Yes, when he's armed to shoot protesters, as that is what he was explicitly there to do. So 2.b doesn't apply, but 2.c does.
EVEN IF he did provoke the attacks, 2.B overrides that.
"The privilege lost by provocation" - acknowledging that the actor provoked the attack in question
"may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight" - The person can still claim self-defense if the actor withdraws
That's what the law says.
2.C does not override 2.B.
2.B overrides 2.C
If you're withdrawing from a fight in good faith, then you don't intend to kill them. 2.C covers intent to provoke in order to kill in self defense. 2.B rules out intent.
And then there's 2.A
" A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant."
Trying and failing to outrun your assailants should count as exhausting every other reasonable means of to escape, unless he had rocket boots or a FULTON device.
So even if everything you said is true, that Rittenhouse, just by standing there
menacingly, either directly provoked an attack or was engaging in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him, as long as he was:
A) in imminent danger
B) Fleeing
Then he's in the clear. That's what the law says.