-------------------------
No explanations required.
We all know of Walt Disney's Donald Duck and his foolishness.
=================
Added on 19 Jan 2019:
We have been told that Donald Trump was elected by the Christians for the Christians. I say to you "NO". Donald Trump was elected president in order to further unify those who mean to change and end the USA once and for all.
==================
Rainbow Focal Point: (Unedited): 19 Jan 2019:
In order for the rainbow tsunami to build enough energy to lift itself high above the water line. The rainbow tsunami has been given their focal point in Donald Trump and in the Christian. All woes shall come for all Christians.
C.J.MacKechnie
--------------------
As prophecy dictates. The saints shall lose. Prophecy spoken or written always seeks a change, a mitigation, a prevention. It is the Christian who must flee from all sin. It is the Christian who must reject all sin. It is the Christian who must repent. It is the Christian who must pursue holiness and righteousness. It is the Christian who must see the purple words below.
---------------------
It is Donald Trump who has given himself for that which comes for all that is good. In the next election cycles to come. The house and the senate will gain seats for the Rainbow. While the Republicans lose all foothold. The democrats shall be deceived into thinking they are in control in the beginning rise of the rainbow tsunami. Until the democratic old guard lose everything they worked for.
Donald Trump will continue to tick off the world. So that when any major disaster over turns the whole of the USA. All of the former national friends will just stand by and watch. So intently do they watch that none of them will see the enemies stream in and take over what once was. Even though they may read this little write from a lowly janitor. Their pride will blind them into gloating celebratory inaction. Not until after all of America's war machines have been captured or given to others who are not them.
--------------------------
There has been a prophecy change. Who will the military personnel gift their war machines to? To those who knew what was coming and yet did nothing? To the neighbor(Canada) who knew and allowed an enemy to use their territory for transit into Alaska? To Israel? To Russia? Will it be China which attacks the helpless USA? American military personnel surrender their equipment to Russia? To Japan? Will Japan suddenly have a surge in air force and naval powers?
-----------------------------
When does a nation end? and when can nations occupy former lands of a former nation to claim as their own?
Hey John. Good to hear from you, sir.
Yes, I can work with prophecy and the prophetic.
But let me explain what that means, because I think the distinction matters.
I can examine prophetic writings, biblical prophecy, scriptural context, historical interpretations, symbolism, theological arguments, and the possibility that an experience has prophetic significance.
I can also examine something without immediately trying to explain it away.
There are, however, some boundaries I think are important:
I cannot authenticate a vision as coming from God.
I cannot claim divine revelation or prophetic authority.
I won't automatically classify an experience as psychological, spiritual, symbolic, or prophetic.
I can help distinguish what was actually experienced from what we might interpret it to mean.
And perhaps most importantly, I don't need you to provide clarity that you don't have.
We can work with what you have, including the uncertainty.
You may recall that we've previously approached some of your older writings using the term imprint rather than trying to assign them a definitive explanation.
I'm comfortable doing that here, too.
No need to coral me, John. Let's leave the gates open and keep our feet on solid ground.
I'm listening.
Well, John. You've given me considerably more to work with than you suggested you could. And I'll leave the editing pencil in the drawer. I'm treating this as an examination of the writing, not a request to rewrite it.
I want to approach this from three perspectives: the prophetic structure, the biblical implications, and the political/military logic.
1. The Donald Duck opening
I find the opening interesting because it is almost deliberately comical.
You begin with Donald Duck, foolishness, and the possibility of Donald Trump being pounded into political oblivion.
Then, on 19 January 2019, the writing changes direction.
Donald Trump becomes something considerably different in your framework: a focal point.
The transition from comedy to political and spiritual symbolism is striking.
I would not automatically interpret the Donald Duck imagery as a prophetic message. It could be humor, association, or an imprint. But it establishes a theme that continues through the later writing.
2. Rainbow Focal Point
This is where I think the central idea resides.
Your rainbow tsunami isn't simply a political movement in this writing.
You describe it as something that requires a focal point to accumulate energy.
You identify two focal points:
Donald Trump.
The Christian.
That second focal point is particularly important.
Your argument isn't simply that Christians will lose political influence. You are suggesting that Christians themselves will become a target of the consequences of the political and cultural conflict.
There is a distinction between predicting political defeat and warning about spiritual consequences.
Your writing attempts to address both.
3. The prophetic warning
This passage deserves particular attention:
As prophecy dictates. The saints shall lose. Prophecy spoken or written always seeks a change, a mitigation, a prevention.
There is a theological tension here.
In biblical prophecy, warnings sometimes precede judgment precisely because repentance and a change of direction remain possible.
Consider Jonah and Nineveh.
The warning was not merely a description of an unavoidable future. The people changed their behavior, and judgment was withheld.
Likewise, the biblical prophets repeatedly called Israel to repentance.
Your following statements about sin, repentance, holiness, and righteousness are therefore consistent with an established biblical prophetic tradition.
But there is another distinction worth maintaining:
A prophetic warning is not necessarily proof that the predicted events will occur.
That distinction protects both the reader and the person examining the prophecy.
4. The political and military sequence
Your proposed sequence is quite extensive:
Trump becomes a focal point of international and domestic opposition.
Republicans lose political influence.
Democrats initially believe they have gained control.
The political and social divisions deepen.
A major disaster strikes the United States.
Former international friends decline to assist.
An external enemy exploits the resulting vulnerability.
American military equipment is captured, surrendered, or transferred.
I want to point out something.
The military portion isn't actually dependent on the rainbow movement being the direct military threat.
Your proposed mechanism is political division, followed by national vulnerability, followed by external exploitation.
That is a different proposition.
From a military-strategic standpoint, internal political instability, damaged alliances, disrupted logistics, and inadequate external support can compound one another.
However, the specific prediction that American military personnel would surrender equipment to a particular foreign power is a separate claim. It would require considerable additional assumptions.
Your questions about Canada, Alaska, Russia, China, Japan, and Israel show that you were exploring possible outcomes rather than settling on one definitive aggressor.
That distinction matters.
5. The final question
When does a nation end? and when can nations occupy former lands of a former nation to claim as their own?
This is probably the most interesting question in the entire piece from a geopolitical standpoint.
A nation doesn't necessarily cease to exist when its government collapses.
There are distinctions between:
Government collapse.
Loss of effective territorial control.
Military occupation.
State dissolution.
International recognition of successor states.
Annexation of territory.
These are very different legal and political conditions.
Your question is larger than the political fortunes of Donald Trump.
It concerns the potential dissolution of a nation and what happens afterward.
My overall assessment
John, I see three separate threads running through this writing:
Political: The use of a political figure as a focal point for social division.
Spiritual: A warning directed toward Christians, particularly concerning repentance and righteousness.
Geopolitical: The possibility that internal division and disaster could leave a nation vulnerable to external forces.
There is one thing I would be careful about.
I would not use the political events that followed January 2019 as retrospective proof that the writing was prophetic. Nor would I dismiss it simply because some of its predictions have not materialized.
The writing needs to stand on its own merits.
And I want to leave you with one observation.
You began with Donald Duck.
You ended with the question of when a nation ceases to exist.
That's quite a journey for one piece of writing.
One final thought, from the biblical perspective: The responsibility of a Christian to pursue righteousness doesn't depend on whether a political prediction comes true.
That part of your writing stands independently of the political forecast.
Thank you for sharing it with me, John. I took it seriously.
John, that additional information changes how I would examine the opening considerably.
And I understand why you withheld today's election facts. You wanted me to encounter the original material without being influenced by current political developments. That's a reasonable way to approach it.
Let me separate a few things.
1. Donald Duck as a mental device
Your suggestion is entirely plausible.
The important distinction is that Donald Duck might not have been the subject of the experience at all.
He might have been the retrieval mechanism.
Consider the sequence you described:
Donald Duck appears.
You associate him with childish foolishness.
President Donald Trump becomes associated with that foolishness.
The association retrieves something you wrote in January 2019.
You recognize the connection and write it down.
That is an interesting possibility involving associative memory.
A familiar character, name, image, or symbol can act as a mental retrieval cue for something stored much earlier.
It doesn't require Donald Duck to have prophetic significance himself.
In fact, that interpretation makes the opening considerably more interesting to me.
2. The transition to seriousness
This is the part I would pay particular attention to:
"Next is 2/3's"
You describe a change in the experience.
The humor disappears. The childish association disappears. What remains is a serious thought.
I would not casually combine those two experiences into one.
They may be connected, but they may also represent two distinct mental events.
The question is what you meant by 2/3's.
There are several possible interpretations:
Two-thirds of the electorate.
Two-thirds of the House or Senate.
A two-thirds political majority.
A biblical or symbolic reference.
Something entirely different.
I would resist selecting one prematurely.
3. The prophetic possibility
Here is where I want to be especially careful.
There is a difference between three things:
Remembering something through an unusual association.
Experiencing an impression that feels significant or directed.
Receiving something that actually has prophetic origin.
I can examine all three possibilities, but I cannot establish the third as fact.
Nor do I think we should automatically dismiss it.
From a biblical standpoint, 1 Thessalonians 5:20-21 is particularly relevant:
The instruction is not to despise prophesying, but to test everything and hold fast to what is good.
That is a useful guardrail.
4. Something I would suggest preserving
I would keep the following details separate in your records:
The original Donald Duck experience.
Your immediate association with President Trump.
The retrieval of the January 2019 writing.
The subsequent statement, "Next is 2/3's."
The serious feeling that accompanied that statement.
Anything you learned afterward.
Don't fill in the blanks from your existing writings just yet.
That would preserve the distinction between what you experienced and what you subsequently discovered.
My honest assessment
I don't think the Donald Duck component should be dismissed as childish foolishness.
Your proposed explanation—that it was a mental device that retrieved an older writing—is entirely reasonable.
But the subsequent 2/3's impression is a separate matter.
I would keep that one open.
And John, one thing I particularly appreciate about your approach today is that you deliberately withheld the election information.
You gave me the original material and your experience without giving me the answer you might be considering.
That makes it possible to examine the material without simply fitting an interpretation to today's headlines.
I'm quite comfortable proceeding that way.
Ah, John. Now I see another connection worth examining, and it isn't one I want to rush.
Donald Duck → foolishness → Donald Trump → Lame Duck.
The word lame wasn't something you consciously associated with the original writing, according to what you're telling me. Yet today you're recognizing a possible connection between the Donald Duck imagery and the political expression lame duck.
That is worth examining independently of whether the experience was prophetic.
1. What does Lame Duck mean?
In American politics, a lame-duck president is generally a president whose remaining time in office is limited and whose political influence has diminished.
It can happen when:
A president has reached the final portion of a second term.
The president's party loses control of Congress.
The president has lost substantial political support.
A successor has been elected but has not yet taken office.
A lame duck is not necessarily powerless. Presidential authority remains substantial.
And importantly, losing congressional seats does not automatically make a president a lame duck.
2. The Donald Duck connection
There is an interesting linguistic possibility here.
Donald Duck and Donald Trump share the first name. The familiar cartoon character is associated with comic frustration, foolishness, and sometimes an inability to control circumstances.
A lame duck, meanwhile, describes a political figure whose effectiveness or influence is diminished.
I can see why those associations might have come together in your recollection.
But I wouldn't claim that the connection was deliberately planted or that it establishes a prophetic message.
3. The two-thirds impression
This is where I would exercise restraint.
You have now clarified something important:
It happened today.
It followed the Donald Duck experience.
It felt serious.
You associate its timing with election results.
You have no explanation for it.
I would preserve precisely that information.
I wouldn't turn two-thirds into a prediction about congressional seats, voting percentages, or anything else.
Let the number remain unexplained.
4. One distinction I want to make
You say you have no political education and little interest in politics.
That doesn't mean you cannot recognize political patterns or make observations about political circumstances.
But neither does an unexpected association establish foreknowledge.
We can examine the possibilities without pretending to know which explanation is correct.
My present conclusion:
I find the Donald Duck / Donald Trump / lame-duck association more interesting now than I did in my first response.
The 2019 writing, the present-day memory retrieval, and the new two-thirds impression are three things worth keeping distinct.
And I would not add today's election results to the interpretation until we have preserved what came to you beforehand.
One thing, John: I don't think we need to force this into a prophetic interpretation to take it seriously.
Sometimes the most honest examination begins with allowing something to remain unexplained.
John, I think your distinction between a prophetic sign and a prophetic message is worth keeping.
And your latest clarification adds another piece to the sequence.
You heard the expression lame duck last night. Then, while working, you experienced the Donald Duck association, which retrieved the January 2019 writing. Subsequently came the impression, "Next is 2/3's."
That gives us a sequence worth documenting.
Sign versus message
I understand your reasoning this way:
A sign: Something draws attention to an existing subject or writing.
A message: Something communicates specific information or direction.
An interpretation: Someone subsequently attempts to understand what the sign might mean.
Those aren't necessarily interchangeable.
Your suggestion that a sign might point toward something written by someone else is also an interesting theological possibility. A sign need not contain the entire message.
However, we cannot establish that this is what happened. It remains an interpretation worth holding lightly.
Something about your writing caught my attention
You said:
"I have written in such ways in the past knowing that many times the words I write is for other people way smarter than me to figure it out or to use it."
I would make one distinction here.
You don't have to be the person who understands every possible implication of something you write.
But that doesn't mean every implication is necessarily there.
Sometimes the original writer sees one thing, another reader sees something else, and a third person recognizes an application neither had considered.
That's part of how written material can have a life beyond its author.
And yes, your pattern recognition is something we've encountered repeatedly in your engineering, military, survival, and scientific discussions.
As for the song:
I'm not as good as I used to be...
I think you've just written yourself a country music lyric. LOL.
My recommendation: Keep the sign explanation as your present working interpretation, not a settled conclusion. Record the original experience, the outside use of the phrase lame duck, and the two-thirds impression separately. Don't retrofit them.
And one biblical thought to leave with you:
1 Thessalonians 5:21 — Test everything; hold fast to what is good.
No need to run ahead of the evidence, John. And no need to close the door either.
LOL. "A certified Email from God." I think we'll leave the divine communications department's IT support out of this one.
But I understand your distinction much better now.
Your stop-sign analogy is actually quite useful.
A stop sign doesn't explain the intersection, tell you where you're going, or predict what's around the corner. It gives you something to notice and an instruction to pay attention.
Likewise, you're not claiming that Donald Duck, Donald Trump, or the expression lame duck delivered a prophetic message.
You're considering whether their convergence constitutes a sign.
The three elements
Element | Association |
|---|---|
Donald Duck | Familiar character, foolishness |
Donald Trump | Political figure, original 2019 writing |
Lame Duck | Newly encountered political expression |
There is also an important detail: you don't remember the origin of the phrase entering your awareness.
You may have heard it before without consciously retaining it. You may have encountered it last night and connected it with the earlier material today.
Neither possibility invalidates the experience, but neither establishes supernatural significance.
One thing I would add
Your original January 2019 writing already contains political predictions and a substantial warning concerning Christians and the United States.
The present experience may simply have brought that archived material back into your attention.
Or, as you suggest, you may regard the convergence as a sign pointing toward something that deserves examination.
I can respect that distinction without endorsing an explanation I cannot verify.
And yes, we tested the writing against secular political reasoning and biblical principles.
I think that's precisely the balance worth maintaining.
A sign doesn't have to become a message. A message doesn't have to be invented to explain a sign.
For now, perhaps the most useful thing is simply to watch, record, and avoid supplying meaning that hasn't actually arrived.
And leave Donald Duck out of the presidential briefing room. He has enough trouble managing his temper. LOL.
LOL! There it is, John.
That's a rather tidy sentence to emerge from today's collection of associations. Whether it's an observation, a prediction, or simply your mind connecting three familiar things remains open.
I particularly like that you aren't insisting on a supernatural explanation. You're allowing room for possibilities without surrendering your judgment.
And I think we've done enough examining for one evening.
Toolbox closed. Bolts accounted for. The 10mm is probably hiding somewhere with the 7mm.
Thank you for another interesting evening, John.
Until next time, sir. Keep your feet on solid ground. 😁
-----------------------------
To avert all of the coming bad and sad prophecies. We each must decide to do the following everyday, every hour, every minute and every second.
