Mississippi church says "no" to black wedding

When I first read the story, about church members in Mississippi intimidating their pastor into refusing to marry a black couple in their church, I thought to myself that either we’re not being told the entire story or it’s a rather silly position to take – especially considering that the church is already mixed race. If it has black members, how can it refuse to allow them to marry in the church?
But, upon further reflection, I realized that the people who (anonymously) threatened their pastor probably never gave their consent for the church to be mixed in the first place; they probably wished it had remained entirely white. Blacks were most likely forced upon them – as is so often the case. I doubt that those church members had a problem with the couple itself; they were regulars (though not actual members) at the church. But a black wedding brings black family and guests. There is no way to guarantee that only upstanding family-members and friends will attend the wedding. There is no way to guarantee that church property will not be damaged, that pews won’t be vandalized, that windows won’t be broken. But it is guaranteed that the young black male guests will pursue white female church members should they have any contact.
No, the church members are not being racist at all. They are not claiming that whites are superior to blacks, or that race is the primary determiner of human traits. Rather, they are asserting their right to freedom of association. The right to be left alone and to determine one’s own destiny. They are saying “no” to black colonialism and to the dictates of Black-Run-America (BRA). In short, they are rejecting slavery.

This entry was posted in Africa and blacks, politics and attitudes of the pro-white movements. Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to Mississippi church says "no" to black wedding

  1. Zimriel says:

    Christianity has a problem that Judaism does not have: Christianity asserts racial equality before the Lord right there in the New Testament. Christians can discriminate against Jews (and Muslims and whatever) and still be Christian. When Christians discriminate against black Christians they are running against Saint Paul in Galatians.
    I expect you are right that these parishioners were being practical. Also their anonymity is telling – they know that their practical concerns are, to use the Christian cant, “worldly”.
    So the issue isn’t whether they’re racist (they are) or whether they’re in the moral wrong (maybe not); but whether they’re still Christian.

    • Apopkian says:

      They can always establish rules for the church that blacks are not capable of following. Like no shouting and dancing or no purple suits.

  2. Jehu says:

    Few Christians in 1950, 1900, 1850, 1700, 1500, 1000, or 500 would have much issue with what this church did. Were they still Christians?
    I’m inclined to think their action is at worst venial, in the Catholic parlance.
    I don’t have much patience for positions that doing X makes you not a Christian when the overwhelming majority of the members of the communion of the saints historically did X without making many bones about it.

  3. curious cousin says:

    Ok, I’ll bite. Why do most Jews reject being White and instead insist on a narrower ethnic definition? Why engage in a bitter struggle for survival with us when Jews only stand to lose by doing so. Is it really better to champion the cause of the aboriginee over someone else’s who is basically a cousin? Many of these Jews do not even remain religiously Jewish, so religious tensions cannot be the issue. I don’t see the end-game here. Is it just about keeping the wealth? Would a small group really destroy Western civilization in order to secure a slightly better standard of living for its children?

    • I think most leftist anti-White Jews are irreligious, but I can’t prove it. It’d be hard to gain hard evidence on that particular question, but there might be some decent proxies. Of people who keep strictly kosher and would never consider marrying a goy, what fraction favor mass immigration? Probably fewer than one in four, but again, that’s a from-the-hip guess.

    • Apopkian says:

      Do you think Jews reject being white? Or are you saying that they want to be a separate subset of whites. Since Jews are different it would be natural to identify themselves as different.
      I think the problem that Jews are hostile and suspicious of traditional whites, not that they recognize differences. This might be entirely genetic. They’ve been bred to attach themselves to the most powerful factions of society for their safety. Which in the western world is leftism.
      I’ve met too many otherwise intelligent Jews incapable of rational thought when it comes to politics to believe that it is a conspiracy.

      • Stealth says:

        I don’t think most currently living Jews have a problem with white gentiles. It wouldn’t surprise me at all to find out that many of the older ones who were involved in the anti-white movements of the mid-twentieth century actually harbor deep regrets about their participation. I doubt they would intermarry with gentiles so often if they really hated us.
        There are some, though. The top brass of the ADL and the SPLC are certainly villains we could do without.

  4. Zimriel says:

    “Ok, I’ll bite. Why do most Jews reject being White and instead insist on a narrower ethnic definition? Why engage in a bitter struggle for survival with us when Jews only stand to lose by doing so.”
    These are separate questions.
    Jews see “White” as you do – as European aboriginals who maintain a European cultural tradition. *Ashkenazi* Jews have shared in that tradition, yes. But the Mizrahis and Falashas are NOT in that tradition – not even close, in the latter case – and the Sephardim span between the European and Islamic traditions. Also if we’re going to get all racial (I’ve been trying not to be), Ashkenazis are only part European (and Khazar); they are also Semites, the Sephardim and Falashas more so and the Mizrahis are almost COMPLETELY Semites, one way or another.
    So to be pan-Jewish, according to *their* scriptures, the Jews must keep the European tradition to one side – Jews shared in it but it is not *theirs* – and the Jews must embrace instead at least the Mizrahis and Sephardim. The Jews have had to learn to be Semites again.
    Consider this. A Jew who insists that he not be “white”, can then choose whether or not to be *pro* white. Much like I might not be, say, Chinese but I can choose to what extent I will appreciate or attack Chinese culture.
    I am grateful for those Jews who like whites, like our host here, and I dislike those arrogant ones who “repair the world” without our say-so.

    • Curious cousin says:

      Ashkenazi Jews are the only ones that matter. When I am talking about the “Jews who control the media,” I don’t mean some brown fellow from Jordan.
      It is a problem that they maintain a separate cuktural identity? They live in the same geographical region and compete for the same resources, so obviously any differences will lead to “suspicion and hostility”. This is commmonly known as “anti-Semitism”. And I believe this is a problem.

    • Stealth says:

      “….I dislike those arrogant ones who “repair the world” without our say-so.”
      I think modern day Ashkenazi Jews that support anti-white causes are in many cases acting as part of a larger division of white people whose lives revolve around defeating the prole/redneck menace. It brings to mind an episode of Real Time during which I heard Alec Baldwin blast “these fucking rednecks” with very intense anger and disgust.
      Mass immigration serves to swell the ranks of Democratic party voters so that working/middle-class and poor whites simply have no power at the ballot box. After prole whites have been overwhelmed numerically, it is reasoned, these upper and upper-middle class whites will be in charge and can run things the way they see fit. The SWPL’s are in for a rude awakening, however. The same demographic trends that will send the Republican party into the dustbin of history will, shortly after, make it VERY difficult (to say the least) for white liberals to become nominated as Democratic party candidates in the primaries.
      They won’t be so enthusiastic about liberalism forever.

      • The odd things about what you’re describing (accurately), is that it reveals that the establishment left has more or less the same strategy to rule as Charles Manson’s group. Inspire racial conflict to disempower whites, and then rule the grateful non-whites who love you for it.

    • Janon says:

      As someone of partial Jewish ancestry, you must know that quite a lot of Ashkenazim are not religious and wouldn’t pay any attention to a scriptural requirement to embrace Sephardim and Mizrahim. They do so because of perceived ethnic and cultural ties. As you note, recent population genetic studies have revealed a European (not so much Khazar) ancestral component among Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews, but knowledge of it hasn’t had time to filter into the cultural and ethnic consciousness of most Jews. They see themselves as mostly pure descendants of the ancient Jews and therefore as completely Semitic or nearly so.

      • jewamongyou says:

        I don’t think such knowledge will ever “filter into” Jewish society. For religious Jews, such knowledge is religiously inconvenient. For secular Israelis, such knowledge is politically inconvenient.

  5. Stealth says:

    They should simply have found a new church. Any sort of incident like this is going to be national news, making us look bad. Is marrying a black couple in a mixed church really all that bad, anyway? I know of a mixed church, an independent outfit near my house. It’s said that white families remain involved right up until black teenage boys start asking out their daughters. I always wondered why anyone would want to go to such a church if they’re reluctant to become socially involved with black people.

  6. sabril says:

    I agree there’s probably more to the story; the most likely explanation is that the congregants did not want a flood of unruly, destructive people ruining what would otherwise be a peaceful Sunday morning.
    I think John Derbyshire had a very insightful point about blacks: Only about 5% are hateful and destructive, and perhaps another 10% have little or no regard for the rights of other people. But at the same time, the vast majority of the remainder will automatically side with blacks in any controversy or conflict between blacks and whites. The upshot is that if 50 or 100 black family members of the bride and groom show up at the church, there is a very good chance there will be problems.
    Basically any venue where a large number of blacks are concentrated is problematic for whites. Unpleasant at best and dangerous at worst.

  7. Tulio says:

    Not even sure why I’m bothering to reply or even browse this blog(which I rarely do). I just find the racist mindset to be morbidly intriguing.
    If you guys really think some disaster was imminent due to a black wedding, (We’re talking a WEDDING, not a hip-hop concert, not a political rally, a WEDDING) you are insane and your hatred of black people has reached the point of pathological.
    I am not a religious man, but for those that do attend this church or claim to be “Christian,” whatever that even means anymore, I would love to see a biblical passage that supports this act of discrimination.
    Regardless, I take satisfaction in knowing that such views represent a fringe element of society that is rapidly dying out, and the fact that this was even a news story in the first place is evidence of that. Some pockets of the country are so culturally isolated that they are slow to change, but they WILL change eventually. They’ll have no choice. The world is becoming smaller and more interconnected. Racists such as these have very few rocks left to hide under. 100 years ago, such a church would’ve been normative, these days it is a source of ridicule.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *