Insurrectile Dysfunction Or Revoltus Interruptus?

There is a principle one should apply to all kinds of claims and narratives.
This principle applies especially to the claim that President Trump incited an insurrection.

The principle: The best way to determine if any given scenario is plausible, is to think it through.

By thinking a scenario through one discovers often quickly whether it is possible, plausible or highly unlikely.
Unfortunately, many people just repeat what they hear without the slightest examination.
That’s a pity because if they would do a minimal examination they could distinguish lies from truth very quickly.

So, let’s consider the following scenario:
“On January 6, 2021 President Trump incited an insurrection in order to prevent the legitimate transfer of power from happening by giving an instigating speech.”

Thinking this scenario through does not require us to determine whether Joe Biden stole the election from Donald Trump or not.
In order to keep our scenario simple we will not deal with this question.
Assuming that Donald Trump‘s objective was preventing the transfer of power, the first thing we will do is to look at alternative ways to achieve that objective.
The reason for this is a very simple one. If Donald Trump could achieve the same objective through other means more easily or if other scenarios were promising more success then our scenario would be less plausible and less likely.

The alternative scenarios:

  1. The „classic banana republic scenario“.
    Donald Trump uses the military to maintain power.
    This scenario was virtually impossible.
    Given that some very senior active and former members of the military opposed even the legitimate use of the military against riots of BLM/antifa and looters, there was almost zero chance that they would follow orders.
  2. Donald Trump uses the Insurrection act to maintain power.
    This scenario had practically zero chance of success for the same reasons scenario #1 did.
  3. The use of paramilitary units or extremist militias to maintain power.
    This scenario would have pitted such units against the regular military and law enforcement.
    Love him or hate him but we know how Donald Trump reveres the US armed forces and law enforcement.
    There was no way in hell he could ever do this.
  4. Use of terorism to maintain power.
    Never mind that the chances of success were practically zero, this scenario was no option for Donal Trump for the same reasons scenario #3 wasn‘t.
  5. Use political pressure to cause Repuplicans in Congress and Vice President Pence to do everything constitutionally possible in order to correct the outcome of fraudulent election results from key states.

On January 6, 2021 only scenario #5 was even remotely likely to succeed even though the chances of success were extremely slim.
How does this scenario compare to the Trump-incited-an-insurrection scenario?
What could Donald Trump possibly hope to achieve?
That the insurrectionists would force the congress to decide in his favor?
How would they do that? Threaten the congressmen with violence?
Hold hostages? Cause mayhem and chaos?
Only a nutjob would believe that a decision in Trump‘s favor taken under the threat of a violent mob would stand longer than one hour.
As soon as the mob would leave the Capitol such a decision would be declared instantly null and void.
Eventually the mob would be taken care of by law enforcement or the national guard or the military.
Such an insurrection had exactly zero chance of success.
All those who accuse Trump of inciting an insurrection have failed to state clearly what the plausible endgame of such an insurrection would be.
They have failed to show convincingly how Donald Trump or the Republican party would benefit from an insurrection.
Any kind of insurrection would be bad for the country, for Trump, for the Republicans and all conservatives, putting them in a very bad light. The current attempt to paint all Trump voters as potential terrorists is only one example of the bad consequences that would follow a real insurrection.
Any kind of insurrection would be doomed to failure and would only shift the focus away from illegitimate election results to the insurrection, thus putting Trump and the Republican party on the defensive.
Furthermore, there is plenty of evidence that the Capitol riot was planned several days in advance. Therefore, the riot could not have been incited by Trump‘s speech. Never mind that President Trump told his supporters to march peacefully and patriotically.
Knowing that the DC riot was planned in advance, it is theoretically possible that the rioters were just waiting for a signal to start it.
Even though theoretically possible, such kind of planning and coordiination would require communications between the Trump administration and the violent, professional rioters who started the riot.
There is zero evidence for that. Not even a hint.
Furthermore, there were diverse groups from opposing ends of the political spectrum who planned and led the riots. Coordinating such diverse groups would be pretty tough. One would expect that an insurrection that was planned days if not weeks in advance would have a clearly defined focus and a clearly defined plan with a clearly defined goal. Instead we saw rioters acting aimlessly, committing random acts of violence, taking selfies and acting like a bunch of yahoos. The whole thing looked very chaotic.
All this makes the whole „signal“ scenario laughable.

Having considered the alternative scenarios, #5 remains the only plausible one. No matter how slim its chances, this was the best that Donald Trump could hope for. Tens or hundreds of thousands of protesters nonviolently making a big stink and a lot of noise outside of the Capitol, thus encouraging the Republicans to act in his favor.

The question then remains: What exactly was this riot? Was it an attempt of an insurrection but it failed because of incompetence or impotence? A case of insurrectile dysfunction, if you will.
Or was it a case of revoltus interruptus? The case of a false insurrection where the participants go all the way but at the last moment they deliberately withdraw from the final execution of the revolt.
I believe that this was a case of revoltus interruptus by some of the professional rioters..
This was combined with a bunch of other professional rioters who didn’t have a real viable plan and who were as clueless as the ones who followed them.

12 thoughts on “Insurrectile Dysfunction Or Revoltus Interruptus?

  1. “The right wing half of the nation is already moving toward acceptance of violence as a way to advance their political agendas.”

    This statement is correct,  FBI Director Chris Wray says the Jan. 6 siege on the Capitol was not organized by people posing as Trump supporters. (March 2)

    Trump supporters who clashed with police as they broke into the US Capitol are ‘militia violent extremists’ and advocate for white supremacy, FBI director Chris Wray has testified.

    Speaking before the Senate Judiciary Committee for the first time in almost two years, he labelled the Capitol insurrection on January 6, which resulted in five fatalities, “domestic terrorism”.

  2. Well……. you left out one most important thing in all this “logical” thought process. Trump himself. My anti-Trumpness for the last four years.. and continuing… has centered around Trump’s mental state… his behavioral dysfunctions… his socio-pathological lying… his gross narcissism…. his overall incompetence and inexperience for the job he was elected to do… his general paranoia of conspiracies and enemies around every corner, and vindictive nature “to get even” with non-loyalists… and his general uncouth, guttural attitude. Books have been written by professionals.. at least six that I know of… one from his own niece, also a professional psych professional. Books have also been written by ex-associates confirming these traits and behaviors behind the scenes. Trump is impulsive, Trump never anticipates; he is totally reactionary, will little or no moral compass. His idea of right and wrong is based only on how he will come out of it all, to his advantage. But truly one doesn’t need a book to see the obvious. I fully anticipated he’d be the worst president in U.S. history before his descent from the heavens on that escalator. Obviously I never predicted his specific actions or results.. but I did anticipate.. as did others. His administration was a perfect example of Romper Room misbehaviors and a parade of absurd and incompetent loyalists, coming and going for four years.
    So.. where does all that put us in the discussion of him being responsible or not for inspiring the insurgency?

    No.. he had no grand plan to “take over” anything. He can’t even play a simple game of chess because that requires advance, anticipatory planning of moves ahead. He loves the crowds (and because of all the above the crowds love him) and the cheers in response to every word that falls out of his mouth. The more he blathers about being a victim.. and bringing his supporters into thinking they are also victims.. the greater the cheering. We can also readily see that it’s in his character to act behind the scenes to threaten, intimidate, and bully people into getting his own way.. hence the various phone calls to change election outcomes, and his now-famous coercion of Pence to act outside his Constitutional purview in the vote certification process. But the one thing Trump never quite understood/understands is that being President means your words… your Tweets… mean far more than any other human on the planet. Each word will be sliced and dissected and parsed for meaning. For a sitting president there is no such thing as an “off-the-cuff” or off-the-record remark while sitting on the golden toilet.
    Now.. because I said above that he had no grand plan for taking over government does not mean one bit that his words didn’t inspire that in others… and not just on Jan. 6th. All this nationwide had been percolating since before he took office. His words made it “permissible” to carry his victimizing discontent and fear of “the other” to a broader, growing reason for violence. Trump wanted to have his supporters scream and yell at the folks inside the Capitol… and they became his tool to disrupt the process… and he loved that effect he had over the crowds. But to him.. he wasn’t doing it.. his hands were clean. “How could I have possibly predicted how that crowd would act?”… he thought, and still does.
    Nonetheless, he IS responsible for inciting them to riot, and winding them up into a shark-feeding, fanatical frenzy to “save the country”.

    1. Doug,
      for you to put the word logical in quotes is rich.
      It is ironic that you cannot see the logical deficiencies in your own thinking.
      It’s the ultimate irony that the guy who doesn’t even believe in objective truth accuses Trump of being a socio-pathological liar.

      You said once:
      “Truth is an interpretation of a given reality… or perceived reality, which itself can then bias truth as a perception If truth falls out of a tree in the woods and no one around perceives the event through the senses, truth may still exist but is irrelevant.”
      https://citizentom.com/2020/05/30/the-next-big-war/#comment-93752

      According to your personal, elastic and worthless definition of truth, such a thing as objective truth does not exist.
      It follows logically that if no such thing as objective truth exists then there is no such thing as a lie.
      It would be easy to dismantle your argument which consists of unproven assumption built upon unproven assumption built upon unproven assumption but I see no value in it.
      Any kind of inter-human communication is based on the implicit assumption that objective truth exists. Otherwise it would be utterly meaningless.
      You can insist on your definition of truth in which case any further discussion is pointless or you accept that there is such a thing as objective truth and we can have further discussion.
      Understand that I am NOT claiming to be all-knowing or inerrant or that I always know the truth. Claiming to know the truth is one thing, accepting that objective truth exists at all is a completely different thing.
      Without the fundamental agreement that objective truth exists, a discussion between two humans makes as much sense as a discussion between a man and a monkey.
      It’s your choice.

      1. Ha.. while I am rather impressed you dredged up a reply I made nearly a year ago (which I still support, btw), what does anything you just replied to have anything to do with my reply today? I quoted your “logic” simply because it was incomplete… hence the substance of my reply.
        Of course there is “objective truth”.. the question remains.. who determines its objectivity? In practice we shouldn’t even have to add “objective” to truth in the first place. After all, truth is supported by the interpretation of facts.. and therein is the problem. Just ask Kellyanne when she coined “alternative facts”.

      2. Doug: you’ve again fallen into the trap of swallowing what the media say uncritically.

        “Alternative facts” is a perfectly legitimate phrase referring to a perfectly legitimate thing.

        Here’s a simple way to explain it to you: If there are 100 important facts about a thing or an event that would give you a mostly complete picture of it, and you use ony 50 of those facts — for whatever reason — then the OTHER 50 facts could perfectly legitimately be characterized as “alternative facts.”

        Since MOST events are complicated, there might be MANY sets of “alternative facts” — all of which are facts — which people might use to try to describe something.

        What Conway was referring to was the constant habit of the Left of ignoring REAL facts that debunk or significantly degrade their hypothesis, in order to present something, well, often entirely false. The Covington kids incident is a good example. Charlottesville is yet another. There are many.

        Best,

        — x

  3. Reblogged this on Citizen Tom and commented:
    artaxes does something logical here, something that I wish I had done. Since what artaxes wrote is logical, it won’t convince Liberal Democrats or NeverTrumpers. artaxes’ post already has a comment that demonstrates the stubbornness resistance that some have to logic too. Nevertheless, artaxes post explains my reaction when I first heard of the riot. It was a disaster for the success of scenario #5.

  4. We know all the Trump supporters’ arguments against Trump causing the insurrection so it does no good to go over that old ground again unless someone wants to believe that repeating the lies will make people believe them …so maybe since the impeachment failed (Because Congressional Trump supporters are more afraid of the mobs than they are of the president) maybe some legal way will be found to get his miserable a** on tax evasion or something else.

    1. Hi John.
      You said: “We know all the Trump supporters’ arguments against Trump causing the insurrection”

      I’m sure that you know a lot of the arguments but I’m also sure that you cannot know ALL arguments.

      You said: “unless someone wants to believe that repeating the lies will make people believe them”

      Unfortunately there are a lot of people who believe lies when they are repeated often enough.
      If you think I’m telling lies, go ahead, tell me whitch of the things I said is a lie..

      You said: “maybe some legal way will be found to get his miserable a** on tax evasion or something else.”

      I understand that you dislike, maybe hate Trump:
      That’s ok with me.
      You can find that ANY person has broken a law if you search long and hard enough.
      Stalin’s head of the NKVD, Lawrenty Beria said infamously ‘Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime.”
      That’s not how the rule of law is supposed to work.
      You find the man who has done a crime. You don’t pick a man who you don’t like and then search as long as it takes until you find a crime.
      I think that you’re old enough to have made some enemies in your life.
      Should those who hate your guts be allowed to abuse the legal system to destroy you?

      1. They would use the legal system to destroy me if they could .. especially if they were radical right wingers. Using the legal system to destroy enemies is going to be the go-to of the future for politicians. Trump seems to me to wear his crimes on his shirt sleeves. But it is alright with his millions of worshippers. The right wing half of the nation is already moving toward acceptance of violence as a way to advance their political agendas. You already know this. I do not have to tell you. A Trump figure is exactly what they need, the very same as a Hitler figure is what the Germans thought they needed back in the 30s and 40s. There are many similarities in personality and in technique. History can and does repeat itself.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s