the illusion of time

After an absence, I have a thing or two to say, though of not much consequence nor importance. I’ve simply been oppressed by the mundane and perfunctory rituals of life. I needn’t enumerate them, for they are all too familiar to everyone and anyone. I have also been consumed by two problems:

1. The issue of the European superstate. The illogical but respectable attempts by the small nation-state to retain its position in an era when to be a small state is to be in a state of no significance on the international stage. Because of their historical rôle in world history, i.e., political history, and an inability to realize that things have changed, the drive on the Old Continent since the end of WWII has been towards a more congruous, more unified, more integrated Europe, in order to retain some say in the world. However, many politicians are against a federal Europe, something that would enable Europe to streamline and thus make it more efficient as well as responsive, not only to the world but its citizens also. What they want is a Europe that is integrated economically.

But the EU hasn’t even achieved that! For all its talk, there are still in place, at least with regards to the 10 new EU members, labor market restrictions on their workers. National politicians produce colorful excuses to explain why the freedom of movement for workers in the EU from the East, freedom of movement for workers being one of the cornerstones of the EU, has to be controlled. However, businesses from the old 15 members face no barriers in buying up businesses in the new member states. So what has been achieved is an instantiated EU that differs from the EU described in the treaties, aside from bringing about an ineffective European state comparable to the United States under the Articles of Confederation: a disfunctional state where nothing, politically speaking, is achieved. And how can things be accomplished when the skein of treaties that constitute the EU call for unanimous approval from all members. Malta is on par with Germany, France with Poland and so forth, to wit: all member states for all intents and purporses are equal. And consesus is a hard thing to achieve, after all there are different national interests at stake and they are all valid — each state has the power to veto!

If the Europeans wish to have a rôle on the international stage, other than the object of derision, have they any other option but to finally take the final step, i.e., a federal republic, and speak for once in unison and not as a cacophony of inaudible voices? Through a federal system, the imbalances that exist under the current system, will ultimately be rectified. Each member shall then have a voice, so to speak, equal to its contribution.

It is silly that the EU invests resources in producing a rival to Google, Quæro, which is no guarantee that Europeans will make the switch simply because it is European, whilst it will not follow the American lead in something that will have an actual impact on their future: federalism.

2. The issue of women (sc. Muslim women) and their right to wear a headscarf. Although it is described as an issue of freedom, it only is so on the superficies. What it really amounts to is a struggle for power between two entities: one legitimate empowered through a democratic process on the one hand, and on the other, one divinely established by the mandate of a supreme being. It is the attempt of usurpation of power under the guise of freedom, an abuse of the flaws in a democracy: its inability to defend itself from those that do not tolerate it and keep itself free from their contamination.

Religion has become very cafeteria-like. People pick and choose what they wish to observe. Islam declares that Muslims ought to fight the infidels by the sword (one need only read the Qur’an) and that it is unacceptable for a Muslim nation to form an alliance with a non-believing nation: yet these alliances exist! In effect, there is a copious amount of contradictions between word and deed. And ultimately, is a Muslim woman that says she must wear the veil saying this because she believes it — indepedently — or because it has been inculcated into her belief system by a force external to her? After all, is it not true that a man and his aspirations are a result of his society? Without the city man is not man, according to Aristotle, but either a beast or a god!

No, a state must be weary of anyone that says: I will not obey your laws, i.e., the laws of the government, but I will obey those of my religion. It is not freedom to practice one’s religion as one sees fit, it is a threat to any government and its hold on power! We must not be fooled into believing that it is a legitimate fight for freedom to practice one’s religion or express oneself. It is a fight to obey another system’s commands.