Whoa.
You started with a fairly coherent argument, but veered pretty sharply off into paranoia.
With religion and politics, remember democracy and republicanism originated in pantheistic cultures. The many as one.
The Ancients were not entirely metaphysical in their thinking as they are pictured. In their view, monotheism equated with monoculture. One people, one rule, one god.
The Romans adopted a monotheistic sect, as the state religion, as the Empire solidified and remnants of the Republic faded. The Big Guy rules.
When the West went back to more broad based political systems, it required the separation of church and state, culture and civics.
In Islam, the roles were reversed, as the power of a common creed was realized first, leading to political empires. So separating religion and politics is a different sort of process.
The logical fallacy of monotheism is that a spiritual absolute would be the essence of sentience, from which we rise, not an ideal of wisdom and judgement, from which we fell. More the light shining through the film, than the images on it.
An entire culture founded on the principle of ideals as absolute is inherently conflicted. While the influence of the original father figure lawgiver has faded, its long shadow remains, as many of the ideologies to follow have argued their own ideals to be absolute, from communism to wokeness.
Though when social minorities find their particular grievances weaponized in a larger culture war, those pushing the conflict don't necessarily have their interests at heart. They would be better off with a more multicultural situation, than another, opposing version of absolutism.
As for the deranged clown, he does appear to be the Great White Whale of the American establishment. Rather than accepting the election didn't go as they planned, stepping back and assessing the reasons and the damages, they have gone full five year old mode and started breaking things, until they get what they want. Apparently there are no longer any adults in the room.
Which goes to the nature of government and banking.
As the executive and regulatory function, government is the central nervous system of the social organism, while money and banking serve as blood and the circulation system.
There was a time, essentially the Big Guy rules era, when government was a private enterprise, but has since come to be recognized as a public utility.
Meanwhile banking remains private. Which gives the bankers the advantage, as they are not as subject to oversight and political cycles. So over the course of the last couple hundred years, pretty much gained effective control over the political system, so that rather than having to effectively circulate value around the entire society, where it is most effective and serves the health of the entire system, it's mostly about skimming off as much as they can.
The problem is that government is the decision making function, so the effect has been that it has been hollowed out and only toadies, grifters and moral prostitutes are able to rise in the system.
Consider the capital markets could not function, without government sucking up trillions in essentially surplus investment money. The secret sauce of capitalism is public debt backing private wealth.
That's why the wars are such monumental strategic failures and no one is held to account. In fact it only means they rise further in the system. Basically the MIC is the trophy wife of the banks. She gets all the toys she wants and no one can tell her she doesn't know squat about actual strategy.
Without effective government, the system has all the strategic aptitude of bacteria racing across a petri dish.
Even the economists are prostitutes. Econ 101 says money is both medium of exchange and store of value, but one is dynamic, while the other is static. Blood is a medium, fat is a store. Roads are a medium, parking lots are a store. The hallway is a medium, the hall closet is a store. The average five year old can figure that out.
The fact is, there isn't the investment potential for everyone to save individually, but we do save for many of the same reasons, so a public commons would be a logical solution, but a functioning society is built on collective responsibility, with rights as reward, but in ours, rights are up for for grabs and responsibilities are for fools.
So we blame it on the Russians.
We have become a bunch of pathetic morons.
