This is a correct assessment. Bukele made a profound observation in that power will ultimately rest in either a KING or MERCHANTS. In our case, we're at the mercy of billionaires and bankers.

I think it's even ridiculous that we have to rely on "good" billionaires (elon, trump) to somehow beat the "bad" billionaires. How is this any better than wars of succession between rival claims to the monarchy? How is this a "stable" situation? Theoretically it's supposed to be voters deciding on the best candidate.

IMO, elected monarchy is the best and most stable political system as far as history is concerned. Republics are simply too vulnerable to outside forces because they can easily be coopted by secret societies and the rich. That's why freemasons were busy overthrowing the old monarchies and installing Democratic Republics so that they could rule via money. The rewards for being in control of the Republic are far too great for even the most virtuous to resist being corrupted by. Politicians in a Republic are more likely to be bought out by the merchant class whereas a monarchy is more akin it a family where the King is like a father and there is less likelihood and more difficulty in buying out a lord or court official.

The French Revolution is really the first communist and freemasonic revolution and is patricide where the King (father of his country) was beheaded, and is what really kicked off the age of Republics.

If you want historical proof, look at the Republic of Venice. Over 1000 years of history and a very stable country. The Vatican is also an elected monarchy and is the oldest running institution in the world going back 2000 years to Augustus and the beginning of the Roman Empire. Yes, the current "Pope" is a usurper, anti-pope, and a douche, but America is only 250 years old and has already been nearly fully conquered by foreign powers and traitors. The Holy Roman Empire (Germany) at times in its history was an elected monarchy.