April 29, 2013 (C-FAM) - Is there any
country in the world where a prominent politician could publicly boast
his sexual experiences with children aged six years and less, and still
stay in office? Probably not – but the European Parliament seems to have
rules of its own.
The politician is Daniel Cohn-Bendit, once upon a time a protagonist of
the 1968 student revolt and the Cultural Revolution that ensued, and
today the leader of the “Greens/European Free Alliance” in the European
Parliament.
In this function, Cohn-Bendit has for many years aspired to a role
similar to that played by Maximilien de Robespierre during the French
Revolution, holding everyone accountable for everything – including
Czech President Vaclav Klaus for his euroscepticism, or Hungarian Prime
Minister Viktor Orban for having given to his country a new Constitution
that protects the family, defines marriage as a union between a man and
a woman, and (the worst of all imaginable actions against “European
values”) mentions God(!).
These days, however, we were once again reminded that Mr. Cohn-Bendit’s
own code of moral values is not one that is commonly shared. The
left-liberal Theodor-Heuss-Foundation (named after a former President of
Germany) had decided to award a prize to him for his political
achievements – but the President of the German Constitutional Court
(Bundesverfassungsgericht), Andreas Vosskuhle declined the invitation to deliver a speech in Mr. Cohn-Bendit’s honor,
saying that he did not want to create the impression that the
Constitutional Court approved of Mr. Cohn-Bendit’s utterances regarding
pedophilia.
The fact has been well known for many years, but somehow nobody seemed
to care. Back in the early 1970s Cohn-Bendit, who had been declared persona non grata
in France and sent back to Germany as a consequence of his involvement
in hooliganism and rioting, worked as an educator in a day care centre
for children that had been set up to make experiments with
“anti-authoritarian” education. An essential tenet of the
“anti-authoritarian” concept apparently was to confront the children,
who were at the time five or six years old, with unbridled sexuality, in
order to overcome traditional morality.
Later on, Cohn-Bendit wrote a book about this, describing his experiences as a nursery school teacher in the following terms:
My flirtations with all children soon acquired a definitely erotic character. I could sense how young girls aged five had already learned how to get off with me…
It happened several times that some children opened my codpiece and started caressing me. According to the circumstances of each case, I reacted differently, but the children’s wishes posed problems for me… when they insisted, I caressed them in return. I was accused of being a pervert, and there were letters to the City Council, asking whether I was paid for by public funds. Fortunately I had concluded my contract directly with the parents’ board, otherwise I would have been sacked…
In Germany, the anti-authoritarian movement has had its strongest impact in the field of education…(Wilhelm) Reich and Marx were the pillars of this new movement. Freud was less important, because he had done objective research on sexuality, whereas Reich represented the fight for sexuality, in particular for the sexuality of younger people.
These lines were published in 1975. At the time they seemed to
represent a “modern” and “enlightened” approach to education, and nobody
took offense. It is only in recent years that they have begun to cause a
problem for Mr. Cohn-Bendit, earning him repeated accusations of being a
pedophile.
Mr. Cohn-Bendit has always fended off these accusations with a letter
which some of the parents whose children he was supposed to be educating
at the kindergarten have written in his support in 2001, asserting that
no sexual abuse had actually ever taken place at the time, and that
they were sure Mr. Cohn-Bendit’s was not a child abuser.
But that line of defense is now breaking down: the author and initiator of the letter, Mrs. Thea Vogel, told German media this week that
she had written this letter for political purposes only (i.e. to defend
Mr. Cohn-Bendit against accusations “that related to facts that had
taken place 26 years earlier”), but that in actual fact she had not read
the incriminated passages in Mr. Cohn-Bendit’s book, and that her son
actually had never been in the kindergarten where Mr. Cohn-Bendit had
been making his erotic experiences...the whole letter was a scam.
So, there are no more witnesses willing to testify that Mr. Cohn-Bendit
isn’t a child abuser. But does that mean that he actually has abused
children? He now says that his erotic prose is “bad literature”, but not
an account of actual facts.
“It was fictitious. It was written to provoke, and to tear down
taboos.” And he adds, “Criticize me for what I have written, but don’t
hunt me for what I have not done!”
To me, it seems that he could be right on this account: his lines could
have been written solely with the purpose of promoting pedophilia, but
not necessarily as an account of actual facts. Thus, as long as nobody
comes out claiming to have been sexually abused by Mr. Cohn-Bendit, I am
prepared to believe his denials.
But the point is not there. While Daniel Cohn-Bendit may not be a child
abuser, he certainly is (and has never denied that) a politician who
has been actively promoting pedophilia as a part of his political
agenda. And not he alone, but his entire political movement with him.
The 1968 revolution was more than anything else a cultural revolution,
and its essential purpose was the overturning of “repressive”
institutions such as marriage and the family. The destruction of all
sexual taboos, such as homosexuality and pedophilia, was an essential
part of the strategy.
The revolutionaries paddled back when they noticed that society
currently does not accept pedophilia – but does that mean that they will
not come back on it at a later stage?
Currently, the focus is set on homosexual “marriage”, and they have
been quite successful in that regard. By necessity, this will entail
adoption rights for homosexuals as a perfect way of recruiting young
children for their community.
It is thus irrelevant whether Cohn-Bendit is a pedophile. Maybe he
isn’t. For him and his like, sexuality has always had a political
purpose. Same-sex “marriage,” LGBT rights, the promotion of pedophilia,
etc., were always part of one and the same agenda: the destruction of
“repressive” institutions like family and marriage.
If they have temporarily given up on pedophilia, it is for merely
tactical reasons. Contrary to their hopes, society is not yet
sufficiently “advanced” to accept this part of the agenda.
But if they were honest, they would (once again) extend the acronym of their LGBT-agenda by one letter. That letter is “P.”
