According to some reports, the problem was in fact predicted, and that's why the National Guard chose not to prepare for forceful confrontation. Not wanting photos of armed uniformed soldiers in state buildings or some such.

The same was true for BLM protests. So, why the different treatment? Racism is a popular explanation, but is it a true explanation?

I think more core to the issue is status quo bias. Cops are much more likely to agree or strongly agree to questions like “the current US system is fair and just” and similar pro-status quo ideas. Typically speaking left wing protestors are agitating to change the system, especially policing, which is why cops do not respond as well. Is it any surprise that cops respond worse to those protesting against the police, no matter the slogan, than they do against the “blue lives matter” crowd?

Oh, and cop organizations are run through with neo-nazis and white supremacists who have made a concerted effort to make inroads with police departments and military members.

What? This most recent was literally an attempt to take over the Capitol building, presumably to delay one step in the formal recognition of the next President, and perhaps worse.

there's more than a little suggestion that this was the intended outcome for the people protecting the capitol.

By whom?

This makes it sound like the people in charge of protecting the capital did not know that this was a legitimate threat. From the articles I've read, they did in fact help that it was a legitimate threat, which raises the question: why did they do nothing about it?

The only reasonable conclusion I can think of is that the security team had no worry that politicians would be in any danger (e.g. easy, isolated, fast escape routes) and that it would be hard to rationalize to bring out the troops/big security forces with a threat of violence for a group of people that was supported by the current president and a significant fraction of congress and the senate. The whole situation feels very strange and it feels like I'm missing some key facts.

I think there are many plausible (but not necessarily "reasonable") alternative explanations.

As far as I can tell, this event seems to have had an extremely persuasive effect on the psyche and opinions of the average person. Who might benefit from this change in the mental state of the population, and in what ways?

Most people seem to find the very idea of thinking such thoughts to be extremely unpleasant, if not downright inappropriate. But to me, this is simple risk management. The lack of this sort of thinking in society seems downright dangerous to me.

I sometimes wonder what the origin of such norms is - is it organic (a common characteristic derived from evolution), or might it be synthetic?

What? Who?

Hahah, I love the feigned confusion technique.

I truly am struggling to extract any coherent meaning from that comment. Democrats, controlling just the House – when Repulicans are running the federal gov't with the Senate and the presidency – have instituted this event? Some big capitalists maybe? Putin? The Jews?

The Democrat/Republican duopoly is mutually beneficial to both party. Grassroots populist candidates (Perot, Trump, Sanders) are a pain in the ass for both of them, as would future ones be.

Wouldn't it be convenient if a massive spectacle was to occur, whereby the US public could see in 4K HDR the danger that populist political candidates introduce to the system, how it "threatens our most sacred institution: Democracy.

And as luck would have it, along comes a massive throng of obviously angry and delusional Trump supporters, with well advertised (and well known to authorities) plans to descend on the US Capitol, to "rescue Democracy", or some such nonsense.

So, what do you do in a situation where you have hordes of angry (and possibly armed) political extremists heading towards a politically strategic location, on a particularly important day (in your democracy)?

Do you:

a) Beef up security

b) Not beef up security

It seems like option (b) was chosen. Depending on what variable one is optimizing for, this was a terrible choice, or an excellent one.