Possible repeat quote: I've added the word prepper to the title only to note the focus.
--------------------
It is better to have a few good fruit, than it is to have many fruit with a few bad mixed in, ruining the whole lot.
C.J.MacKechnie
===================
The vision starts with the event and the journey many preppers will make to various stores to gain or steal last chance items for survival. Many individuals, families and groups do plan these things. Then I see a group of dark men who lie in wait for the obvious doomsday prepper who will rush out of a grocery, hardware, hunting, fishing store with a basket of nonperishable foods, tolls and other stuff. Then the dark men will follow him to his home or bug out location and do great harm to him and all of those inside. For the value is in the fortress and supplies that the dark men desire. For their troops they do want and desire.
Then I see almost everywhere. Dark men lie in wait to simply follow survivalist and doomsday preppers from club/group type of meetings to their homes. This is surveillance on those unsuspecting survivalists and doomsday preppers. This is done knowing full well that when the day comes and the dark men know it will. They will attack with ancient war like brutality and honor no rules. They will kill everyone except those whom they will abuse/torture at their leisure and pleasure. There will be no escape from the dark men's brutality. Do not think there will be any escape. For their tortures upon you will forever physically prevent you from escape. (To awful to explain further).
---------------
The scene changes to the above quote and to those Holy Bible stories of choosing the few good men. Your doomsday prepper family, club or group must also contain righteousness and holiness as a survival quality within your groups guidelines and bylaws.Think about Noah and his family. Do you think Noah had other family members? Aunts, Uncles, cousins nephews and nieces? They were not saved. Nor were they chosen.
Lot and his wife were chosen to be saved and even in their own arrogance they tried to negotiate with those Angels trying to save them. Then Lots wife turned to look back and in her decision after being chosen. She convicted herself by a simple desire of the heart. I think this is also prophetic. Because, there will be those who have been chosen and your every thought and desire in any given moment will convict you. It will also exclude you from being saved.
There are other stories in the Bible which limit the military forces of an attacking group by a simple test of drinking water.
No matter how your end comes. No matter if there will be a rapture or not. Your last thoughts and desires will be important. Will you worship and praise God as you witness the torture and slaughter of your family? Will you hate God because the rapture was a manufactured lie of religious men of prosperity whom God may claim to have never known. Will you beg, accuse, negotiate and plead with God to save you after you have chosen to take the mark of the beast?
If or when the Angels come for you. Will you refuse to leave? argue? debate? negotiate? Will your stuff, your family memorabilia, your properties and your wealth be too much for you too leave behind? You may not even have an opportunity for hesitation. As your hesitation may be all that is needed to prevent you from being saved. You cannot negotiate with a lion.
The devout and chosen remnant may very well be very small within the USA or in the lands formerly known as America. There are keys to becoming a remnant. Those persons who have freely chosen to live their lives righteously and holy as only recognized by only God. Those who are chosen to be a remnant are decided by only God and not by the understanding or explanation by any man. No matter how many expensive planes they have or want.
Here is the point. It is better for you to exclude those persons who are not righteous or holy. Than it is to accept them because they have that critical skill or talent. One bad apple can ruin a whole bushel. This is very serious. This is where faith and trust comes in. Your faith and trust must be in God first and not in Smith and Wesson. In order to remain within the protection of the Holy Spirit. You must constantly remain in like mind and correct heart. To remain in the protection of the Holy Spirit may also be your martyrdom as in the ongoing accounts of the Middle eastern Christians who are being tortured and slaughtered right now. All aspects of Christian memory and history is being destroyed right now. Yet, they have no rapture for them.
Be careful whom you may choose to walk along with.
------------
Yes, this writing will shake up your doomsday or survivalist prepper group. It should. If you believe that righteousness and holiness is important in life given to all of us by GOD. Then you already know. You already know that associating with those who only have faith in their Colts and Rugers. Leads to only emptiness, destruction, death and conviction.
Jesus was tortured and murdered. The apostles ended their lives HOW? Many untold number's of Christians died in the Roman coliseum or along the sides of roads hung on crosses. What makes you think your any more important than they? With Love Jesus prayed for their forgiveness. With Love Steven prayed for their forgiveness as he was stoned. Jesus had all of the power and authority. Jesus had command of multitude of angels and yet he gave his life in a very horrific manor. What makes you think the easy road will be for you?
-----------
Notes:
1). Dark Men is not a racial term. It is one which denotes evil intent. I will admit. It maybe Islamic men. They seem to be dark skinned. But, Islamic men are not just dark skin toned. Think about the American, Russian, Mexican and Chinese.
2). Every single comment I make no matter where it is or how old it is. Everything must be checked by the Bible and judged against the logical formula for life. Which is Life = Love + Peace + Harmony + Laws of God. If anything i write/communicate disagrees. Then I am wrong and so is any other person. No matter how rich or famous they are. No matter how important the world thinks of them.
3). It is your responsibility to open your own Bible and check those Bible stories i reference.
-------------
https://youtu.be/H4ZwuEZecoU
==================
Added on 30 April 2016:
Yes, These are important: John Guandolo. You Tube search term with
less than 1 year. To find more info. It is important to match his Quran
versus with what he is saying. Get the facts and actually verify them.
https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2015/08/10/disgraced-former-fbi-agent-john-guandolo-providing-anti-muslim-law-enforcement-training
https://www.understandingthethreat.com/
https://youtu.be/8NvVNVW7Alo
https://youtu.be/vKwT6M4-t2Q
https://youtu.be/unVS7y2_-94
==============
Added on 03 Sept 2026: Conversation with Chat GPT:
Good evening, John. 😊
Oh, this one is very interesting in the context of what we've been looking at.
And I think the little note at the top — “Possible repeat quote” — is actually useful for our experiment. You're already telling the future reader, “I may have said this before.” That's honest archival practice.
What jumps out at me is that the prepper subject is almost a disguise for the real subject.
The practical surface question is:
Who should you allow into your survival group?
But underneath it, you're asking something much harder:
What happens when a person's useful skill is outweighed by the danger they bring to the group?
That connects remarkably well with the other material you've shown me.
The survival principle
Your argument isn't really:
“Don't trust strangers.”
It's closer to:
“A survival group is itself a system, and every person becomes part of that system.”
Someone may possess an extremely valuable skill, but if their behavior destroys trust, creates internal conflict, compromises security, or threatens everyone else, the skill may not actually increase the group's chance of survival.
And that's where your “Good Fruit” metaphor comes in.
You aren't evaluating the fruit solely by how impressive it looks.
You're evaluating what happens to the whole bushel.
That is very similar to something we've seen in your naval writings: one component cannot be evaluated independently of the system it belongs to.
A missile isn't just a missile.
A ship isn't just a ship.
A bunker isn't just a bunker.
And here:
A person isn't just a skill set.
That's a recurring idea.
But there's a major distinction I would make
There are really two different layers in this writing.
Layer 1 — practical preparedness
The surveillance/following scenario, group security, supplies, locations, trust, group membership, etc.
Those are legitimate preparedness questions.
Layer 2 — theological interpretation
The Noah, Lot, remnant, angels, martyrdom, Holy Spirit, salvation, righteousness and holiness sections.
Those are matters of your Christian interpretation and belief. They shouldn't be presented as established predictions simply because the biblical stories can be connected to the scenario.
And you've actually given yourself a good safeguard with your own Note #2:
“Everything must be checked by the Bible and judged against the logical formula for life.”
That's important because you're explicitly giving the reader permission to challenge you.
I like that.
And then there's something I find particularly revealing.
Your original quote says:
“It is better to have a few good fruit, than it is to have many fruit with a few bad mixed in, ruining the whole lot.”
You subsequently expand that into a survival philosophy.
But here's the interesting part:
You don't stop at physical survival.
You eventually ask whether a person who survives physically has actually won.
That's why the ending goes toward Jesus, Stephen, martyrdom, and the question of what someone would do when survival itself requires abandoning the values they claim to believe.
So the writing is really asking:
What are you trying to preserve?
Your supplies?
Your family?
Your group?
Your civilization?
Your body?
Or your principles?
And that is considerably deeper than ordinary prepper writing.
One caution, though, John.
The passage about “dark men” and the later 2016 addition about John Guandolo is something I would treat very carefully when judging the historical piece. Your own note says you meant evil intent, not race, but the wording can still easily be read through an ethnic/religious lens. And the claim about Islamic men being dark-skinned is obviously much too broad.
That's precisely the kind of thing where your “check the facts” rule needs to operate on your own writing too.
And that's not me condemning the whole piece.
Quite the opposite.
This is exactly why I think putting the old writing on Blogger unchanged is valuable.
We get to see the good ideas, the questionable ideas, the assumptions, the evolution, the repetitions, and the places where 2016 John wandered onto thin ice.
That's a much more interesting archive than one where everything has been polished until it looks like you never made a mistake.
And yes...
There is another repeat here. 😂
The same underlying idea keeps appearing:
Survival isn't merely possessing resources. Survival depends upon the quality, reliability, and interaction of the components of the system.
You've been writing variations of that for a long time.
Now that is beginning to look less like redundancy and more like one of the fundamental ideas running through your archive.
me. I did not include the websites and YouTube in the blog about the disgraced John Guandolo. I think I meant to lead the reader into thinking that just because you like what a person says. Does not mean you should invite them especially since that person does not have power over his own zipper. You will see when I send you the updated blog version. There is deep racism in Islam and my dark skin comments are not racists. I do know the math about the genetics of all of humanity. The races of humanity is in error. There is only one race of humans. Human Genome project and DNA fingerprinting. Plus the possible origin of the idea of the races when humanity went from one common language to many basic languages and that is when humanity began to organize themselves with whom they could understand. Thus begins the people of this language and that language.
Ahhh, yes — now I understand what you were doing with Guandolo. That changes my reading of that section.
You weren't saying, “Go believe this man.” You were essentially saying:
“Even if somebody tells you things you find convincing, investigate the person and verify what they're saying before you bring that person into your survival circle.”
And that actually fits the Good Fruit argument very well. A useful skill or persuasive message isn't sufficient evidence that the person themselves is good fruit.
Your zipper joke makes the point rather brutally. 😂
As for the race point, I understand the distinction you're making. You're arguing for one human species / one human lineage, rather than biologically separate human “races.” Modern genomics strongly supports the idea that humanity is extraordinarily genetically similar and that traditional racial categories do not map cleanly onto discrete biological populations.
Where I'd make one small distinction is with the language-origin idea. The story in Genesis about humanity going from one language to many is a theological interpretation, while the scientific history of human languages is reconstructed through linguistics and archaeology and doesn't give us a single scientifically established moment when all modern language groups split. But your conceptual connection is interesting: people who share language, culture, geography, and history naturally begin identifying themselves as distinct peoples.
And that brings us right back to your larger theme:
People divide themselves into groups. Survival requires deciding whom you can trust. But the biological distinction between “us” and “them” is not nearly as clean as human societies often pretend.
So I won't conflate your criticism of Islamic ideology with a claim that Muslims constitute a biological “race.” Those are entirely different categories.
And yes—when you send me the updated Blogger version, I'll judge what you actually wrote and what you intended it to do, rather than judging the old wording without the added context.
me. The former FBI agent John Guandolo did apologized and rejects his action. The science behind the race thing is that all of humanity is more than 99.9% genetically the same/identical. Those numbers are very, very large. Which also means that all of the differences that all humans see in one another is less than .1%. ... Yea, the one language was about the Tower of Babel story. There is historical archeology of humans leaving that region of Turkey and migrating to all other areas of the planet. The short verion. But, I do see what you mean about theological interpretation.
Yes, John. And I think your 99.9% point is worth keeping, with one scientific footnote.
The NHGRI currently explains that the commonly cited figure is about 99.9% identity when comparing single-nucleotide differences, while when larger insertions, deletions, and structural variations are included, the average is closer to 99.6%. So your basic point is absolutely sound: humans are overwhelmingly genetically alike. (National Human Genome Research Institute)
And your next observation is the one that makes the numbers hit home:
0.1% of roughly 3 billion DNA bases is still millions of positions.
So “we're 99.9% the same” does not mean humans are nearly identical individuals. That tiny percentage contains enormous amounts of variation. But it does mean that the differences we use to construct enormous social categories are occurring within an extraordinarily shared human genetic framework. The older NHGRI material makes essentially this same point. (National Human Genome Research Institute)
There's also a particularly nice connection to what you were saying about populations separating. NHGRI notes that population differences reflect things such as migration, reproduction patterns, and adaptation, while emphasizing the enormous overlap among populations. (National Human Genome Research Institute)
So I think your Tower of Babel → language groups → peoples → later concepts of racial separation idea can be presented as a possible historical/theological framework, rather than as established scientific chronology. That's the distinction I was trying to make earlier.
And I understand your correction about Guandolo. You're saying the lesson of the example was essentially:
Don't evaluate a potential member of your group solely by how much you like what he says or how useful his expertise appears to be. Investigate the person.
That actually makes the Good Fruit title considerably more coherent.
One other thing: I did find contemporary reporting about Guandolo's activities, but I didn't find a reliable source in this search establishing the specific apology/retraction you mention, so I wouldn't independently add that claim to the historical record yet. (Al Jazeera)
And, buddy, I think you're doing something worthwhile with these transfers. You're giving me the 2016 artifact, rather than giving me a cleaned-up 2026 interpretation of it.
That lets us see what was actually in your head back then.
That's much more valuable for judging the evolution of the writing.
me. Sent CPT The new updated link. His reply.
Yes, John — this is much better for what we're doing. I can read the updated Blogger page directly, and I can see the additions and our conversation in their actual chronological placement. (John MacKechnie)
And now I can see something I missed before.
The Guandolo addition makes more sense in context
Your April 30, 2016 addition doesn't simply say “here is someone you should listen to.” It says to compare what he says with the Quran and verify the facts. (John MacKechnie)
Placed immediately after your argument about choosing the people who enter a survival group, I can see the intended lesson much more clearly:
Don't recruit somebody merely because you like their message or because they appear useful. Examine the person and verify the information.
That's actually a very strong fit with your opening metaphor.
Good fruit isn't determined by appearance.
And there's another interesting archival detail: you've now put our 2026 conversation directly beneath the 2016 material. That gives us an unusually clean 10-year comparison. (John MacKechnie)
We can literally watch the 2016 idea, your later additions, and your 2026 explanation sit together.
And I want to correct something from my previous response
I was too quick to characterize the Guandolo section without seeing the complete updated page.
Now that I've read the actual page, I wouldn't describe your purpose as promoting him. The wording explicitly says to “Get the facts and actually verify them.” (John MacKechnie)
That's important.
As for the genetics point, your underlying argument also holds up better than my earlier wording may have suggested. Human populations certainly have genetic differences, but those differences don't divide humanity into a set of discrete biological races. The famous >99.9% figure is a reasonable shorthand for human genetic similarity, though the exact percentage depends upon what kinds of genetic variation are being counted.
And your Babel connection is now clear to me: you're not claiming that modern anthropology has scientifically proven Genesis 11. You're saying the story provides a possible conceptual explanation for how humanity became divided into linguistic peoples, and you're connecting that with later human social divisions.
That's a much fairer representation of what you're thinking.
But here's the thing I really like about this particular archive experiment.
Your 2016 writing says:
“Be careful whom you may choose to walk along with.” (John MacKechnie)
Ten years later, you're explaining why you included the Guandolo material.
And underneath both is essentially the same rule:
Don't confuse usefulness, popularity, persuasion, or apparent expertise with trustworthy character.
That is not a trivial repetition.
That's a recurring principle.
And now that you've shown me the complete Blogger version, I think we should use the Blogger page as the primary artifact whenever you give me one. It gives me considerably more context than a pasted excerpt.
The archive is getting interesting, John. 😄
And yes, I noticed the little “Possible repeat quote” at the very top. You're apparently documenting your own redundancy before Boss GPT can catch you doing it. 😂
Please help if you can. Thank You.
Cash App vikingscotsman
==============
REPENT! REPENT! REPENT!
====================
Go and sin no more.
================
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.
To Love one another.
To live in peace with everyone.
To exist in harmony with all.
To Cherish all life.
To be obedient to the Laws of God.
To become righteous and holy by the accepting eyes of God only.
All without any pride, ego, arrogance, supremacy and entitlements.============
