Their board member, Hillary Clinton. Walmart sure has a lot of subsidies funneled to them.

I thought it was amazon

You misspelled Amazon.

Walmart is the one who hired some tranny with a degree in anti-white studies from the California Institute of Wokeness to do their social media marketing.

Walmart destroyed small towns across america by selling cheap Chinese crap at the edge of town - using massive new roads paid for by taxpayers of those towns,, which allowed them to outcompete the existing retailers and businesses forcing them out of business. Ever wonder why your nice country town is now a suburban hellhole as bad as any in LA? Walmart probably had a big hand in that. McDonalds too. All to sell you shit that you don't need and will probably make you unhealthy.

I actually wrote a kind of defense of walmart for a kind of short research paper in one of my grad school econ classes. It wasn't a super intense paper, more of a shorter exercise, and prof. wanted it framed in a "What if Adam Smith walked into a walmart today?" kind of way.

In any case, my defense was more because of knowing all the professors, students, and my program in general, views on economics, and companies like walmart. One article I used, I used specifically because it offered a lot of good information, and also posited that Walmart is a "progressive" success story. In any case, while I'm not saying I fully agree, I think the article (albeit older, now) is an interesting read: https://www.mackinac.org/archives/2006/walmart.pdf

And if anyone would like the paper I wrote, feel free to PM me and I'll find a way to get it to you, or host it on my website that I don't really keep up much anymore. But yeah, in a way, Walmart was actually a net-positive (economically) in most instances, even in small towns where they put a lot of small businesses out of business. Of course there were negatives, but it often led to lower unemployment AND wage growth in those towns (even WITH accounting for businesses they ruined), while also helping other countries. My dad's business is a decent example (though it wasn't Walmart, but a big grocery chain):

He owned a small pharmacy. He was the pharmacist, and he had one other employee (cashier/stocker for the rest of the store). He did well, but had to bust his ass, work every day during all open hours, provide benefits, and just generally bust his ass for a decent living. This grocery store came in, and offered him a 40% increase in his yearly earnings, benefits (healthcare, great pension, etc) and a 4-day work week, if he came to work for them/their pharmacy (they wanted his customers). He could still keep his business/own the building, it just couldn't have a pharmacy anymore (he ended up leasing it out to someone who ran it as a convenient store. Similar store to his, just with the pharmacy gone). So he was kind of more "bought out," then put out of business. This is obviously not the case for everyone w/ the Walmart-effect, but one example of how it sometimes ends up helping. Again, I'm not fully defending them or saying they're great, but there at least was an argument/defense to be made... until now.

Now it's clear what's happening, and it is NOT acceptable. There is no defense of this, and NO benefit to the fact that we're essentially consolidating ALL wealth, power, money, influence... everything, from the little guy to the big (corporations and governments). It's intentional, and it's meant to usher in 21st century communism, where capitalism only exists within government, through a few major corporations (that are married to the government) while all smaller businesses are forced out (which also leads to their buildings being bought up for pennies on the dollar by... you guessed it... Giant corporations, the government, and central banks).