Posted on | April 21, 2013 by J.C. von Krempach, J.D. |Is there any country in the world where a prominent politician could publicly boast his sexual experiences with children aged 6 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 honour, saying that he did not want to create the impression that the Constitutional Court approved of Mr. Cohn-Bendit’s utterances regarding paedophilia.
Mr. Cohn-Bendit’s utterances regarding paedophilia. The fact has been well known for many years, but somehow nobody seemed to care. Back in the early nineteen-seventies Cohn-Bendit, who had been declared a 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 defence 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: “Criticise me for what I have written, but don’t hunt me for what I have not done!”
To me, the author of this blog entry, it seems that he could be right on this account: his lines could have been written solely with the purpose of promoting paedophilia, 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 paedophilia 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 paedophilia, was an essential part of the strategy. The revolutionaries paddled back when they noticed that society currently does not accept paedophilia – 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 paedophile. Maybe he isn’t. For him and his like, sexuality has always had a political purpose. Same-sex “marriage”, LGBT rights, the promotion of paedophilia, 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 paedophilia, 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”.