Over and over, the word empowerment shows up in social criticism as the supposed solution to problems. Empowerment means the persons who have problems could supposedly solve them if they had more power.

What is meant by such power? It means groups of people having greater influence. What is greater influence? It means replacing or overriding someone else who presently makes the decisions. In other words, it's a different group of decision makers.

Why would a different group be better at something? There is no logic to it. It's like Karl Marx stating if workers owned businesses, government would no longer be needed. Guess what, workers often own businesses, and nothing changes. If the janitors took over control of government, would they do a better job? What is better, and for what purpose?

The questions cannot be answered, because the whole concept of empowerment is insane. It's insane because power is not the answer to anything. There are already persons with power, and power corrupts what they do. Why would a different group with power be any different.

Empowerment is insane, because life is shaped by realities, while power is an attempt to overwhelm realities with forces. Force is the basis of sin, which is why power corrupts.

Underlying this whole subject is the nature of sin. Sin turns everything upside down. It creates a hate for truth and reason and replaces them with subjective influence based on power.

Here's a model concept for putting this subject into perspective. View a person's mind or soul as having two layers: a subjective layer and an objective layer. People cannot exist without both. They always have subjective concerns, while life is made up of objective realities.

Morality requires that all of this gets arranged properly. This means that objective reality always defines life, and people have a responsibility to align upon objective reality to sustain life. They can only interact constructively in that manner. If not, they create a hell for each other. Morality is that which sustains life.

For this reason, objective reality comes first, and subjective concerns second. Subjective concerns must be aligned upon objective reality to sustain life and avoid or resolve conflicts.

This means the objective layer of existence must be more basic and underlie the subjective layer of existence. This is what morality requires. But sin reverses the layers. It puts the subjective concerns first and objective reality second. The result is a biased or prejudicial influence upon objective reality.

Sin does this because it creates forces in the mind or soul. It subjectivizes existence where it is supposed to be objective (see subjectivity). Subjectivity overwhelms corrupt persons for more than one reason. One reason is because for every sin (injustice), a counterforce of justice comes back through the universe and always prevails. This force and counterforce causes forces to develop in the mind. Each sin creates a force in the mind. Also, the whole purpose of sin is to prevail against other persons, which is a subjective influence. That purpose overwhelms everyone involved, and overwhelms life, entrapping corrupters in the result, which is subjective.

This description may look too complicated and abstract to be fact, but we see clear examples which show that these words are understatements. The truth is more extreme and preposterous than words can convey.

Examples of this problem show up in major social frauds. Social frauds exist for the reasons described above. The most obvious and extreme social frauds include creationism and carbon dioxide, with more peripheral examples being relativity and numerous elements of science.

Creationists assume they can prove scientists wrong, because God said so, supposedly in the book of Genesis. Nothing in Genesis is about science or evolution. But saying so is putting objective reality above subjectivity. Corrupters do the opposite. First, they become subjectively controlled by authority figures, who give them a motive to defeat atheists, and then creationism follows as a biased and contrived reality serving that motive.

Creationists can be proven wrong over and over, and they keep returning to the same errors, because their subjective layer of existence comes first; it is below the objective layer and takes precedent over it. Objective realities are tailored for the purpose.

Non-fundamentalists look upon creationists as wacky. It's easy to see how wrong they are. (They are right about intelligent design needing to replace random mutations, which are statistically impossible; but that is just a stroke of luck; it does nothing to fix their absurd attack upon science.) But guess what, the rest of the world promotes a similar fraud with carbon dioxide. Instead of the book of Genesis, it's the IPCC. God cannot be wrong, whether it's the IPCC or the book of Genesis.

The arguments of the carbon dioxide fraud are just as irrational as those of creationists. Promoters of the carbon dioxide fraud cannot produce a scientific argument; they fall back upon authority which supposedly includes a majority of the scientists. There is no place for consensus in science, any more than there is a place for religion in science. Science requires an evaluation of objective evidence, which is as despised by carbon dioxide propagandists as by creationists.

Who is it who has such screwed up minds? The promoters of creationism and the carbon dioxide fraud show us who they are. Doesn't this include almost all of society? It sure does; and it shows what is meant by a world of sin. Would not everything else in the world be just as screwed up for the same reasons? It sure is, as demonstrated by relativity. Einstein was named man of the century, while he was one of the dumbest idiots to ever enter science, and relativity is a mockery of rationality and physics.

It's important to notice that the point here is not a dispute over issues. There is nothing wrong about being wrong. Science is all about disputes, because it operates at the boundaries of knowledge. Disagreements will always exist, and that is not the point here. The point here is the method of operating, which most basically is the standard of morality. Creationism and the carbon dioxide frauds are not disputes over science—the science is not being argued. Supposedly, the science is settled on carbon dioxide. There is no science to creationism; it is God speaking to man. Yet it is supposed to replace science in the classroom for kids, just as Al Gore's movie entered the classrooms and created a view on climate science.

What is extremely visible about creationism and the CO2 fraud is the mentality of subjectivity overwhelming objective reality. Proper criticism would be no problem; it is in fact desperately needed. The promoters of the frauds make sure proper criticism does not occur, because they are driven by subjective forces which must override objective reality in their minds.