Sign up for email updates!


PART 20: LIES OF MEN AND GODS—How Might 666 Be Implemented?

Share this!

With COVID-19 (and those who seized the opportunity it provided) creating so much chaos across the globe, many have wondered if vaccinations will be mandatory. Similarly, many Christians have been afraid that they will somehow be tricked or forced into taking this or a similar vaccine, only to later learn that they have taken the Mark of the Beast.

The truth about such a quandary can be a bit convoluted, because it is two-fold. First of all, allow us to say that we don’t believe that the vaccine developed to protect recipients from the coronavirus is that. The COVID-19 inoculation is still emergent and under trial status as we write this, and for that reason we are personally wary of it. However, setting that aside for a moment, let’s explore the theological angle of this situation.

If the Mark indeed involves an injection, those who receive it, unlike those who get the COVID-19 vaccination, will be required to make some sort of denouncement of prior loyalties (especially for those who state their allegiance is to God). We know that Antichrist will demand to be worshiped as god (2 Thessalonians 2:4), so we understand that accepting his Mark requires an alignment with his power. However, we’re repeatedly warned of how very compelling—charismatic—his manner will be. Thus, many will be deceived into taking his Mark. In this way, on one hand, people cannot take the Mark without making the deliberate decision to do so, yet, the deception will mean that they’re not aware of precisely who or what they’re dealing with. Clear as mud?

The issue is that we must be wary of anything that forces us to pledge our loyalty to human, political, or religious leaders and requires that we mark that allegiance in a permanent physical way. Thus, the danger is in aligning with the Man of Sin (another name for Antichrist) and accepting his brand. The way to act preemptively against this danger is by drawing close to God and listening closely for discernment. Doing this regularly will produce what we authors call a “gut-check”—a sense of direction that comes from somewhere deep in the spirit that doesn’t go away after persistent research and prayer.

As for those who worry that the Mark will manifest as a mandatory a chip implant that will be hiding inside a syringe labeled as a vaccine, think about this: Accepting the Mark of the Beast will be an intentional act. If it is received unknowingly (as through an injection intended for another purpose, such as COVID prevention), then it’s not likely the Mark. Antichrist wants each person’s stated loyalty to accompany the sign of affiliation with his administration. (However, there are those who assert that the “stated loyalty” is presumed via the acceptance of his brand, which is a noteworthy argument. Again, discernment is key.) As for the idea that a vaccination would sneak an implantable chip into people unbeknownst to them, for now this concept is alleviated. At this time, identification chips are still about the size of a small grain of rice, so it’s unlikely such a thing could be “snuck” into a vaccine—for now. In fact, many sources report that microchips are still large enough to be considered intrusive to their host, and couldn’t go undetected by the recipient.[i] As technology improves (and it is doing so quickly, as we all know), this possibility may soon reach new levels.

So, let’s review some of the facts we’ve discussed about the Mark: 1) It’s a gesture of loyalty to a political figure or faction; 2) Its benefits will be so appealing that many will be deceived; 3) It will be identifiable to those who are watching for it, as different from routine vaccinations and such. So why would anyone receive the Mark in the first place? If it’s not subversive enough to be implemented without our knowledge, yet is so evil that it has the power to condemn one’s soul to hell, it doesn’t seem that anyone would take it. This is where a manipulation method will likely be used to condition the crowd to ignore any warning signs and accept it. Some may, as we mentioned, have to intentionally work around a gut-check signaling them to stop, while others will be wholeheartedly deceived and welcome it.

We don’t know the specific circumstances regarding how the Mark will be implemented. That would make things much easier, wouldn’t it? However, we do know it will be extremely appealing—even essential, since no one will be able to buy or sell anything without it. We are aware only that a political figure who seems to have the answers to humanity’s problems will arise. Out of this benevolent ingenuity will spring solutions that will draw the loyalty of much of mankind. This is why so many will line up to take his Mark.

In this way, a chip-implanted means for disbursement of UBI or similar element could be considered a candidate for the coercing the masses to receive the Mark. With all the talk of mandated vaccines, without which purchases or travel could be denied, one does wonder if they could be a trial run to test the populace’s willingness to line up for the injection. Many believe that if a form of UBI isn’t the way the Mark will be ushered in, then it could be via some type of crisis, such as another pandemic. In that case, the body count could mount so quickly that people would disregard any gut-checks signaling caution, opting instead to choose the Mark because it assures survival. However it happens, as we’ve suggested, it seems reasonable to believe that a swift and fearsome crisis event could occur that prompts people to accept the Mark while ignoring any of their hesitations, because “desperate times call for desperate measures.”[ii] The idea that some type of a crisis will trigger the implementation of the Mark is reinforced by the timeline provided in prophetic Scripture, where we read that circumstances escalate just before those who refuse the Mark are martyred. This measure will be ushered in swiftly, as the entire world appears to change rapidly over a three-and-a-half-year period, giving people very little time to reflect on the long-term consequences of their decisions.

This is where our proposition of “trial runs” comes in. Consider the manipulation tactics used by Jim Jones at his Peoples Temple (Jonestown) compound in Guyana in 1977. (Now, before the reader protests that this is an entirely different type of situation, hear us out.)The phrase “drink the Kool-Aid” became a popular term following the Jonestown tragedy wherein nearly one thousand cult members lined up and willingly drank the cyanide-laced beverage.[iii] However, there was much more to the story than this. For example, a few cult members did not consume the drink, and they were killed by gunshot; also, about thirty people escaped.[iv] However, the remaining nine hundred or so had been conditioned over time to drink the beverage (which, as mentioned earlier, was Flavor Aid, not Kool-Aid[v]) without question. Over a period of time before the massacre, Jones continually presented suicide as a necessary and impending end—and completely inevitable. By fostering a herd mentality about this, he began to run “suicide drills,” wherein his followers were forced to drink the beverage suspecting it was poisoned, only to find that it was not. These exercises were tests of loyalty Jones called “white nights.”[vi] “Increasingly paranoid…Jones went to greater lengths to assert his control,” stated one article. “In staged suicide rehearsals…members were told to drink red liquid which may have contained poison [to ensure that] his followers would follow his orders unhesitatingly.”[vii] He would then tell those people: “In forty minutes, you will all be dead.”[viii]

However, only during one of the “white nights” was there, indeed, cyanide in the drink. After having endured the “fake suicides” repeatedly, cult members had become desensitized to the act of drinking the beverage. In an affidavit signed by former Jim Jones follower Deborah Blakey regarding the “white night” drills, “We all went through it without a protest,” Blakey recalls. “We were exhausted. We couldn’t react to anything.”[ix]




This same behavioral response can be related to society today, despite the fact that the circumstances are entirely different. Upon repeatedly drinking the liquid—thus “facing death”—yet subsequently surviving, the perception of threat is reduced as a result of the continual internal determination to silence the gut-check that would accompany drinking poison. In this example, we see how a society that has endured repeated crises accompanying the need for “drastic measures” (think economic shutdowns, emergency vaccines, etc.) would opt for the path of least resistance, following a herd mentality in hopes that the white night drills will only be a temporary situation.

This may seem like a strange comparison, but if society is currently undergoing “trial runs” for the implementation of the Mark, then we could be undergoing conditioning for the real event. Consider this: If a politician came out of left field with talk of a mandated injection of anything, the public would likely refuse it wholeheartedly. However, if many crises necessitate cooperation from the public—and if these measures actually provide the solution they promise—then it will be much easier to rally the masses in future circumstances. This is further reinforced by the fact that, in previous times of fear, everything turned out okay, just as it was during all but the one “white night.”

The chip-implanting technology is also already in use. We see it applied in varied ways, including identification, integration with smart buildings (for opening and closing doors, etc.), and storing medical records and other information. In Sweden in 2018, “4,000 citizens…[used] microchips implanted in their hands to store emergency contacts and enable easy access to homes, offices, and gyms.”[x] While some companies in the US offer (and likely even encourage) chipping to their employees, pushback has been successful. Many states have legislation in place that forbids requiring of chip-implanting at this time.[xi] However, during the pandemic lockdowns, many people began to fear that not only would a vaccine be mandated, but that such measures could be a precursor to chip implantation.

Many other theorists—some within SkyWatch TV and Defender Publishing circles—have presented various concepts of Mark of the Beast requirements which, like ours, involve the vulnerability/fragility-of-human-life conundrum. Some such as Thomas Horn have even speculated that the Mark could be a chimeric, DNA-altering machination that literally and physiologically changes a human into something else, while simultaneously saving the person’s life—a price most people will pay. If a plague of apocalyptic proportions were to fall upon the human race, accompanied by news coverage of it being highly fatal and swift in contagion, the impulsive reaction of the masses—in the interest of survival—would be to get in line to “take the vaccine.” If such an inoculation did harbor the Mark, many may still blatantly ignore any implications suggesting such a notion, simply because the fear-mongering of the day (and the observation of mounting global casualties) will drive them to make a rash decision.

(Note: It bears repeating that these authors do not believe that a potential COVID-19 vaccine will “be the Mark.” It doesn’t line up with the order of events—or the cataclysmic proportions—of the scenario we’re given in the book of Revelation. However, we see the possibility that some of the motives behind this pandemic mitigation might render this a “practice round” or a grooming of the masses toward a Mark agenda, much as the “white nights” were for those in Guyana.)

Will This Really Be Enforceable by Execution?

One thing that may make people doubt that the Mark of the Beast would actually come to pass is the idea that it is foretold to be enforced by threat of execution. Most find it difficult to imagine an advanced society that would embrace such a drastic measure.

First, the Bible describes Antichrist as a great deceiver of many (Revelation 13:13). This deceit explains why the Mark will strangely make sense to a great percentage of the masses. Second, since Antichrist’s agendas will appear to solve mankind’s problems, he’ll probably have some way of presenting execution of the noncompliant as an “unavoidable evil.” Third, despite what many believe, mankind does have a sinful nature (Mark 7:21; Romans 5:12) and migrates toward evil when the forces of righteousness aren’t present. This is where the removal of what theologians call the “restraining force” comes into play.

The Restrainer

Take a look at the main passage describing this “restraining force”—referred to as “what withholdeth” in 2 Thessalonians 2:3–8:

Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming.

While the wording of this passage may sound a little confusing, it describes an evil that currently awaits its moment to strike mankind, but is being held back by God’s holy forces. Note this excerpt from The Messenger:

According to this passage, many people interpret the phrase “he who now letteth will let” to indicate a force which restrains the one who “might be revealed in his time,” and whose “mystery of iniquity doth already work.” Thus, the elucidation holds that the source of evil, iniquity, and the…[spiritual evil behind] end-times manifestations already occupies this earth, awaiting his opportunity to act, while the restraining force holds this malevolence at bay “until he be taken out of the way.” This, in modern theology, becomes referred to as the “Restraining Force” which we sometimes hear spoken of regarding prophecy.[xii]

According to this theology, once the restraining force has been removed, the powers of evil that have been present the earth but without free rein since the beginning will be unleashed in their full fury upon mankind. Even now, while the righteous element is at work (most people believe this is the Holy Spirit), mankind still wrestles with a sinful nature, and malevolent powers already thwart our existence. Imagine, then, a day when there is nothing present to hold back the potential impact of our already corrupt nature in conjunction with the uninhibited influence of satanic forces. Truly, on that day, nothing will seem impossible where the potential of evil is concerned.

Thus, the answer to the question in the subheading of this section is, in a word, yes. Yes, man will be depraved enough to stand by as Antichrist executes those who refuse the Mark of the Beast. For anyone who still needs convincing, however, we can see the early priming for such potentialities occurring in society today.


Some may wonder how the practice of euthanasia would prime society to accept the Mark. (An additional argument lies in the issue of the legalization of abortion, which we won’t get into here. Besides falling outside the scope of this work, these authors presume that the reader is already familiar with the pro-life argument.) The connection between execution for refusing to take the Mark and euthanasia, however, is that the death of an innocent person is sometimes considered acceptable when that death is for a greater good or diminishes suffering. So, euthanasia, while seeming by many to be justifiable under the right circumstances, prepares society to accept a mounting body count of innocents—those we may not suspect: not convicted serial killers or demented minds who were sentenced to die for heinous deeds against humanity, but rather of innocents.

In 2017, headlines surfaced alleging that the state of Oregon had passed a law allowing mentally ill patients to be starved to death. Understandably, much of the public responded with outrage to what would legally “allow for the starving and dehydrating to death of patients with dementia or mental illness.”[xiii] Official response was that the bill only added new language to existing laws outlining how a committee of medical professionals could handle a scenario wherein an individual being kept alive with interventions such as life support or feeding tubes had no advocates present. The officials acknowledged that the bill needed clarification, since it allowed custodial appointees too much sovereignty over the lives of those who don’t have relatives or other guardians to make decisions for them.[xiv] However, the legislation continued to move forward, and was presented to the Oregon Senate Rules Committee as a “‘simple update’ to Oregon’s current advance directive.”[xv] For many, the leap from legalized abortion to assisted suicide, followed by the inevitability of euthanasia, was an easily perceivable sequence: “When Oregon became the first state in the nation to legalize the practice of assisted suicide, pro-life advocates argued this would be a slippery slope that would lead to euthanasia.”[xvi]


“THE LIES OF MEN AND GODS–EPISODE 2”: What’s Behind Flying Seraphim, Reptilians, And Portals Opening Above Mountains

“THE LIES OF MEN AND GODS–EPISODE 1”: The Vatican, Aliens, and Government Elites. Is It All a Coincidence?

While many only recognize the concept of euthanasia from such sci-fi movies as the aforementioned Logan’s Run, it’s actually already happening in countries such as Australia and Canada. Furthermore, prominent American politicians are becoming more outspoken regarding the possibility of it taking place here. Considering the type of people who may be candidates for euthanasia, we often picture extremely sick elderly men and women, such as those who would meet the criteria described in the Oregonian legislation: those who are on life support, who can’t speak for themselves, and who have no family guardians or advocates. There are many who would consider it a kindness to end the struggle for people in this condition.

In addition, if the bill in question is used as lawmakers state it’s intended, it applies more readily to removal of life-support than actively ending life. We believe protestors were right when they called this legislation a “slippery slope.”[xvii]

The circumstances surrounding euthanasia, as it is currently being practiced in other parts of the world, are taking place in a much different context. One would be surprised to learn of the ages and condition of many who have opted for euthanasia with their families’ support. These authors find this state of affairs devastating. Between June of 2016 and July of 2019, more than 3,300 people—ranging in age from 106 to 22 years old—were euthanized in Ontario, Canada, alone.[xviii] Many of the deaths were related to cancer, respiratory illness, or neurodegenerative diseases, while others were unspecified.[xix] The Australian state of Victoria has also legalized the practice, two decades after repealing what they called a “mercy killing law for the terminally ill.”[xx] In Quebec, Canada, prior legislation requiring patients to prove they had a medical condition that would render death inevitable was overturned in 2019, qualifying those who suffer a disability that negates their autonomy for assisted suicide: “Having a disability is a fate worse than death.”[xxi] Thus, patients who wish to die must either prove that they are terminally ill or that their suffering is “intolerable.”[xxii] Sadly, this subjective term is already being brought into question regarding cases of mental illness and depressive disorders. Many young people who might be treatable could (and have been trying to) channel their suicidal tendencies toward the mission of broadening the qualifications for assisted suicide or euthanasia. Since, for many, the argument becomes that once someone is resolved to self-terminate, he or she will do so anyway, the approach fosters the notion of allowing the person to die with loved ones present, rather than alone. Similarly, the same stance is supported via the statement that a planned death relieves friends and family of the aftershock of a suicide of the terminally ill, or a drawn-out, traumatic demise riddled with suffering, and allows them the opportunity to say goodbye. There are such cases of activism on behalf of euthanasia, but these authors chose not to include them here out of respect for the brokenhearted families involved.

As for the legal parameters of euthanasia, the more it becomes what many perceive to be a viable option, we could eventually arrive at the place where the only boundaries are regarding the best interest of the individual. “As not all homicides are illegal judicially, it appears that not all euthanasia are,” stated an Annals of Neurosciences article on the topic. “The question remains who can decide in favor or against any form of euthanasia and what safety net has to be there to protect patient’s best interest.”[xxiii]

Many become highly impassioned about this topic, and it’s easy for some folks to see both sides of the issue as defensible. The problem arises in the ambiguity of the bill that surfaced in Oregon regarding those who cannot advocate for themselves. In such cases, who has the final authority? And here’s another question: What if similar circumstances were to emerge after some swiftly moving epidemic of a disease with only one cure (administered via the Mark and required immediately to reduce the risk to public health)? What type of legal authority might be released to officially—even temporarily, under emergency conditions—make such judgment calls?

Desperate times do call for desperate measures, don’t they?

If the public becomes complacent about the unnecessary or premature deaths of innocent people, our mindset shifts into a more casual (conditioned, desensitized) approach to seeing others die. Then, in times of crisis, we may be willing to embrace measures that previously would have seemed inconceivable. Just as abortion allows us to kill hundreds of thousands of innocents each year in the name of convenience, increased acceptance of euthanasia could cause society to remain silent while growing numbers of lives are claimed under the labels of “preserving dignity” and “showing kindness.” After this conditioning has had its season (similar to the ninth or tenth “white night”), a new crisis could enable the masses to more easily adopt another point of view of killing those who have done nothing wrong other than to refuse the mandated “treatment.”

UP NEXT: Experiments Revealing Human Nature

[i] Caldera, Camille. “Fact Check: Americans Won’t Have Microchips Implanted by End of 2020.” August 1, 2020. Accessed November 4, 2020.

[ii] “Desperate-times-call-for-desperate-measures.” Your Dictionary Online. 2020. Accessed November 6, 2020.

[iii] Griggs, Richard A., Psychology: A Concise Introduction: Fifth Edition (New York: Worth Publishers, 2017), 399.

[iv] Ibid., 400.

[v] Edwards, Phil. “The Cult That Inspired “Drink the Kool-Aid” Didn’t Actually Drink Kool-Aid.” VOX. May 23, 2015.

[vi] Wunrow, Rose. “The Psychological Massacre: Jim Jones and Peoples Temple: An Investigation.” July 25, 2013. Accessed November 6, 2020.

[vii] Ibid.

[viii] Brinton, Maurice. “Suicide for Socialism?” July 25, 2005. Accessed November 6, 2020.

[ix] Ibid.

[x] Caldera, Camille. “Fact Check: Americans Won’t Have Microchips Implanted by End of 2020.” August 1, 2020. Accessed November 4, 2020.

[xi] Ibid.

[xii] Horn, Tom. The Messenger: It’s Headed Towards Earth! It Cannot Be Stopped! And It’s Carrying the Secret of America’s, the Worlds, and Your Tomorrow! (Crane, MO: Defender Publishing; 2020) 166.

[xiii] “Oregon Senate Committee Votes Out SB 494, Endangers Patients with Mental Illness or Dementia.” Oregon Right to Life. 2020. Accessed November 6, 2020.

[xiv] Kasprak, Alex. “Is An Oregon Bill Designed to ‘Allow Starving Mentally Ill Patients to Death’?” March 5, 2019. Accessed November 6, 2020.

[xv] “Oregon Senate Committee Votes Out SB 494, Endangers Patients with Mental Illness or Dementia.” Oregon Right to Life.

[xvi] Ertelt, Steven. “Oregon Bill Would Allow Starving Mentally Ill Patients to Death.” Life News. February 5, 2018. Accessed November 6, 2020.

[xvii] Ibid.

[xviii] Slayton, Scott. “Over 700 People in Ontario Died from Euthanasia or Assisted Suicide in 2019.” Christian Headlines. July 18, 2019. Accessed November 6, 2020.

[xix] Ibid.

[xx] “Australian State Legalizes Voluntary Euthanasia.” DW. Online. June 16, 2019. Accessed November 6, 2020.

[xxi] “Canada Opens Door to Expanding Assisted Dying.” BBC Online. February 24, 2020. Accessed November 6, 2020.

[xxii] Ibid.

[xxiii] Srivastava, Vinod. “Euthanasia: A Regional Perspective.” Annals of Neurosciences, vol. 21,3 (2014): 81–2. doi:10.5214/ans.0972.7531.210302.

Category: Featured, Featured Articles