Again, no. Even if the "if" in your question here was valid. But it wasn't. Jesus, I don't know why I even bother laying out the facts sometimes.

First, setting fire to innocent people's businesses is not about racism and police violence. There is literally no connection between the two. If Rittenhouse had turned up at a peaceful protest with a gun, we'd be having a completely different conversation. But what actually happened is that Rittenhouse responded to a call to help protect people's property and businesss after two days of looting and rioting that was unopposed by the police. I explain this in the article.

Secondly, Rosenbaum, the person who set this whole chain of events into motion, wasn't there to protest anything. He was just looking for trouble. He's on video calling people "ni**ers" and attacking Rittenhouse as Rittenhouse runs away from him. I explain this in the article.

Nobody was using violence or threats to further political, social or ideological objectives. Or at least the militia weren't. I didn't even think I needed to explain this in the article, because literally nobody is claiming that they were. Everybody agrees that they were there, rightly wrongly, to protect property. The question is, whether they should have been allowed to or whether it should have been necessary. I think we both agree that they shouldn't have been there and that it shouldn't have been necessary. But it's asinine to portray this as terrorism. If anything, the people burning innocent people's businesses to the ground were terrorists.