If the "Capitol mob" was "a raging collection of grievances and disillusionment" as The Washington Post says...

... in its headline, here, then doesn't that mean it wasn't an "insurrection" or much of a plan at all, just a coming together of disparate elements? Let's look at the long article. I'm reading it for the first time and making excerpts and comments as I go. I'm doing this without an agenda, just wanting to figure out what the hell happened and what it means.

Those who made their way to the grounds of the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday hail from at least 36 states, along with the District of Columbia and Canada, according to a Washington Post list of over 100 people identified as being on the scene of the Capitol. Their professions touch nearly every facet of American society: lawyers, local lawmakers, real estate agents, law enforcement officers, military veterans, construction workers, hair stylists and nurses. Among the crowd were devout Christians who highlighted Bible verses, adherents of the QAnon conspiracy theory and members of documented hate groups, including white nationalist organizations and militant right-wing organizations, such as the Proud Boys. 

The list is just a limited cross section of the thousands of people who descended upon the area, yet some striking commonalities are hard to ignore. Almost all on the list whose race could be readily identified are White.

Not sure how that is done. But okay. The Washington Post seems to have compiled a list of 100 people — a hundred out of what? "thousands"? — and it's making assertions about these people, somehow "readily identifying" their race and capitalizing "White." How many of the 100 were in the category whose race was "readily identified"? 10? 80? I have no idea.

Most are men, yet about one in six were women...

2 grammar mistakes there. It needs to be "one in six was a woman" to get subject/verb agreement, and, for parallelism, it needs to be either "Most were men, yet about one in six was a women" or "Most are men, yet about one in six is a women." We can argue about whether past or present tense is worse (or an outright error). But enough tripping along the pleasant side road that is grammar. Back to the substance:

... also almost all White. Many left extensive social media documentation of their passions, ideologies and, in some cases, disillusionment and vendettas.

Great. This is what I've been waiting for. Reading the social media of the various participants in the breaching of the Capitol. 

Their paths to the nation’s capital were largely fueled by long-standing grievances and distrust, and yet planned in spontaneous and ad-hoc fashion.

Was there a plan?  If it was "spontaneous and ad-hoc" then maybe it was not a plan, just diverse individuals whose paths flowed together at that place and time?

Several reported pulling together their travel funds and schedules in just a handful of days. Some took a solitary journey, including flying from coast to coast alone, only to find a shared community upon their final destination in Washington. Others traveled in buses that departed Wednesday at dawn, filled to the brim with other Trump supporters....

Don't mix up the plan to go to a big rally and street protest with a plan to break into the Capitol (and don't mix up a plan to break into the Capitol with a plan to take Mike Pence or members of Congress hostage).

Several who traveled to Washington to support the “Stop the Steal” rally told The Post they were driven by two primary grievances: their opposition to the election results and the restrictions in place to stop the spread of the coronavirus. Lindsey Graham...

Interesting name. 

... a 39-year-old entrepreneur from Salem, Ore., said her eventual path to the Capitol began last spring, when the six small businesses she and her husband own, including tanning salons, a gym and hair salon, were suddenly shuttered because of coronavirus restrictions...  Graham said she was “peacefully protesting” with thousands of people. She said she did not enter the building and does not condone violence. “I’m glad I was there because I am one of the people that can vouch for the crowd,” she said. 

Like Graham, 47-year-old construction worker Pete Harding said he was drawn to the Capitol by his disdain for restrictions to stop the spread of the coronavirus. Until last year, the Upstate New York resident said he had largely confined his strong political opinions to the Internet, describing himself as just a “keyboard warrior.” That’s all changed now, in radical fashion. The first days of 2021 found him — by his own account — charging through the chemical irritants that Capitol Police meant to deter him from entering the U.S. Capitol, rambling through the building, and then attempting to set fire to journalists’ equipment outside.... 

“We know that if Biden-Harris was going to get into office, they’ve said they’re going to make the lockdowns mandatory and mask-wearing mandatory across the country,” he said....

This article is making the lockdown seem more central to the protest than the idea that Trump won the election. 

After listening to Trump’s speech and marching to the Capitol, he found that “our people,” as he described the mob, had already pushed police back up to the top of the Capitol steps.

So Harding doesn't seem to be part of any plan to breach the Capitol, just a person in a crowd who finds out that in some other part of that crowd, something violent is happening. This reminds me of Black Lives Matter events, where there were peaceful protesters in some places and violent people in other parts. Is the whole mass to be called a "mob," with everyone who went to the event held responsible for what everyone else does? The answer should be no.

He waded through the crowd to join them, and persisted up the stairs, though he says police repeatedly deployed irritants to try to deter the mob. Harding describes himself as a “peacekeeper” who charged up the Capitol stairs to protect both police officers and rioters. 

“I started to see everybody going up the stairs at that point, and I decided I needed to be up there. … I knew that things could escalate and I needed to be there to de-escalate things,” he said. “I was there to protect and keep the peace. That’s what I do every single place that I go.”

By his own account, Harding made an independent decision to enter after the breach was made, and he has the image of himself as a "peacemaker."  

Harding said that the only weapon he carried was a dinner fork, which he put in his pocket because he believed he might need it to confront “antifa” or “Muslim brotherhood” fighters. 

It stayed in his pocket. “Fortunately, I didn’t have to wield the kitchen fork menacingly,” he said.

I hear that statement as humorous, though you could do some damage with a fork. Harding also seems to have believed, as I think many do, that any violence was attributable to anti-Trump forces — “antifa” or “Muslim brotherhood."

Once he left the Capitol, he saw journalists with cameras protected by barricades. He says he walked over twice to taunt them, saying, “You’re responsible for this” and “There’s a woman shot — this is on your hands.”

Harding claims that only after he walked away did other Trump supporters harass the journalists to the point that they fled, leaving behind their equipment. He was delighted. “I was kind of happy about it, to be honest with you, not going to lie, because they deserve it. But that’s not a crime,” he said. 

He said he came back and piled up the abandoned equipment, then used a lighter to try to set it on fire though he believed most of it was metal and wouldn’t burn. 

“The visual and the imagery was for the media to see, that they have started our country on fire,” Harding said, “with their constant lies about covid and about Trump.” Harding maintains that he did nothing illegal Wednesday....

Clearly, some of what Harding did is illegal, but — by his own account, assuming he's correctly and fairly quoted — he seems like an independent actor, making his own decisions according to his idea of what is true and good, and not part of a group plan. Just to be clear: I completely oppose the intimidation of the reporters and the damaging of their property. 

Many attendees described a type of fervor they felt that drew them to the Capitol. For 48-year-old Leonard Guthrie Jr., it manifested in his faith in the Lord. The Cape May, N.J., resident hasn’t often been well enough to work since having two surgeries on his back. In the absence of employment, he has heavily leaned into his Christian beliefs and conservative political views. When he heard about the “Stop the Steal” rally, Guthrie thought he could combine his two passions. If he and other Christians had been able to pray outside while senators voted inside, he feels certain it would have changed their votes.... 

He said he broke through a police barrier to reach the U.S. Capitol steps and readily admits his transgressions, bluntly saying: “I broke the law.” Still, he feels aggrieved. “We’ve been silenced for so long,” he said. “For years, because I voted for Trump, I’m called a racist, a Nazi, a bigot and all that stuff, and it’s not right.”

Again, this sounds like an individual making his own decision in real time, not a participant in any plan to enter the Capitol. He wanted to pray outside, and it sounds as though he didn't go inside, but only to the steps, though he did break a barrier, and he's confessionally sorry. 

Others squarely cited their fealty to the president as the force that pulled them to the nation’s capital....

This is a screwy way to blame Trump. Trump is a man, not a force. If the "fealty to the president" is a "force" within people who love him, then "pull" is the wrong word. That wrongness is the tip that WaPo is straining to blame Trump. In any case, this is only saying people were drawn "to the nation's capital." That's only saying they chose to go to the city, not that they felt drawn to enter the Capitol building.

Now, I've read the whole thing. There's nothing here about a plan to break into the Capitol! That doesn't mean there weren't people with such a plan, and I can see why such people wouldn't want to talk to the Washington Post, but this article supports the idea that the crowd consisted of individuals who were acting independently.