124 words / 1:54:53
Eric Orwoll, aka Aarvoll, made a second appearance on Counter-Currents Radio to talk geopolitics and philosophy, and address some new controversies surrounding his Return to the Land project. You can now listen to or download the episode here.
Topics include:
1:10 – More media attention and hit pieces since Orwoll’s first appearance.
6:12 – How is the legal battle going?
23:26 – Yoram Hazony and the spread of “nationalism for everyone” messaging.
41:12 – The question of sovereignty for people groups and international law and order.
59:20 – Freedom of association vs the laws imposed by nation-states.
1:26:54 – The changing nature of the United States.
1:36:04 – The Singapore model for solving America’s demographic and political/cultural divisions.
1:40:20 – Listener questions.
To listen in a player, click here or below. To download, right-click the link and click “save as.”
6 comments
Great interview and discussion!
I will make a few points.
I think the threat of AGI (Artificial General Intelligence) is hugely overstated. The idea of a “Terminator” -style of artificial intelligence is Science Fiction, and I’ll believe it when I see it. It will not happen, if it ever does, in the lifetimes of anyone living today.
Having said that, I’m not a big fan of AI; it is ruining YouTube, for example, as a decent educational platform. AI has enabled bad actors to generate clickbait, and makes it easier than ever before to generate fake atrocity-propaganda. It is undermining the teaching of good skeptical and critical-thinking skills, which we dearly need.
In general, I think the Internet is a positive thing, and easily as important as the invention of the printing press in the 15th century. But it is not without its issues, like censorship and gate-keeping, for example. Who gets to decide what ideas are Good and what speech constitues Hate?
Either one understands the 1st Amendment or one does not.
Also, the idea of the apocalyptic nature of nuclear weapons in our popular culture, and sometimes from “security wonks” and Neocon “experts” is hugely overstated ─ especially by Libtards who do not understand military strategies nor technology any more than they do basic numeracy, science, and technology in general.
Most of the critics of Technology easily have as many competency issues as the Technocracy wonks like Musk. All I need to know about his chops as a technocrat is pretty much summed up by his notion (assuming that he is even serious) that colonization of Mars will happen any time in this century.
But the Technophobes are even worse.
These are the people who think that carbon emissions are going to lead to an uninhabitable world in a few generations ─ which is about as believable as the idea from the Cold War that popping off some nukes is going to lead to a world where misogynistic boys with telepathic dogs will roam the radioactive wastelands in search of rape and murder.
Nobody wants war, let alone nuclear war, but don’t try to argue that fallout shelters and “duck and cover” would not have actually saved lives.
I am certainly happy that nukes have not been used in war other than as Strategic Deterrence since Hiroshima and Nagasaki ─ and I don’t think that carbon dioxide emissions are a good thing ─ but we need to deal with these issues with far more perspicacity, intelligence, and technical competence than we actually do with the Carl Sagans and Greta Thunbergs of the world ─ let alone any of the Marxist intellectuals and officials whom the Antifa criminals and the Colored hordes draw their strength from.
I’m not a Libertarian but I will draw from a Libertarian whom I greatly admire, Prof. Harry Elmer Barnes, in that the Liberal Internationalist argument advocating “Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace” is hugely flawed.
International Law is not something Holy and enforced by some kind of Peace Pope. It is not strictly LAW at all. In reality, International Law is only customs and treaty agreements between sovereign Nation-States. These are indeed important relationships, but they are not inviolate, nor should they be.
Even the best relationships and agreements can be made and broken at the convenience of the parties who themselves benefit ─ a pragmatism hopefully for their mutual long-term interests.
Nonviolent conflict-resolution strategies are nothing new and nobody is saying otherwise, but the real world does not work the way that Liberal Internationalist intellectuals from elite New England schools with Communist sympathies thought that it did in the 1940s and 1950s. If Senator McCarthy wanted these people purged and punished, he was not wrong.
True, there are some Superpowers in the world who might have supra-national interests, usually economic or just by the mere fact of bearing nuclear weapons, but this does not change these important treaty or pragmatic relationships in any fundamental way.
I think the claim of the United States as “World Hegemon” is somewhat overstated ─ usually by the minions of the postwar Liberal order itself and by their anti-White sirens.
Whites are the bearers of Civilization; if this is what is meant by “colonies,” then that is not a bad thing. I think the most important and easily misunderstood political philosopher was Hobbes.
I am an Isolationist and believe that American interests are best served by pursuing American national interests themselves with robust Continental power. We are not giving up our nukes nor surrendering to some fabled World Government. White communities have not been served by Globalism since day one.
I think the JQ has to be on the table as well. That should be explicit. It is not even an option if we truly care about the future of White civilization and authentic popular sovereignty.
As Greg says, I am willing to transfer population hordes but also to consider adjusting borders one way or another. Do we really need Alaska and Hawaii? Should we acquire some White Canadian provinces?
I don’t think that we should be acquiring “Native” lands where the people have digested enough Marxism to believe that their inability to dispense with their ethanol demons and murder is actually caused by White Racism. We need to cut them off from the privileges of our Hobbesian State and instead let them stew in their own “civilization.” It will suit us better and we owe them that.
Crime can be dealt with by Incarceration and by the liberal use of the Death Penalty. The decent Negroes with birthright citizenship now can trade that for a state pension for the history of slavery with the proviso that they permanently relocate to Sub-Saharan Africa and stay there. You move to Paris and you get cut off from your pension, MoFo. And no, your keeds born in Senegal or Zimbabwe, they don’t get no pension from Whitey ─ and they ain’t coming to settle our lands. The only other foreign aid you get is maybe some birth control technology.
For the USA, I think the major goal is to 1) reduce our involvement in world affairs that are not really in our national interests, 2) return our sacred border sovereignty by deporting as many alien races as physically possible, and 3) strive for returning to a robust 1790s Republic ─ this one, this time, with true national integrity and explicit White Supremacy.
If, as Spengler noted, we need some new “Caesars” to restore our true popular and racial sovereignty, then I have no problem with that ─ just the necessary medicine.
🙂
I liked how this conversation dared to contemplate various strategies for how to interact with The Regime and how to move forward. I am in strong disagreement with Aarvol on keeping the post ’65 immigrants here. I think his moral argument is capitulation. We have to assert our moral right. If we don’t than aliens have a moral claim by virtue that we forfeited ours.
I also think it is very short sighted. With the 180-200 million ethnic Europeans, Americans, on the continent now, we don’t have to bring people in to, “fill the space.” We also have to recognize the immorality of keeping these aliens here. First is the reality of numbers. Already Indians and Chinese have completely colonized the STEM department of just about every University on our soil. They have colonized the software industry and are either outright absconding with it in the case of Microsoft or absconding with it via resettlement via Elon, the IBM CEO … … These are not Mexicans who will take generations to ascend. Though we do have a Guatamalan Congressperson who is joining with blacks in calls for reparations.
Those are but a few examples. These problems will only grow if we do not send them back. There is also the possibility that once entrenched, some Chinese could open the floodgates to several hundred million Chinese invaders. The same is true of India. We do not know the future, but the present is already bad while we are still the majority. We should make our decisions about how to proceed by looking at what is the worst possible future scenario for our children that we can prevent. Right now, we are numerous enough to send them all back.
On the technology scenario, I think that the emergent technology is as bad for The Regime as it is for us. It is just as likely to enable decentralization as it is total central control. That is, it could enable powerful city states that can be federated as it could enable some North American China. We can have AI firewalls that in real time filter out and reprogram cultural genocide. We may not even need that. We can train our own models and generators and have families create their own movies and entertainment and curriculums using our models that have been vetted by the cultural authorities that the RTTL settlements are going to produce from their schools.
I like how bold the thinking is in terms of what would we do if we sit down at the table with The Regime. On the immigration and deportation issue, our stance must be to send them all back. I agree with Greg and have family similar to Eric’s. There are tens of millions to go back long before we deal with inter-marriage/breeding.
This is all mute without the work that Eric and many other people across America are doing in terms of building our own settlements. If we do nothing else, these efforts executed thoughtfully and carefully are essential. I loved this conversation, but it is pointless without building settlements and redoubts. I am looking forward to hearing about the progress in 6-12 months. If a crisis in the legal situation comes up, light the beacons and the folk will rally.
Update. YT just promoted a video to me. It was of Peterstein interviewing the, “expert”, Brett Weinstein. The topic? Weinstein saying “we” were sold a bill of goods and that bill of goods was multi-culturalism. We are winning. Let Weinstein push the argument that multi-culturism is bad. Let’s also keep the image of his brother flipping off Wester Civilization as a people apart alive.
Btw, his example of what taught him the lesson was going to and observing it in action in Panama. The most intelligent of all humans, who are international cosmopolitans just now learned from a multi-cultural hell hole abroad. You can’t make this up.
Speaking of Wilmot Robertson, he said in a beautifully understated way, that those people have never proven that they could run a civilization. And now, after 100 years and counting of their century, we have proof that they are very very good at destroying one, and they won’t even take responsibility.
Back to what matters, our people. May RTTL and the many other redoubts springing up across the American Asturias take root and flourish.
Concerning evolution:
There is a big controversy going on in that world, the evidence is mounting that evolution is actually purposeful and not at all “random” as believed in the current paradigm.
Boreal Daresay: August 25, 2025 Concerning evolution: There is a big controversy going on in that world, the evidence is mounting that evolution is actually purposeful and not at all “random” as believed in the current paradigm.
—
What’s the controversy? You may be interested in yesterday’s American Dissident Voices broadcast on the subject. “Without Racial Separation There Could be No Life at All” at nationalvanguard.org
Evolution is real. Evolution is not only real, it is a fundamental, necessary, aspect of life — in fact, without evolution, living things as we know them could not exist.
And racial divergence and separation are themselves essential parts of evolution. Without racial separation, therefore, there could be no life at all. Does this sound like an extreme conclusion, unwarranted by the evidence? Is it contrary to science and to the morals held by all good people? Or is it a simple truth, the realization of which can change the minds and hearts of our people, and put them on the right path once again?
It’s astounding that a century and a half after Darwin, this is still controversial. So much nonsense is written on the subject that I think the best way to approach it is from an entirely new angle….
Read more at the link.
Great discussion. Aarvoll is doing great work.
I disagree with him on the post-1965 immigrants. To my knowledge, the state may have invited them, but the people did not. He raises a valid point about the difficulty of straightening it out given the mixed-race population. I think Greg’s example of Singapore and independent city-states is a great starting point for solving that. I would add that we cannot allow Indian or Chinese ethnics to hold sovereignty over any portion of North American soil, so they may require a different strategy.
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.