The Monarchy superiority explained with Trump's republic

January 2021 will be remembered in the annals of history for the assault on the Capitol instigated by Donald Trump; some deaths, an ambiguous attitude on the part of him, the President of the USA, and an unprecedented internal crisis for that Country. If we briefly analyse recent American history and the prehistory of institutions, we will understand perfectly well why republics are inferior to monarchies, regardless of the human defects of their institutional representatives: King or President. When one thinks of a republic, one generally thinks of the USA or France, not for example the Congo or the People's Republic of China or Guatemala but all modern republics, which derive ideologically from the French one, born in 1789, and not from the ancient ones, the aristocratic republics, of which San Marino is the only surviving case in history, have a big defect, because, being the degeneration of the parliamentary system, that is, of the "democracies" where there is no longer the moderator, the Sovereign, they verticalize the party system up to the top of the State. Modern "democracy" was born in the United Kingdom which was the first State to adopt a Parliament as we understand it today. What happened at the Capitol thanks to Trump, in truth it is nothing new, it is just more extreme than usual, that is, a political faction that is in power, does not want to give it up but there is no one who can stop or prevent this process, for the simple fact that there is no King, that is, there is no stable figure who represents the nation and who is not involved in the games of party power. I do not know if anthropologists will agree with me but in general, as is well known, what is prehistory is theory, because there are no documents that prove the truthfulness of facts, a bit like the colour of dinosaurs, which could have been purple, green or pink… Anyway, I want to try to explain in a simple way how probably, or possibly if you prefer, the monarchies were born in the ancestral era. The chief of the early days had to be the individuals who screamed the loudest, those who killed the most in the cave, probably in the dark and treacherously, then, thanks to technological evolution, the one who had the longest club would be the leader. Later, when someone began to observe that those qualities were not enough to make a troglodyte a leader and that it was better to choose an intelligent person, the criteria of choice began to change. Perhaps someone began to observe that certain qualities, including intelligence, in addition to being superior to shouting, brute strength and club, were at least in part hereditary and therefore a hereditary leader was preferable, because it was thus possible to eliminate the problem of the competition, perhaps a fight to the death, for the election of a chief and if this was smart, better. Inheritance therefore eliminated competition and generated greater competence, because, as it happened for the son of a fisherman or of a weaver in a society that was evolving, the father taught his son. And among these teachings, wisdom hinted that one of the keys to maintaining a power that avoided revolutions or subversions in a hereditary system was social balance, which in turn was in the interest of the whole nation, because it generates national unity and therefore greater strength and stability of the State and its institutions. What we see most today in the presidential republics, and which is more hidden but equally present in the other republics, is the return to the screaming troglodyte and the longer club, because they, the candidates, are the ones who manage to make themselves heard most, not anymore with a baritone voice or a megaphone but through the mass media, which they access thanks to the power of money or the power of political parties or lobbies that support them in exchange for favours, and for the people, who always like the arena, who likes to divide into teams, as in sport, all this is fine, because generally they doesn't understand anything about social evolution and don't even understand that what he considers antiquated things, such as monarchies, are actually the result of social evolution and the wisdom of a large number of people who preceded us over the centuries and millennia, while the republics are the result of regression. That the last century was the century of the republics is not something that should surprise us, because that century saw a technological advance too fast for humanity and, thanks above all to the two world wars, it led us to that great technological and scientific advance but simultaneously to an enormous social regression, dehumanization (just think of the Nazi extermination camps), the annulment of the individual, etc. and this is now seen in all aspects of society. Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump, Biden, just to give the most recent examples on the subject with the article, have no particular skills, they are not people who have won the Nobel Prize in physics or who have interesting human qualities, yet they represent the most influential State (union of states) in the world, playing the interest and power games of their own faction, not of one's own Country. This now, thanks to what happened at the Capitol is in evidence but what matters is that tomorrow the wise and the educated remember it; party fans are already screaming. Matteo Cornelius Sullivan