MARK OF THE BEAST
   
by Peter S. Ruckman
   
PREFACE
   
One of the many words to fall prey to the tyranny of 
words in the 20th century is the word "prejudice." This word, 
as the words "discrimination," "segregation," "democrat," 
"imperialism," "Christian," "Southern Baptist," 
"integration," and "religion," has come to mean something in 
the mind of the public that it obviously never meant in 
Webster's dictionary or in 10 centuries of writing. 
Unfortunately for mankind in general, words have come to mean 
what NEWSPAPER PRESS RELEASES intend them to mean.  This is 
due largely to the tremendous advancement of public 
communications media in the last 100 years.  With this 
advancement has grown the increasing PERVERSION IN THE 
MEANING OF WORDS.  Capitalizing on depraved man's innate 
curiosity to either "hear or tell something new" (see Acts 
17:19-27), the UPI and AP with Pravda, Tass, and Goebbels' 
set-up have developed an entirely NEW vocabulary for the 
common man to adopt.  In this vocabulary, words no longer 
mean what they say.  To those readers familiar with church 
history, this manipulation is far from being a NEW thing 
among men.  However, since the vast majority of people know 
nothing about church history except the second-hand 
information passed on to them by their own religious 
constituency, it is hardly probable that anyone would 
recognize the true mother of this type of perversion.
   
A few samples may suffice.  "Imperialism" or 
"Colonialism" is applied to any country that aggressively 
explored, settled, or dominated another country in preceding 
centuries.  By such a standard, of course, a "colonist" or 
"imperialist" should be run out of the country that he is now 
in, and repatriated to his original fatherland.  However, the 
word in usage will never allow this interpretation, for to 
apply what is inherent in the words would send the Russians 
back to Asia Minor, the Americans back to England, Ireland, 
Scotland, and Germany, and the Negroes back to Africa.  The 
words, then, are only used by a country that has been 
UNSUCCESSFUL in exploring, settling, and dominating another 
country, and it is only APPLIED to countries who have 
succeeded in doing so.  Thus the word is MISUSED even when it 
is defined correctly.  Another word is "Southern Baptist," 
which originally meant "Southern Baptist."  Unfortunately, 
the word no longer bears any resemblance to its construction.  
The official view of the Southern Baptist Convention defines 
the word as meaning, not SOUTHERN BAPTIST, but a monetary 
contributor to a financial program sponsored by Southern 
Baptists!  Notice: "What is a Southern Baptist?  The term 
Southern Baptist does not necessarily bear doctrinal 
significance.  What then is a Southern Baptist?  He is one 
who cooperates with the program that is adopted by the 
Southern Baptist Convention, even though he does not always 
agree with the program the convention endorses."  This 
remarkable and ridiculous definition is that of C.E. 
Matthews, Dallas, Texas, considered by all officials to be 
one of the OUTSTANDING leaders among "Southern Baptists."
   
But what on earth has the man actually said?
   
Notice, in the definition, neither the word 
"Southern," nor the word "Baptist" is discussed, outlined, 
defined, analyzed, noted, commented on, or even mentioned.  
The definition is totally separated from any connection with 
the word the man is attempting to define.  In short, private 
interpretation has extended to the place in Matthews' 
thinking where he thinks that an INVENTED DEFINITION which is 
unrelated to the words he is using is a Southern Baptist 
TRUTH.  There is no fear of his following.  80% of all 
leaders in the Convention will swear on their mothers' graves 
that Matthews has given a good definition.  In actuality, he 
has not even hypothesized a PROBABLE definition.  The 
definition is not even remotely connected to the words he is 
talking about; it is only a statement Matthews has given to 
MAKE PEOPLE HAND OVER MONEY TO AN ORGANIZATION!  Goebbels 
never did any better.
   
To elaborate further, if the term "Southern Baptist" 
has no doctrinal significance and is determined only by the 
financial support given to an organization, then what is the 
difference between a Southern Baptist who "supports the 
program," and a Northern Communist who supports it?  Are they 
not BOTH "Southern Baptist" if a Southern Baptist is "ONE WHO 
COOPERATES WITH THE PROGRAM THAT IS ADOPTED BY THE SOUTHERN 
BAPTIST CONVENTION, EVEN THOUGH HE DOES NOT ALWAYS AGREE WITH 
THE PROGRAM THE CONVENTION ENDORSES"?  At this present 
writing, the committees that ricochetted off the Elliot book 
on Genesis are wrestling with this problem.  The problem is 
how to define a SOUTHERN BAPTIST on a Christian or Bible 
basis and still maintain a United-Fund or Care-package basis.
   
It has hardly occurred to anyone that the easiest 
realm in which to get away with this "etymological-murder" is 
the RELIGIOUS REALM.  Nowhere is it so easy to pull something 
over, or put something across, than here, for it is the least 
expected place for the transaction to take place.  Again, 
those familiar with church history are at a tremendous point 
of vantage, for they have observed the origination, rise, 
development, fall, and revival of a "Church" that has been 
dedicated for over 1500 years to the CHANGING OF WORDS AND 
DEFINITIONS TO MEET THE DEMANDS OF HER OWN POLITICAL 
ORGANIZATION.
   
The outer political world has finally become aware 
of this successful and effective way of putting over a lie.  
They have utilized it to the fullest in the publication of 
news periodicals.  Who ever heard of the AP putting out a 
release like this:  "Bible-believing Christians in 
Mississippi strongly resisted efforts by the Kennedy regime 
to mix the races in their universities since they are 
contrary to the ethics of social respectability and conduct," 
when they could put out a release like THIS:  "Racial bigots 
in 'Ole Mississippi defied law-and-order under a Supreme 
court ruling as they sought to maintain white supremacy."  
You see, it just depends on what you are trying to get 
across, and who is stupid enough to believe it.
   
As a very gullible commentator said, "An informed 
people is an enlightened people."  This is not in the least 
so.  It is most certainly NOT true that "an informed people 
is an enlightened people."  It is only true that an "informed 
people" have information about something which someone gave 
them who wishes them to have that information.  The thing is 
actually a rat race if it is analyzed.  Bible-rejecting 
"Christendom" (with dictator-breeding Catholicism and 
atheistic-teaching Communism) has conspired with the AP and 
UPI to agree that all truth is RELATIVE; there is no ABSOLUTE 
truth except the subjective political ideologies of each 
group, which it has taught itself; and that to "inform" 
someone is to give them the facts YOU WANT THEM TO HAVE.  An 
informed people is NEVER an enlightened people unless they 
have impartial accounts of BOTH SIDES regarding all facts 
given.  Enlightenment cannot be debased to mean partial 
knowledge gained from censored material.
   
For example, no man, even if he spent a lifetime 
studying the material printed in LIFE, TIME, NEWSWEEK, and 
the AP teletype in 100 radio stations, would ever be 
enlightened on ANYTHING that ran contrary to the subjective 
religions and news bias of these sources.  The antics of the 
Kennedy regime and the Supreme court in the last ten years is 
proof enough that these sources cause one to be GROSSLY 
MISINFORMED on the practical outcome of certain decisions and 
the actual "working-out" of solutions to problems.  This 
gross misinformation always bears characteristic marks which 
are strikingly CONSISTENT in any generation; it is not hard 
to spot its birth, family tree, kinfolk, connections, 
affiliations, friends, and descendants.  The AP and UPI may 
be lumped right into this stock with a great assortment of 
animals that bear little resemblance to them on first glance.  
A closer look at the menagerie will reveal that all assume 
certain basic, fundamental propositions to be correct that 
the Bible has already CLEAR pronounced INCORRECT.  
(Interpretation is not a case in point as the passages are so 
CLEAR that the only requisite for understanding them is the 
ability to read, which I suppose our AP and UPI writers 
profess to have!)
   
These mangled and perverted propositions may be 
stated as follows:
   
1. Peace and unity are the highest ideals.
   
2. Science is the final authority in doubtful 
matters.
   
3. People are abnormal who do not conform to the 
world system.
   
4. It is all right to criticize the Bible, but it is 
   WRONG TO CRITICIZE SOMEONE'S RELIGION OR CHURCH.
   
5. It is wrong to publish sermons by Bible-believing 
   Fundamentalists.
   
6. Capital punishment is unjust.
   
7. The Supreme Court is MORALLY right, no matter 
   what it decides.
   
8. All men are created equal.
   
9. The greatest threat to man is Communism.
  
10. A feeling of guilt is really only a MENTAL 
    problem.
   
11. Some Catholics are not ROMAN; they are AMERICAN.
   
12. Man receives punishment in this life for his 
    errors.
   
13. The Pope cannot be a rascal under ANY 
    circumstance.
   
On this tottery basis, the press (with the entire 
retinue of magazines, tracts, newspapers, bulletins, dailies, 
weeklies, and journals) has automatically rejected ANY 
EVIDENCE, CONCRETE OR CIRCUMSTANTIAL, THAT WOULD IMPLY THE 
PROPOSITIONS WERE INCORRECT.  They are assumed to be 
absolute, final, authoritative social laws, established by 
God Himself. Notwithstanding six millenniums of brutal and 
bloody evidence contrary to the propositions, they are 
accepted as "gospel truth" by the writers.  One may say that 
they constitute the theological creed of the Associated Press 
and its allies in their battle to unite Bible-rejecting 
"Christendom" and Christ-rejecting Paganism under a one-world 
system "for the betterment of man."  A brief examination of 
the list will reveal immediately that the creed of the Press 
could pass for the creed of nearly any Christ-rejecting, 
Bible-denying, pagan, Greek philosopher.  Individual writers 
and commentators do not change the overall tone of the creed 
or render it ineffectual.  The radicals and colorful 
commentators are only allowed the liberty of complaining 
about details; none are allowed the liberty of exposing the 
attempts of the press itself to MAINTAIN these false ideals.
   
While professing to avoid religious controversy and 
partiality in religious matters, the secular press has at 
last taken a religious stand so vivid and clear that only by 
muzzling the exposes of its own employees is it able to 
prevent detection.
   
The information which it gives out is no longer 
OBJECTIVE information.  Every article, from the midnight 
dateline till the last one at 11:59, shows clearly a 
RELIGIOUS ATTITUDE and an ANTI-BIBLICAL POLICY toward the 
issues and news events of the day.  This attitude and policy 
may be summed up as follows, without the least fear of its 
being in error:
   
1.  The greatest danger is Communism.
   
2.  The greatest enemy of Communism is Christianity.
   
3.  The greatest leader of Christianity is Roman 
    Catholicism.
   
4.  The leader of Roman Catholicism is the Pope.
   
5.  Therefore, the Pope and his following are to be 
    given every benefit of a doubt in the press, and under no 
    condition are ever to be attacked, exposed, ridiculed, or 
    diagnosed.  THEY ARE IMMUNE TO OBJECTIVE CRITICISM OR 
    RESEARCH.
   
6.  With this immunity comes santuary for any IDEA 
    or BELIEF that Roman Catholicism adopts.
   
7.  Thus no newspaper or magazine with national or 
    large metropolitan circulation can safely take any side in 
    any issue but the side taken by the Catholic Church.  At no 
    time must EVIDENCE EVEN BE PRODUCED FOR THE OTHER SIDE, as it 
    has been the policy of Catholics since 1546 to forbid their 
    adherents to even ENTER A BUILDING WHERE EVIDENCE FOR THE 
    OTHER SIDE IS BEING PRESENTED.
   
8.  With this blinding of objective light and 
    binding of free information, the following propositions must 
    not only be tolerated by the press writers, BUT ACTIVELY 
    SUPPORTED AND PROMOTED:
   
a.  Integration.
b.  Government support of parochial schools.
c.  Destruction of the King James AV 1611, Bible.
d.  Promotion of moderate drinking and dancing.
e.  Return to the Roman church by all Protestant 
    churches.
f.  Government aid to Roman Catholic countries.
g.  ABSOLUTE SILENCE ABOUT PERSECUTIONS OF 
    PROTESTANTS IN COLUMBIA, SPAIN, ITALY, AND VENEZUELA.
   
In this fashion the UPI and AP have erected a 
superstructure of anti-Biblical thinking along religious 
lines which is so universal that to defy it would be to 
commit an act of treason.  Bill Mauldin (UP FRONT) has 
written that the best rule for the newspaper cartoonist to 
follow is, "if it's big, hit it!"  However, Bill cannot obey 
his dictum.  In 10 years of political cartooning and Pulitzer 
Prize winning, Bill has HIT ONLY THE THINGS THAT ANYONE HITS.  
The "big baby," he never struck a blow at--and never will or 
it will cost him his job.  Thoroughly indoctrinated with the 
standard AP and UPI use of words and their meanings, Bill 
Mauldin has swallowed a far smoother propaganda line than 
Axis Sally put to the G.I.'s in the ETO.  He has swallowed 
the vocabulary and dictionary of a Press (and Age) gone 
INSANE on the proper meaning of words.  Who ever heard of a 
newspaper writer, cartoonist, editor, or columnist taking a 
slam at the ROMAN CATHOLIC VATICAN STATE?  Is it not "pretty 
big"?
   
This brings us to the point of the preface (if 
prefaces are supposed to point to anything at all), and the 
point is, LOOK OUT FOR ANY MAN WHO THINKS AN "ANTI-CATHOLIC 
VIEW" IS A PREJUDICE.  The hook is in the last word.  
"Prejudice" means (by its own inherent construction) "drawing 
a pre-judicial opinion on a thing"; that is, "judicially 
making up your mind about a thing BEFORE examining the 
evidence in relation to the thing."  If a man EXAMINES the 
evidence, and then draws judgment, the man himself must be 
eliminated (by slander, arrest, insinuation, scandal, or 
firing) if this final judgment is CONTRARY to the group or 
person holding the opinion.  Hence, it is very dangerous for 
Northerners to talk about Southerners having a "racial 
prejudice," when the word "PREJUDICE" INDICATES IMMEDIATELY 
THAT THE NORTHERNER HAS NOT INVESTIGATED THE EVIDENCE AND IS 
IN NO POSITION TO DO SO.
   
The word PREJUDICE does NOT describe someone who 
holds an opinion contrary to LIFE and TIME magazines.  The 
word PREJUDICE does not describe someone who thinks a 
religion is a farce.
   
No matter how many thousands of times the AP, UPI 
and Gannette may apply the word to someone who does not AGREE 
with the press's interpretation of history and mankind, the 
glaring fact remains that the word MEANS WHAT IT MEANS, AND 
NOT WHAT THE PRESS PRESENTS IT AS MEANING.  "Pre" means 
"before."  (It has always meant this and will mean this as 
long as you can apply arithmetic or geometry to problems 
involving measurements.)  "Pre" (as pro) means BEFORE.  A man 
who is PRE-JUDICED, has BEFOREHAND made a "judicial" 
(judgment) decision on a matter without examining fully the 
evidence necessary to reach the decision.  This is what the 
word means.  It has never meant anything else.  If Pope 
Johnny Paul sat "ex-cathedra" and swore by the blood of 
"Holy" Mary that it meant "someone who criticized his 
church," HE WOULD STILL BE LYING.
   
Yet in spite of this obvious orthographical truth, 
the press continues to use the words "religious prejudice" 
and "racial prejudice" as applicable to anyone who speaks 
critically of ANY RACE OR RELIGION.  And so the word is 
accepted today by Americans to mean "anyone who speaks 
against anyone's race or religion is prejudiced!"  (Exactly 
where this puts Jesus Christ--Matthew 23--is rather difficult 
to say.)
   
These prefatory remarks are entirely necessary, as 
somewhere down the track, this enlightening digest of the 
"Mark of the Beast" is bound to run into the people it is 
aimed at; and when it does, the only alibi or defense that 
can be given will be, "OH, HE'S JUST PREJUDICED."  Now before 
this happens, will the reader please give careful attention 
to the common, plain-English meaning of words?  "Prejudice" 
is a judgment drawn beforehand, without adequate 
consideration of the facts involved.  Only a man, church, 
group, religion, school, institution, or faction that has 
REFUSED TO EXAMINE THE EVIDENCE CAN BE SAID TO BE 
"PREJUDICED" IN THEIR OPINION.  No matter what may be said 
for either side in a matter, or against either side in a 
matter, the only man in the fracas that is PREJUDICED, IS THE 
MAN WHO WILL NOT EXAMINE BOTH SIDES.
   
Thus when General Walker disapproves of race-mixing 
efforts in Mississippi, it does not FOLLOW that he is 
"prejudiced" or "sick."  This only follows IF HE HAS NOT HAD 
TIME AND OPPORTUNITY TO CAREFULLY CONSIDER THE FACTS INVOLVED 
ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ISSUE.  Since General Walker was in a 
position to examine these facts, it becomes necessary to 
ELIMINATE HIM 9by slander, arrest, insinuation, etc.) in 
order to maintain the status quo of the prejudiced opinion 
held by someone who DID NOT EXAMINE the facts.
   
To press things further, an opinion by Walter 
Montano, or Anthony Zachello, or Paul Blanchard, or John 
Carrera about the ACTUAL PRACTICAL OPERATIONS OF THE VATICAN 
STATE would not be a "prejudiced" opinion, even if the sum 
total of opinions stated was that the Roman Church was a 
hoax.  This would be a "disagreeable" opinion, or a "hateful" 
opinion, or an "unkind" opinion, or a "personal" opinion, but 
a PREJUDICED OPINION IT IS NOT.  NOT ONE OF THEM DREW 
JUDGMENT ON ANYTHING WITHOUT THOROUGHLY EXAMINING THE FACTS 
ON BOTH SIDES.  An opinion by Billy Mitchell, Eddie 
Rickenbacker, and John Glenn on the advantages and 
disadvantages of aerial reconnaissance is not a "prejudiced" 
opinion.  They may disagree among themselves, and they may 
offend others who disagree with them, but "PREJUDICED" is not 
the adjective to describe their opinions.  They know what 
they are talking about even where they disagree due to 
subjective differences innate in individual human nature.  
Everywhere, in analyzing "prejudices," the SOURCE OF 
AUTHORITY must be taken into account.  Where an authority 
(any authority under any power) has not considered thoroughly 
the OPPOSITE VIEW POINT, there is no grounds for anything but 
a PREJUDICED, BIASED opinion.  Thus the greatest religious 
bigots (and prejudiced heathen) that ever lived are the 
people that consider attacks on their religion "prejudices."  
Having never considered ANY OTHER SIDE, and having been 
FORBIDDEN to examine the other side, and having their books 
censored so they WOULD NOT CONSIDER the other side, we have 
in America today the greatest religious monstrosity that ever 
perverted the meaning of words.
  
This book is obviously an "expose" of that religious 
organization which Satan has, and will adopt for his own 
"Christianity."  The book is not written from the standpoint 
of a "Southern Baptist" who is ignorant of the facts 
involved.  The writer has had ample time in 41 years (20 in 
the North and 21 in the South) to study all the publications 
of the Knights of Columbus, to read thoroughly a score of 
Catholic newspapers, to deal with Catholics in their homes, 
face-to-face, and also to deal knee-to-knee with a half-a-
dozen priests for periods of more than two hours.  No 
statement in this printing was made without having first read 
the Bible through 57 times from cover to cover, and checking 
all New Testament passages in the Greek, and comparing them 
with the official Douay-Reims Catholic Version (NIHIL OBSTAT) 
used by the priests themselves.  The Catholic Missal has been 
studied from cover to cover, 40 Catholic tracts have been 
taken from the tract-racks at St. Michaels, St. Stevens, St. 
Francis, and the Church of the Little Flower (Mobile, Ala., 
and Pensacola, Fla.), and, of course, the standard works of 
church history, including Catholic historians, have all been 
consulted.
   
The deductions therefrom may be distasteful, 
objectionable, un-Christian, fanatical, irreligious, 
sacreligious, or non-Catholic.  But!  The writer claims 
immunity from such words as "bigot," "prejudice," or "bias" 
on the grounds that not a single sentence in this writing 
(that goes against the grain of Catholicism) was written 
without ample, concise, detailed, thorough, and faithful 
reference to the Bible facts involved on ALL SIDES OF THE 
QUESTION.  In answer to critics who may be tempted to say, 
"Well, no one can really KNOW about Catholicism until he has 
BEEN A CATHOLIC 20-50 years, etc.," let it be answered 
emphatically that no man has to be a chronic alcoholic five 
years to know that it will damage his body; no man has to be 
in ten car wrecks to know that he had better drive carefully; 
no man has to examine microscopically every hair on a skunk 
to know he is dealing with a skunk; no man has to know Hebrew 
or Greek to smell the stench of a translation that low rates 
Jesus Christ; and no combat infantryman ever had to know the 
number of grains in a tracer-bullet fired at him to know it 
did not have his best interests at heart.  A happy medium is 
needed between knowing enough about both sides to know 
"whereof ye speak," and devoting a lifetime of useless 
research into something that has already proved corrupt a 
thousand times.  Where Rome cannot convince a common-sense, 
honest researcher that she is "holy," she can always reverse 
the field and claim that the researcher is biased because he 
has not spent 50 years in the college of cardinals studying 
the good points, for Rome has held as a doctrinal truth, from 
the beginning, that SHE IS INFALLIBLE, EVEN WHEN DECREEING 
DOCTRINES CONTRARY TO SCRIPTURE OR COMMON SENSE.  Rome's 
profession disqualifies her from being impartial on anything, 
and the AP, UPI and Gannett's affiliation with her is rapidly 
disqualifying them from becoming reliable sources of 
information.
   
No Press that plays favorite to a group that has 
already publicly STATED THEIR PERVERSENESS should be taken 
seriously on any important issue.  An AP "news flash" on 
DeGaulle and the common market, that overlooks the fact that 
England has the only PROTESTANT leader OUTSIDE THE MARKET, is 
about as important and "newsy" as a bulletin on projected 
hoe-handle production in North Dakota for 1978.
   
No political issue in the world today that is 
related directly or indirectly to the end-time prophecies of 
Daniel and Revelation can be accurately analyzed unless due 
attention is given to these portions of scripture.  Any 
analysis neglecting to examine this data is a PARTIAL, 
BIASED, AND PREJUDICED VIEWPOINT; it cannot possibly claim to 
have examined both sides when the Vatican is the issue, stuck 
right between the sidelines.
   
The common-sense maxim, that operates independently 
from news-commentators and prejudiced wire-services, is that 
no man's (or church's) opinion on a subject is worth the 
powder and shot it would take to blow it to hell if that man 
has not examined evidence CONTRARY AND FAVORABLE to the 
subject.  The value of the opinion then rests on the amount 
of time spent on the pro and con, and the amount of facts 
summoned before drawing the conclusion.  By this standard, 
the AP, UPI, and Gannett, with LIFE, TIME, the JOURNAL, the 
NEW YORKER, READER'S DIGEST, and the Hearst Syndicate, are 
entirely UNQUALIFIED to comment intelligently on the news 
where it gets involved politically with the Roman Catholic 
Dictatorship.  None spent ANY time on material CONTRARY TO 
THE ROMAN set-up, and none would DARE PRINT IT IF THEY FOUND 
IT!
   
Following this common-sense maxim--thorough 
examination of the evidence, pro and con, with assembled 
facts--no man who ever lived in close with blacks over a 
period of time would ever be able to draw a prejudiced 
conclusion in regard to "the results of living close with 
blacks"; no man who denied what a Baptist bleieves and what a 
Southerner believes could ever be called a "Southern 
Baptist"; no church that forced its communicants to join it 
BEFORE THEY WERE BORN could possibly be denominated "The 
Church that Jesus founded"; and certainly no man who refused 
to examine the evidence found in this book could 
intelligently make any valid contribution to the subject--the 
MARK OF THE BEAST.  The writer professes no personal, 
inspired revelation, no absolute knowledge, no infallible 
authority, and no wisdom to concoct a doctrine or theory 
which supersedes others.  He modestly claims to have examined 
the facts relative to the subject in the light of the word of 
God, and has listed the findings as follows.  If these 
findings are non-Catholic, so are grape juice and the 
Reformation.
   
Rev. Peter S. Ruckman, M.A., Ph.D.
Pensacola, Fla., Feb. 4, 1962