As we know, the French Revolution swept away the aristocracy in France. The landed aristocracy in the UK has almost faded away. All the aristocracies of Eastern Europe were swept away by the Russian Revolution and later by the Soviet occupation of half of Europe.
America has only ever had an aristocracy of business tycoons, the Rockefellers and the like.

But I get the impression that there is now a new kind of aristocracy of the global elites. In some cases it is built on wealth and it doesn't matter what that wealth is built on. It can be even a show business wealth which gets you entry to the global circle.
In other cases it is prominence in power circles that gets you a ticket. The leaders of the EU, current and past leaders of global organisations like the IMF. And of course leaders of global corporations, old & new.

All of these people seem to mingle together quite frequently. They all seem to share the same kind of ideas and philosophy, none of which seem to me to be connected to the needs and aspirations of the mass of the people.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say they have become the enemies of the people just like the old aristocracies.
Is it time to get the tumbrils rolling again.

Aux armes, citoyens !
Formez vos bataillons !
Marchons ! Marchons !
Qu'un sang impur
Abreuve nos sillons !

French revolution established democracy, by definition, which means choosing head of state by popular vote ( Greek: "δημοκρατία"means rule of people).
For example Britain has never had a democracy but only aristocracy or Dictatorship (Greek: aristokratía" means rule of an elite.)
Unlike in America, France, Russia and other democratic countries, British head of state has never been democratically elected but chosen by blood line, as a Monarch, who has constitutional right to dismiss a prime minister and British parliament.
Australia, for example,also has  undemocratic head of state (Dictator) as British Monarch who in 1974 sacked democratically elected Australian prime minister Gough Whitlam without parliament approval.
So the conclusion is that nothing is" rolling again" but has always has been there.

capitosinora wrote on Oct 7^th, 2016 at 1:38pm:

French revolution established democracy, by definition, which means choosing head of state by popular vote ( Greek: "δημοκρατία"means rule of people). For example Britain has never had a democracy but only aristocracy or Dictatorship (Greek: aristokratía" means rule of an elite.) Unlike in America, France, Russia and other democratic countries, British head of state has never been democratically elected but chosen by blood line, as a Monarch, who has constitutional right to dismiss a prime minister and British parliament. Australia, for example,also has  undemocratic head of state (Dictator) as British Monarch who in 1974 sacked democratically elected Australian prime minister Gough Whitlam without parliament approval. So the conclusion is that nothing is" rolling again" but has always has been there.

Wrong again Capi'. The British Monarch was not involved in the sacking of Whitlam. The GG, John Kerr, did it, and he was appointed by Australian Parliament. Kerr was Australian, born in Balmain and his father was a boilermaker.

issuevoter wrote on Oct 8^th, 2016 at 4:49pm:

capitosinora wrote on Oct 7th, 2016 at 1:38pm: French revolution established democracy, by definition, which means choosing head of state by popular vote ( Greek: "δημοκρατία"means rule of people). For example Britain has never had a democracy but only aristocracy or Dictatorship (Greek: aristokratía" means rule of an elite.) Unlike in America, France, Russia and other democratic countries, British head of state has never been democratically elected but chosen by blood line, as a Monarch, who has constitutional right to dismiss a prime minister and British parliament. Australia, for example,also has  undemocratic head of state (Dictator) as British Monarch who in 1974 sacked democratically elected Australian prime minister Gough Whitlam without parliament approval. So the conclusion is that nothing is" rolling again" but has always has been there. Wrong again Capi'. The British Monarch was not involved in the sacking of Whitlam. The GG, John Kerr, did it, and he was appointed by Australian Parliament. Kerr was Australian, born in Balmain and his father was a boilermaker.

Kerr had no power other than as a servant of the Queen. It was the Queen who sacked Whitlam and Kerr was just a tool.

Unforgivable, that's the dumbest thing I've seen you write.
Kerr's sole source of power was provided in the constitution. In exercising it however he was duplicitous and went beyond unwritten convention.

May I refer you to Paul Kelly's excellent book on the dismissal.