, , , , ,

In 1740, Frederick the Great set Germany on course…

He did so by posing a question to which he already knew the answer. The fateful day came, November 1, 1740. Frederick asked Heinrich von Podewils, one of his councilors, “I give you a problem to solve:

When one has the advantage, should one make use of it or not?


Young Frederick the Great.

I am ready with my troops and with everything else. If I do not use them now I keep in my hands a powerful but useless instrument. If I use my army it will be said that I have had the skill to take advantage of the superiority  which I have over my neighbor.”

Podewils suggested that this  would be considered immoral.

Frederick countered. When had kings been deterred by morality? Could he afford to practice the Ten Commandments in that den of wolves known as the Great Powers? {Durant, “Story of Civilization, Vol. IX (Simon and Schuster, NY, 1965) p. 451}

This was a far cry from the man who had, just shortly before wished to be seen as “the first servant” of his people:


Originally published anonymously; its author soon became known.


It is thus justice (one would have to say) which must be the main responsibility of a sovereign. Since it is the prime interest of the many people whom they control, they must give it priority over any interest of their own.

What then becomes of Machiavelli’s of naked self-interest, self-aggrandizement, unleashed ambition and despotism?

The sovereign, far from being the absolute master of those who are under his dominion, is only the first servant.

Taking advantage of the powerful army his father, Frederick I, had prepared for him, Frederick II, like a modern Alexander, waged many, many wars. Finally, both he and his nation were exhausted. He is famed for being an “enlightened absolute monarch.” Upholding freedom or religion and (at least at first), freedom of speech, he differed from the religious monarchs before him. But as he liked to say, “My  people and I have come to an agreement that satisfies us both: they are to say what they please, and I am to do what I please.” {Durant, p. 448}

Indeed, as the Encyclopedia Britannica says, “Frederick, the third king of Prussia, ranks among the two or three dominant figures in the history of modern Germany. Under his leadership Prussia became one of the great states of Europe. Its territories were greatly increased and its military strength displayed to striking effect.” And who were the other “dominant figures in the history of modern Germany”? A poster of some seventy plus years ago lists them as follows. Did they all learn Frederick’s lessons, too? You be the judge.

What the King Conquered, the Prince Shaped, the Field Marshal defended, the Soldier saved and united.


What the King Conquered, the Prince Shaped, the Field Marshal defended, the Soldier saved and united.

(King Frederick II, Prince Bismark, Field Marshall von Hindenberg, and Herr Hitler.)

When one has the advantage…

Yes, when have governments been deterred by questions of morality? That is, when they have the advantage. There is much they can do then. Indeed, virtually anything.

When have social services upheld such prime directives as extreme measures last (taking children away from parents)? When one has the advantage, one can seize the children first, confidently relying on the great advantage of the machineries of public opinion, already rolling, to justify its extreme measures.


Reporters “respecting” our privacy and filming the trauma of our children being seized 5 September 2013.

And then, if any “blips” appear in the program, the state presses on, confidently relying on the press to boisterously lie again and again to make the original, false picture still seem true.

Yes, little things like children running away from foster care to run back to their parents. That would be a disturbing reality for the German people.

Little things like beautiful cards from the captive children expressing their love for their parents and their longing to go home.

Who cares about such little things?

Even if the advantage is gained by such “CIA methods” as secret videos (as a Bavarian legislator said should not be done in the Senate hearing of January 23, 2014), then the State can do what it has longed to do, destroy a minority religion. Before any hearings, before any guilt was established, against other precedents, and even subsequent rulings of other, similar cases by the same judges, by seizing children first, not last. Not even when there is a lengthy history of friendship and cooperation with school officials and others, even the Jugendamt.

No matter the trauma to the children and the devastation to the parents of doing so. Then, building on the advantages of force and manipulated public opinion, virtually denying the confiscated children contact with their parents. Yes, once every two or even three weeks for an hour. One can do such things when one has the advantage.

Violating their supposedly inviolable rights to privacy in their letters and phone calls, denying them mail in foreign languages, denying them the freedom of their religion, mocking that religion, and even through intensive interrogation by criminal police attempting to turn those seized children against their parents.

  1. 11 children were taken in care for which there were no decisions of the district court Nördlingen. This constitutes the offense of false imprisonment – the deprivation of their liberty. Other legal bases according to Code of Criminal Procedure or under SGB VIII were not available.
  2. All seized children were forced to undress down to their underpants and show even the bare buttocks, there was no legal basis. The investigation showed that no signs of ill-treatment could be determined by the medical officer. This behavior, coercion under § 240 of the Criminal Code, is moreover a very serious matter because the offender has abused his powers or his position as a public official, and thus can be a criminal offence.
  3. The Jugendamt directed – on the basis of both written evidence and testimony – that all the letters of the children to their parents be opened and read, and that all the letters of the parents to the children be opened and read. This arrangement involved children of all ages, including young people between 12 and almost 18 years of age. These and further such actions constitute offenses, such as § 202 of the Criminal Code, § 206 Section 4 of the Criminal Code, and also violate the right to privacy under Article 10 of the Basic Law, optionally at retention of letters, also the crime of unfaithfulness. Justifications are not apparent. In particular, no court had ordered the inspection of letters and phone calls.
  4. Multiple times children ran away from foster care and children’s homes and were returned under use of physical force by members of the Jugendamt there. The use of physical violence against children requires a court order. Such an order did not exist. There have been several confirmations of this unique legal situation in proceedings at the Higher Regional Court of Munich, amongst others, with reference to a decision of the BayObLG of 4/27/1979 (Rb 3 Z 28/79, FamRZ 80, 81). Multiple times children were locked up in children’s homes. In one case, the children were being locked in at night. In another case, a 17-year-old girl was denied for more than a week, under the threat of physical and psychological violence, to leave the home for maladjusted children at all. Custodial measures had not been ordered by the family court. This constitutes the fact of deprivation of liberty that qualifies as a crime under § 239 paragraph 3 of the Criminal Code.
  5. The Jugendamt conducted multiple searches in Klosterzimmern and in the process invaded the homes of several people. Given the fundamental right to inviolability of the home there is a need for a legal basis for these searches. There were no judicial search warrants. Other legal bases did not exist.
  6. In the facilities in which the Jugendamt had assigned them, affected children were bullied in many ways, slandered, abused, and insulted as Jews inter alia. It will be necessary to consider whether these facts are a neglect of the duties of supervision by the Jugendamt and so constitute criminal offenses.

But when one has the advantage one must not be deterred by morality.

No, not even by one’s own laws, by an agency’s own code of conduct. . . not even by one’s own sense of decency.

When one has the advantage, one uses it — if one does not fear God or regard even the cries of children.

Read Luke 18:1-8 for the response of the Twelve Tribes to this injustice.