> A fifth of the people are living in extreme economic precarity.

I'm not sure what this means to you, but "economic precarity" is a meaningless statement without context. For example, in the US, pretty much anyone living in destitution is unwell. It's practically impossible to starve to death in the US. etc

So what this means is: economic mobility is limited for 20% of the population. That's not good, but in practice that translates to difficulty creating generational wealth, not a recipe for people starving or living in filth. Mobility would be much better, but it generally correlates strongly with level of education which is a separate chicken/egg problem. (At least until you get into massive student debt without a valuable degree, then that correlation shifts significantly.)

> Your Capital was stormed by terrorist from your own country.

What happened that day was not good, but framing it as a "terrorist insurrection" is exceedingly dishonest reporting. This is made plain by the kinds of charges that are being filed by the federal government. (Which, under the current administration, has no reason to "go soft" or brush things under the rug.)

There were a small number (single digits) of dissidents that wished to engage in... something not well thought out. There were a much greater number of people that trespassed into the capitol. There was an even larger number of people outside that were (as the FBI director put it) "rowdy".

All this because the former president insisted that he was cheated. (Which, frankly, there wasn't a lot of effort put into building confidence beyond "trust us!") Wholly inappropriate, bad, but not terrorism. We've experienced terrorism before (from other countries, from our political Right, and from our political Left) and this wasn't that. Anyone who suggests that is misinformed or leveraging it for political purposes.

> Widespread policy brutality lead to protests over the entire country, culminating in city blocks being burnt down in what, a dozen cities?

There is no widespread police brutality. Again, this is political framing. There are problems, no doubt, but nothing that could even reasonably be colored as "widespread brutality".

Just as there were problems of confidence during the election—egged on for political reasons—that resulted in an inappropriate reaction by protestors, there are problems of confidence—again, egged on for political reasons—about our police force.

Unfortunately, this resulted in significant overreaction that did, sadly, result in a tremendous amount of damage.

But do you notice the underlying theme, here? Political and media framing are largely responsible for exceedingly dangerous levels of division. It's not that Righty Rick is evil or Lefty Lane is evil.

It's a game of power by the institutions that control culture. The people are the pawns.

So yes, in that regard, we've got major problems: the elite. Not necessarily "the rich" (although they're largely complicit), but almost the whole of the elite institutions.

The people are at each others' throats not because there are rampant problems, poverty, abuse, etc. They are at it because the elites are at war. There isn't much to stand for the people engaging in a violent revolution, at least not conditionally. There is, however, if they're poked and prodded enough by the elite class.

So no, he's not being sarcastic.