Julian Lee put it best The television keeps telling us that we need to push democracy everywhere, even force it upon people who don't want it, under penality of death for refusing. The television talks like democracy is a self-evident good, a kind of god even. The way they talk about democracy, you'd think it's as good as religion, in fact I think they want it to be our replacement for religion. But democracy only means one thing and one thing only - and that is, money rules. Wherever there is democracy, wise men are not in charge, but rather the less than savvy masses, in simple democracy, the average mind rules, the mediocre mind of the masses, the lowest common demoninator. But in reality these masses are always ruled by the money elite, and the power of persuasion that money brings. They are ruled by the media propoganda of the rich, their empty slogans, their image engineering and their secret agendas. The money men are experts in manipulating the mind of the average masses, and inciting the masses to do the money man's will. So wherever there is democracy it only means, money rules. And this is why the money men keep democracy at us, through their newspapers and televisions, so the money men and their media controllers can completely take over and rule over the people and have things arranged in their sick way I affirm monarchy as a HIGHER form of government. Someone once wrote to me in a discussion: I don't see why anyone would want to be governed by some ill-bred, over-privileged 'royal family'. What is it that actually qualifies a monarch to rule over anyone else? A surname? Some stupid title? The fact that they own lots of land? It's a ridiculous system with no discernable merit. I answered him back: No, it's none of those things. I want to point out that White Europeans have lived under their monarchs for most of their history, and I think we had it better then. You don't discern any merit in it because you never lived under a Monarch - under one of your own at his highest state. You oddly assume that a King is 'ill-bred' but the exact OPPOSITE is generally true. One of the roles of royalty is to model the highest character, and culture, to the masses - a stirring human influence sadly missing in our times. For this reason alone culture is at its highest under monarchs. What qualifies the Original King in fact is his personal qualities. And this is what inspires men under monarchs to strive for their own higher natures. It is a delusion of democracy that all men have the same development. The King has not only great executive advantages for creating a well ordered society: He or She has a spiritual role. Nothing inspires human beings - not assemblies, not committees - more than another human being at his loftiest perfection. The light of the King on his throne once filtered down, touching the head of every man at his humble table, enobling all in their sense of what human beings can be. Unfortunately today we are left with movie actors, rock stars, and politicians to 'carry our king' for us. Secondly, qualification for monarchy usually becomes based on bloodline, and this is also a valid principle if the first is not lost (that of character). In a monarchy a great deal is invested in cultivating the young prince or princess - training by all manner of mentors and ministers - to help ensure the development of wisdom and character. That's the way it went for centuries - longer than any experiment with democracy. But the whole idea of nobility really originates from the reality of noble human beings. It is unavoidable that there are 'natural nobility' in this world - those who veer toward the highest ethics and qualities of character. In various times and places these rise up to become that highest form of human leader, the King or Queen. I'll take a reasonably decent King over any legislature, any time.