>>10404580
the term 'stakeholder' is a marxist phrase to bestow undue power upon those who have bullied their way to the front of the line at the expense of all others.
in fact there already was a term that couldha ve been used, if Communists actually believed in people being given a fair share. They could have discussed 'shareholders' not stakeholders.
but as communists only larp at fairness, and in fact it's an ethnic supremicist grift and conquest of a moiety of power of neffarious nature, and mean, who will eat you (allegorically?), communists never share anything.
it's a stake they want to give you, right through your heart.
is this mean, 'The Hill?', or a bighting scree about the nature of secret aristocracy and the corruption of those who say it's a 'stake' that they have, but not a share. They want a piece, wiht out any responsibility of ownership.
The left never shares anything of value with those not on the inside of the secret aristocratic movement of constant cow-bird carpet bagging.
'the Hill', am I being hateful, or is this a red pill, or is it fiction?
you don't really care though, is my guess, because you said you only wanted hate.
I figure my fiction is loving in that it clues in these sots as to what they are really about as those of us who are not hypnotized as much, how we see them.
how we see you, in your gatekeeper place as a paid-for hit-man larping at journalism but actually already having decided what your conclusions will be.
did you ever hear you can only find what you look for?
or what you think is what you get?
that's just some aphorism that seem truthish from time to time. Maybe hateful to not tell you? that it's maybe a false aphorism?
so don't trip up, you can be deemed a hater, too, 'The Hill' stafflooking for haters here.