This is a book about the spirit of a place, be it of an angel or a demon. It is not a listing of cold facts or a repetition of distorted conceptions. It is neither a travel guide, nor a Hollywood thriller full of mind numbing clichés.

This is a book about the present. History is by no means a focus. Inevitably, events of the past will come up, but they, in themselves, are of no concern. They will be explored only as far as their capacity to shed light on the current state of affairs. So if you are looking forward to a mystic read about the builders of the pyramids or the suspicious death of a young pharaoh thousands of years ago, this is not the book you should be reading.

This book started as nothing more than a way to vent anger. I am one among many who are compelled to set sail to strange lands everyday. There is nothing special about my case. In fact, I am one of those who left on better terms. Many die just trying to reach foreign shores. But for all, deciding to leave is never easy. And with that decision there becomes no alternative to success. The prospects of failure and the associated shame make a return trip dreadful.

However, suffering and perseverance do not necessarily make a heroic story. Some might even argue that leaving has selfishness and surrender written all over it, and it is a claim that has some truth to it. After all, leaving is primarily about seeking personal achievement. It is also about an overwhelming feeling of helplessness that leads one, on some level, to give up. And if everyone leaves, who will be left to fight for better circumstances?

Needless to say, not everyone who stays behind is a hero. People come in all sorts, but based on stance, and not social status, one can recognize three main attitudes. Some think that as long as they go around minding their own business, they can keep away from trouble and lead peaceful lives. They look for a little corner where they can live unnoticed. Soon they get a job and start a family. But corruption is so pervasive; there is no escape from it. And now, as life gets tougher around them, they respond in the only way they can; they work harder. They cannot afford to reject or protest anymore because they have families to feed. They whisper their complaints, while their negativity speaks loud and clear in favor of corruption and oppression. They seek consolation in their holy books and pray for God to do their work for them, but salvation never seems to come. And as they go on surviving day by day, they hope their efforts will yield a better future for their children, not realizing that in the process they breed scared generations that will follow in their footsteps.

Others try to get off the hook, but given the circumstances, there are only two ways to do that: either topple the system or manipulate it. Faced with such options, they easily and clearly realize that the latter is much safer and far more lucrative. Having been brought up under an authoritarian regime, they intuitively understand that the dynamics of the system work in such a way as to fiercely oppress all activities that might undermine its authority, while, at the same time, encourage and reward corruption since it is essential for authority to survive and tighten its grip over power. It is then not difficult to see that with little rationalization backed up with a lot of survival instinct, many choose to ride the wave instead of trying to break it.

In between these two mind sets lies the majority. Their dilemma stems from daily confrontation between their morals and their primitive instincts. Such a conflict is, in fact, a basic aspect of human nature (footnote: Cosmos, page 303), and in that respect, the dilemma is the same for all human beings across the globe. It is only the ferocity of the conflict that varies, scaling as the level of corruption in a society. To inspect the rigor of this argument, consider the hypothetical example of examining a society starting with an initial condition of zero corruption level. In addition, we shall assume there exists no penalization system. That is, there is no stated law, or government that sees to applying it, and therefore the notion of “illegal” is irrelevant. With fear of punishment out of the way, ambivalence in that society will initially be confined between morals and desires. Matters of conflict will include issues like compassion versus selfishness, monogamy versus polygamy and contentment versus greed. One’s actions will then be based solely on his/her beliefs about the world and, in many cases, the hereafter. Inevitably, some will succumb to their desires, and being within a society where the majority plays by moral rules, there will be little competition and they will find themselves achieving quick and considerable gains. Now following the evolution of our experimental society through successive generations, the number of individuals who pay little attention to morals will multiply and corruption will tend to increase in level as well as gravity, and as a result, the implications of corruption start becoming significant enough to exert pressure on one’s moral decisions. Sticking to principles now requires endurance and sacrifice and there is no guarantee it pays off as well anymore. As this process continues, a point is reached where the level of corruption is so high it renders morals and survival incompatible. One can then identify two extreme states: a state of zero corruption where moral law applies and a state of infinite corruption where jungle law, so to speak, applies. Due to other factors in play, like human compassion and the presence of law enforcement, and the fact that people disperse all over the moral spectrum, the state of a society never settles at any of these two extremes, but always somewhere in between. Nevertheless, our simplified social analysis captures the essence of the problem and therefore the main conclusion remains valid no matter how complex, and therefore accurate, our social analysis becomes. And the main conclusion is this: that corruption breeds more corruption and is thus self-perpetuating.

One is then able to recognize the vicious circle of corruption in which the majority back home is caught. And because they are afraid to abandon their principles and equally afraid to give in to their desires, they start making exceptions for every principle they claim to believe in, which, sadly, makes their moral system void of any meaning. The justification is usually something along the lines of “everybody does that” and/or “I am not hurting anyone”. As for the first, it fails to recognize, or chooses to ignore, that the case for morality is often unsupported by the numbers. In fact, the admiration with which morals are hailed stems, mainly, from the fact that not many people on this planet firmly live in accord with morals, not in the active sense. We all know, from personal experience, that it is easier to boast about morals than live by them. If it were otherwise, there would be no sense in recognizing the efforts of those who struggled for equality and freedom throughout human history; the very act of honoring them is an admission that their acts were, and still are, rare and extraordinary. Morality that takes common behavior as a reference is then self-contradictory and, in many cases, hypocritical. The second justification, if nothing else, fails to see the implications of simple actions within the bigger picture. It only takes a simple mind exercise to realize that the events of life are so intricately connected that one cannot possibly consider all consequences of a potentially immoral act, and conclude, with a high degree of confidence, that no harm is being done to anyone. 

It is with this kind of self-deception that the majority manages to find a place for themselves and their families in a society where corruption bends all rules. It is also not difficult to understand why this would be a dominant pattern: simply because such small exceptions, when compared to the norm of corruption around, seem quite harmless, while, at the same time, one can still keep his/her self image of righteousness. This is quite a comforting solution when you are torn between your principles and your desires, but you do not have the necessary decisiveness to choose one over the other.