I don't disagree that the US Dollar became a defacto reserve currency.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/eurodollar.asp

But there are other troubling elements in your analysis.

Quote: "With each passing decade, we’ve drifted further from sound money toward financial alchemy." Sound money = code for gold standard

Gold isn't "sound" either. If one's currency is linked to a finite commodity, then you can stifle economic growth since no more money can circulate. Additionally, if all of a sudden a new gold strike is found, currency expands which in the old days caused inflation as well. Finally, manipulating the gold supply can cause economic problems.

Quote: "Every country possesses equal characteristics: massive debt to GDP, huge asset bubbles in stocks, real estate, and bonds, a soon-to-be-insolvent banking system —"

"soon to be insolvent" is a wild assumption based on the gold standard view being espoused.

Another statement "considering all reserve currencies die" is a ludicrous comment considering there has never BEEN a real reserve currency until the US dollar. Rome or Mesopotamia certainly did not have a reserve currency considering their money was literally a commodity. A commodity can't be a reserve currency

Lastly, the financial system is far different than even in the recent past of the 1980s. Most economic analysis is still done under two obsolete paradigms:

(1) Classic economics (with a touch of Say's "supply side" Law) which is espoused mostly by conservatives. and (2) Keynesian which is generally espoused by liberals. Keynesian still gets more right than wrong and is more right than Classic. But both are ultimately grounded, since they were developed in that era, of the gold standard. Modern Monetary Theory (MMT)answers a lot more and addresses much more than either of these staid views. Both those systems said "if X occurs, the Y will happen." Yet economists are baffled that this truism didn't turn out that way. MMT provides the answers.