The Chosen Bride
A simple analysis of the term “The Chosen,” as a description of Jews, by itself, is suggestive of the Bride Gathering Cult. This becomes true when we understand, as this book discusses, that Jewry and “God” are synonymous in the Jewish worldview. Hence to be chosen by “God” is to be selected by Jewry. In other words, the phrase suggests genetic incorporation.
We find this suggested for example in Samuel book 1 where the “King-Maker” Samuel indicates the tall and handsome Saul as one “Yahweh has chosen?” Yet Saul, descended of Benjamin, is an Aryan figure as this study explicates. Eventually the crafty Samuel will position the Jewish David as a son-in-law and heir to Saul’s throne. Hence ultimately Saul’s daughter the Aryan Michal is “Chosen.”
This fits well with notions, reviewed in this study, that Christ, another symbol of Jewry, is husband of the Church, a symbol ultimately of an Aryan flock. Likewise it fits the Jewish notion that God is husband of Israel. Again, as this book reviews, the Biblical concept of “Israel” is a symbol of a Jewish led Aryan people at least so far as they remain connected to “Judea.” Thus the term “The Chosen” has “eugenic” connotations at least from a Semitic Bride Gathering perspective which experiences a short term “quickening” or genetic amelioration from such a “choosing.”
The Matrilineal Ruse
The second notion that is destroyed by the JEM and our genetic understanding of Jews is this stupid myth that Judaism is continued not merely primarily but only through the matrilineal line. Firstly, the idea of a matrilineal Judaism by itself destroys any notion of a sincere effort toward endogamy on the part of Jews.
Granted, a Jewish man with an Aryan wife, who may have been cuckolded, can’t be certain beyond a shadow of a doubt that the child he raises is biologically a Jew. On the other hand, a Jewish mother necessarily produces a child that is at least “half-Jewish.” Thus from this perspective, the clause makes sense.
Ostensibly, as well, this notion is in place to encourage Jewish men toward Jewish wives so that they are given Jewish children. Yet if Judaism as a Religion earnestly seeks the endogamy of Jews, desiring only stock drawn from within their race, why have such a clause at all, particularly while living “precariously” among other peoples?
Indeed, if anything the clause seems permission for Jewish women to bear children by Aryan men or to, strangely, forgive racial cuckoldry when extramarital relations between Aryan men and Jewish women occur. We are lead to the question: if Jews had any genuine instinct toward endogamy, why wouldn’t they declare Judaism may appear only when both parents are of the relevant race, as is the case with Aryans?
It is irrelevant that some more orthodox or “truly Jewish” sects insist on Jewishness in both parents. Indeed, that the matrilineal requirement persists as a well-known notion at all in Judaism, by itself, shows the absolute insincerity of Jewish endogamy. In fact, the idea that Jewishness is matrilineal is debunked in the modern setting almost on the very premise of “Jewish surnames” which, as nearly all surnames, are patrilineal. Were Jewish matrilineality a meaningful phenomena it would seem the world would abound in Jews with Irish, English and Scottish names. In such a scenario last names would provide nary the slightest clue to ethnic origin. Yet we know this not to be the case.
Instead, we see everywhere that when a man has a Jewish father nearly in every case he identifies as Jewish. Though perhaps Madison Grant says it best from both their perspective and ours: “the cross between [any European] and a Jew is a Jew.” But it makes simple sense, the Aryan gene is clearly recessive, while the non-white gene, in every case, dominant.
It’s been remarked by Jewish commenters that intertribal marriage benefits Jewish interests because it is a way of forming important, even “strategic” alliances among non-Jews. Implied here is the idea that it is one means of levering Aryans to act on the behalf of or in servitude to Jews. Doubtless this is true.
However, such an understanding tends to downplay the protean flexibility of Judaism whereby such marriages perhaps as often result in the continuance of Judaism, even if, during decadent periods, the tendency for Jews born of such unions is to identify more readily with amicable native peoples. Yet as conditions invariably become more “anti-Semitic” we can expect an identification with Judaism to heighten if not always demonstratively toward out-groups.
Indeed, the esoteric concept of the “pintele yid” or the “little Jew within the Jew” becomes important here. This is understood in Jewish Esotericism as the “immutable core of a Jew” who, however apparently assimilated, ultimately identifies as a Jew. This assimilation, as genetics studies show, can be a “blood assimilation.”
Likewise such “half-Jews” are readily accepted by Jewry if subtly or unsubtly accorded a lesser status to “purer Jews.” This is particularly true during periods perceived as difficult, when the status of being a Jew is lowered and allies are sought from all quarters. Here, again, we understand “pure Jew” as a kind of oxymoron even if it is true that some segments of Jewry have developed for a long period endogenously. They are, even in their origin, as the JEM concedes, an admixed if carefully cultivated people.
More generally Judaism tends to keep the newly “half-Jewish” generations close to the fold through familial relations for strategic reasons or otherwise. Thus subsequent generation may “renew” their Jewishness and so forth and so on, thereby instinctively, “Religiously” preserving a careful alchemy of lusty, invigorated Semitic ambition and select, “improving” Aryan genes. Hence what appears in one generation as a Jewish genetic dilution is also a “gene-gathering” from an Aryan host.
In other words, the Vine of Judah may subsist on the Aryan Tree for generations so long as their numbers or influence are not such that the Tree itself is overburdened by the loss of resource. Here the Sun and the Tree, both symbols of the Aryan, represent the two sexes of the Aryan race, with the Jewish vine, through sexual competition, growing to block the tree’s leaves from the rays. The JEM uses these precise metaphors.
Female Adaptability as argument against Jews as Matrilineal
The adaptability and assimilability of women versus men, in their ability to more easily move between classes of men, is also a factor here in debunking the absurd notion that Jew’s are matrilineal. Naturally this applies as readily to culture, race and ethnicity.
Indeed, this is strikingly evident in the tragic cases of the abducted Anglo-Saxon American settler woman, rapidly and even eagerly taking on the customs and behaviors of the capturing Native American tribe. It is evident today in the present day “whigger” female, whose hairstyles, hilariously, ape black women aping white women. Indeed, women are the more “fashion conscious” sex. This means more closely following trends and emulating the manner and appearance of other “in-group” members, adopted or otherwise.
Conformance is a survival trait of women, whereas resistance and assertion often a survival trait of men. The defiant and assertive man frequently wins success and its attendant breeding rights at least in healthy conditions or at least to the extent he can succeed. In every case, resistance and assertion is, likewise, a survival trait of races. In this manner race is masculine and man “racist.”
Jews, of course, form no exception to these rules. Their exception comes in approach which is about pretending and convincing others that “normal rules don’t apply.” To the extent they can convince Aryan competitors of such nonsense, which they, like all non-whites, on a deep cultural, biological and instinctive level are unable to believe or practice themselves, they gain an advantage.
Indeed, men as a group always have a greater identification with race and ancestral identity than women. This doubtlessly arises from the simple and ancient biological need for men to feel superior to other tribes of men so as to safeguard their own women, take the women of other tribes or both.
We see this clearly in Jews whom brim with excessive pride and fealty when it comes to figures like Einstein, Freud, Marx, Woody Allen and even figures as ostensibly controversial and disparate as Benjamin Netanyahu and Noam Chomsky. Kevin MacDonald, for example, describes the quasi-religious role such leaders form vis-à-vis other Jews who venerate them as de facto Rabbis. This pride is in fact the premise of their identity. Yahweh, Judah, David, Bacchus and Saturn are male Gods.
Men are obliged to believe they are descended from superior men, whilst women, to the extent they remain relatively healthy, are interested only that they are impregnated by superior and providing men endowed, whether innately or materially, by whatever prevails in their time as the gifts and requisites for prosperity, security or, simply, lineal continuance. Indeed, are we to believe the most ethnocentric men presently on earth have no interest in transmitting their identity to their sons and daughters, while Jewish women, however carefully indoctrinated by these same men, are more naturally vigorous in this regard? No one believes this.
 Samuel Book 1 10:24
 Madison Grant, The Passing of the Great Race (New York: Charles Scribner’s Son), 1916, p. 18