Amerika Interview

What is Black Run America?


I’ve done an interview with Brett Stevens of Check it out.

In the near future, I might pen another major essay at Amerika on the “mainstreamer” vs. “vanguardist” dynamic that Brett Stevens and Mike Adams have expanded upon in recent months.

Specifically, I want to take a look at the “mainstreamer” vs. “vanguardist” split which plagued the Civil Rights Movement, most famously seen in the clash between Martin Luther King and SCLC and Malcolm X and the Nation of Islam.

Brother Martin, as we will come to know him, was the ultimate “mainstreamer” who wrestled with many of the same strategic and tactical problems (the public relations embarrassment of the black fringe) that we have to deal with today.

There is a story here that hasn’t been told anywhere else: how there was never a “Civil Rights Movement,” but instead a single “black empowerment movement” among African-Americans which had always existed, which still exists to this day, and which was given a “mainstreamer” makeover in the 1940s.

In the wake of MLK, the pioneers of the Civil Rights Movement like Comrade Lovett Fort-Whiteman were forgotten, as were its deep roots in communism.

What is Black Run America (BRA), and how did we get to this stage? Is this part of a larger struggle, like class warfare or post-Cold War re-organizing?

Black Run America (BRA) is the period of American history which we are now living through.

Historians have names for every other distinct period of American history: Colonial America, the American Revolution, the Early National Period, the Antebellum Era, the Civil War, Reconstruction, the Gilded Age, the Wild West, Jim Crow America, the Roaring Twenties, the Great Depression, the Second World War, the Civil Rights Movement, etc.

Most Americans intuitively sense that the 1960s was a watershed decade that represented a historical rupture with the past and was the beginning of a new society that was created in those years and which has been evolving for about fifty years now.

For the longest time, we didn’t have a name for the system of race relations we now live under today, even though we knew the most intricate details of its racial etiquette.

It is Jim Crow in reverse: whereas Jim Crow America and its elaborate system of segregation was the physical incarnation of the doctrine of “white supremacy,” Black Run America (BRA) is America run for the benefit of black people.

This is not to say that black people necessarily control America. Instead, it means that black people are holy beings who are at the top of BRA’s racial pecking order, and that BRA’s rulers see the systematic promotion of black people as the highest moral principle of our society, and will do almost anything to promote black people because of their exalted position in our racial hierarchy.

BRA is now in full blossom all around you: it can be seen in the MLK federal holiday, the relentless promotion of “diversity,” affirmative action, the Obama presidency, every city having a street named after MLK, “civil rights museums” which are like Medieval shrines to the faithful, black fictional images in Hollywood, racial double standards, etc.

Black Run America was formally created in 1965 when Congress passed the Voting Rights Act and the Immigration Act of 1965 at the peak of the “Civil Rights Movement.”

The origins of Black Run America are too complex to briefly describe here. It will suffice to say that conflict among Whites was one of the leading causes.

The Western Allies waged a holy war against Nazi Germany in the name of liberalism. After the war, the West was hoisted on its own petard by the victorious Soviet Union, and forced to live up to its own rhetoric about race and colonialism.

The Soviets correctly saw racial diversity as America’s greatest weakness. The American negro was a potential fifth column in the United States.

The fear among American policymakers that the American negro could be infected with the siren song of communism and that Jim Crow was an albatross for American foreign policy provided the original impetus behind the creation of this system.

Later, BRA came to be seen as a holy moral ideal after it had accumulated its own mythology, even though men like President Kennedy had originally seen the Civil Rights Movement as annoying distraction to their agenda….


About Hunter Wallace 12387 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent


  1. An off the cuff comment on “mainstreamism” vs. “vanguardism”-

    There were two different white populations that needed to be dealt with- northern and southern. Southerners had lived with blacks for centuries. They knew them well, and how to manage them. And Southerners were not afraid of blacks. Southerners couldn’t be fooled, so all that was to be done was make a straightforward transfer of privilege from whites to blacks. (No power, whatsoever, was transferred from anybody; all power remained where it had always been, in the hands of federal judges who whatever their actual ancestry and geography were philosophically and tempermentally New York/New England Federalists.) “Mainstreamism” was a good tool for doing this.

    Northerners on the other hand had little familiarity with blacks, particularly the more recent immigrants. They found these strange creatures confusing and frightening. Northern whites were more inclined to react explosively to blacks, but they were also more tightly controlled by their political system. Terrorizing them into submission was both possible and necessary, so “vanguardism” became the tool in the North.

  2. For whatever it’s worth, after reading that latest teaser exerpt, I sent Covington a message and tried to convince him to change the name of the president in his upcoming book. No response, though…

  3. Maybe.

    In Louisiana and South Carolina, Bobby Jindal and Nikki Haley signed new E-Verify laws this year. They have done more about the problem than some of the worthless White governors in those states that come to mind.

  4. Chris says:
    July 17, 2011 at 1:00 am
    For whatever it’s worth, after reading that latest teaser exerpt, I sent Covington a message and tried to convince him to change the name of the president in his upcoming book. No response, though…

    JR replies.

    I understand your point of view. I also have tried to get Mr. Covington to change the name of the Neo Con, Southern US President in his next novel. I sent a solid donation and suggested he target Lindsey Graham poofter RINO Senator from South Carolina. I suggested a name of

    Lindsey Wallace

    Well, here’s hoping to break out of the 2% cult.

  5. Here’s my answer to HAC and Greg Johnson. Do you remember those debates about working within the system?

    Bill Clinton likens GOP effort to Jim Crow laws

    Supreme Court Upholds Arizona E-Verify

    Supreme Court Voids Ruling Against Hazleton’s Immigration Law

    SPLC Vows to Challenge Racist Alabama Immigration Law

    Alabama, Where Intolerance is King

    Alabama Outdoes Arizona with Racist Immigration Law

    Hispanics Flee Alabama’s Immigration Law

    An Alabamian as Polarizing as the Issues

    Civil rights groups sue challenging Alabama anti-illegal immigrant law

    Georgia Gives Police Added Power to Seek Out Illegal Immigrants

    SC gov signs illegal immigration police checks law

    Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal signs illegal-immigrant hiring bills

    Florida’s Gov. Scott Signs E-Verify Executive Order

    Tennessee Governor signs E-Verify legislation to ensure new hires are in the state legally

    North Carolina governor signs law to check citizenship

    Va. agencies to use E-Verify by June

  6. Here is their rebuttal:

    (1) $10,000 for Hyperborean wizards from Atlantis who in the future of the Northwest Republic possess the ability to telepathically communicate with animals.

    (2) In Montana, the Northwest Volunteer Army, which is composed exclusively of Harold’s sockpuppets, has inflicted a crushing military defeat upon the United States, which forces President Hunter Wallace to negotiate with Harold, lest he conquer any more territory.

  7. I follow your blog and your rhetoric is getting better and more polished all the time. A criticism I sometimes read here is that you are not sufficiently focused on the JQ. I apologize if you already replied in this manner, but you should state that it is better to have a hundred blogs that each are focused on a separate issue associated with the race-replacement multicult federal leviathan than a hundred blogs that are exactly the same. That’s not how YKW operate – they attack on all fronts at all times but in a seemingly uncoordinated manner.

    I also had an idea about how to attack the enemy with their own rhetoric and I thought I would throw it out to those that follow your blog. How does this sound – we attempt to co-opt the term “diversity” in this manner: “DIVERSITY OF OPINION – THE ORIGINAL AMERICAN DIVERSITY”. Treat it like a trademark, advertising or political slogan, and create a catchy, red white and blue logo. Perhaps white-interest blogs could be encouraged to incorporate it in their banner in some way – to create a “brand”.

    Of course, the purpose of the logo/meme is to emphasize that the “new” diversity tolerates everything EXCEPT diversity of opinion and holds up the diversity/multicult bolsheviks for the dishonest hypocrites they are. Importantly, it also emphasizes that the “new” diversity seeks to outlaw the old, original diversity and is therefore “un-american”. Further, this meme can be used against the diversity/multicult bolsheviks in a very easy manner – when they attempt to label something as, for example, racist – the white-interested arguer can reflexively reply – “I have a diverse opinion from yours and since all diversity is good, just because you don’t agree with it doesn’t make me a racist”.

  8. “since all diversity is good” How about just saying “in YOUR OPINION I am a racist. You ONLY say that because I am white? Diversity and multiculteral means there should be fewer white people where ever they live. They are just cover terms for GENOCIDE.

  9. Dave – I ask a number of questions, when confronted with the “You’re a racist/diversity is our strength!” canards.

    I will mainly ask “why”, and then insist – INSIST – on a practical reply. Not ideology – I keep corralling my opponent into a tight corner – “Why? Tell me the practical benefits of “diversity” aka multi-racialism. Thanks.

    The Racial Uteopiants NEVER have an answer. They will spout nonsensical “moral” arguments. I demansd verifiable NUMBERS. How are the crime rates, in America 2011, vs. America 1961? How about literacy rates? Employement figures? Home ownership? Savings rates? How is our infrastructure doing? Anf then there. the “school” systems…

    They NEVER know the answers. I do. I allow THEM to shoot their own arguments down – as I correct their erroneous programming.

    I get a range of reactions – but again – so what? I know my facts – they don’t know a thing – and I tell them to not trust my info – look it up yourself. Go ahead. Look up he hard data yourself. You’ll get al kinds of ideological tripe – but keep leading your oppnents to the hard date. Keep the sound bites short – this is NOT about PROVIDING data , orr rational arguments – it’s a DEMONSTRATION that YOU are right – they are WRONG. Remember this fundamental postion at all times. This must motivate everything you say and do.

    You are right. Antis are WRONG. I must run – but it’s ALL about attacking their false morality.

    I DO NOT EVER DEFEND. I do not defend my position. The millisecond we defend “racism” – we lose. We must attack. Attack their delusions.

  10. Denise Never just call them antis. Always call them ANTI-WHITES. It’s what they are. Let them try and defend that.

  11. I know all the arguments, and I know the goal is race replacement. What I am suggesting is that we attack their rhetoric, argue on their turf, and never let the argument be reduced to “you’re a racist”. I think the words and approach they choose are ripe for attack.

    For instance, lets look at the other word “multiculturalism”. The colonies as originally founded WERE multicultural, and several states developed having a distinct non-anglo culture (e.g., Louisiana) . We don’t have a problem with “multicultural” per se, it would be anti-american. The problem is the federal government won’t let white people have their own culture/mores/distinct living spaces any more and are trying to put a one-size fits all straightjacket on us.

    When you examine the machinations of the federal government, all their efforts are directed at destroying white multicultural enclaves (e.g., somalis in Maine). Take them at their word – ok, so you are for multiculturalism – why then are you always trying to subvert white culture and white enclaves? Americans hate hypocrites.

  12. Only one race is to be replaced, permanently. Take them at their word, but insist on calling it what it is. GENOCIDE! What is being pushed, is worse than mere hypocricy.

  13. Is it possible to have one of the national polling companies ask white americans: if 1/2 the U.S. (say the N.W. & S.E.) was practically 100% white, and the other 1/2 (N.E. & S.W.) was multi-racial with a 20% white population; would they rather live in all white country or multi-racial country, or ‘not sure’? then ask if they feel a) strongly or b) somewhat strongly. Then ask orientals if they’d rather be a small minority in all white country (other than themselves) or a small minority in a multi-racial country whereby the whites are only 20%. Since this is basically where we are heading under the status quo, it’d be good if presidential candidates knew where apprx 70% of the population stands. I’m pretty sure they’v asked hypothetical question before, no?

Comments are closed.