The California Collection/TheCaliforniaCollection.cdr/his126/markbstp.arj/MARKBSTP.TXT

Text File | 1991-06-30 | 26KB | 511 lines

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