longer the predominant language spoken on the streets. Rapid increases in crime and gang activity are a new challenge for the increasingly strained towns due to these changes. And worst of all, in most of the above noted cases (which hardly begin to outline just how pervasive this issue is), the government officials are Republicans; people who the voters believed would stop this invasion, have instead helped facilitate it.
The founders of the nation, contrary to recently crafted popular belief, never intended it to be a "melting pot." In fact, both the idea of "the melting pot" and the poem on the statue of liberty that always gets trotted out by leftists defending the undermining of the American voter were nothing more than a play and poem written by new arrivals themselves, hoping to shape public perception.
Even the small waves of generally culturally similar immigration in the 19th century brought with it the demand for an immigration moratorium that was enacted between 1921 and 1965. That reprieve, and the Second World War, brought a measure of integration that kept America very American.
What Paul Collier found in his research on immigration to Britain was that when foreign diasporas become large enough, they take over and the locals must adapt to them. How many thousands of Haitians does it take to turn an American town of 3,500 people into one resembling one from Haiti? So far, only 1,000. But at the scale with which this is being orchestrated, how long will it be before every American struggles to maintain American values and systems in their own hometowns?
How soon will it be before the American population of every city and state is a minority? What happens when every city and state legislature, the governors and mayors are completely foreign?
Every diaspora, when dominant, will enforce their culture on their newfound "haven." We see this in Canada with predominantly Indian areas putting up giant statues to their gods, or predominantly Muslim regions blaring their calls to prayer 5 times per day.
When these groups become majorities, or even organized minorities, all of a sudden they cease to care very much about the rights of the minorities, whose home it was only decades before. When the demographics change in this way, all of a sudden any pretense of pluralism or multiculturalism disappears; and majority rule is once again all that matters.
In cases like this, where do Americans go then if they want to live in American culture? Worse yet, if allowed to continue as it is, what happens when the entire nation is like Hazleton?
It is foolish and naive to think America will remain the same. Just look at flag changes in numerous states, statues destroyed and replaced, and political changes, like in Chicago, that make the whole region less safe and far less prosperous.
Large diverse diasporas will always prefer their own culture and push for its acceptance first; and then its dominance, when possible. As a result, any nation that pursues multiethnic, multicultural diversity large scale will end up balkanized as the demographics shift.
American's need to remove the brainwashing of generations of subversives and ensure that this is not only stopped, but reversed at a large scale. It is not evil to turn away those who come to take advantage of your kindness. It is not evil to tell the foreigner that their place is to make their nation great, just as that is your place in yours.
Arthur is a former editor and consultant. Born in India to missionary parents, he spent his early career working in development for NGOs in Asia, Central America, and Africa.
Arthur has an educational background in history and psychology, with certifications from the University of Oxford and Leiden in the economics, politics, and ethics of mass migration and comparative theories in terrorism and counterterrorism. He is currently launching CivWest, a company focused on building capital to fund restorative projects and create resilient systems across the Western world.
So, the conspiracy theories of an 'invasion' are becoming true; invasion and capture of the USA, who would have thought it possible?? sarc
The NWO/Communism KNEW it was possible. Too bad their plans may go haywire 2025.
10/10 Thank you.