NY: Corporate lawyers and “angels”…
…caught throwing Molotov cocktails at police cars.
And being stupid enough about it to get arrested. I guess it’s not all white supremacists:
…Mattis is a corporate lawyer with Times Square law firm Pryor Cashman.
Authorities say Rahman, 31, tossed a bottle filled with gasoline through a broken window into the cruiser just before 1 am Saturday but the Molotov cocktail failed to ignite. Rahman jumped into a van driven by Mattis and they sped off, court papers allege.
The attempted torching was captured by video surveillance cameras outside the precinct stationhouse on DeKalb Ave., according to court papers.
Cops gave chase and stopped the van nearby on Willoughby St. They found the makings of another Molotov cocktail in the back seat along with a gasoline container, authorities say…
The super of Rahman’s building called her “an angel” who recently lost her legal job.
Neither has ever been arrested before. Mattis is a Princeton graduate, and went to NYU law school. The article states that he was “furloughed” from the firm Pryor Cashman in April (it doesn’t say why, but perhaps a COVID-caused turndown in business?). The following is the statement put out by the firm’s managing partner. So virtuous, so PC, so full of sympathy:
“As we confront critical issues around historic and ongoing racism and inequity in our society, I am saddened to see this young man allegedly involved in the worst kind of reaction to our shared outrage,” Shechtman said in a statement.
Oh, I can easily think of worse reactions. For example, at least the police car was unoccupied at the time.
The 60s keep calling, and I’m not sure what they want back, but they can have it. For me, this is (among other things) in harmonic vibration with the domestic terrorism of that era, in which quite a few of the perpetrators of the violence were the privileged graduates of very fine schools, and police (“pigs” – remember?) were often the targets.
And hey – some of those 60s radicals are now, in their golden years, teaching at some of those same very fine schools. Here’s one of them, just to refresh your memory:
Kathy Boudin was born on May 19, 1943, into a family with a long left-wing history. She was raised in Greenwich Village, New York City… Kathy Boudin attended Bryn Mawr College and was valedictorian of the class of 1965.
Boudin fell in love with David Gilbert in the 1970s and gave birth to their son Chesa in 1980. When her son was 14 months old she was arrested and subsequently incarcerated for murder and bank robbery. Her son was raised by former Weatherman leaders Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn.
Boudin is currently “an adjunct professor at the Columbia University School of Social Work, where she is now the co-director and co-founder of the Center for Justice at Columbia University.” Ayers and Dohrn have also been very active in educational circles, molding young minds.
And Chesa, what of baby Chesa? I wrote this post about him in November of 2019, shortly after he won election as DA of San Francisco. Among other things:
Boudin’s candidacy and election is no accident whatsoever. It is part of an extremely organized movement to get leftist radicals into such positions in cities and even states around the US, funded in part by George Soros’ deep pockets.
[ADDENDUM: (Hat tip: commenter “Ken.”) See also this for more information about the “angel” lawyer, Rahman.]
There were something like 4000 terror bombings over a couple of years in the early 70s. Obama’s most important mentors and advisors (Ayers and Dohrn) played a role.
The next generation of the same people and groups are back at it again. They hate just as deeply and passionately. They are the enemy of everything that America stands for.
Fight the nihilism and anarchy. We can’t let them win the war. And don’t be confused. It’s war.
For a long time it’s been looking a lot like a re-run of the 1960’s and 1970’s. Up until very recently, a major missing piece was the riots, and now that that box has been checked, well, everyone can see the writing on the wall. So maybe we can look ahead — kind of, sort of — to predict the next ten years at a high level of generality.
There will be a long-term monetary trouble. In the 1970’s it was inflation. Now it may be deflation, but it could be inflation again. In the 1970’s, you wanted to be in gold or buy a house with a large mortgage. With deflation, you want to be in gold or cash, with cash being better (gold protects against political problems…) Don ‘t buy a house with a mortgage in a deflationary environment.
There will be several very weak presidents, with a massive international humiliation of some sort. At the end of the 1970’s it was the Iran hostage crisis; now, who knows? But weak government with weak presidents make this an easy call. However, it will be followed by a very strong president or presidents — like Ronald Reagan — maybe, like Reagan, elected because of the international humiliation. (Reagan was not elected because America suddenly wanted conservatism; rather, it was in the hope of teaching those mullahs a lesson.)
Hollywood will begin to put out more socially conservative films. In fact, this has already started if you look closely — I have recently seen several about how nerdy young men have to grow up and accept adulthood. The latest one being “murder of a cat” — not especially good, but it gets the idea across.
If you’re still reading at this point, it’s fascinating how recent history has thrown up political figures that map onto the 1960’s political landscape — different and yet recognizably the same. For example, Obama is the Kennedy figure, beloved by the press, and this time not assassinated — yet still not leaving much of a long-term legacy behind. If he is truly like Kennedy, it will turn out that his unorthodox sexual practices while in the White House were well known by the friendly press but also well-hidden from the public. Trump is the George Wallace figure who, unlike Wallace, won the election after an insurgent campaign to capture the nomination. Now that he is president he has morphed into Richard Nixon — hated against all reason by the press. Unlike Wallace, he has a better cause to push (anti-globalism instead of anti-civil-rights, although I cannot help noting that if Wallace had been in the White House for a while, affirmative action might never have gotten started) Unlike Nixon, Trump has the advantage of the internet to get his message out. Whether or not he gets re-elected, he will be gone in four years to make way for the weak presidents coming down the pike. Low poll numbers protect him from assassination, which at this point is the only major 1970’s political box left unchecked. Do not wish for him to have high poll numbers until just before the election.
Why is all this happening? I can’t help noticing that around the early 1950’s a totally new form of communication — television — swept across the country when the major TV networks were formed, presenting news and shows to the entire country in a visual medium. This was followed 20 years later by young people, who had grown up watching TV, making use of it to spread — well, all the stupid ideas that flourished in the late 60’s and 70’s. Time passes. Then, approximately 20 years ago, the internet swept across the country when google for the first time made all the information buried out there easily accessible. And now — well you can fill in the rest of the hypothesis.
Back in my day, actually the year before I went to college, some “protesters” threw a “Molotov cocktail” through the window of the NROTC building. It too, fizzled out.
I also note that Boudin is exactly 10 years older than I am. Why is she not retired?
Bravo. The similarities between our time and the late ’60’s is breath taking. The difference is in the last part of your note-namely that seeds were planted then that have flourished in educational centers and have transformed one of our most important institutions -education of course. It really started with a vengeance somewhere in the ’70’s as the quieter radicals of the 60’s were stepping into the educational positions. As the child of immigrants I was brought up very patriotic towards our country and constitution. I also grew up in a fairly conservative school district and was taught things like the Industrial Revolution and Capitalism is what fundamentally improved lives in the West. To my shock, as a grad student in the Bay Area in the early ’80’s I consistently ran across peers who completely rejected this and said that the West’s success was owed solely to colonialism. This is what they were taught in college. They gave no credence to the Industrial Revolution. Those peers have gone on to teach this crap at Acedemic Institutions and write books with this slant. Fasts forward to 2008 when one of my kids was a freshman at a prominent west coast University. Their dorm listening to the debates that year. Everyone around him rooting for Obama. These were already indoctrinated prior to college. And it’s now rampant in elementary school. So, in the ’60’s we had privileged young radical adults, who were not in societal positions of power nor respect, but have since moved into those slots. And the new privileged young radical adults already groomed with groupthink enabling each other to be in societal positions of power and respect, willing and thinking they are able to finish the fundamental transformation of our society.
Obviously “diversity hires” who had marinated in the leftist filth that is taught in the colleges today.
Similarities to the ’60s, definitely. But there is one big difference which I think may prove to be extremely important. Back then, the cultural rebels, by which I mean everybody affiliated with the broad movement we called the counter-culture, were a minority. By far the majority culture, which included government, media, and academia, was either hostile to the rebels or puzzled by them. (Though that soon began to change, with media and academia especially becoming more sympathetic, and with the rebels of course in due time replacing the older less sympathetic people.) And the serious political radicals, the ones who became or at least sympathized with Weatherman et al., were a minority of the minority. For every serious radical among the student protesters of 1970, there were ten hippies who wanted nothing more than to do drugs, have sex, and avoid the draft. They were pretty much in agreement with the radical program, but they weren’t really going to do much about it.
But now government, media, and academia are not just infiltrated by but strongholds of the then-minority cultural revolution. At the elite levels of society, it *is* the establishment. I think this means *at minimum* a far more protracted struggle, with the crushing of the “right” (using that term as broadly as possible to mean everyone opposed to the new order) at least as likely as some kind of effective rollback. By “crushing” I mean rendering the opposition mostly ineffective politically and culturally. We aren’t all that far from that.
“She’s wearing a Palestinian keffiyeh. She’s holding a Molotov cocktail. And she’s ready to firebomb – a NYPD police car.”
http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2020/06/the-anti-israel-human-rights-lawyer-who.html
Mac:
Yes, absolutely, the number of people supporting the violent left has changed. That’s the result of the Gramscian march I’ve discussed many times on this blog.
“The similarities between our time and the late ’60’s is breath taking.”
But. The music was better? And the 70’s brought us Disco.
sigh … our “culture” is gonna go downhill even faster. At least “The Arts” will suffer as much as we helots do.
Neo, yes, that is most certainly true, but I’m thinking of something broader, which of course you (and we) have also discussed here: the institutional and cultural weight being brought to bear against those who resist the revolution. I.e. not just support of the left, but suppression of the right. I don’t think a Reagan-style pushback is likely. That pushback was itself somewhat illusory, in that it didn’t even slow the Gramscian march
Though, having said that, it does seem possible that these riots could help put Trump back in the White House for a second term.
As has also been said here more than once, today’s left (i.e. everyone from CNN to Antifa) fundamentally believes that conservative views are illegitimate.
And the 70’s brought us Disco.
It also brought you Barry White, Al Green, Steely Dan, Chicago, David Bowie, and Weather Report.
“f you’re still reading at this point, it’s fascinating how recent history has thrown up political figures that map onto the 1960’s political landscape — different and yet recognizably the same.” – D. Cohen
“History doesn’t repeat itself, but it rhymes.” – Mark Twain
The Barnes video on the Sullivan thread has a rather tangential connection here, when Barnes describes how lawyers of his era were trained — and I do not doubt the trend continued and encompassed these sterling examples of assault and barristry.
https://youtu.be/akY4ns-1qu4
From the very rough AI transcript with time-stamps, you can get the gist of what he is saying about law school training in most universities.
a major problem with federal
07:23
courts in America is the clerk sir over
07:26
well know these SJW type liberals do
07:29
don’t even believe in old constitutional
07:31
principles they believe that outcomes
07:32
justified they’re not they’re not your
07:34
classical liberals I have a lot of
07:35
friends who are on the Left classically
07:37
that including on federal bench state
07:40
bench in all kinds of positions of power
07:42
but the new generation of left-leaning
07:45
lawyers doesn’t believe in the four core
07:48
principles they they believe hey what
07:50
outcomes do we have here let’s
07:52
manipulate the situation to get there
07:54
someone will be honest and say it that
07:56
way some of it you can just see from how
07:58
they handle things because when I was in
08:00
law school that’s how they were teaching
08:01
us they were teaching us to how do I
08:04
manipulate the law to get to an ending
08:05
now they did it carefully but they did
08:08
it in like first-year law legal writing
08:09
classes where the right answer was you
08:13
wanted to I’ll give you example what
08:14
happened in that case was in the first
08:16
year lost class first first semester
08:18
first year so I’m there they give us a
08:20
test project what we’re supposed to do
08:22
is to be an associate Firma we’re
08:25
supposed to imagine that we’re an
08:26
associate in corporate law firm or any
08:28
law firm and our part the partner in the
08:30
law firm has asked us tell me what the
08:32
law is in Wisconsin on this particular
08:34
question and it was whether adult
08:36
disabled children should be able to
08:38
recover for loss of consortium for it
08:40
when there’s an injury to the other
08:41
parent to parent and I researched the
08:45
law the law was clear the law was clear
08:46
that for a lot of dumb reasons the but
08:49
because the fact they’re used only
08:51
valued
08:52
based on their labor value there’s a lot
08:54
of horrific things you find out about
08:55
the law when you study its history but
08:56
in Wisconsin you couldn’t you if the
08:58
adult even if the adult was disabled you
09:00
couldn’t recover for lost consortium but
09:04
I kept getting bad grades and I was like
09:06
what and I dug in and it turns out they
09:08
had written a template of the correct
09:09
answer and the correct answer was to
09:11
pretend the law wasn’t what it was to
09:14
just manipulate quotes from different
09:15
parts of it and pretend that it actually
09:17
already supported this outcome because
09:19
the goal was your outcome is this how do
09:22
I manipulate and how do I manipulate the
09:24
history of events in the history of law
09:26
to pretend the law supports something it
09:28
doesn’t in fact support and that’s
09:31
what’s happening across the country and
09:32
so a lot of these clerks are really bad
09:35
so in federal court that I’m often
09:37
battling the clerk’s not the judge
09:38
unless the judge is an old-school judge
09:40
who doesn’t care what the clerk’s think
09:43
and does what they want but any judge
09:45
appointed in the last 20 years and in
09:47
some particular judges ovince been there
09:49
for a long time but there are some
09:50
judges like Sullivan that have become
09:52
very clerk dependent and that’s why I
09:54
think Sullivan himself doesn’t know
Anyone who is interested in how legal education got trashed about 35 years ago, please read the book Beyond All Reason, The Radical Assault on Truth in American Law, by Farber and Sherry. It was published in the 90s, and it explains what happened. Very disturbing book.
“today’s left (i.e. everyone from CNN to Antifa) fundamentally believes that conservative views are illegitimate.”
Today’s anti-Republican colleges are treating conservatives like the Germans in the 30s treated Jews. Or the Muslims today treat the Jews — everything bad is their fault.
Many college grads have been indoctrinated to believe everything bad in America today, and in its history, is the fault of Republicans (when it comes to voting), and generally white, male, conservatives.
As long as Reps allow the Dems to dominate and discriminate against Reps in hiring professors, the Gramscian march will intensify.
Without focusing on THIS key problem, which causes so many other symptoms which are the results, not the causes, the anti-Rep mindset will continue to get worse.
“My daddy was a bank robber
But he never hurt nobody
He just loved to live that way
And he loved to steal your money”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttJBdr6eBuo&list=RDxyh76HeAGVE&index=12