@LLGrandbois

You have mistaken ideas. 

1) It is true enough that Belgians do no longer have genuine freedom of speech, in a political sense.  They have it up to a point, but not when one touches on the  new dogmas of the current naive-left orthodoxy.  Then merely 'speech' can get you jailtime and/or fines.  So, Belgium is no longer a real democracy.

2) You are very wrong to think that Bush "has magically gotten more presidential powers than any previous president".  That only shows how limited your knowledge of history is, and how much the current media control your thoughts.  No previous war-time president has faced the same restrictions that Bush currently faces, and very few have faced such a hostile and even treasonous media cabal (in some cases, e.g. like the New York Times) which presents extra-judicial 'controls or limitations' as well.   

3)  Your view of the English monarchs as "celebrities" is touching, but your conclusion that monarchy (in general) helps "retain culture and tradition" does not conform with empirical observation.  The latter teaches that especially celebrities tend to conform to pc culture.  They tend to embrace it.  What "culture" are you talking about?    PC culture, no doubt.  The Belgian king (and the judiciary as well) has sworn to uphold the Constitution.  Did that stop him from signing unconstitutional legislation in recent times?  It did not.  A modern king, just like most politicians, will seek to be 'popular', NOT to be principled.  It is foolish to support institutions, like monarchy, which are INHERENTLY undemocratic in nature.  In a reasonably democratic culture, a 'bad' politician can often be removed relatively easily, but a 'bad' king will remain a 'fixture'.   Of course, if the culture itself is no longer "reasonably democratic", then all this becomes a moot point.  And whether a culture remains genuinely "democratic" is largely determined by the education system and the media!  A monarch will be totally irrelevant in that respect.  

4) The "oldest democracy" has lasted for about 230 years.  It was never perfect, but it did respect freedom of political speech, which has enabled improvement over time and also power alternation among different ideologies at regular intervals.  Rest assured that it will not last forever, and that it will eventually "be killed" from within through cultural degradation.  

 you need to either use democracy or you will lose it.  like Bush in America that has magically gotten more presidential powers than any previous president.  when you are afraid to confront problems or are are not allowed to confront problems (as it is not PC for whites to do) you get dominated by a strong group/leader/ethnicity/etc.   considering how the 9/11 protest was handled in Brussels, it looks as if native belgians are not allowed to say what they want to say.  According to what I read at this site, Walloons are worth more than the Flemish.  Is that really democracy when one persons vote is worth more?  The English Monarchs have no power, they are permanent celebrities, and nothing more.  Yet I feel that alone, has some value to help retain cultures and traditions that some might not want to lose.  Yes, it is strange that one would toy with the possibility of a Monarchy, but you are all educated people, how long has the oldest democracy lasted?  and what killed it?

Indeed, deja vu....  I am grateful that you saw the connection with Thomas Jefferson, which had escaped me.   Next week I will be visiting 'Monticello' and ponder that the great man's letters, and 'his' Declaration of Independence, are still being read.  It is the principles embodied in that Declaration that became the bedrock for the Bill of Rights, including freedom of expression and the other 'amendments' to the Constitution intended to limit governmental power.  

The facile 'moral' (the lesson) is that, even today in the 21st century, there are still "frogs (make that 'white people') soliciting Jupiter for a king".   The harder lesson, or the sad truth, is that mankind does not seem to learn from its terrible mistakes. The 'adults' want to remain children.      

It is amazing, but in the 21st century there are still 'white people' who advocate monarchy, as Conservative Swede and Grandbois illustrate on this website.   In 'modern' Europe there are few institutions which have adopted "pc culture" more assiduously than the various remaining monarchies, including the Belgian one.  And for understandable reasons.

If life were only that simple!  Just get a "strong figure", a strongman, a 'monarch'....and the problem (of culture retention) is solved.  That seems to be the absurd reasoning.    Yep, that is the same reasoning so commonly found on the 'Arab street'.....the desire for a powerful strong leader. 

The truth is that 'white people', as well as other people, will have to win the battle of ideas and of values....in the education system, in the media, and in the ballot box!    And stop hiding behind kings, queens, and 'strong' leaders. That would be more civilised, and grownup, instead of reverting back to political childhood in the care of a big father figure.

It seems like whites everywhere are being pushed out of their homes.  In places like Australia and America, the displaced natives are given generous government benefits.  I believe that it is time for whites to start giving themselves the benefits in their homelands and not give benefits to outsiders that do not want to assimilate and whom would not care if the white country (which they choose to live in over the own ancestral homeland) were to burn to the ground.  Either use Democracy to your advantage or else start the return of the king.  A strong monarchy will serve to retain culture much better than PC democracies.

I think France's last 200 years would have been better if they could have kept some remnants of the monarchy.

Maybe Belgium just needs a stronger monarch, or Wallonia needs a stronger monarch to get them to be as efficient as Flanders.

Is this article true? How many eventually come back? What are the statistics.

This all happened with Detroit. What will remain is a dangerous, unproductive yet expensive socialist/corrupt economy led by an incompetent (former) minority political elite that will send anyone with any skills or the means to leave fleeing. I find it fascinating that while Detroit vies with New Orleans for the highest murder/crime rate in the country, Troy, effectively a suburb comprised of white refugees from the city, has vied for the lowest crime rate in the US.