Without a people, special "Democracy" can work undisturbed. The EU: trying to create a nation. To hungry fools free lunches look attractive. We can choose our capitalist. When crime is normal and resistance to it is criminal. To resist them, you need the approval of the Islamists. The moral right of the intolerant to demand tolerance. Burkas for men?

1. It is not necessarily what it is: it is what you make out of it. Calculate this. In country X, the ruling Socialists, regardless of their 60+% majority from 3 years ago, get four seats. The right-of-center opposition (in PC terminology everything is right-wing "extremist" that is not left of Stalin) has 15 mandates. A new formation, which is (too-far-to-the-right for the writer), grabs three seats. The author is uncertain, therefore, a question for you to answer privately arises. Who won?

2. The EU cannot be a democracy because it lacks a people. This is the case now, and it will remain so for a generation. If we accept this then Europe should be a confederation — and not the federation that it is stealthily groomed to become. The Union has achieved one of its original and principal objectives. That was to prevent conflicts among traditional rivals. (Mainly Germany and France.) The reason to support a confederate Europe is that the whole can protect the small nation states that, when added up, amount to "Europe." This is the only purpose that would stand the scrutiny of a general election held there. If this is accepted as the goal, then the conglomerate's domination by its large members endows today's EU with illegitimacy. The current hope of the Eurocrats is that by using their power they can make people change their spots. If that succeeds, then the directives of the elites in the know would create a population matching their agenda.

3. It is the little difference that counts. A democracy applies administrative measures that reflect popular consent. The EU is inclined to use directives in the hope that the imposed compliance will lead to the consensus that is now missing.

4. About a half of the population of what used to be East Germany thinks that the defunct state's system had advantages over the Federal Republic. No wonder. All were equally without rights and were rewarded for bad work the same, as were the diligent and the able. Sloppy work did not lead to the loss of your job. Producing unwanted goods could not lead to the closing of firms. The difference between capitalism and socialism is equal pay for bad work creating inferior goods in the latter. Part of the difference is the creative destruction practiced in capitalism. What the barefooted wish for is working like in socialism for pay as in capitalism. Quite like the promise of "free lunches" – this hope, too, landed in the garbage can of reality.

5. Do we live in private capitalism (capital is owned by individuals) or in state capitalism (capital is owned by the state and used by its bureaucracy)? In the latter case, you have a determining class that is the user/disposer class. It is sustained by its pre-election promise that it shall one day return part of the gains to the "owners." Theoretically, that would be society. In actual practice, the beneficiary is the knowing avant-garde of the dumb masses.

6. For long, Iran's mullahs could camouflage their theocratic dictatorship behind a facade of popular consent. As long as, with some nudging, "democracy" produced the desired results it was approved by the clerics. Modern tyrannies feel that they need a front that confirms the formal support of majorities. Now the masses have demonstrated their unwillingness to support their leaders. With that, the will to follow the insolent masses they are destined to lead has ebbed. The result is a hardening dictatorship formally justified by original past consent.

7. Two tendencies are gaining acceptance in the West. One: crime is normal as it is an expression of the frustrations caused by society's majority. The inference is that crime is non-conformism on the defensive. As such, it is not to be punished but understandingly discouraged by re-education and raised eyebrows. Second: the life-style and accustomed practices of indigenous majorities are criminalized. The more so if these folkways lead to the protection of the prevailing way of life and the laws created to maintain it. (If you enter a home an terrorize its inhabitants to access their belongings, you are a frustrated person that "misreacts" to society's injustice. In case you defend yourself effectively against your robbers, you become guilty of applying disproportionate violence. In case your tormentors belong to a protected minority you additionally become guilty of racism.)

8. A new rule of the game is emerging. We are threatened by its possible acceptance.  Islamism may only be combated with those verbal, economic and physical means that it approves. Obviously, Islamic fundamentalism cannot be opposed without angering its adherents. Ergo, stopping the Jihadists is not possible without frustrating them. Suppressing problems created by hostile minorities, for instance by reporting crimes without mentioning the national identity of law-breakers, is a farce. It helps indirectly when reports about criminality carry a reference to the local roots of the impostor. Suppressing the data describing a criminal equals discussing National Socialism without using the "s" word in the name.

9. In the countries of their infiltration Islamists exploit a, for them useful, dogma of local political culture. It is that all persons are equal, all cultures are equivalent and that all groups are to be treated without judging them. The problem with this reasoning is that it asserts a right to protection created by a tradition radicals reject. Alas, Islamists who demand acceptance and protection are reluctant to accept the culture, the social order and the political system of those harboring them. Accordingly, these unbelievers are not entitled to the benefit of the tolerance they claim for themselves.

10. The covering up of women by a mobile tent is a supposed command of Islam that fails to appear in the faith's scriptures. The practice is to protect men from the distraction of their impure — frankly perversely erotic – response to body parts, the totality of which makes a human female out of a creature. The argument betrays that it might not be the woman that is responsible for the wicked attraction. At fault is the male who, by his nature's command, reacts to features that express femininity. Therefore, it might not be up to the object whose shape causes godless impurity to raise its ugly head to hide whatever provokes dirty reactions. It might be argued that, the one that reacts indecently is to be held responsible for his inappropriate response. If so, male nature's command is to be suppressed. The repression of impure temptation might be the responsibility of the one that responds improperly to the, to him tempting, appearance of the opposite gender. If so, one is led to make a suggestion. The burden of preventive measures should be borne by those who are easily eroticized and who thereby abandon their devotion to higher values. Therefore, not women should be covered up by a curtain. Ignoring the advantages of castration, fallible Muslim men should be required to wear a bag over their heads. In communities of moderation it might suffice if they wear very dark glasses.

11. Why are the billions of dollars of aid to Africa ineffective? (Poverty grew and in relative terms the continent was passed by comparable areas.) Not aid extended in the form of expertise, opportunity and investment is at fault. Even then not, if we admit that many successful societies did without anything comparable. The problem is that aid programs are not in the hands of entrepreneurs with successful practical experience. Aid is the business of NGOs. NGOs do not recruit their personnel from the ranks of the successful. These employees can administer but they cannot perform in the areas they control from behind their desks.