The Search for Caller Prime

Following the Trail to the First Person to Call Jan 6 an "Insurrection"

Like the belief that children can change their gender, the belief that the events of January 6, 2021 amount to some sort of "insurrection" is equal parts ridiculous and deadly. Once the concept metastasized, there were almost no media outlets that shied away from its use, a practice which painted over 1,500 J6 defendants as dangerously militant traitors rather than mere protesters.

As a jailed political dissident J6er myself, I've always wondered where that term "insurrection" came from.

Talking heads or politicians couldn't go two minutes before leveling this unproven charge. But who exactly among them was the first that day to use the word "insurrection?"

I wanted to know the origin of the idea. Those who called us insurrectionists bear guilt in the role they played justifying the government suppression committed by the tyrannical Biden regime. The first one to call us that, the Caller Prime as it were, either wittingly or unwittingly kicked off years of insanity.

I took up this research thinking that by learning the identity of Caller Prime I could paint a more revealing picture of January 6. I hoped the information would provide some insight into the origin of the January 6 hoax.

I wasn't wrong.

This is the story of my search for the media personality or politician who would be the first to call January 6 an "insurrection." Who was Caller Prime?

On the evening of January 6, 2021 Senate Majority Leader Republican Mitch McConnell took to his podium to roundly condemn the actions of the protesters whose actions earlier that day caused a delay in verifying the 2020 election.

"The United States and the United States Congress have faced down much greater threats than the unhinged crowd we saw today," he boasted. "We've never been deterred before, and we will not be deterred today. They tried to disrupt our democracy. They failed. They failed. They failed to attempt to obstruct the Congress."

He went on to offer his most damning criticism of the protesters saying, "This failed insurrection only underscores how crucial the task before us is for our republic. Our nation was founded precisely so that the free choice of the American people is what shapes our self-government and determines the destiny of our nation – not fear, not force, but the peaceful expression of the popular will."

It was a pivotal moment in the evolution of the January 6 hoax. The protesters were conservative Republicans -- McConnell's own constituency. The Majority Leader did not mince words in condemning his party's own voters -- a choice that contrasted sharply with the rhetorical tactics of the Left who never met a blood-soaked arsonist or looter that didn't look like a misunderstood victim to their eyes.

By using that word, "insurrection," McConnell placed the mainstream Republican stamp of approval on the demagogic hyperbole which flooded the Leftist controlled airwaves and social media sites that day.

Did he know? Did Mitch McConnell know that by mainstreaming an unhinged analysis he was paving the way for one of America's darkest and most frightening periods? A period where conservatives feared to protest despite having lost the White House and being vindictively marginalized by nearly every one of society's institutions. A fear that was warranted given the unrelenting ferocity with which the Democratic Stasi FBI cracked down on thousands of Americans for their political views.

Did he know that "insurrection" would be the pretense by which family farms would be raided, home businesses would be destroyed, and retirees would be torn from the arms of loving spouses on their way to Church? Did he know that the government would play bait and switch with plea deals, springing surprise "enhancements" that drove defendants to suicide? Did he know that hundreds would face down wild-eyed judges only too happy to facilitate the maximum amount of suffering? And that they'd willingly immolate their reputations to turn DC into a kangaroo court system?

Would it have made a difference if he had?

Read through that quote again. McConnell goes from blaming the protesters for delaying proceedings to having attempted an outright insurrection. Since when are those two things even remotely close?

The characterization of January 6 as an "insurrection" was a key narrative plot point for the Left's project to sideline Donald Trump and to eradicate conservatives from the American political landscape. Once the idea was "accepted" as the "mainstream" understanding, that word gave the green light to government forces to begin culling conservatives.

This despite the fact that the term did not fit at all. Contrary to the unfair media narrative, no cops lost their lives on January 6. But this did not stop the media from blaming the protesters for "bloody violence." The protesters were also not organized to single purpose. In order to reasonably attempt an overthrow the world's most powerful government, you would need some form of coordination or at least a plan. That's at the very least. You would also need weapons. Lots of weapons.

And not only did the protesters not bring weapons to the Capitol, they didn't even bring sandwiches. How does an impromptu army stage a coup without a supply line for something as essential as food and water?

And if usurpation had been a goal, why then did they all leave before curfew?

But even more ridiculous is the idea that, occupying a government building (a goal of the protesters only in the fevered imaginings of the Leftist media) is not a method for taking the reins of power from the government.

Buildings are occupied by protesters all the time. It's disruptive but it doesn't automatically transfer the powers vested in government and government officials to those who happen to exist in those spaces for any period of time.

I'm sorry if you're insulted by this explanation, but there are apparently many people on the Left preposterous enough to accept that protesters had, by walking among velvet ropes, nearly toppled the government of the United States.

Maybe Mitch McConnell believed that too. What is undeniable is that his embracing of the hyper-partisan Leftist take led to devastating consequences to thousands of his party's own constituents. His embracing of the term "insurrection" was a key moment in the Biden administration's attempt to pull a 21st century iron curtain down around Americans.

For all the stupidity of that unfortunate moment however, Mitch McConnell was not the first person to utter the word "insurrection" on that day.

It doesn't do much for McConnell's reputation however, that the other major politician that beat him to the insurrection punch was none other than president-elect Biden.

At 4pm EST on January 6, Biden took to the stage to lay the seeds for his plan to poison the conservative brand. In his characteristic angry old tyrant fashion, he cried out that the protesters' interference "borders on sedition" before dismissing all hope of a more nuanced interpretation, declaring, "It's not a protest. It's an insurrection."

Keep in mind, these strong words were being uttered by the man who for all intents and purposes emerged the victor on that day. It was all but certain by this time that Biden's election would go on to be certified. Yet unlike the election itself, this result wasn't delayed a week. Nor was it even delayed by a single day. The protesters themselves had already paid a steep price in blood. But that wasn't punishment enough for Joe biden. Throughout the entirety of his administration, Biden's wrath would be unending.

This was the man whose job it now was to run the executive branch, bending all its resources to the oppression of conservatives. It was the moment in the development of the "insurrection" slander that forecast what sort of fate the protesters would endure.

And yet, here again, Biden cannot lay claim to be the first to call January 6 an "insurrection."

At this point in my research, I decided my best bet was to enlist the aid of AI. I posed numerous questions to Grok, ChatGPT, and Leo AI. Who among the media or politicians said it first? None provided the correct answer, but only Grok had the information that pointed me in the right direction.

It makes sense. Thousands if not millions of people were commenting at a furious pace that day. In terms of quantity and quality, the users of X (then Twitter) provided an oceanic amount of relevant data.

Grok gave me a tweet that appeared at 4:35 EST that day saying, "CNN calls the pro-Trump mob storming the Capitol an insurrection. The BBC's Laura Kuenssberg calls it a 'scuffle.' I know which news outlet has it right.”

So I looked to CNN coverage of the day and came across a video where, by 3:42pm EST, host Anthony Kapel "Van" Jones breathlessly declared, "This is treason. This is treason. This is insurrection. This is rebellion. Period." Within minutes CNN had the word plastered onscreen to images of cops beating protesters.

This was the moment when the media leaned hard into the narrative. A narrative that would be used to great effect to get politician and DoJ functionary alike to buy into the project of our eradication. CNN, by the grace of not being MSNBC, held the unearned position as a supposed "centrist" news platform.

Yet Van Jones is anything but a rational analyst. His commentary would go on to try to demonize Trump and his followers in strident language. "I don't think Republicans and conservatives can look at this and think that it is okay. ... There needs to be a uniform, top-to-bottom denunciation from the Republican party of what we're seeing."

He was attempting to kill the civil rights movement that is the Trump government reform platform. He was doing the dirty work of a state that had pretensions to becoming all-powerful. A state that, in its hubris, anticipated the removal of what it believed was the last remnants of a populist obstacle.

Like McConnell, Van Jones likely didn't care what this would mean to the thousands of Americans who would feel the jackboot of the FBI on their necks. So long as Trump and his movement died, no cost was too high.

Grok pointed to the video as the likely candidate for identifying "insurrection" Caller Prime, but I was skeptical.

Surely, if CNN had the word on their chyron by 3:45pm EST that day, then MSNBC was even more extreme in their reaction?

Possible, the AI admitted, but there are no transcripts extant. A reply that signalled I was forging new territory. Not only had no one researched this question before, but apparently no one bothered to rewatch the MSNBC coverage since it originally aired.

Oddly, according to my own research, MSNBC didn't have a video of their ongoing January 6 coverage on their YouTube channel. Setting aside suspicions as to why this would be the case, I went on to dig up a video that had been uploaded by another user. Though the quality was low, the audio was clear and I could still read the clock at the top of the screen.

As I watched hours of the coverage, my ears were pricked to pick up any mention of the word "insurrection."

Along the way, I realized that the MSNBC's live coverage was in fact more level-headed and professional than CNN's Van Jones. Their pundits were predictably aghast, but that seemed to be more of an extension of their inability to fully process all that they were hearing and seeing.

Whereas Van Jones screeched senselessly about vague details that he most certainly invented on the spot, MSNBC's Chuck Todd and Andrea Mitchell were interested in getting something a touch more concrete. They spent a good deal of the air time on the phone speaking directly with representatives within the Capitol.

Over two hours into the video, a commentator "Katie" (presumably MSNBC legal analyst Katie Phang) reported on a communication (it is unclear if the message was a text or a phone call) from New York Times reporter Jonathan Martin. Martin was inside the Capitol at the time. According to Phang:

"Jonathan Martin just spoke with Mitt Romney. Was called-- Mitt Romney called him over and called this 'insurrection.'"

Well well well.

Mitt Romney, you slippery little fellow.

According to this third hand account, Mitt Romney appears to have recognized Times reporter Martin, called him over, and made a point to tell him that what was happening amounted to an "insurrection." This was reported by MSNBC at 3:01pm EST. A time that preceded Van Jones' use of the term by half an hour at least. We don't know for certain when Romney bent Martin's ear. It could've been minutes or hours earlier.

At any rate, Mitt Romney is my most likely candidate for Caller Prime.

It's ironic to the point of making a kind of poetic sense. While I have no shortage of outrage for Mitch McConnell as a leader among the Republicans, the fact that the identity of Caller Prime himself was likewise a Republican is a fact that stings.

But there's also something to say about the confluence of sources here. We have a politician, print media, and television media -- all working to plant the inception flag of "insurrection" upon the American psychic landscape. A kind of perverse version of the Marines planting the flag atop Mount Suribachi.

And like that iconic image, this cadre of callers reveals the collection of forces that conspired to stop Trump. You have the entitled political class along with their media attack dogs. All desperately working to stop the government reform political movement.

This demonstrates the nature of the anti-Democratic forces which have the temerity to style themselves the "resistance." It's not a matter of party or ideology. Those who seek most to usurp democracy -- truly usurp the American democratic project -- belong to that class of people who stand the most to lose should power ever go back to we Americans. And they fight against democracy with a degree of fanaticism not seen outside your average millennial death cult.

In many ways, the hoax of January 6 was a self-inflicted wound. Members of the Republican party, in an attempt kill the Trump civil rights movement, took the most powerful weapon they could find, and aimed it at the party itself.

And while my own firsthand experience says the effects of this decision were devastating, there are signs that the ultimate victims are those who opted for front row seats in our supposed destruction.

Witness the fates of the three MSNBC talking heads involved. Chuck Todd, Andrea Mitchell, and Katie Phang have all lost their jobs. Reporter Jonathan Martin has moved on to Politico, a platform now struggling after losing its taxpayer funding.

And Mitt? Well, he's no longer in government. But that doesn't mean he's desperate for his next meal or is struggling to find a roof to sleep under like so many of the good men his conniving hysterics have doomed. He's still rich and powerful.

But he's also an obsequious back-stabber and greedy liar.

For all his advantages, however, something tells me most people would rather not be Mitt. Mitt has to be Mitt. Mitt has to occupy this ignoble place in history as "insurrection" Caller Prime. While not exactly the justice he deserves, at the very least it feels like just desserts.