I am working on escaping as we speak.
May one ask *how* or what you are doing to "escape"?
Modern plumbing is antichrist due to the petrolueum chemicals and man-made electricity used in its production.
So earlier plumbing such as with lead pipes (ancient Rome for example) or the sewers and baths of Harappa and Mohenjo-Daro in what is now Pakistan and thought to be around 4000 years old are not "antichrist"? Or for that matter it just occurred to me that the Jews have the "Mikva", a ritual bath which is part of the practice of observant Jews to this day.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikvahhttp://www.mohenjodaro.net/indusbuildings.html
Ten page postings are not desired here, so I will simply say that there are more than enough answers for those serious enough.
If a posting as something to say, or answers questions that others have asked then such would be desired here. On the other hand, it seems unlikely that 10 pages would be required to answer people's questions.
You say there are "more then enough answers for those serious enough". Well, I am serious in my questions, yet you are unable or unwilling to answer them. And having read your pages, the answers to my questions are not there, either.
My Petroleum Warning Page
This is a page of bald assertions, personal opinions, lack of historical knowledge and misunderstood or misused quotes from other people. This passage for instance:
"People do not realize all the things we would have to do without if we were willing to obey God for once and get rid of all our sinful petroleum habits. Basically modern medical treatments would be thrown out the window, including vision lenses."
Now this isn't clear as to whether Mr. Alden thinks that vision problems are caused by the use of petroleum or that glasses are made with it. Well, lenses have been ground from glass and sent into wire or horn frames without a drop of petroleum involved that I know of. One wonders just what procedures are classified as "modern medical treatments" and *why* they would be 'thrown out the window'.
Then there is this passage:
"Before his presidency Woodrow Wilson worked to abolish automobiles in 1906. While president of Princeton University he said, “Nothing has spread socialistic feeling in this country more than use of the automobile...They are a picture of arrogance and wealth, with all its independence and carelessness”."
I immediately noticed the elipses and from Mr. Alden's earlier postings of supposed "quotes" that were to support his opinions I knew that he would, in fact, re-write a sentence to make it say something that the original author did not intend. I found the passage. It and much of the other bits about automobiles is from this article from "American Heritage Magazine" volume 54, issue 3, July 2003.http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/2003/3/2003_3_44.shtml
Here is the passage from the article:
“Nothing has spread socialistic feeling in this country more than use of the automobile,” pronounced one prominent educator, author, and social critic in 1906—Woodrow Wilson, then the president of Princeton University. “They are a picture of arrogance and wealth, with all its independence and carelessness.”
Notice the words. Unless Mr. Alden can provide another source for the quote, he is taking it and others out of context of this article. He either does not understand what the writer was really saying or he is twisting other's words to his own (incorrect) interpretation as (false) support for his ideas.
There is nothing in the article about Woodrow Wilson working "to abolish" the automobile. It is based on a book about the making of the Model T Ford as a car for ordinary people. Earlier paragraphs are about how the early cars were only available to rich people, the working classes could not expect to ever own one, and the drivers were a danger to pedestrians and other vehicles. That is the Context
of the Wilson quote which is about social resentment and unrest at ostentatious displays and dangerous driving. Then Henry Ford made the Model T which was amazingly cheap for the time. The rest of the article is about how the car came to be accepted and enjoyed by millions.
Other bits from this page:
"Sulfur is derived from petroleum and is often used to burn incense"
"Often"? by whom and where? I've never come across any sulfur in incense, for one thing it has a strong smell of its own. Some Sulfur is now taken from petroleum, but that is a recent process; however it is found naturally around volcanos and hot springs and in mineral formhttp://periodic.lanl.gov/elements/16.html
"Gunpowder is also made with petroleum products, something which is unnecessary, dangerous, noisy, smelly and messy."
Gun powder is made from Sulfur (not a 'petroleum product' but an element), charcoal (wood heated without oxygen) and potassium nitrate (aka "Saltpetre/peter" a precipitate from such I grant smelly things as manure and urine). So the source of gun powder is not correct and while some of the adjectives are correct (it can be dangerous if misused, firing a gun can be noisy) those are his opinions and declaring it "unnecessary" is not a belief held by many such as those who hunt for some of their food.
My Man-made Electricity Page
Just an example or two from this page
"There is also the Seventh Wonder of the Ancient World, The Pharos (Lighthouse) of Alexandria. It was said to be seen from 300 miles away and could destroy boats 30 miles away."
This is part of an assertion that the ancient Egyptians had electrical circuit diagrams in paintings (where can we see these? What source for this information?)
We did the math. To be visible 300 miles away the Pharos would have had to have been about 11 miles high (taking into account that the Earth's surface is curved). The information I found such as at a site about light houses http://www.harbourlights.com/catalog/2003/hl_pharos.htm
is that it was about 384 feet high and could been seen at a distance of around 35 miles. That is the first error.
Next is associating the Pharos with electicity at all. Its light was from fire and mirrors (metal mirrors not glass). The legend
that it could destroy boats is just that. For information on how a professor and students at MIT set things on fire with reflected light see here: http://web.mit.edu/2.009/www//experiments/deathray/10_Mythbusters.html
Then there's this
" There is a story about President Eisenhower and the first computers. He walked into the room housing their flashing lights with cogs and wheels inside them, along with the green monitors. The president asked the computers, “Is there a God?” For a good while there were noises of everything working and just as the president turned to ask Vice President Nixon to get a technician the computers answer was given, “Now there is!”.
Leaving aside that there is not a citation as a source for this "story" and the anachronism of "first computers" (ENIAC? it used tubes, not 'cogs and wheels'; The Mark 1A Navy fire control? it had gears and hand-cranks but no monitor; The Difference Engine? no, way too early) and "green monitors" (we called them "Terminals" back in the Dim Times) I know where this comes from because I read it long ago when I was first reading science fiction. It's a very short Science Fiction story by Fredric Brown titled "Answer" from 1954. The complete text can be read here: http://www.alteich.com/oldsite/answer.htm
it's *very* short.
So this is either taking Mr. Brown's story or it got misremembered/turned into an "Urban Legend".
There is more on both of these pages which raises the eyebrows and caused me to wonder again if Mr. Alden is really serious in his statements, or is making a parody site for amusement.