I can't reciprocate the flattery, as I don't esteem your estimations of others' intelligence.

Karl Marx produced an exhaustive academic analysis of why capitalism cannot sustain itself about 150 years ago. I suggest you read that.

Your presumptions lead you to error; I have read it (and it's hardly exhaustive).

In short, why would a critical, free thinking, logical population want to live in a pyramid system where 10 percent of the people own 90 percent of the wealth, and 90 percent of people own 10 percent of the wealth? It's contrary to the best interests of the majority of people, hence one has to be irrational to want it.

American capitalism doesn't properly exist, as the US economy is a mixed economy lacking a fixed form. Setting that aside, though, the argument you present remains unpersuasive. It presumes that to be rational is to desire excess rather than comfortable sufficiency, in order that it might overvalue egalitarianism under the auspices of reason. Further, it presumes that it is logically inherent to capitalism that it produce marked wealth discrepancy, rather than an inherency in human nature to be uncritical and illogical producing that effect under capitalism. It is contrary to the best interests of the majority to not be irrational, yet they persist in that quite regularly for the simple reason that we're not generally evolved to be optimally rational (and that the statistical median will always be average, necessarily). If the majority were rational then the majority would be considerably better at securing better socio-economic position within any economy, and particularly a capitalist economy which places fewer restrictions upon the exercise of that reason towards personal gain.

As for the rational minority, it is historically well established that their interest does not generally lie in putting before their own well-being the well-being of others who suffer on account of their irrationality. We cannot reasonably conclude the compliance of the rational outliers with the more distributive economic models, and it is precisely their rational superiority which vests them with the power to influence the economic model they and others operate within. That makes more egalitarian economic models untenable in the long run, because there is no effective check against the accumulation of power (monetary or otherwise)... the only counter force being a majority that is intellectually inferior as a simple matter of fact, and thereby insufficient for the task. Certainly, they can clamor for a baseline and even the elite have to be responsive to that to an extent... but that's not a threat to the system as long as it's managed, and can't accomplish the egalitarian vision.

The American government gave the American people a narrative about 9/11 which was not simply contrary to the facts, it was contrary to the basic laws of physics. Americans not only swallowed it up, but became rabidly emotional and angry when others painstakingly pointed out how exactly they had been fooled. In much the same way that a lover gets angry and emotional with a friend who tells her that her husband has been banging the local waitress. Complete shut down denialism.

That's rather obviously non-unique to the US, of course. Nor does it demonstrate your claim in the least. It shows that the average American is gullible and that the government took advantage of it for the ends of those in power. It establishes no clear relationship between that and capitalism, let alone anything about the inherency of capitalism's relationship to logic in the US context.