I am allowed and completely free to write down every single word I find meaningful and truthful to myself, as philosophy is not about stating definitive truths, for there exist no definitive truths. Philosophy is about a mindset, a way, and about what does it points at and towards what shall it lead us.
Philosophy is the democracy, no, the freedom of the mind.
The difference between a follower and a creator is vocation and tendentiousness.

Between mortality and omnipotence lies the deepest valley. To build omnipotence, entering an extreme state of solitude is a must. Once one finds his gate within society, one must find his gate in his own soul. Omnipotence it's not about materialistic wealth and about the privilege to do as one pleases - it is about executing the process at a whole new level of consciousness. Therefore omnipotence consists of wealth, fortitude and the highest wisdom one can deplete from all. (The depletion of agony is a basic.) What is more, the existence there is to become omnipotent is an existence which's development shall never be stopped, interrupted, or outrun. A man who wars himself to grow to omnipotence one day, always has to triumph twice. He has to defeat his own demons and only then he can fight his own limits. There are seven eyes to percept reality, or 'reality's truth'. Two on the head to see the look of it, two on the heart to grow noble kindness, two on the mind to immediately see the other side of the given page and one more to summarize them all - 'the eye of omnipotence'. The eye which can see not only the truth, but its diversive variations also. Anytime someone asks me what is leading me towards my path, I anwser, 'my seventh eye.' 
While God rules, the Omnipotent owns. He does not feel the need to rule over human kind - although he has the power to do so. Another theory is that every existence is in a way controlled by a higher intelligence. Is the omnipotent too? In one world he shall be not, in the galaxy of worlds he may be.
( The color of the omnipotent's nature is black )
The omnipotence paradox
'Could God, or a superior entity create a rock that even he could not lift?' 
Before running to various conclusions that would lead us to thousands of other questions, let me to question something different.
The first thing that came to my mind was, 'Is 'the omnipotent' existence such mighty that he can deprive himself of responsibility?'
'Is he so almighty that after becoming the holder of power he no longer bears or has to bear the consequence of his own acts?
'Is he in some way connected to the rock with any kind of obligation or responsibility?'
'Why would an upper existence create such rock in the first place?'
Because, as the expounders of this paradox claim or imagine it, God is fighting with the rock he is to create. However, if he does not bear any possible consequence, the main question itself becomes irrelevant in a sense.
Let's focus on the nature of the rock now.
The creation of such a thing refers to 'multiplying apples' rather than to 'proliteration'. But if so, the power of the omnipotent would go far beyond comprehensible levels, as creating a result from sources which does not equal the outcome is absurd, or just yet incomprehensible for human minds. ( It would be absurd on the same scale as if you invested one dollar and received thousands back in an instant, or as if you invested zero with the same result. )
The nature of God
( The color of its nature is grey )
From self-destructive starvation to fulfilling yet forth-pushing thirst, entering the 'state of God' is inevitable. Speaking of God, I do not mean the outer one residing above the skies, no, to me that one is unacceptable, non-existent. I speak about the inner God, about one's third self. To come to touch with him, we must be fully aware of what we are and what we shall never be. From time to time we just need to stop for a second and express our gratitude by saying 'thanks' and by constantly developing ourselves. Be grateful for the breaths you take, but also for the tragedies you were able to exploit. As I say, lift a trophy for the damage, not the damager. Although now I talk about inner God as a 'socially positive' phenomenon, I would be a fool if I thought there are no other natures to welcome their own form of God. I distinguish three presences of God; he can be our servant, friend or slave. He can even be all three from the listed, as contradiction is allowed for the omnipotent, but the reasons and the effects must be explained well to keep insanity's sanity alive. For the omnipotent, contradiction evolves to an upper level of consciousness that is too complex for heathens to understand. ( The weak serve God, the strong are served by. ) But it does not matter who he is to us when we have no one to love, no one to be coalesced with.
Expounding omnipotence, we must come down to the 'nature of law'.
( 'One of mankind's worst enemies is the misunderstood concept of righteousness. The mindset that 'someone has to be wrong' instead of 'someone has to have higher wisdom than I do, why shouldn't I explore the world with understanding, then?' )
Beings who possess tendencies of omnipotence are recognized as nothing more than filthy savage. Why? It's because we cannot deny the fact that the omnipotence of one overrules the average of two who possess no above-average intelligence nor transcendental intelligence. Having said that, it is deductible that the minority placed on the peak of hierarchy enjoys privileges those lower cannot even dream about. The law does not serve the servants and the deservers equally.
'Was law established because humans approached inequalities with kind-hearted righteousness, or because humans failed living as humans?' ( By establishing laws, a plague called bureaucracy was given birth, which allows the officials to rob another men's money and time legally in the terms of law. )
If one can remain himself only when living on a flat surface, that existence is not much worth for. Behold, the 'demon theory'.
Demon theory
'Are humans trustworthy and kind despite the demon that lies in the depths, that can be awakened by floods?'
'But what if demons are created? If they were, would it still impeach one's nature?'
Those who possess no transcendental intelligence after leaving the stage of adolescence, probably will not tame it in the future either. So, do they need to be guided by another men towards the most that can be achieved? Or would the doing of it be just a process to protect them from their own demons? The matter of perception, I guess, but then again, there is every man for himself.
Ways and means/ War and peace
'In the end, everything is about how much are you willing to sacrifice for war and peace.'
At first I did not really understand the line that has engraved itself to my mind, but as I am digging deeper and deeper into the nature of all straight to 'its' core, I think I have finally figured it out in my own way.
The one who sacrifices more for peace and love than for war, is a fool.
The one who sacrifices more for war than for peace and love, is a coward.
The one who sacrifices equal amout of efforts for war and peace, is incomprehensible for many eyes.
To war is to endeavor, to be at peace is to do good. ( Word war describes the series of battles leading us to our own meaning of success, fulfillment. )
If you want to revolve easily when you dance to see the beauties of this world better, dance on ice. No matter what the cost.
Beware of the false preachers. There are many men who preach water, yet they do not drink it themselves. Let others' disability be laudatory rather than outrageous.
I consider writing both my vocation and tendentiousness, so I became a preacher myself. If I can contribute at least a little to the nation's shaping and tenets, I will lay down my ways and means with which I attempt to reach omnipotence. Men interpret the definition of  'power' differently, and their ways and means differ too. Some directly trample on others, some use more convenient ways. The purpose should be to tame independence without the cost of making others dependent or crushed.
Power never finds those who think they can do without it.
Power is tempting all, without exception. What I am fully convinced of is, that men who want might without fondness will grow thorns instead of wings.
Power is not true, when it's not truth that is power.
Power is to speak the most beautiful language of the world - the language of souls.
Power is just like volition, it consists of two stages; a man can be powerful and can be power.
Power is, when the man himself remains passive and the activity/productivity comes by his order. Therefore the consequences disperse.
Power is, when a man can roost in foreign lands.
All in all, there are men who are empty papers, there are men who are the letters on it, there are men who write letters on it and there are men who produce papers.
The difference between an itellectual follower and a creator
There are consumer followers and intellectual followers. ( We could divide these two groups into materialistic extroverts and spiritual introverts/ambiverts also, I think. ) What is now essential, is the relation between an intellectual follower and a creator; to be more concrete, the way they look at consumer society. A consumer follower's stupidity does not burn neither the intellectual follower's nor the creator's skin, but an intellectual follower finds it more tragic than a creator does. A creator finds non-intellectual people more exploitable regarding business, manipulation and the chance to excel in whatever he does.
No matter how many words and worlds one knows, one will never truly develop and take the role of a leader if there is no action.
Just a thought
One God was a bureaucrat and Satan was born or reborn as God's natural enemy. Satan, after being exiled for his ideals or after he simply decided to leave, fell into extreme solitude. There was no such intelligence he could swear to. But there was tempting darkness to swear to.
Or, maybe they were just brothers who were pulling the strings behind the people's backs together the whole time.
Talking to leaders, we are just a stack of systematic numbers.
We are controlled.
Illusionists control reality.
Philosophy
Philosophy is not a question of belief, for philosophy is based on logical explanations. To a philosopher, people are pieces of puzzle he puts together to get the picture of life. He analyzes the pieces, and a true philosopher knows, that everything is connected. Philosophists do not live in their own world, they just see further into the current one. To see relations, we must be related  DIRECTLY to the more we can relate ourselvs to. Because, as mentioned, everything is in a way connected with the another and so are we with things we do not even know about. And those things can surely affect our life lesser or greater, regardless our knowledge about it. It is the connection that must be conscious. Then, when we become conscious of existing things that were once placed beyond our sights, we gain a DIRECT connection. A better understanding for the function of the world and the souls of it too. The more relations we see, the more diversive we can become - and tolerance is one of diversity's keys.
A philosopher is not omnipotent, he is just the closest one to it spiritually.
A landlord is not omnipotent, he is just the closest one to it materialistially.
Although I firmly believe that philosophers would be the most ideal leaders, somehow we do not see this idea implemented. Now we come down to a well known question.
Transcendent intelligence = suffering (?)
In my eyes, a philosopher shall lead, because he would not just bless his work with profound thoughts, but by soul also. The world is lacking 'healers'. Many philosophists fear of becoming a landlord, while on the other hand no landlord fears of becoming a philosopher. My point is, that the soul of a philosopher should not be burnished to perfection, but should be preserved as it is, for a soul of a philosopher is in many cases the purest one. Even without burnishing it. What is more, a philosopher's loss is when he becomes a slave of so-called imaginary perfection, or he unconsciously becomes dependent on social recognition. Trying to live as a saint is hypocrisy. We must live ourselves; we must live purely and do good, and we have to live vile too. Question authorities and break the bureaucratic moral codex that serves no purpose. Those who give us answers easily, those answers are not worth much. Because if they were, you could see the qualitiy pulled out from their answers. 
You could see a higher position,wealth, fortitude or whatsoever.
The mechanic will advise you, the merchant's you must deserve.
We must see through illusions that prevent us from florescence. For me it is clearly a better option to walk a path even if it's dark at the moment than to walk someone else's.
Can we establish ourselves in the world with help of philosophy?
As I said, a philosopher is the closest one to omnipotence spiritually and theoretically.
'Is philosophy something that cannot be applied in everyday life or are philosophists afraid of application?'
Geniuses, amongst them exactly the ones whose works are not implemented or successful yet, are the most doubtful. While others, with less thinking, are able to create more. However, if you are one of those I talk about, I call for your vision. Because, the outcomes differ for the sacrifices differ. The greater the misery, the greater shall your wisdom be, and you, you should go for it. A tree which's crown touches the sky has its roots deep down in hell. 
Negate.
Flaws in the system
1. 'If there are only two residents in one world, and one decides to destroy, whose fault is the damage going to be?'
The one's, who let. By letting an act happen, we define the righteousness of it. If there is no fight for the question 'what's right and what;s wrong', how could we complain?
2. It is not contagious stupidity that has got out of control, but destructive intelligencies. And, those intelligencies who would bring the best harvest, are on the other hand self-destructive.
3. A human who needs to follow another moral codex word by word to be able to behave like a human being and not to be a 'threat' to himself or society, is weak. Weak and there is a high tendency for corruption, which's emergence would be fatal if the floods came. Or a new world order. Such men possess a great plague against the adolescent youth either way, for they carry no personal ideals, which means that they not just preach but often force their recycled ideals on other people, as the followed way is the only way they not know, but firmly believe in. I can tell you the price of a recycled ideal - it equals zero.
4. By the rising number of ideals, I think that now I am free to say that the absolutistic theory of  'right and wrong' has been refuted. The collectively accepted concept of it could be achieved only through cruel dictatory, but even then, it would be rather respected than believed, for through the ages, men became more and more individualistic. Mankind can disprove thousands of theories, but I think that there is one that will never be disproved by humans - the belief or truth that there exists two ways of living - a meaningful and a meaningless. There is no human being who would not be lead by rationality or be driven by curiosity. therefore we, human beings act logically - some more, some less. If there was not a meaning in existence itself, why would we be here, living? 
Even our senselessness, momentary meaningfulness cannot be defined as definitive, for it will always mean something meaningful to someone else.
We, humans, are almighty enough to bless a thing with a meaning, or even seek a meaning out of smth.

Reborn as a consequent, not as a consequence
Destruction is an interest, in diversion lies victory
War is never fought between more than two men
Bureaucracy is the greatest obstacle between people and humans
Extinguish fire or piss on the flames
Passive contribution shall backfire
Art is the hymn of unconquered
You damage yourself, you hurt mother nature
To the end of this journey I will love you
What we have gone through form us
Or we and it form a personification together
Individuality counts from the moment
One becomes entirely incorruptible
No heathen can subvert an intelligent man’s peace
But the state of mind is reachable
As we all are arrogant to a degree, inborn human traits
Let’s live vile without the programmed concept
False divinity, moral barriers, cross the faded line and look back
Realize that the picture of God drawn by bureaucrats is ridiculous
Delighted is the fool, not the clown
Who loses honour never possessed
Artists are scum, I beckon thee
I indict society and mostly myself
Movement of objects
Should I feel guilty killing a blank page
Sadistically I will watch you die
Then I will pull you back to life
Build you up and handle over an envelope of trust
But by that time I will be dead or I will fly in wealth
Cannot waste my scars, too selfish I would be
Stars too far, opportunity by my hands
Contemporary filth is what always existed