... The Fifth Prophet 
Religion
-
The Four Fundamental Theorems of FoM
I. Religion is fundamentally evil, and God does not approve.
II. Only part of the soul exists in this universe.
III. Your good deeds and your evil deeds last forever.
IV. We’re all one family.
-
The Prophecy
In the next few years, there will probably be evidence found by scientists and astronomers as to the existence of life throughout the universe. Mathematicians and physicists will confirm, through string theory, the existence and some of the characteristics of higher dimensions beyond those we know of as the space/time continuum. Geneticists and computer scientists will develop the fields of computational genetics, and what used to be called artificial intelligence, uncovering patterns, structure, and functions far beyond the double helix of DNA. Eventually these discoveries will lead mankind to rebuild the world and to further explore the universe.
Politics
- Jennings' Doctrine
- Annexation of Mexico
- Master/apprentice
... Weeds Of Eden 
- The Empire of the Foreverones
- The penal system on Leap
- "Heaven"
- Souls
... Singularities Of The Soul Of Stephen Xi 
- The Empire of the Foreverones
- The Church of Constant Truth
- Souls
... Wonderball Apocalypse
- Reincarnation? ... what if this could really happen? Well, it would prove there is an afterlife, but it says nothing about what that afterlife would be like. Also, I never said for sure what happens to a soul that no longer lives inside a Wonderball. Could they return again? Then there's the issue of traditional thought about reincarnation. If a soul can be reincarnated many times, which version is captured in a Wonderball? Does this imply a soul gets only one life? ... in this reality? Maybe there is another book in this somewhere ...
Jennings' Doctrine
It seems to me that this might reduce the bloodshed, even if it does sound radical. I have tried to get some politicians to hear my ideas, without any response. Perhaps someone will read the book!
"Those idiots! What they need is a policy like the Mutually Assured Destruction of the Cold War. For every American civilian killed by terrorists on American soil, we permanently annex one square mile of the Ummah. Take from the bastards exactly what they are fighting for, and no need to kill any innocent civilians. No street fighting. Make them come to us."
"Not bad, Sam," the Senator said. "It is Sam isn’t it?" (pg 82)
So, if I can't get any real politician to adopt my ideas, I'll invent one. Senator Jennings is my man! At the time this was written it looked like Senator Hilary Clinton would get the Democratic nomination and win the election.
The "Mad Dogs" were much more isolationist than that. If the world didn’t want America around, they’d take its resources and go home, or to the moon, and to hell with the rest of them. But there had to be a defense policy that would allow them to do that, and that’s where the "Jennings’ Doctrine" came in.
Because President Bush had claimed that if we left Iraq, the terrorists would follow us back home, the new President and her party had to claim that he was lying. And those claims of deceit and incompetence convinced them that the "Jennings’ Doctrine" would never, ever, need to be implemented. Therefore the deal, the Presidency for the Doctrine, was made. Before the end of January, 2009, Sen. Jennings made the speech to a joint session of congress, and they approved the law, which was signed the next day by Madam President.
Just as the Mutual Assured Destruction policy of the cold war was designed to prevent a nuclear Armageddon between the United States and the Soviet Union, the Jennings’ Doctrine was designed to threaten the new enemy. It threatened them not with nuclear annihilation, which would simply make them martyrs, but with the annihilation of their professed goal, the return of the Caliphate spreading from Spain to Indonesia. For the life of every American killed by terrorists on American soil, one square mile of their "caliphate" would become American territory, forever. These new outposts of freedom would not be placed in populated areas. No innocent Muslim civilians would be harmed in their creation. There would be no street fighting, with the enemy hiding behind the head scarves of their women. Perhaps they would be placed in the deserts of Saudi Arabia, or Sudan, perhaps in the mountains of Pakistan, or the jungles of Bangladesh, or Indonesia. But they would be totally and completely American soil. They would be defended militarily without question against anyone crossing their boundaries. If the government of the Muslim country, in which these Freedom Forts were placed, should attempt to attack them, those attackers would be annihilated.
The Senator’s speech, struck a fair balance between what many of his supporters really wanted to include, and what the new administration was willing to bear. There was no need to rub it in, it was a done deal. Senator Jennings faded from the spotlight and continued working on the "Doctrine" behind the scenes. Not even he expected that it would be implemented within eight months. (pg 151-152)
Having grown up during the Cold War, the concept of "mutually assured destruction" is familiar to me. Having lived through the Cold War, it seems to me that the policy worked! Why not try it again?
Wikipedia has the background information.
It seems you can even play a game based on this. Kongregate's free online game MAD: Mutually Assured Destruction - Enemy missiles are attacking your base! Shoot them down and see how long you can last.
Here is a more serious site from the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.
Annexation of Mexico
In the spirit of ... "A Modest Proposal", but actually not such a bad idea, is the solution to the United States' immigration "problem".
That was when Sen. Jennings made his "Annexation Speech." It was a brilliant political move. The left wing of the Democratic party was appalled at what they called American imperialism. The right wing of the Republican party was appalled at the provision for immediate citizenship. But there was a core of support for the bill, and when the Mexican public and the American aliens hit the streets with hundreds of thousands of people waving American flags and throwing flowers at the "troops" as they pushed on towards Mexico City it was a done deal.
"Gentlemen, now that the situation in the south has become more clear, and now that our forces are only a hundred miles or so from Mexico City, we propose a rather bold plan."
"Annex Mexico!"
"Yes, I said Annex Mexico. But not in the spirit of conquerors of a defeated people, but as brothers and friends, as hermano y amigos."
"What, you may ask, is he talking about? Annexation, or in a less inflammatory tone, unification, is a solution to a multitude of problems that have plagued these two nations for years. Think about it seriously for a moment. There will be no more illegal aliens! They will now be full citizens, immediately!"
"Why do they deserve that, you ask? Look at what appears to be happening, south of this so called border. As we speak, the Mexican people are risking their lives to root out all traces of the drug cartels, Al Qaeda cells, and the corrupt police, military, and politicians. They have not obstructed our forces moving south in any way. American flags are being waved in the streets. If only we had received such a reception in Baghdad!"
"On paper, the Mexican political system is very similar to our own. They have a democratically elected president, a bicameral legislature, a supreme court, and a federal system. This infrastructure does not need to be created from scratch and then shoved down the throats of a medieval, clan based, religiously fratricidal society as in Iraq."
"You need not fear a flood of refugees inundating our stretched resources. No, in fact there will likely be a much more normal flow of people back and forth across the now ‘historical’ border. Our new border would move much further south, and be considerably easier to defend due to its decrease in length from two thousand miles to less than five hundred miles. The coastline of the United States of North America would increase considerably. The border towns, that now are artificially split, would become more unified and functional."
"Security ... I propose that we finally go to a national ID card. The workers in my solar cell factories, on both sides of the border, have had full biometric ID cards for several years. The technology is simple and affordable and can easily scale up to handle all citizens. In one stroke we would eliminate the criminal economy in fake IDs, identity theft, slave labor, tax cheats, and more."
"Money and the economy ... at the risk of sounding imperialistic, and materialistic, unification would have great economic benefits for both Mexico and the United States. Elimination of state control of several industries, not the least of which is the Mexican state oil company, would stimulate a stagnating and corrupt economic system. This money could easily raise the standard of living of millions of Mexicans without costing the United States one penny. But, investing a few pennies of our own, would yield huge improvements and open new markets. Would wages go up in the United States? Yes of course. Where would this money go? Back into our economies, and to pay legitimate taxes, increasing our national revenue considerably. Yes, gentlemen, economically unification is a win-win proposition."
"Language ... we are already a bilingual society; no, a multilingual society. Unification will not change this. We will not all be forced to speak Spanish. English will continue to be our first, and only official language. But the English and the Spanish languages will naturally merge into a common American language, if we take care to stir the melting pot. We stir the pot, with tolerance, with opportunity, with education, with freedom! In these troubling times, we need to renew our national commitment to these values."
As it turned out, the plan actually worked. (pgs 266-268)
While putting together the links on this page I discovered I was not the first to come up with the idea of annexing Mexico in order to solve immigration and drug problems. It seems a logical solution though, for a number of reasons. I have only skimmed the information at these sites, and do not necessarily endorse all the views contained in them.
Maps of the World is one of many sites with information in addition to maps.
Here is an article by John Ross, author of The Annexation of Mexico: From the Aztecs to the IMF.
A book by Erik Rush, Annexing Mexico: Solving the Border Problem Through Annexation and Assimilation.
Of course, the first successful implementation of this concept followed the Mexican-American War in 1848. Under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo the entire region of the southwestern United States was ceded to the U.S. by Mexico. My description of how this could occur is much quicker and less bloody, and the results are along the lines of what we thought would happen in Iraq, flowers and cheers. You don't have to believe me. But if everything went just right, and the events in my book actually occurred ... Wikipedia.
The concept of annexation is being discussed. Here are some essays on the subject:(1), (2)