➡ The text discusses the misunderstanding of the term ‘voluntarism’, emphasizing that it doesn’t mean volunteering. It also talks about the misconceptions surrounding the Tiananmen Square incident, suggesting that the narrative has been manipulated and weaponized. The author encourages readers to delve deeper into these topics to understand their true meanings and implications.

➡ The text discusses a video about a 9/11 conspiracy theory, providing a transcript and resources for further understanding. It also addresses a question about Japan’s potential liberation from the U.S. military, suggesting that the path to such liberation is not straightforward due to changing attitudes towards militarism in Japan. Lastly, it discusses the introduction of digital ID cards in the UK, questioning whether this is a genuine initiative or a psychological operation to gauge public reaction.

➡ Many people are using digital methods to access government services, often because it’s easier. However, there’s concern about the potential requirement of a smartphone for living in the UK, which could be imposed by the Brit Card. Some people resist this digital shift, preferring traditional methods like pen and paper. The article also discusses the establishment of U.S. national parks, with land often donated by wealthy individuals like J.D. Rockefeller, raising questions about their motives.

➡ The text discusses the donation of lands for sustainable development under COVID, managed by monopolistic groups for the benefit of the politically and corporately well connected. It also addresses the importance of show notes in providing links to resources mentioned in the episode, but questions if this makes the audience reliant on them instead of finding information themselves. The author clarifies that he is not on most social media platforms and only uses those linked on his website to post articles or videos. The text ends by emphasizing that the Corbett Report is listener-supported and encourages joining the community for exclusive content.

Welcome back, friends. Welcome back to the Corbett Reports. I’m your host, James Corbett of CorbettReport.com with another edition of Questions for Corbett here in late October of 2025. And this week we’re going to get straight into it this time, not one single question, but a bunch of questions. Because there’s a bit of a backlog in my Questions for Corbitt folder. So let’s get through them. The first one comes from an email from Andrew, who writes, I was reading about Smedley Butler and noticed that a man named Matthew Puller was given more awards than Butler, so he is now the most decorated Marine in U.S.

history. Do you think it is possible he was given extra medals to push Butler out of the picture as he was a brass whistleblower? Do you do things really get this cheap and dirty? I suspect, of course, it just seemed convenient right after World War II and not long after Butler’s death that this title was given. All right, excellent. Thank you for the question, Andrew. And it’s a good question because it gets to the heart of a couple of matters, one of which I would hope that my regular audience is by now acquainted with, because I’ve talked about it a few times.

I had a very popular podcast on it in the past, namely Meet Smedley Butler where I talked about the most decorated Marine in U.S. marine Corps history, at least up until the time that he was overtaken by police polar, as Andrew rightly points out. And that Marine is notable not because he was a well decorated Marine but because he essentially came out to write War is a Racket and to talk about how he had been a gangster for capitalism, Chiquita Banana and what have you, basically overthrowing regimes around the world for his corporate paymasters. And then he blew the whistle on the business plot to overthrow the US Government by a handful of fascistic corporations.

Corporazioni. So anyway, there’s all of that and I would hope that people would go back and refamiliarize themselves with that Meet Smedley Butler podcast if they are not familiar with that story. But yes, as Andrew points out, it wasn’t long after Butler’s time and his blowing the whistle that he was overtaken in the most decorated Marine count by not Matthew Puller, as Andrew writes, but Lewis Burwell. Chesty Puller. His nickname was Chesty, apparently. All right, why not? So Chesty Puller actually became the most decorated Marine in history, I believe again at some point Post World War II, at least by the time he died in 1971 he was the most decorated Marine in U.S.

history, thus overtaking Smedley Butler. So you’re right. You know, one could wonder if perhaps it was a bit of a blemish on the corporate print paymasters of the military industrial complex that has been puppeteering the US government for so long, that the most decorated Marine was in fact, a whistleblower who was very much against their operations. So, hey, let’s at least take that away from him and give some more baubles to somebody else. But, yes, I have no documentary evidence of that, so I can’t speak to that. But I would say, generally speaking, perhaps the bigger, bigger picture is we should be questioning what these medals and decorations are actually about, because do you think they are really about rewarding heroism and bravery and all of that? Well, if you think so, you need a reality check.

And one way to find that reality check would be to examine the words of, say, Napoleon Bonaparte, who famously, infamously said, a soldier will fight long and hard for a bit of colored ribbon. Or at least that is the sentence that is attributed to Bonaparte. There is actually no, as far as I know, hard historical evidence for that quote. He has also been quoted as saying, give me enough medals and I’ll win you any war. Of course, again, that quote too doesn’t seem to have a identifiable source. But how about one that does have a source? Specifically, if you go to the Legion of Honor Wikipedia Bastion of Truthiness page, you can find this quote talking about the baubles, the medals that he was prone to handing out after every conflict.

You call these baubles? Well, it is with baubles that men are led. Do you think that you would be able to make men fight by reasoning? Never. That is good only for the scholar. In his study, the soldier needs glory, distinctions, rewards. So. And oh, by the way, yes, that does have an actual, real, identifiable, actual source. So you can follow that link right back to the archive copy of Memoires sur les Consolas. Hon appelle sur las des hoche CE bien c’ est avec d’ hoche que l’ hommeine les hommes. My apologies to all French speakers in the world.

But anyway, you go read it for yourself. It’s there. So he did actually say that. And the point, I think, is valid, regardless of any of these particular quotations. No, medals and ribbons are literally just colored pieces of ribbon and little dangly shards of metal that are meant to motivate soldiers to death for their country. And that’s what it is for. Exactly. As Kissinger was quoted as saying that men are that military men are just dumb animals to be used as chess pieces on the board. Whatever that exact quote was, which I have quoted before, and I’ve quoted the source of that before as well, if you’re interested.

Anyway, that’s the sense of it. So I think again, yes, I guess they were playing some sort of game with Chesty Puller becoming the most decorated Marine rather than Smedley Butler. But I think the bigger issue is really the issue of the completely arbitrary nature of these awards and what they’re really about anyway. And I think we should be interrogating that. And I think Smedley Butler would agree with that. I don’t think he’d be so proud of his awards. Oh, I’m the most decorated Marine. I’m the best gangster for capitalism. As he would have said in war is a racket.

Anyway, thank you for the question, Andrew. Let’s move on. Here’s a question. Here’s a question that comes from the comment section of my own website. Specifically, you may or may not have seen my recent editorial on why I talk about agorism, which is a response to a video that Larkin Rose put out a couple of weeks ago called why I Don’t Talk about Agorism. And no, I’m not putting I’m not putting Larkin Rose on blast. As you will go. If you actually read the the editorial, you’ll see I I think we’re almost completely in agreement with everything.

Maybe just a question of semantics, but I use this editorial as an opportunity to talk more about agorism and and its related topics of voluntarism and libertarianism because I think those are important topics for people who are interested in political reality. And so I’m always happy to go into that. And I’m very much interested in philosophy. I know most people aren’t, but I am. And I like to read philosophy and talk about it. So I do so in this editorial. But I did have this question in From Light is the answer. So is there a plan how to establish a voluntarist society or how would it work? Would I get paid for my job and if not, how do I pay for my rent? The philosophy sounds nice, but too theoretical for my taste.

Sure, I can volunteer in my free time, but I got bills that need to be paid. Also, if I put a lot of hours into something and even if I enjoy doing it, there are always parts which are no fun, like the paperwork at some point. Doing a lot of work voluntarily for free is no fun. Please Enlighten me how this can work for a whole society. Thanks. Thank you for the question. Light is the answer. But maybe this is the best response to Larkin Rose. That’s possible. He prefers to talk about the voluntarist philosophy because it’s a philosophy rather than agorism, which is a practice or a method or a strategy.

But I am maybe going to start distancing myself from the word voluntarism, because it seems most people, when they hear this word, automatically assume that voluntarism means volunteerism, as in. In this society, you can only volunteer to do things for free, and that’s the only thing that you can do permissibly under voluntary. No, voluntary ism is different than volunteerism. It is not about volunteering your time, although you could do that in a voluntary society. No, it’s about voluntary, as in mutually consensual relations, that all relations between human beings should be mutually consensual. So. So if I choose to work for a company and they choose to pay me a certain salary for that, we can agree on that and I can do that.

Or if I choose to sell this good or this service to someone, I can choose to do that and they can choose to. It’s all about voluntary choice. That’s what it’s about, not volunteering your time. You don’t have to volunteer your time in a voluntary society, although you can if you want, and certainly that would be part of a voluntary society, but it’s not. That’s not what it means. Volunteering is different than voluntary, and that’s why we need a different word altogether to describe voluntarism, because it seems most people just get stuck on just seeing the word volun.

Oh, it must be volunteering. And then they completely have a brain fart and can’t actually understand what’s being said in this editorial. I go on to give a grand elaboration of what voluntarism is and what agorism is, but I guess light is the answer. Did not read that part of the editorial. That’s unfortunate. And then, as is the way with comment sections everywhere, Duck and Home Remedy Supply chime in with their two cents, but they don’t actually correct the fundamental misunderstanding that light as the answer is bringing, they go along with it. Yeah, voluntaryism means a volunteering society where all you do is volunteer.

So thank you for the question. Light is the answer, but that is not what voluntarism means. And until we come up with a better word for this, I mean, anarchism is Unfortunately, a much polluted word that has a million different meanings and associations and flavors, so I don’t think we can just use that entirely. That’s why maybe agorism really is the best, if only because nobody who’s a native English speaker who doesn’t know Greek has any association whatsoever with the word agora. So you can actually have a conversation where you actually tell someone what something is and they hopefully understand it rather than just associating it with a different random word.

Anyway, that’s my pet peeve. Thank you for the question. Light is the answer, but voluntaryism is not volunteering. That is not what this means. Please reread the entire editorial. Okay, let’s move on. Question from Libby Libby writes, I’m nearly finished watching your great podcast from 11 years ago, China and the New World Order. Well, Maybe in another 11 years you can finish it. Libby, I would be so curious about your thoughts, no matter how brief on this information, a different interpretation of what happened in TS and when you follow the link that Libby provides will see that TS refers to Tiananmen Square.

And she’s pointing to this blog from World affairs that was posted in June 2019 on the 20th anniversary of Tiananmen Square. There was a lot being talked about at that time, as you can imagine, and this one is Tiananmen Square massacre. Facts, fiction and propaganda. And yes, I’ve skimmed through this and get the idea. Pointing to several parts of the story that are often excluded from the path narrative that we receive in the west about this horrible Chinese massacre. Students were uprising, the Chinese rolled in the tanks, killed them all and covered it up for 20 years.

Well, 25, 26. Well, okay, maybe it’s a bit more complicated than that. And that’s what this post I guess ostensibly is doing. But I have my own post on the exact same subject that was released at almost the exact same time again around the 20th. I’m sorry, 30th anniversary. I really am getting old, aren’t I? Okay, around the 30th anniversary of Tiananmen Square, I wrote my own post, the Truth About Tiananmen, in which I elaborate on oh wait, what’s this? There’s a paywall. You have to be a member of the website to log in and read this.

James, what are you doing? I can’t believe you are putting information behind the paywall, you stupid ass. Oh, oh, you can just click here to get the free post. And here it is. Okay, so when you click through, if you don’t want to pay me for my efforts. Go ahead and you can read this for free where I talk about the official story of the Tiananmen Square massacre, which was it was the culmination of weeks of student led protests against the Chinese government and it involved troops with assault rifles and tanks firing at the demonstrators trying to block the military’s advance towards Tiananmen Square resulted in the deaths of several hundreds of the protesters.

Or was it 2,600? Well, the Chinese government won’t say, so I guess we’ll never know, right? Well, maybe we will. There are definitely parts of this story that have been excluded from our attention quite deliberately over the decades and you don’t have to take my word from that. For example, I link to the US and Chilean diplomats that were talking about problems with the Tiananmen Square narrative that’s reported in the West. James Miles, who was reporting on it for the BBC as the BBC’s Beijing correspondent at the time. He wrote emil Coppola in 2009, admitting that his reporting had conveyed the wrong impression.

And in fact there was no massacre on Tiananmen Square. Ex US Ambassador Chaz Freeman reflected on Tiananmen back in 2006, opining that the Chinese government was actually much too restrained in its response to the 1989 protest movement where he says, quote, I cannot conceive of any American government behaving with the ill conceived restraint that the Zhao Ziyang administration did in China, allowing students to occupy zones that are the equivalent of the Washington National Mall and Times Square combined, while shutting down much of the Chinese government’s normal operations. I thus share the hope of the majority in China that no Chinese government will repeat the mistakes of Zhao Ziyang’s dilatory tactics of appeasement in dealing with domestic protesters in China, end quote.

But as I go on to say, this is not to say there were no killings that night, or that the Chinese government is run by an innocent group of falsely maligned angels. But the real story about the 1989 democracy movement in China has never filtered down to the broader public. This story, one that includes CIA assistance for the protesters, does not comport with the straightforward narrative of an evil government coldly slaughtering a crowd of unarmed protesters. So it must be sent down the rabbit hole, the memory hole. But then as I go on to say, in short, there is nuance to this story.

Yes, there were real student protesters in Beijing in 1989 who were really protesting about their real grievances. They were also being infiltrated and provoked by outside forces that had their own agenda in destabilizing the Chinese government. Does that delegitimize the protesters movement and their grievances? No, of course not. But we have to understand that the narrative of Tiananmen Square, the Tiananmen Square massacre story that is brought up each year on the anniversary and wielded like a bludgeon against the Chinese government has been weaponized. The diplomats who mouth platitudes about the heroes of 1989 couldn’t care less about the students or their movement.

I would happily eat my hat if someone like Pompeo. Again, it was writing 2019. But point still stands. If someone like Pompeo could articulate what the heroic Protest Movement of 1989 was about, or even name a single one of the protesters demands, it’s all a transparent, cynical ploy. Having said that, we have to be careful when it comes to a story like this. The temptation is to discover evidence of outside interference, CIA or otherwise, in some protest movement, and then to dismiss the movement and those participating in it as deep state dupes or even deep state collaborators.

As I argued two years ago in my video on NATO and anti NATO, two sides of the same coin, we should be careful not to fall into this trap. Just because a protest movement may be aided by shadowy forces for ulterior motives, that does not mean the protest itself is illegitimate. But neither can we stand by while a half true version of events of those events is weaponized in geopolitical squabbles. So anyway, there is nuance in this story, but basically the story of this bloody massacre that’s never quite articulated but just kind of it was a massacre is not the whole truth.

And if you want the details on that, again, read through this entire editorial and plenty of links to all of the source documents as always, so that you can go through and come to your own conclusions about what did or did not happen there. Hope that helps. Libby, thank you again for the question. So let’s turn to the next question, this question from Solange, who says, who was that man you referred to when you said this man never existed? Nor him, nor him, nor him, nor her. I cannot find this info anywhere, but I remember you mentioning him a long time ago.

Tysm, thank you so much. I’m gonna assume, well, Tysm, for that question. Solange, you are not the first and will definitely not be the last person to ask about it. And for people who don’t know what this question question is in reference to, it is about that video of mine called the what, 911 in five minutes. Is that what it’s called. No, that is not what this video is called. It’s called 911 A Conspiracy Theory. But you have undoubtedly seen it on a million different channels and a thousand different platforms under a hundred thousand different titles, many of which are something like 911 in five minutes.

Great. I’m very glad that it went mega viral. But if I had known that this video was going to go mega, mega viral as it did, I would have at the very least included a little, little caption at the bottom just to say Transcript and sources orbitreport.com 911 conspiracy theory. Something like that anyway. Oh well, you can never know or plan these things in advance, can you? So long story short, don’t worry, there is a complete hyperlink transcript for this video. 911 A Conspiracy Theory including that point point where I say this man never existed, nor is anything he had to say worthy of your attention.

And if you say otherwise, you are a paranoid conspiracy theorist and deserve to be shunned by all of humanity. Likewise him, him, him and her and her and her and him. And if you scroll through the transcript, you can find that exact part somewhere in here. Of course I’m not. It’s not going to jump out at me right now. Right here it is. This man never existed, nor is anything he had to say worthy of retention. And yes, that man is linked. Likewise him, him, him and her and her and her and him. All linked. There are links, links, links, links to every single thing that I talk about in this video.

So if you are struggling with this, here is the link and here are all the resources. If you ever see anyone else questioning or thinking about these or asking about different pieces of this, kindly direct them to this transcript. I think it will be useful for them in finding out what I was actually talking about in my inside joke to the 911 truth movement that somehow or other went mega viral and has been seen tens of millions of times online. All right, okay, let’s move along to a question from Richard who writes, I have a question for you about Japan.

What do you see as the best, best path for Japan to liberate itself from the stranglehold of the US Military and take control of their own defense? Very good question, Richard, and obviously one that very much preoccupies me living as I do here in Japan. But I’m afraid I do not have a pat answer to that question specifically the way that it’s framed. What’s the best path for Japan to liberate itself from the stranglehold of the US Military? Kind of assumes that the population wants that liberation. And although I think that would have been a safer bet a decade or two or three or four ago, it is becoming less and less of a safe bet.

At any rate, there are undoubtedly people who are very, very much unhappy with the US military presence here. Most of them living around US bases like in Okinawa for example. The Okinawa people are very much against US military bases by and large for very good reasons. And the very many mishaps, accidents and oh, raping of children and other things that happen to go along with that US military presence that tends to make the Okinawans and others stationed near military bases quite angry. But I would say that the overall Japanese population is changing in its attitudes towards militarism and, and obviously back in the Imperial era and the Imperial wars, obviously Japan was a warmongering, war hungry nation that was not only willing to fight and die, but literally to commit suicide missions or whatever else for the greater glory of the Empire and the Emperor and all of that.

And we all know about that history. But after World War II and the atomic bombings and the total disgrace and defeat, Japan completely changed, totally became pacifist, literally hardwired into the constitution, written essentially at gunpoint by MacArthur in the US but at any rate literally written into the constitution that Japan cannot have a military force that is still in the constitution. So they have a self defense force which is actually as large one of the largest militaries on the planet. But it’s not a military, it’s a self defense force, guys. Anyway, you see the types of parlor games that are played.

But at any rate there’s still something of that idea, I think in some part of the Japanese population that it is now a pacifist country and they’ve rejected their warmongering ways. But as I have articulated elsewhere, that is changing. Specifically, if you go back to questions For Corbett, number 91 on is the Empire Awakening? You will find a lot more information about that particular question. What is the empire doing these days? Is there a new empire rising? A rising sun flag making its, its way back? And what does that really mean in terms of expanding Japanese military budgets, etc.

Well, it means quite a lot actually, especially in the context of China and North Korea as potential threats and Japan’s place essentially as the frontline American proxy in the region, as their, their front line of defense in the Pacific. Japan is a US military proxy essentially and is acting more and more like one. And further signs since that questions for Corbett that I did a few years ago on this rising militarism in Japan. Further signs, if any, are necessary as the recent selection of the ultra hard line right wing nationalist, warmonger, heavy metal enthusiast that just got installed as the first female Prime Minister in Japan.

And that this is just part of a broader cultural trend that is happening in Japan that is seeing, I think, a decided shift towards the right and right wing nationalist politics as part of that grander political phenomenon that’s sweeping the world that I wrote about in my editorial, my very popular editorial earlier this year, back and to the Right the Pendulum Swings Again. If you haven’t read that editorial, I suggest you do, and I suggest you read the follow up editorial on Escaping the pendulum because I think that’s incredibly important as well. But yes, there is obviously a massive turn towards right wing nationalist and seclusionist and warmongering in politics, generally speaking around the world, and it is happening in Japan as well.

And there are specific reasons for that and the specific context, etc. But long story short is that I unfortunately, although Richard, I understand what you’re asking, but I do not see a nice and simple path for Japan to liberate itself from the US military stranglehold, at least not in the current dynamics. The current situation where, where the Chinese North Korean boogeyman is the threat and we got to be taking care of it and we’re not at war, but we’re kind of at war and we should be acting like it, etc, etc is I’d say, if not the dominant at least certainly a rising mindset for people here in Japan.

So like a lot of things, I think I don’t know if I can see a way towards that path on the other side to liberation from the US military stranglehold that doesn’t go through the the hell of some actual military conflict. And one can imagine that after some actual military engagement with China or North Korea or what have you, the Japanese public might not be so enthusiastic about warmongering, but it might take that to switch the Japanese public from their current path. So it’s a good question, but I’m afraid I just don’t see it as being a simple or nice answer.

I think there’s going to be a rising militarism here in Japan before there is a return back to pacifism. All right, let’s move on to a question from Chris, who writes in England. Starmer has now put digital ID cards on the main issues in the facade of routing out illegal migrants. Stupid question. I’m sorry, but how do we get not get onto it? Quit Jobs if need be, lose bank accounts if they need it. Yeah, this is an excellent question. This is perhaps the question that is facing much of the world right now, because as people in the UK certainly know, yes, the Brit Card and Starmer is coming with promising every worker in the UK is going to be on digital ID soon enough and similar ideas and agendas rolling out across the globe.

No matter what country you’re in, I’m sure you’ve seen some version of this. So in order to really answer this question to the extent that it is answerable, some would even question whether the Brit Card itself, the announced Brit Card by Starmer, is not itself part of a psyop. Sort of a limited hangout bait. Here you guys go. We’re going to do this horrible, horrendous thing. Oh, everybody’s against it, okay, we won’t do that thing. And people laying out that argument, for example, Ian Davis at Avgardian, the Brit Card psyop. What is true digital ID in the uk, where Davis and others like him make the point that the Brit Card is almost universally opposed, almost everyone who heard about this idea was opposed to it, including even people in starmer’s own party, etc.

It’s not going to be politically popular. So why are they really pushing this? Are they really expecting to go through with it? And as Davis and others point out, they don’t necessarily need to go through with the Brit Card as it is being announced, because all of the different aspects of what prizes this grander digital ID agenda are already in place, many of them already functioning. There are already people who are already accessing government services through the official government apps or government wallets, the one logins, verifying their age by giving their digital biometrics to various companies and other things.

Most of these being done digital licenses, other things like that, but most of these things being done voluntarily. Voluntarily, not volunteering voluntarily anyway, doing these things voluntarily. They don’t have to. There’s no gun to their head. But they are doing it because it’s just easier. And it is unfortunate that the digital ID may not come at the barrel of the gun. And the either you take this Brit Card or you don’t work. As in you, you now are required to have a smartphone in order to live, which would be essentially what the Brit Card would, would be imposing on people.

I mean, most people do have a smartphone, but are they really going to actually mandate that you literally have to have a smartphone in order to live in the UK anyway? Maybe they don’t need to maybe it will be part of this voluntary process. And to the extent that it is, then our pushback against that process, our opting out is important, as I’ve talked about before, our opting out, our being stubborn, our being butt heads when it comes to these things. No, I’m not going to download the app so that I can order a new bank card for the ATM machine or whatever, whatever it is, whatever ridiculous hoops they want you to jump through.

No, there is a way to do this with pen and paper and I’m going to do it the pen and paper way. I don’t care if it takes us an hour, we’re going to do it that way. And the more that we are butt heads about these things, at the very least we can carve out the space for opting out on these things. So I have said that in the past. I will reiterate that here. But for people who want more on this idea, this agenda, who want a really deep dive on it, I will point out that above phone, my good friend Hakeem Anwar at abovephone has just put out an incredible detailed analysis.

Life Under Digital id. A global analysis with solutions. And it talks about how these digital IDs are being rolled out. Where will they be mandatory? What will life be like with digital id? How much time do we have? What can we do about it? So if this is something that you are concerned about and I think you should be, then this would be one resource you might want to check out. Again. I’ll leave this link here and you can get that document yourself. I think I will be talking to Hakim about that in the near future, so stay tuned for that.

It’s a very good question. Again, there’s a lot of things to be said here, but not one simple silver bullet solution. Oh, don’t worry. You just sign your name on this form and you don’t have to take a digital id. We’ll have to see how governments try to roll this out. But let’s not fall into the bait and switch with the cbdc. Cbdc. Cbdc. Oh, you don’t want that. Okay, here’s stablecoin. Yay. Digital id. Brick card. Brick card. Brick card. Oh, you don’t want that. Okay, well, just we’ll have all of these different apps and things that you’ll just put all of your biometrics and data into and that you’ll like, access all government services through.

Yay. We don’t have a brick card. Let’s not fall into that trap. Moving right along we got a question in from Jenny, who writes. Hello, James. I’ve been reading up on the establishment of the U.S. national Parks. I was not surprised to read that billions of acres were seized from native tribes. However, I was surprised to read how much of that land was given to the government by private donors. For instance, I’ve read that J.D. rockefeller donated 8,000 hectares of land and also invested millions of dollars to establish some of our parks. And that was back in the day when millions actually meant something.

When I tried to find out what these wealthy donors, philanthropists, got in return, the explanations I find the land was donated because the donors just loved nature so much and. Or these donors were doing philanthropy for essentially good pr. That sounds frankly unbelievable to me. Why did people like JD Rockefeller really give over thousands of hectares of their own land and invest millions to hand to the government to establish the national parks? Or is there really nothing more to it than nature conservation, philanthropy? Thank you, Jenny. Thank you, Jenny. Well, thank you, Jenny. That’s a good question.

And you are very right to point to this documentable, verifiable fact. Yes, absolutely. People involved in the creation of the national parks and the expansion of the national park system, including, of course, the Rockefeller family, you don’t have to go very far for that. Just go to nps.gov, the National Park Service homepage, and they have a whole page up on John D. Rockefeller, Jr. And how he was so magnanimous with his donations to the NPS. In the field of conservation, Mr. Rockefeller’s contributions to national parks are no less important. He purchased and donated thousands of acres of land to parks using finances or foundation grants.

For example, through the Laura Spellman Rockefeller memorial, he donated $5 million to buy private lands in the Great Smoky Mountains. In the beautiful, beautiful spirit of my mother, Acadia, Shenandoah and Grand Teton National Parks, also received generous donations of land from Mr. Rockefeller in the 1920s when commercial loggers threatened to destroy large strands of sugar pines adjacent to Yosemite, and he provided more than $1 million to save 15,000 acres of forest. Mr. Rockefeller financed the construction of museums in Mesa Verde, Grand Canyon and Yellowstone national parks. In 1972, Congress honored his contributions by creating a Memorial Park Parkway between Yellowstone and Grand Teton national Parks, which bears his name.

John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Symbolizes the philanthropic spirit of many American families, foundations and individuals that have been vital to the national parks. All hail the Rockefellers and their wonderful philanthropy. Why on earth would they be involved in this? Well, here’s. Here’s one part of the answer, and it’s a surprising one. Also on nps.gov you don’t have to go very far. Just click on over to the Madison Grant page on the National Park Service. Madison Grant. Where have I heard that name before? Oh, right, so this is a more problematic one for the nps, but they, they at least admit to it.

Madison Grant was, was a key figure in the history of the National Park Service who left behind a troubling legacy. He supported environmental conservation and worked to protect plant and animal species like redwood trees and the American bison. While Grant is known for his contributions to wildlife protection, he is best remembered for his support of eugenics. His 1916 book, the Passing of the Great Race spread racist ideas that Grant claimed were scientific. Policymakers used the ideas of Grant and those who agreed with him to restrict immigration and to control people’s ability to have children. Any history of the National Park Service is incomplete without an accounting of Madison Grant’s influence.

And it goes on to give that accounting, or at least part of it. And so that is actually an essential part of the understanding of this story. Because you might know from my previous reporting, for example, the how and why Big Oil Conquered the World docs, you might know that the Rockefeller family, especially John D. Rockefeller Jr. Was absolutely essential in establishing and funding the eugenics, the American Eugenics Society and the American Eugenics Institutions, which were then transplanted to Germany with Rockefeller funds, so that the great work of preserving the great race could be passed on there.

There is a connection between eugenicists and conservationists. It is a real documentable historical connection. Make of it what you will. I have my own thoughts and opinions on this matter, and if you are interested in them, I have written all about this subject in a book called Reportage Essays on the New World Order. You may have heard about it once or twice. It is now available in paperback and in this beautiful hardcover edition from reportagebook.com so I hope you will purchase a copy today if you haven’t yet done so, or purchase one for your friends, family, neighbors, loved ones, complete strangers, etc.

I very much appreciate that. Anyway, in that book I have an entire chapter, an essay on who really controls the environmental movement, which talks precisely about this issue. Not the Rockefellers in particular, but I do talk about Madison Grant and others with interesting associations with the environmental movement and how that what that says about that connection. And another thing that I will say in regards to this, another piece of the puzzle might be you might be interested in going back to my podcast on what is sustainable development where I talk about essentially the monopolization of the world’s resources by various conservancy groups, the UN and others who are only doing it for the benefit of nature, of course, but essentially monopolizing the earth’s resources under the COVID of sustainable development so that they can then produce and and develop those resources for their own benefit and the benefit of their cronies.

That is definitely part of what this beautiful magnanimous gesture. We’re donating these lands and to be managed by monopolistic groups for the benefit of the politically and corporately well connected. So anyway, there’s at least a couple of resources there that I will direct you to. And of course, all the resources that I’m talking about today. All of the links to all of the documents, as always, will be in the show notes for this episode. That actually brings up an excellent point. I forgot to put it in my notes, so I’m just going to wing this one.

But recently I had a question about the the Nobel Warmonger Prize. Whatever I called that episode. Again, I’m just winning this off the top of my head, but there was somebody in the comment section who was concerned because although I had mentioned the letter that Machado had written to Netanyahu in that episode, that wasn’t itself linked, it was mentioned in an article. And that article itself, as this person found out when she followed the, the link in the show notes, that article didn’t include a link to the letter itself. So again, it was episode 484. Nobel War Prize strikes again.

And I understand, of course, if it’s mentioned anywhere in the episode, it should be linked. Well, it was talked about in an article that I was quoting, so. Okay, I guess. But the troubling thing about this comment, and I won’t be able to find it, I’m sure at this particular juncture. Well, you know what? You guys will just wait. Oh yeah. Okay. So was LSID wrote any link available to this letter from Machado to Netanyahu? I’d be interested to read the contents and also see the context in which was made public. Seems absent from show notes.

Thanks for the episode. Okay, excellent. I get the point. But I would say to LSID and others that what it honestly, it brings up that question which I’ve wrestled with before. Is it worth having show notes if all it does is train people to go to the show notes? It’s not there. I’m. I’m done. There’s nothing. What can I do? I can’t find it. It doesn’t exist until somebody gives me that link or until it appears in the show notes, I can’t find it. And I wonder sometimes if I am training my audience not to see, not to look, not to be able to find things for themselves.

So I would just humbly suggest for anyone who’s in lsid’s position, how about just typing Machado letter to Netanyahu into your search engine of choice and seeing what comes up, because I’m gonna bet that you’ll be able to find that letter pretty quickly and also the source of it and where it came from and what it means. Yes, it is a letter in Spanish, so it is in Spanish and you will have to know Spanish in order to actually read the original letter. There may be some translations available, etc. But anyway, it is literally, it took, as you saw, it took three seconds to find that.

So again, I would really appreciate feedback from the audience. Is it worth having show notes at all? Is it worth it? Or am I simply training people to just become completely useless? I can’t find this letter to how will I ever find a letter from Machado to Netanyahu unless it is provided for me in the show notes? How about typing Machado letter to Netanyahu into a search engine? Three seconds, Done. I don’t know. I don’t know. Again, I do struggle with that question sometimes. I will continue the show notes for now, but someone might be able to convince me that it’s actually training people out of being able to find information.

All right. And finally today I just end on this rather simple question. I had a question from Graham who wrote, do you have an X account? I’m seeing an account bearing your name coming up in my feed as Corbett Report Update Service. No, I do not have an X account. I am not on X. I am not on Insta, I am not on Snapchat, I am not on TikTok, I am not on Facebook. I’m not on any of those platforms or many, many others. Almost all of them. I am not on them. The only social media platforms I am on are the ones that are linked at the top of my website.

So if you are ever in doubt, you can go there. And if it’s not there, it’s not me. And so yes, anyone claiming to be me on any of those services is a filthy liar and should be called out as such. That is not me, has nothing to do with me anyway. Just as a general rule of thumb, I do not interact on any social media. I do not chat and post back and forth and make comments and things on social media because social media is an antisocial cancer and it is the wrong way to do the Internet.

Fundamentally. As I will continue to blow the horn, it is RSS all the way. Ride or die. I do not like social media. The only thing social media I use are the places where I can post my articles or videos and that’s all I do. So anyway, just to clarify, if you ever see anyone on any social media claiming to be me, it is almost certainly not me, but that’s gonna do it. That’s a lot of questions. That’s a lot of answers. I hope we’ve cleared the decks for the next edition of Questions for Corbitt, but in the meantime and in between time, I’ll have plenty of content coming out through the RSS feeds in the near future, so please stay tuned for that.

That’s going to do it for today. Thank you for investing your time in this exploration. I am James Corbett of CorbettReport. Looking forward to talking to you again in the near future. The Corbitt report is 100% listener supported. Join the Corbett Report community to become a member and log in to corbettreport.com to read the subscriber newsletter featuring my weekly editorial, recommended reading and viewing, discounts on Corbett Report merchandise, and once a month a subscriber exclusive video. Sign up today@corbettreport.com members and help support this independent.
[tr:tra].

See more of The Corbett Report on their Public Channel and the MPN The Corbett Report channel.