Why does power corrupt? Possibly the most serious question any reasoning person could ask. And I'm sure it's been asked - yes, certainly, but definitively answered? Whatever answers may have been given to such a weighty question, they have left no mark anywhere. Why is that?

The best way to tackle impossible questions is to postulate impossible answers. I usually try to ask at least three impossible questions before breakfast and go from there. Of course, you'll say, "you're retired now, you have the luxury to do this." True, before retirement I used to ask only one impossible question before breakfast: "How can I get through this day without screwing something up?" The answer, invariably, came at the end of the day.

Let's see where this goes...

Where does systemic corruption originate? Why do people in general accept this as normal? Why is it that if you "squeeze" an Earthian, you will extract more evil than good from the creature? I guarantee that the ones who bristle at this comment are those who have never entertained introspection; never performed a serious and totally honest inventory on the contents of their minds. If you're new at this, it's a good idea to do it on a daily basis at first. Later with proficiency you can do it twice or three times a day, before meals and before bedtime.

History and modern media demonstrate that people love evil rather than good. Violence and bloodshed always make for the most popular entertainment, the box-office movies with the highest returns and the most watched news. It is easier to get people to go fight wars, even knowing they may be killed, than it is to motivate them to help others or do good unto all as they have the power. Why, for example, couldn't a super-power use its resources to help the poor, the dispossessed, the hungry and the sick of the earth? Even within the borders of a super-power the poor, the dispossessed are not succoured: they are further exploited because of their weakness. The fact is that a super-power is a beast, a hungry predator. If it didn't exploit, oppress and kill, it could not be a super-power. Without extortion by force and through fear-mongering, it would starve to death.

This should horrify people in general. It should cause them to stop all that they are doing and consider their complicity in this process and by sheer force of numbers, stop the wheel of extortion and oppression. But they do not. They never have and never will. There is no end of excuses for not only allowing, but supporting and encouraging the oppression of the weaker members of Earthian society. To add insult to injury, the "power" allows small, totally ineffectual groups to actually attempt some "good" in the world but such must be on the approved list, and as history shows most of those groups become co-opted by the power to become powers of their own, using the poor to make themselves rich, or they disappear.

The question here is not "why" are people essentially evil in their thinking and acts but where does this evil come from. There is a source that continually feeds a poison upon earth and that poison is the corruption of power. We see this, not only among man's institutions, but among nature as well. We co-exist with a system of predator versus prey. Man, being himself the greatest, if least efficient predator on this planet, has never questioned the morality or even the legality of this predator/prey system. Quite the opposite. Man argues that were it not for predators, their prey would overrun the planet and destroy it. Well, man should talk! All the talk is Earthian justification for its own deployed mayhem. Left to its own devices "nature" would balance itself without the predators. But man loves predation. How often are effigies of wolves, eagles, hawks, sharks, poisonous snakes used as symbols of power? And increasingly in modern society, the propensity to display human skulls everywhere tells the same story. After the bloodshed and violence, death must rule. Man prophesying his own demise - how fitting.

It seems obvious that "power corrupts" has to do with sadism and sociopathy. The more "aware" the predator is, the more sociopathic and systematic becomes his exploitation of the weaker members of society. Nazi Germany should have been a clear warning and a turning point but it wasn't. Nothing was learned and nothing remains of the "lesson" presumably taught at that time.

What then could be the source of the corruption that develops with such reliability among the powerful? Anyone can readily see that it would be just as easy, if not much easier, certainly much less expensive, to use power to do good. No obvious reason exists why not. What normal individual could object to doing good? Something enters the power and changes its nature so it will produce evil. This is neither natural nor accidental. It is a condition imposed upon Earthian power which infects all those who wield it, regardless of who they are or what their original intent was regarding the use of their power. Once they have the power within themselves, their personal lusts combine with the corruption inherent to the power in order to create an insensitive, sadistic, sociopathic monstrosity. Because of this poison or corruption infecting power and because rulership is made of power, this results in rulership expressing in terms of sociopathy with but rare exceptions. In today's reality I can't think of a single one.

Let's consider an impossible answer to the question. Long ago, perhaps as far back as a half-million years, something happened on this world which left a legacy of unnatural relationships between man, animals and the planet itself. It is a fact that to this day man considers his own works as man-made and differentiates his from those of nature. Man-made, artificial, synthetic. A car, for example, is a man-made thing, not considered to be a natural object. The question to ask is, why does man think this way? Why does man consider his particular works as unnatural; as not a "normal" part of nature? If man was a totally natural being to this world, would it not be incongruous, if not impossible, for him to differentiate his creations from those of nature? Wouldn't they just be a natural extension of others? For example, a wild prairie and a cultivated field would both be natural phenomenon and anything grown on them would be a natural product - it could never be otherwise. A city would be a natural extension of caves in the mountains. The point is, man would not say that one is natural, the other artificial - it could never be so. The other point to remember is that man cannot "return" to living his life as a primate in the wilds without any "artificial" means. Even the most primitive, atavistic tribal people are different than other primates, or creatures. They have "something" that animals do not have; they are not "wild" creatures. They can be brought into a modern, technological environment and take to it easily enough. No other primate can do this. Bottom line, man is not part of earth's natural system of evolution and adaptation.

It is written that in the beginning, God created man in his image. Is it possible that man is not a creature natural to this world, but an invention? Ignoring religious interpretations that are at best meaningless, at worst endless misdirection, and reasoning that man is an invention, not a natural creature, then we must allow for some intelligence in the design of this artificial creature. Ignoring the anthropomorphic god of religion, let's think closer to possibility; closer to home: that man was made for a particular purpose and that those who made the creature were exploiters from another world. Now, was that so hard? Any harder than believing in some invisible all-powerful sky wizard who spends his precious time counting the hairs on your head (and likely hopes that more and more of you go bald!) and watching sparrows falling dead from their perches? I go with the alien concept - call it Occam's Razor: I prefer what makes the most sense and leaves some room for pure reason.

These possible aliens had no natural links to this world. To them the planet was a convenience (I'll refrain from saying 'a godsend'), a place from which to extract resources. Does the comment, "Drill, baby, drill!" ring any bells? These aliens would be essentially psychopathic, in their approach to this world. To extract what they wanted, they needed relatively cheap manpower and that wasn't to be found on the planet. So, being inventive, they invented - cloned - an intelligent creature they called the "adam" or man. Through the cloning process, the creature inherited the characteristic sociopathy of its creators. But that's not all man inherited...

The Kabala (I am not claiming to know much of such a difficult text but I read this somewhere) says that "God" had already created all the souls of all the people before they were created. A telling point. According to my teaching, the soul is a control implant that the creator-gods put in their male and female slaves. That means they had this implant ready for use before they made the very first man or "adam" slave. They had a sophisticated enough technology that they did not need chains and fetters to control their slaves - they had an implant they could re-program and use to manipulate either an individual or the "herd" itself.

These creator-gods, these exploiters of earth's natural resources, did not clone man strictly from their own DNA, but also used natural DNA from an already existing man-like primate of earth - probably equivalent to what we call Neanderthal man, or some such. This ensured two things: their slave-man would be able to adapt to this world and function normally in it (something the aliens could not do according to translated Sumerian records), but without ever being able to return to a wild state - and that was important to the masters. Man was made to serve them, not himself. He could never be allowed to "return" to a natural pattern of evolution. He was cut off from earth's natural environment and forced to design his own. The other point was that as an in-between creation, the slave-man could never claim to be one of the creator gods either. He was different, not so much in intelligence - the creature proved very capable in fact - but different in body size, being much smaller than his "gods" whom he was programmed to fear and serve without question. Refusing service meant death. Man could never be allowed to think of having freedom of thought or act. Man could never express free will without the due penalty: death. The man-slave was also limited in his understanding of alien technology - at least in the beginning. He was adept at using it, but like most of us driving cars, didn't know how to fix it or make it do things it was not pre-designed to do.

And that's my source of the evil that plagues all men, but particularly men of power. It emanates from his makers, from his beginnings. Man's lack of empathy is the legacy of his "divine" nature, not his natural one. It's a simple matter of turning religious misdirection over on its head. "God" is not the good, caring, loving entity of the religious commercial. "Satan" is the invention designed to cover up the creator-gods' psychopathy by imputing it to a scape-goat. And by simple extension, anyone who does not "worship" (serve) the god is an enemy and custom-made to be exploited, oppressed and killed.

Is there a happy ending? No. Not as long as the Matrix and accompanying the soul programming continues to run. Of course it is possible for man to break the chain. Man has developed just enough to realize he has a mind and can choose how he lives his life: as a slave to the system forever under the dominion of this or that power, or as an independent being, living his life by his own rules. He's not doing it, but the possibility is here. What man has to realize is two basic things: there is no heaven - that's a Matrix commercial - and John Lennon's imagination was running in the right direction (hence why he was killed)- and there is no possibility of ever "returning" to living a purely natural wilderness life. These are the delusions that plague man as the "between worlds" creature.

“That you can’t be good without a god doesn’t mean you need one; it just means you’re a shitty human being.” (Anonymous)