skip to Main Content
Kerry Bolton

The Legacy of Generation ’68: Danny the Red’s True Colours – Part 2

Series: The Legacy of Generation ’68

The rebels of ’68 reveal their true colours in their reaction to a genuine people’s revolt – the ‘Yellow Vests’ in France.

‘Danny the Red’ Advocate for Globalist Wars

Cohn-Bendit is now a leader of the Green bloc in the European Parliament. He is a vehement critic of Hungary’s Viktor Orbán; one of the few leaders to oppose globalisation, and in particular the machinations of George Soros. The Atlantic laments such ‘right-wing authoritarianism’:

The billionaire financier and philanthropist survived Nazi-occupied Hungary as a boy, and his foundation has been funding civil-society initiatives in Hungary and across Eastern Europe since before the end of the Cold War, as well as programs in Hungary and across Europe aimed at supporting immigrants. It’s the immigration programs that have riled up Orbán. Ever since the migration crisis of 2015, Fidesz has been depicting the nation and Europe as besieged by foreigners. Before the elections, Fidesz spent millions on ad campaigns Open Society called anti-Semitic, including a doctored image of Soros with his arms around opposition leaders who are taking wire cutters to the border fence.1

In particular Cohn-Bendit condemns Orbán for his opposition to the globalisation of labour via open borders, being promoted by the oligarchy. Damning Orbán seems analogous to Cohn-Bendit’s enduring grievance with Charles de Gaulle, both ‘authoritarian’ leaders resisted globalisation. ‘Open borders’ is one of the many aims the ultra-Left has in common with the global oligarchy.2

Cohn-Bendit along with others of the ’68 Generation, now in the corridors of power, also supports ‘regime change’ against the few states that remain hindrances to globalisation, whether with military intervention such as in Libya and Yugoslavia, or with the ‘colour revolutions’ that are sponsored by Soros’ ‘Open Society’ network, the National Endowment for Democracy, USAID, the U.S. State Department, etc. etc. With fellow Green politician and German foreign minister, Joscha Fischer, also a veteran of the ’68 Generation, Cohn-Bendit supported the destruction of Yugoslavia in a war that was intended to globalise and privatise the vast mineral wealth of Kosovo.3

Benjamin Schett, writing for Global Research, observed of the West European Left, including Cohn-Bendit:

It is their promotion of the self-contradictory concept of ‘humanitarian interventionism’ (as carried out, for example against Yugoslavia in 1999 and Libya in 2011) that has come to make the approach of allegedly ‘progressive’ policy-makers so subversive. …

Damning Orbán seems analogous to Cohn-Bendit’s enduring grievance with Charles de Gaulle, both ‘authoritarian’ leaders resisted globalisation.

In Western Europe, most proponents of militarisation on the mainstream Left are associated with Green or Social Democratic parties. One of the first advocates of militarized ‘humanitarian intervention’ was Daniel Cohn-Bendit, member of the Green Party of France. … During the Civil War in the former Yugoslav Republic of Bosnia, Cohn-Bendit demanded that the Serbs had to be bombed, and anyone who didn’t agree with that would carry the same burden of guilt as those who turned a blind eye to the Fascist mass murder in World War Two:

‘Shame on us! We, the generation that held our parents’ generation in such contempt because of its political cowardice, now we watch on seemingly helpless, powerless and yet still holier-than-thou as the Bosnian Muslims are ethnically cleansed.’

Indeed, the ploy of drawing parallels with Nazi crimes in order to demonise a rival who stands in the way of Western geostrategic interests was perfected during the Bosnian war. …

When the United Nations Security Council proposed Resolution 1973 on the establishment of a no-fly zone over Libya in March 2011, which served as a pretence for attacking the country, Germany abstained from voting, along with Russia, China, India and Brazil. The German conservative-liberal coalition government was heavily criticised by Social Democratic and especially Green circles for not taking a stronger pro-war stance. Former Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer attacked his successor Guido Westerwelle for not having supported the resolution of the warmongers, and added that Germany could now ‘forget about a constant seat in the U.N. Security Council.’

Therefore it is not surprising that in the current conflict in Syria (which is significantly orchestrated and financed by the West, as were the civil wars in Yugoslavia and Libya), Western Europe’s Green politicians and other liberal leftists are the strongest proponents of a policy of escalation towards the Al Assad government. Claudia Roth, one of the two current German Green Party chairs, recently hosted a TV debate on Syria and shouted down any voice of reason pleading for negotiations with the Al Assad government. …

In the cases of both Libya and Syria, Bernard-Henri Lévy, a French ‘nouveau’ philosopher, professional self-promoter and frequent object of media mockery, called upon his government to intervene and prevent the ‘killing of innocent civilians’.4

Cohn-Bendit’s colleague, Bernard-Henri Lévy, regarded as France’s ‘foremost intellectual’, was in Kiev, Ukraine in 2014, assisting with the ‘colour revolution’ that was being promoted by local and global oligarchs.5 Lévy states: ‘I’m not pro-American as much as anti-anti-American. When the French begin to feel a mad visceral hatred toward an imagined America, I know the cauldron is boiling and the filthy genie is about to jump out again’.6 What he means is that those resisting globalisation and ‘Americanisation’ are from the ‘Right’, and he sees ‘Fascism’ as endemic in France. Although Lévy was not with Cohn-Bendit on the streets in ’68, he was with Cohn-Bendit as a founder of the lobby group JCall, dedicated to supporting Israel and formulating foreign policy for Europe.

It is notable that Bernard-Henri Lévy and Cohn-Bendit are among 89 persons prohibited from entering Russia, a decision which came at the same time that the Russian state prohibited a large number of globalist NGOs.7 It is Putin’s Russia that is the primary obstacle to globalisation, and the ’68 Generation is again doing its part to destabilise the real opposition. Putin is today’s de Gaulle.

‘Frightened’ of ‘Yellow Vests’

The ’68 Generation have been in the forefront of supporting the ‘colour revolutions’ in the name of ‘democracy’; those riots that have been organised and funded by the oligarchy in tandem with agencies of the U.S. Government. Yet when an actual people’s revolt – the ‘Yellow Vests’ in France – did ‘spontaneously arise’, Cohn-Bendit and other ’68ers have become ‘fearful’.

When an actual people’s revolt – the ‘Yellow Vests’ in France – did ‘spontaneously arise’, Cohn-Bendit and other ’68ers have become ‘fearful’.

The following interview from The Observer shows that Cohn-Bendit in condemning this ‘populism’ is fearful of the people’s instinct – an instinct that once aroused is not so easy to channel into paths that can be made innocuous or used to further the globalist agenda. He disparages and fears the ‘ordinary people’ as the type ‘who pushed Trump into power’. Cohn-Bendit states he is appalled by the ‘violence’ and that it seems that violence is intrinsically ‘Right-wing’. Possibly Cohn-Bendit, a supporter of globalist wars against ‘rogue states’, has a self-induced false memory when he claims that the riots in France which he led in 1968 were relatively peaceful, and above all ‘reasoned’. He has not repudiated his former American comrade, Mark Rudd, a fugitive for seven years, co-founder of the Weather Underground, a terrorist organisation that split from the supposedly ‘moderate’ SDS, and organised the ‘Days of Rage’ riot in Chicago in 1969.

With civilians dying during the Yellow Vest uprising and excessive violence by police, one would expect the Left to condemn ‘police brutality’, but here the Left along with the Establishment places the blame on the demonstrators. Yet the violent actions are perpetrated by anarchists (Cohn-Bendit’s bastardous ideological children),8 whose recent violent antics in France predate the Yellow Vest uprising.9

Anarchists as Establishment Footsoldiers

It is notable that there is a faction of anarchists including Antifa that have tried to attach themselves to the Yellow Vest uprising. Given the collective psychosis of Antifa and the anarchist ‘Black Blocs’ throughout the world, their role in violence and vandalism is predictable, but Cohn-Bendit is silent on this.

However, what is of particular interest is that the ultra-Left faction has attacked Yellow Vests not only in France,10 but wherever citizen unrest against globalisation has manifested elsewhere.11 Here are flagrant examples of the Left acting as the footsoldiers of the Establishment against what is probably the first genuine uprising against the global oligarchy in this era.

Cohn-Bendit, now friend and adviser of ex-banker Macron, ‘fears’ the ‘populist’ fervour of the uprising. The Observer article and Cohn-Bendit’s comments are worth quoting at length (with emphases added):

The last time Paris burned, his was the face of insurrection. Dany le Rouge (Danny the Red – a nickname that partly reflected his politics and partly his hair) was the hero of a generation.

Even when Daniel Cohn-Bendit, leader of the May 1968 student uprising, changed his colours to Danny the Green and went mainstream – representing ecology parties in France, Germany and Brussels – he never quite shook off his reputation as a rebel and political trouble-maker.

Half a century on, Paris is burning and barricaded again and the city’s cobble stones are being prised up to be hurled at police once more, but Cohn-Bendit sees little comparison with the clashes of 50 years ago. He views the gilets jaunes not as revolutionaries but as a movement veering dangerously into authoritarianism. In an interview with the Observer, Cohn-Bendit, now a friend and adviser to President Emmanuel Macron, said: ‘This movement is very different to May 68. Back then, we wanted to get rid of a general (Charles de Gaulle); today these people want to put a general in power’, he said, referring to calls by certain gilets jaunes for the former chief of defence staff General Pierre de Villiers, who resigned after falling out with Macron in July 2017, to be made prime minister.

‘And nobody in 68 made death threats against those who want to talk. This is the power of force. All those on the left thinking this is a leftwing revolution are wrong: it’s veering to the right. To hear that gilets jaunes who want to negotiate are receiving death threats is evidence of this authoritarian right.

‘I hear people from la France Insoumise (hard left), talking about this being a great people’s revolt and how the people are speaking, but these are the same ordinary people who pushed Trump into power. …

‘We saw in Germany in 1933 what ‘ordinary’ people did. Not all ordinary people are good. … [I]t’s not an accident that this movement has proposed General de Villiers as an alternative leader.’

Cohn-Bendit speaks from family experience. He was born in France to German-Jewish parents who fled Nazi Germany in 1933. Now 73, he holds dual nationality and splits his time between the two countries. More importantly, he has Macron’s ear; the president reportedly offered Cohn-Bendit the environment minister’s job, which he turned down.

Although he admitted that torching cars and street violence were ‘very France’, he said there was something ‘dangerous… and frightening’ about the current waves of violence. ‘There have been many great revolts by the working class in French history. And there’s the mythology of the French Revolution. It’s part of the genetic culture. But we are witnessing the kind of extreme violence never seen before’, he said. …

When Paris burned in May 1968, and 6,000 students battled 1,500 police, it was a revolution. Today, Cohn-Bendit worries the insurrection risks becoming an ‘authoritarian danger’.12

Jacobinism vs. Yellow Vests

Likewise Bernard-Henri Lévy, pre-eminent among France’s post-Marxist, liberal-internationalist ‘New Philosophers’, fears the Yellow Vests for the same reasons as Cohn-Bendit.

The CIA found much encouragement in the emergence of this ‘New Philosophy’ which, like the entry of Marxists into the Congress for Cultural Freedom, was the result of an existential crisis among the Leftist intelligentsia, who saw the authoritarianism of the USSR as a new ‘Fascism’. In a CIA report on the ‘New Philosophers’, the CIA opined that the ‘new climate of intellectual opinion in France’, a ‘spirit of anti-Sovietism’, ‘will make it difficult for anyone to mobilize significant intellectual opposition to US policies’. ‘It is clearly now the Soviet Union that is on the defensive with New Left intellectuals’. It is a shift that the CIA saw as having begun ‘at least since the early 1970s’. ‘Anti-Sovietism has become the touchstone of legitimacy in leftist circles, weakening the traditional anti-Americanism of the leftist intellectuals and allowing American culture – and even political and economic policies – to find new vogue’.13

The disquiet is caused by this being a genuine revolt of the people – the ‘populism’ that elitists fear whether they belong to the Left-wing intelligentsia or the oligarchy.

The origin of the ‘New Philosophers’ was identified as ‘mostly former Communists who left the party after the traumatic events of May 1968’. In a footnote the report alludes to the Communist Party having denounced the 1968 riots as the result of ‘woolly-minded anarchists’. 14

Bernard-Henri Lévy along with Andre Glucksmann were cited as the two founders of the ‘New Philosophy’. As editor-in-chief of the Grasset publishing house, one of the largest in France, Lévy ensured the ‘New Philosophy’ an influential readership.15 Glucksmann and Lévy are credited largely with taking the French intelligentsia in an anti-Soviet direction, seeing the USSR as ‘a monstrous reactionary machine’ rather than the utopian ‘withering away of the state’. A disdain for the USSR had become ‘newly fashionable’ among the New Left,16 to the point where, citing Joreg Semprun, who had left the Spanish Communist party, the primary hallmark for a leftist intellectual in France was not a concern for Pinochet’s destruction of Communism in Chile, the foreign policy of Ronald Reagan, or labour problems, but ‘a critical attitude toward the USSR’.17

The prospect was for a continuing wave of genuine pro-Americanism, ‘rooted in the vogue for American popular culture’, economic vitality and self-confidence. The New Left was now critical of ‘primitive anti-Americanism’.18 It was Lévy’s ‘anti-anti-Americanism’.

Like Cohn-Bendit, Lévy sees the spectre of ‘Nazism’ haunting Europe, writing:

I have spent a large part of my life observing, praising, and, whenever I could, supporting movements of popular revolt that aspired to greater quantities of liberty, equality, and fraternity. The case of France’s Yellow Vests, however, marks the first time that such a movement has caused me, from the start, to have such strong and persistent doubts, despite my agreement in principle with many of its claims.19

The disquiet is caused by this being a genuine revolt of the people – the ‘populism’ that elitists fear whether they belong to the Left-wing intelligentsia or the oligarchy. Both Cohn-Bendit and Lévy claim to speak for a united Europe. As they make plain, it is the united Europe of neo-Jacbinism and Freemasonry,20 the Europe envisaged by Coudenhove-Kalergi and his financial backers (Louis Rothschild, Max, Paul and Felix Warburg)21 as a constituent part of the ‘world federalism’, that the CIA22 and the oligarchs of the Bilderberg Group have promoted since the launching of the ‘Common Market’ project.23 It is Lévy’s Jacobin slogan ‘liberty, equality, and fraternity’ that gave France ethnic cleansing in Vendée, and the Committee on Public Safety, but what they fear is a new ‘authoritarianism’ reminiscent of de Gaulle, or the success of Marine le Pen, and hence what might amount to an actual revolt of the people.

References

1Rachel Donadio, ‘How Hungary Ran Soros Out of Town’, The Atlantic, May 15, 208.

2Bolton, ‘United Nations Global Compact on Immigration: Origins and Aims’, Arktos Journal, January 7, 2019.

4Benjamin Schett, ‘Europe’s Pro-war Leftists: Selling “Humanitarian Intervention”’, Global Research, September 21, 2012.

5Bolton, ‘Geopolitics and Oligarchy at Work in Ukraine crisis’, Foreign Policy Journal, March 5, 2014.

6Joan Buck, ‘France’s Prophet Provocateur’, Vanity Fair, January 2003.

11Video: Yellow Vests and Antifa, Canada.

12Kim Willsher, ‘May 1968 Was a Revolution – Now the Violence is Just Frightening’, The Guardian, December 8, 2018.

13‘France: Defection of the Leftist Intellectuals: A Research Paper’, CIA Directorate of Intelligence, Office of European Analysis (‘Confidential’, 1985), v.

14‘France: Defection of the Leftist Intellectuals’, ibid., p. 4.

15‘France: Defection of the Leftist Intellectuals’, ibid., p. 5.

16‘France: Defection of the Leftist Intellectuals’, ibid., p. 7.

17‘France: Defection of the Leftist Intellectuals’, ibid., p. 11.

18‘France: Defection of the Leftist Intellectuals’, ibid

19Bernard-Henri Lévy, ‘The blinding rage of the Yellow Vests’, Tablet.

20Bolton, The Occult and Subversive Movements, (London: Black House Publishing, 2017), pp. 227–230.

21Bolton, The Occult and Subversive Movements, ibid., pp. 232–234.

22Cord Meyer, a chief CIA operative responsible for recruiting Left-wing youth, was prior to joining the CIA co-founder and president of the United World Federalists. Frances Stonor Saunders, The Cultural Cold War (New York: The New Press, 2000), pp. 136, 211.

23Bolton, The Occult and Subversive Movements, ibid., pp. 232–237.

Leave a Reply

The comment section of Arktos Journal will be regulated by standards consonant to the principles of the project itself. Our general rules are as follows:

  • Comments will not be moderated on the basis of the opinions expressed (controversy is welcome), but rather on their quality.
  • Contributors are requested to obey the rules of civility, without which all discourse is null, and to avoid crude personal attacks. Wit is welcome, but argument, and not insult, will be the expected means of refutation.
  • Obscenities, vulgarity and slurs will not be tolerated.
  • Contributors are invited to check their contributions for general grammatical correctness (allowances will obviously be made for second-language speakers) and logical cohesiveness.

As a general guideline, all contributors should imagine that they are speaking their minds aloud in a public space, unhindered by political correctness but bound to the older standards of honour and decency in speech.

All decisions of the moderators are final.

Back To Top