Kamala Trump
Verified User
http://www.donmeh-west.com/genseed2.shtml
"And those sheep were all white and their wool was abundant and clean. And all that had been destroyed and dispersed . . . . assembled in that House, and the Lord of the sheep rejoiced with great joy because they were all good and had returned to His House." -- (1 Enoch 91:32)
In 1986 I published a monograph titled The Lost Sheep of Israel (Institute for Noahite Education: Monographs in Psychology and Religion Number 11) which has long since been out of print, except for one or two copies in my own library and whatever ones may be floating around in the libraries of other people. In it I describe a small, empirical study designed to explore, in a quantitative way, using the techniques of experimental psychology, whether the "mixed multitude" described in ancient Kabbalah (Zohar 1:24b-25b).-- that is, "Gentiles who are, without knowing it, really Jews" and "Jews who are, without knowing it, really Gentiles" -- actually exists as alleged.
Now, this was a small exploratory study and by no means conclusive. But, as we shall see from the rather remarkable results reported later in this lecture, they were highly consistent with the DNA "genetic markers" later discovered by biological science to set Jews apart from Non-Jews as a distinct racial group and not merely a religious collective. The methods I employed, using a standardized questionnaire, were really quite simple and I encourage other social scientists to duplicate them to determine whether the results I'll report here hold up under continued investigation.
Methods
Using a standardized questionnaire a small group of students at the Center for Transpersonal Studies were divided into five heuristic groups:
Christian Gentiles
Unaffiliated Gentiles
Judaizing Gentiles (i.e., Gentiles predisposed to becoming Jews)
Self-Accepting Jews
Disaffected Jews (i.e., Jews who rejected being Jews)
These five groups were asked to match two forms of the Hebrew alphabet -- the standard Chaldean letters and the much-earlier Moabite script -- with each other solely on the basis of their intuitive hunches. Both alphabets (and particularly the Moabite letters) were foreign to all the respondents; therefore, and, most importantly, there was no rational reason for one group to score higher than another on this seemingly arbitrary matching task -- any significant differences among them could only be accounted for by unconscious predispositions (or, if you will, genetically recessive traits), rather than by conscious determiners.
Finally, the quantitative results of this study -- i.e., the average number of correct "hits" in the matching task from one group to another -- were subjected to standard statistical tests to determine if they were statistically significant. Once again, the results reported next are intended to be suggestive rather than "conclusive" and, as I said earlier, other social scientists are encouraged to replicate our study and, possibly, its results.
Quantitative Results
The Table below shows the average number of "hits" (correct matches between the two Hebrew alphabets) in our five research groups and the levels of statistical significance of their differences.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AVERAGE
CORRECT HITS*
Gentiles
Christians
Unaffiliated
Judaizing
45.0
48.1
54.2**
Jews
Self-Accepting
Disaffected
56.2
47.6***
* Scores for correct hits were normalized to a distribution ranging from 0 to 100, with 50 as the norm.
** Significantly greater than Groups 1, 3, and 5 at or beyond the .05 level of statistical confidence
*** Statistically equal to Group 2, but less than Groups 3 and 4 at the .05 level of statistical confidence
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, notice that, statistically, the self-described "Judaizing Gentiles" (those who felt drawn to Judaism) were identical to the "Self-Accepting Jews" but different than their Gentile counterparts -- while the "Disaffected Jews" were less like other Jews and more like Gentiles. This strongly suggests that some intuitive, unconscious factor -- possibly the "Jewish Gene" recently discovered by genetic science -- was responsible for causing these groups to be significantly similar and different from each other in the arbitrary task of matching two forms of Hebrew alphabet, a task on which there should have been no differences among them unless such a factor had been operating.
That is, it's entirely possible that the reason some "Gentiles" were able to match the two Hebrew alphabets at the same level of accuracy as some Jews (and more accurately than other Gentiles) was because they had the "Jewish Gene" in its recessive condition, which predisposed them to an intuitive archetypal knowledge of the two ancient Hebrew alphabets -- while the "disaffected" Jews (those who overtly denied their "Jewisness") more closely resembled Non-Judaizing Gentiles because they both lacked the "Jewish Gene," even though the former subjects were born among the Jews.
"And those sheep were all white and their wool was abundant and clean. And all that had been destroyed and dispersed . . . . assembled in that House, and the Lord of the sheep rejoiced with great joy because they were all good and had returned to His House." -- (1 Enoch 91:32)
In 1986 I published a monograph titled The Lost Sheep of Israel (Institute for Noahite Education: Monographs in Psychology and Religion Number 11) which has long since been out of print, except for one or two copies in my own library and whatever ones may be floating around in the libraries of other people. In it I describe a small, empirical study designed to explore, in a quantitative way, using the techniques of experimental psychology, whether the "mixed multitude" described in ancient Kabbalah (Zohar 1:24b-25b).-- that is, "Gentiles who are, without knowing it, really Jews" and "Jews who are, without knowing it, really Gentiles" -- actually exists as alleged.
Now, this was a small exploratory study and by no means conclusive. But, as we shall see from the rather remarkable results reported later in this lecture, they were highly consistent with the DNA "genetic markers" later discovered by biological science to set Jews apart from Non-Jews as a distinct racial group and not merely a religious collective. The methods I employed, using a standardized questionnaire, were really quite simple and I encourage other social scientists to duplicate them to determine whether the results I'll report here hold up under continued investigation.
Methods
Using a standardized questionnaire a small group of students at the Center for Transpersonal Studies were divided into five heuristic groups:
Christian Gentiles
Unaffiliated Gentiles
Judaizing Gentiles (i.e., Gentiles predisposed to becoming Jews)
Self-Accepting Jews
Disaffected Jews (i.e., Jews who rejected being Jews)
These five groups were asked to match two forms of the Hebrew alphabet -- the standard Chaldean letters and the much-earlier Moabite script -- with each other solely on the basis of their intuitive hunches. Both alphabets (and particularly the Moabite letters) were foreign to all the respondents; therefore, and, most importantly, there was no rational reason for one group to score higher than another on this seemingly arbitrary matching task -- any significant differences among them could only be accounted for by unconscious predispositions (or, if you will, genetically recessive traits), rather than by conscious determiners.
Finally, the quantitative results of this study -- i.e., the average number of correct "hits" in the matching task from one group to another -- were subjected to standard statistical tests to determine if they were statistically significant. Once again, the results reported next are intended to be suggestive rather than "conclusive" and, as I said earlier, other social scientists are encouraged to replicate our study and, possibly, its results.
Quantitative Results
The Table below shows the average number of "hits" (correct matches between the two Hebrew alphabets) in our five research groups and the levels of statistical significance of their differences.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AVERAGE
CORRECT HITS*
Gentiles
Christians
Unaffiliated
Judaizing
45.0
48.1
54.2**
Jews
Self-Accepting
Disaffected
56.2
47.6***
* Scores for correct hits were normalized to a distribution ranging from 0 to 100, with 50 as the norm.
** Significantly greater than Groups 1, 3, and 5 at or beyond the .05 level of statistical confidence
*** Statistically equal to Group 2, but less than Groups 3 and 4 at the .05 level of statistical confidence
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, notice that, statistically, the self-described "Judaizing Gentiles" (those who felt drawn to Judaism) were identical to the "Self-Accepting Jews" but different than their Gentile counterparts -- while the "Disaffected Jews" were less like other Jews and more like Gentiles. This strongly suggests that some intuitive, unconscious factor -- possibly the "Jewish Gene" recently discovered by genetic science -- was responsible for causing these groups to be significantly similar and different from each other in the arbitrary task of matching two forms of Hebrew alphabet, a task on which there should have been no differences among them unless such a factor had been operating.
That is, it's entirely possible that the reason some "Gentiles" were able to match the two Hebrew alphabets at the same level of accuracy as some Jews (and more accurately than other Gentiles) was because they had the "Jewish Gene" in its recessive condition, which predisposed them to an intuitive archetypal knowledge of the two ancient Hebrew alphabets -- while the "disaffected" Jews (those who overtly denied their "Jewisness") more closely resembled Non-Judaizing Gentiles because they both lacked the "Jewish Gene," even though the former subjects were born among the Jews.