DISHONORABLE DISCHARGE OF DUTY?

 

Recently, in writing about the martial nature of the United States and the proliferation of monuments to honor American wars, conflicts and warriors, I mentioned the planned monument to Dwight David Eisenhower on The Mall in Washington, D.C. A squabble in regard to its design had erupted, and the construction of the monument has been delayed. 

General Dwight David Eisenhower had been the Supreme Commander Allied Expeditionary Force (SCAEF) during World War 2. Later, he was officially designated Supreme Allied Commander of the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE) and served in these roles at least until May, 1945. Concurring with the advice of General George Marshall, Franklin D. Roosevelt, president of the United States, passed over senior officers, General Douglas MacArthur and General George Patton to appoint General Eisenhower. Apparently, the success of Eisenhower’s North African campaign was a factor in his selection. There is evidence that other factors of a less pertinent nature may have had undue weight in affected FDR’s decision. 

As World War 2 has been publicized as perhaps America’s finest moment in approximately two centuries of existence as a republic, General Eisenhower has been lionized as well. While General MacArthur and the American troops fighting in the Pacific Theater have received considerable praise, the war effort in the European Theater has garnered the greater attention. I believe that this was due to the magnified importance this Theater had for Jewry. Indeed, World War 2 has been called the “Jewish War for Survival in Europe.” 

All the fighting troops, sailors and airmen, as well as their supporters at home, have won the praise of media and academia as America’s greatest generation. They have been credited with saving the world from unprecedented evil. 

Why was all this so? It was because of the primary enemy – Nazi Germany.  

Most Americans living today are not aware that a majority of Americans in the 1930s were not in favor of getting involved in another European war. However, a very influential group in America – small in numbers – were working very hard to get the United States to join Great Britain and France, et al, in a confrontation with the Hitler regime in Germany. This influential group was led by Jews. 

Since several Jews were advisors to President Roosevelt, Jewish influence stretched beyond finance, media, and academia directly into the White House. Even so, Jewish influence had not been able to completely win over America to making war on Germany.  

What really tipped the scales in America so that its citizens were ready to go to war? A treaty did it. 

Since about 1937-38 Winston Churchill and FDR had been discussing ways that might be used as a pretext for getting the U.S.A. into WW2. The obstinate American majority had to be neutralized, if war against Nazi Germany was to ensue. Initially, plans must have primarily involved American maritime vessels or – better yet – U.S. Navy vessels. The United States has a long history of involvement in battles and wars due to an enemy attack on an American warship or maritime vessel. The Israeli state has been a rare exception to this rule, when it tried to sink the U.S. Liberty in the Mediterranean Sea. 

Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan had signed a treaty to go to each other’s defense in the case of an attack from another nation. These kinds of treaties were and are the sine qua non of world wars.  

In the United States treaties have been secured by the U.S. constitution as “the Law of the Land.” That’s why American “statesmen” carefully insist on signing treaties with other countries, rather than “agreements,” “accords” or “understandings.” They want to bind the United States – not the other signer or signers. For this reason the United States signs treaties on environmental issues, economic issues, weapon issues, weather issues, et cetera. However, there is one treaty that it has never signed – a peace treaty with Germany at the end of World War 2. 

It is a fact that many nations, including the United States, have arranged for the appearance of “brutality toward a minority” within a given country to provide a humane and/or righteous pretext for invading the said country to save. Adolf Hitler used this technique on Czechoslovakia and Poland. Perfidious attacks on a country’s ships (“Remember the Maine!”, “Tonkin Gulf”, etc.) provide another pretext. Undoubtedly, there are others which might be cited, for humans are inventive in these matters. The term “false flag” was coined to describe some such clandestine operations. 

The Japanese were hemmed in through economic warfare by the United States and basically lured to attack the United States. By stacking naval ships at Pearl Harbor, FDR presented the Japanese high command with what appeared to be a golden opportunity to seriously wound United States naval forces in the Pacific arena and provide the Japanese with precious time to organize for a “fight-to-the-death” war with America.  

Even the top officers in Japan did not think that Japan had a chance against the United States. If there was any hope for Japan, it must be by means of a crushing sneak attack. However, the United States had broken the Japanese code and were monitoring their naval activities. That did not mean that the Department of the Navy generally were aware of this intelligence break-through.  

FDR basically accepted the military losses – perhaps akin to Mohammed Ali’s “rope-a-dope” – so that America could declare war on Japan, knowing that war with Germany would then be inevitable. Due to the Japanese-German treaty, declarations of war soon followed between the Germans and Americans. The United States began to mobilize its mighty potential for war, and Allied victory became a matter of time.  

In a way the world war commenced in 1933 when the Zionist leadership declared war on Germany, beginning with economic pressure. Media pressure began “beating the drums” for a war against Hitler and what he stood for, as they defined and emphasized it. National Socialism had to be stopped. Entertainers competed to make Adolf Hitler and Nazism appear to be insane, absurd and/or evil. This was part of the conditioning of the American people. 

Yet, Americans could see a miracle in Germany, as Hitler’s programs began to revitalize it, putting people back to work. Americans watching newsreels at theaters, as an entertainment prologue before a movie, could see that, despite all the criticism of Hitler and National Socialism (“Nazism”), the German people seemed to be doing better and to be increasingly enamored of him. Adolf Hitler was clearly popular in Germany. As Americans were still suffering from the Great Depression with no end in sight, what Hitler was achieving in Germany might well be deemed admirable and desirable. For this reason there was effort made by America’s media to put a bad spin on events in Germany. The German economy and a better lifestyle were de-emphasized in favor of the martial displays and mass gatherings, which Americans might see with growing apprehension. 

Although Adolf Hitler was a man who undoubtedly believed in the use of military force, if diplomacy showed no sign of bearing fruit, he was also a visionary. He had lived through poverty and war, firmly convinced in the capacity of Germans to build what LBJ in America would one day dub “The Great Society.” His vision was not the same as LBJ’s, to be sure. Unlike Americans, French, and British, Adolf Hitler did not believe that German destiny required the considered advice of Jews. He envisioned a “Greater Germany” which included German lands lost in the Allied dictations at Versailles, traditionally German lands, according to demography, and German-speaking Austria. 

In this he was not so wildly different from the Jews occupying Palestine today, who dreamed of Eretz Israel (Greater Israel), sprawling across the Levant.

One of the singularities of Jews is their belief that G_d gave them the world to “manage.” Hence, it is their duty to take control of it, for how else could they effectively manage it? I believe that that has something to do with the fact that Jews migrate to all richer countries, where they attempt to garner power. (Too, a little wealth is not a bad thing!) 

Naturally, Adolf Hitler’s vision and the G_d-given imperative to the Jews meant that the two were on a collision course. However, the Jews’ use of a triangular structure in government, where disproportionate numbers of Jews appear at the top of the pyramid insured broad influence wherever Jews were allowed to operate freely. 

Increasingly, such a situation obtained in the United States. Can that Jewish influence have had any bearing on the rise of Dwight D. Eisenhower?  

Dwight Eisenhower was promoted to full colonel in March, 1941. He was appointed to brigadier general in February, 1942, after he became a favorite of General George Marshall. Delano Roosevelt introduced her new acquaintance to “poppa.” FDR saw in Dwight Eisenhower a man who would not fight or sabotage his plans. In order to appoint Dwight David Eisenhower to the position of Chief of Operations Division, War Department General Staff in March, 1942, FDR bypassed many officers who outranked Eisenhower and who were better qualified. Next stop for Dwight Eisenhower was Commander European Theater of Operations in June, 1942. This was followed by appointment to be Allied Commander in Chief for the invasion of North Africa in 1942. Then, Allied Commander for the invasion of Sicily in May, 1943. Then, Allied Commander for the invasion of Italy in September, 1943. Finally, Dwight D. Eisenhower was appointed Commander, Allied Expeditionary Force for the invasion of Europe. 

This rapid series of promotions over better qualified officers might be a function of the sharp understanding of human nature by FDR, joined with the sage advice of General Marshall. Or it might be something quite different. 

According to Lt. Col. Gordon “Jack” Mohr, AUS retired, in 1945, during the post-World War 2 period, American foreign policy was largely in the hands of powerful Zionists based in Washington, D.C. This secret, invisible government was then headed by Sen. Herbert Lehman, Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter, and Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau. They drew up the plan for austerity and division of Germany, which informed observers likened to “genocide.” Interestingly, Mr. Fred Smith, a senior aide of Morgenthau’s, indicated that the Morgenthau Plan was Eisenhower’s idea. Further, Dwight Eisenhower made certain that the Morgenthau Plan book was circulated among Eisenhower’s troops in Europe. 

Incidentally, post-dissolution of the U.S.S.R. afforded the opportunity for scholars to view old Soviet documents; one disclosed that Felix Frankfurter was an agent of the communist regime in the ‘40s & ‘50s. 

According to Gordon Mohr, Henry Morgenthau credited Dwight D. Eisenhower with the austerity plan for Germany, which Morgenthau suggested to FDR. Mr. Fred Smith, one of Henry Morgenthau’s senior aides, indicated that the Morgenthau Plan was Eisenhower’s idea. Eisenhower made certain that the Morgenthau Plan book was circulated among his troops in Europe. Further in 1944 Eisenhower told the British ambassador to Washington that 3,500 German officers should be “exterminated.” He was said to also favor the liquidation of perhaps 100,000 prominent Germans. He was reported to have told his wife, Mamie, that “God, I hate Germans! Why? Because the German is a beast!” 

Given the apparent Germanic last name of Dwight D. Eisenhower and given the fact that perhaps two-thirds of European American soldiers in the U.S. military were Germanic, does not this hatred seem curious? Eisenhower’s allusion to “beasts” seemed entirely at one with media propaganda in sectors of Great Britain and the U.S.S.R. Did Eisenhower hate his own heritage or was there another related aspect? 

Although it is not commonly known, West Point’s Howitzer (1915) issue began, “This is Senor Dwight David Eisenhower, gentlemen, the terrible Swedish Jew, as big as life and twice as natural….” According to one source, Dwight David Eisenhower was the sixth generation descended from Hans Nicholas Eisenhauer, who arrived from Sweden in 1741. [He may have been originally a resident of Germany who felt compelled to journey expeditiously to America, and Sweden was a first step for him.] Further, just as Bernard Baruch had taken Winston Churchill under his financial wing, after Churchill had lost a great part of his money in the stock market arena in the ‘30s, so he had also guided Eisenhower’s career – probably using General Marshall’s assistance. 

It might be added that the name “Roosevelt” is the Dutch variant of “Rosenfeld,” which is typically Jewish.

It was not and is not unusual for Jew and non-Jew to marry, and many of the British and American elite “discover” that they have Jewish ancestors. The same applies to journalists, media reporters, politicians, et cetera. The British Prime Minister Cameron recently spoke of his Jewish ancestors. The late David Brinkley, Newt Gingrich, and Rudolph Giuliani all married Jews at least once. In both countries a part-Jewish elite has evolved to run affairs of state, foreign and domestic. 

Three communist agents worked for Henry Morgenthau at the Department of the Treasury, and they were the ones who largely devised policy 1067 of the Chiefs of Staff. It specified the procedures that Eisenhower must adopt. Treasury Deputies Frank Coe, Harold Glasser, and Harry Dexter White were all Jews. 

Therefore, at the tip of America’s power triangle in the late ‘30s were a disproportionate and very influential group of Jews, putting aside the matter of FDR’s heritage aside. 

Why is any of this important? The cruel treatment of the German people at the end of formal hostilities and during the next few years of the post-World War 2 period was arguably a war-crime- stained exercise in Allied – and especially Jewish – revenge. It was shameful. 

Since the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917 that toppled the remnant of Tsarist Russia, the leadership of the U.S.S.R. has been substantially under the effective control of Marxist-Leninist Jews. The Stalinist years did not change that. Hence, the drive of “International Communism” to spread across the globe was alive and well. For the “dictatorship of the proletariat” was the same ancient Jewish concept of G_d-ordained management of the world but with G_n deleted. 

From the Jewish perspective Adolf Hitler’s National Socialism was akin to blasphemy. It was like a large wart – or even tumor – that had to be destroyed. 

Further, in Europe over the middle ages, Jews had been booted out of country after country. Jews would slowly return, only to be booted out again. Although Jewish apologists like to explain these expulsions as prejudice-based, they were primarily economically-related events. King Edward expelled Jews from England in 1290, stating that they had “gnawed England to the bone” (paraphrased). This undoubtedly referenced usury by Jews which made money too painfully scarce, making even the king’s position possibly threatened by peasant discord. Clipping coins was another practice that tended to enrich Jews at the price of the kingdom’s well-being. Today, lawyers and others clip the wealth of citizens who are forced to use them, but today the currency is largely abstract. 

Therefore, world Jewry had developed a desire to once-and-for-all end the expulsion of Jews from any given country in which they might dwell. Hitler’s idea of a Germany “of, by and for the German people” was, therefore, unacceptable. Jews did not want a “country of our own” situated “who knows where.” They were charged with managing the Earth – a kind of collective Adam managing the global “Worker’s Paradise.” 

The Jews did not merely want to stop Adolf Hitler and Nazism, but they wanted to make an example of them to teach the world a lesson all should heed. They wanted to avenge every slight that they have ever felt from Germans and others. 

Besides the immediate revenge upon the Germans and their allies, the Jews wanted to create a new world government to enforce their ideas. During the FDR Administration, preparations were being made for the post-war world government of the United Nations. References popped up in the FDR Administration papers to the “United Nations,” even though it had not been created. It was treated as if it had been established in their planning papers. 

Parenthetically, once the constitutional framework for the United Nations had been created, laws were enacted to deal with “genocide” and “refugees.” The latter was crucial to developing the American and European laws and regulations which accord with the United Nations rules, allowing for a constant flow of alien people from very different religio-cultural homelands to migrate. Thus, all European-derived nations have become substantially diverse communities heading to their new status as “mixed multitudes.” 

However, at the period of the surrender of Nazi Germany, American leadership was basically working with the U.S.S.R. leadership to wreak terror upon the defeated German people. Neither nation felt obliged to limit their wrath with the National Socialist political and military leadership. 

In Casablanca, January, 1943, FDR had announced at his meeting with Churchill that the terms to be offered to Germany and Japan were simply “unconditional surrender,” which meant the abolition of the German government, meaning the loss of treaty rights such as the protection of prisoners under the Geneva Convention. That the U.S.A. planned to punish the Germans can be perceived by the FDR comment to Henry Morgenthau, “We have got to be tough with Germany, and I mean the German people, not just the Nazis. We either have to castrate the German people, or you have got to treat them in such a manner that they can’t just go on reproducing people who want to continue the way they have in the past.” [Presidential Diary, Morgenthau Papers, vol. 6, 19 August, 1944, Hyde Park.] In Teheran, November, 1943, Marshal Josef Stalin stated his desire to round up 50,000 German officers after the war and shoot them. Clearly, Stalin was more direct than FDR, but FDR was obviously more ambitious, seeking a sort of soft genocide of the Germans. Later, in Warm Springs, Georgia, April 11, 1945, not many days from his death, FDR told Henry Morgenthau, “Henry, Truman took over,” and affirmed that Truman would continue Morgenthau’s ‘Carthaginian Peace’ toward the conquered Germans. 

Parenthetically, Carthaginian Peace referred to the harsh conditions imposed on Carthage by Rome after the Second Punic War, as well as the utter destruction of Carthage by Rome after the Third Punic War. 

What were the short term consequences of this “Carthaginian Peace?” 

A series of concentration camps were set up in the American post-war sector. They were often open-air stretches of land which had been fenced in and guarded by armed soldiers. The Germans confined were older men, boys, and many surrendered/captured soldiers. The German women were confined in a separate vast holding-pen. All were poorly fed and clothed. Medical help was spotty. Some internees lived in holes in the ground, largely exposed to the elements. They found few sympathetic people amongst the Americans. 

Consider: “In April, 1945, …one inmate at Rheinberg was over 80 years old, another was age nine… Nagging hunger and agonizing thirst were their companions and they died of dysentery. …amputees slithered like amphibians through the mud, soaking and freezing.” [U.S. Colonels Mason & Beasley in “The Medical Surgeon,” vol. 107, no.6, (December 1950), page 437] 

Red Cross food was turned away by order, basically, of Dwight Eisenhower command. Food stored and going to waste in facilities controlled by the U.S. Army might have been made available to the starving German inmates. Since they were deprived of “prisoners of war” status by the Eisenhower command, they were literally “without a country.” [On August 4, 1945, a terse order went forth from SHAEF under Eisenhower’s name that “Effective immediately all members of the German forces held in US custody in the American zone of occupation in GERMANY will be considered as disarmed enemy forces (DEF) and not as having the status of prisoners of war.”] In effect American Jews had booted them out of their own country. 

The British under Churchill released their German prisoners rather promptly. General Patton had done so as well, discharging half a million men in 27 days. General Bradley tried, but he was countermanded by Eisenhower at SHAEF. 

I believe that notice should be given to the words of General George Patton regarding General Dwight Eisenhower’s handling of affairs at SHAEF. In his diary he wrote: “After lunch General Eisenhower talked to us very confidentially on the necessity for solidarity in the event that any of us are called before a Congressional Committee.” The Ike rationale for this solidarity may be found in another entry in Patton’s diary: [Eisenhower was using] “practically Gestapo methods” against Germany. Without doubt Patton represented a much higher degree of military virtue than Eisenhower. General Patton stated his opinion that “What we are doing is to utterly destroy the only semi-modern state in Europe so that Russia can swallow the whole.” 

Another timely voice should be noted at this time. Marshal Alphonse Juin, Chief of Staff for General Charles De Gaulle, told General Patton at dinner in Paris [Diary of George S. Patton, 18 August, 1945] that “It is indeed unfortunate that the English and Americans have destroyed the only sound country in Europe – and I do not mean France – therefore, the road is now open for the advent of Russian communism.” 

The policies of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Henry Morgenthau, and Dwight David Eisenhower toward the defeated Germans were not merely criminal actions, but they were strategically worse than a crime – they were supremely unwise. 

Personally, I believe that the FDR Administration saw the leadership of the U.S.S.R. as people who “think like us.” They were family.

Orders went out of SHAEF under the name “Eisenhower” that interdicted shipments of food and other mail to the German interns. The Red Cross was barred. Orders went forth to American prison guards to shoot anyone helping the Germans in American sector concentration camps. Further, “The youthful commandant calmly told us he had kept the inmates on starvation diet, explaining, ‘These Nazis are getting a dose of their own medicine.’” [Robert Murphy, civilian political adviser to Eisenhower] 

General Marshall let Eisenhower know that “there is no longer any protecting power representing German interests. Hence matters pertaining to German prisoners of war cannot be forwarded.” [The State Department informed the Swiss that their services were no longer recognized.] The effect of this was to block ICRC assistance to surrendered Germans under the Geneva Convention for POWs. As late as February, 1946, the ICRC, as well as other relief agencies, was still being prevented by the U.S.A. command from “bringing help to German children and sick persons in the US zone.” 

In contrast in both the French and British zones, the ICRC and the local German Red Cross were operating. 

Colonel Philip Lauben later said that the American and French camps in the Vosges region were so bad that “the Vosges was just one big death camp.” In the late summer of 1945, Jean-Pierre Pradervand of the ICRC in France journeyed to Thoree les Pins – a French camp – which was already locally known by villagers as “Buchenwald” for an inspection. On July 10, 1945, a French army unit commanded by Gen. Rousseau took over the Dietersheim camp, previously under American zone oversight. He found 32,000 men and women of all ages in a moribund state, i.e. near death. Seventeen days later, his fellow officer Julien took command. He found a vast human sty. He noted that “people were living skeletons huddling under scraps of wet card board.” The horrified Julien wrote, “This is just like the photographs from Dachau.” 

Meanwhile, on August 30, 1945, Max Huber, boss of the ICRC, wrote a sharp letter complaining about American interference in efforts to save starving Germans. As Washington and SHAEF (under Eisenhower) were resolutely opposed to allowing the “disarmed enemy forces” to receive a “care package” of food, the food, now beginning to decay, was returned to Geneva and the ICRC in trains with thousands of laden cars.  

The interdiction by an authority of food, medicine and clothing meant for desperately deprived and suffering people is hardly uncommon. In Israel in recent years, armed Israeli military were sent forth into international waters to halt a “care package” armada intending to bring food & medicine to the Palestinian people. As with the American military command in Europe under General Dwight David Eisenhower, the Israelis successfully deprived “enemies” from receiving desperately needed help. 

General Everett S. Hughes, who had been with Dwight Eisenhower at the staff college at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, was named Eisenhower’s special assistant. His concerns in this position related to manpower replacements, prisoner of war rations and logistical matters, especially relating to the aforementioned concerns. In Marseilles, France, on March 19, 1945, Hughes had stated: “Naples all over again. More stocks than we can ever use stretch as far as eye can see.” Contrary to assertions made by Dwight David Eisenhower, there was available food to keep the German inmates alive. The British were in a worse position than Americans by far, yet were able to set a daily meal for their numerous German inmates. In the U.S.A. farm production had been booming. Any American planner could see the end of German war-making not far ahead. They knew that prisoners would be taken. There was ample time to prepare to feed them. Yet, they did not! Perhaps even prior to the ghastly final days of Nazi Germany, the unspoken word “genocide” had been selected as a possible solution to the “German Problem.” 

Vladimir Lenin had opined that Jews made better revolutionaries than Slavic Russians do because they had a greater capacity to be cruel.   

The FDR/Truman Administrations may also have had this capacity. In 1973 Julius Epstein published his book, OPERATION KEELHAUL: The Story of Forced Repatriation (1973). In this book Epstein detailed how American authorities forced hundreds of thousands of anti-Communists who had fought or fled from the U.S.S.R. and its comrade nations to return to them at the outset of the Cold War. Many of the returned people were hung in the presence of American soldiers, who were undoubtedly ordered not to interfere. This event was unknown to any Americans in the 1940s, other than the few in the Truman Administration and the American military command in Europe. The media was silent. Although Dwight Eisenhower was no longer in command in Europe, someone very much like him must have been appointed to oversee such a potentially politically-charged operation. It also indicated that another America was being born. The days of American warriors with virtuous characters that allowed the glimmer of gallantry and nobility to be observed had passed.  

General Douglas MacArthur had called Colonel Eisenhower incompetent. Subsequently, he declared Ike to be “The Best damn clerk I ever had.” On the other hand General George Patton had termed Ike “a wimp.” However, FDR and General Marshall saw something in Ike that they could use. Did they think that he’d be their “good little German?” Or did they see a hint of cruelty underneath the amiable appearance? 

In OTHER LOSSES James Bacque made the claim that 700,000 to perhaps as many as 1 million Germans died of neglect (exposure, unsanitary conditions, disease and starvation) in the confines of the American-run concentration camps. Others have disputed this, claiming only a few score thousand had died. One of these, Stephen Ambrose, a biographer of Dwight David Eisenhower, had actually been given Bacque manuscript to criticize, but, rather than finding fault, Ambrose extolled James Bacque’s manuscript as historically important. None have those critics have denied that the German prisoners had been grossly mistreated. The “why” of it remains an open question. Was it merely unbridled hatred by a gaggle of powerfully positioned men which led to the Carthaginian Peace? 

It goes beyond mistreatment. A war crime was committed by the American leadership. General Dwight David Eisenhower was a central figure in this crime. At the very least he was the spear-point cast by Jewry to impel the German people for embracing Hitler’s idea of a Greater Germany rather than the Judeo-American principle of an “Open Door Nation,” where diversity and Jewish hegemony characterized the land. 

Dwight D. Eisenhower has positive things which might be placed on his ledger; however, war crimes and plain meanness do not warrant a nation’s gratitude in the form of a monument on The Mall in his name. He does not belong on the same sward with Abraham Lincoln, whose magnanimous approach to opponents in war was unprecedented in America and, unfortunately, never copied thereafter.  

In America George Orwell’s paradox seemed to prevail: What the people knew was not true; what was true was not known.

JESUS, DISCIPLINE AND TRAVEL

 

On occasion I have wondered about Jesus as a child, abiding with his nominal father, Joseph, and his mother, Mary. What was the relationship? Were Joseph and Mary typical parents in their rearing of the child Jesus? Were Joseph and Mary ever offended by actions of Jesus, the boy?

We know from Holy Scripture that Mary chided Jesus for being lost to them at the Temple. Did Jesus, the boy, ever bother Joseph as he prepared a piece of carpentry? Did Jesus play and in his playing knock over a pot Mary was preparing as the main portion of that night’s dinner? In short, did an occasion arise that might justify punishment within the Joseph the carpenter household? This is not to say that Jesus did wrong intentionally but to ask, as a child playing, did he inadvertently injure a project of his parents that might warrant punishment?

Was it possible that the child Jesus was spanked for a deed that angered either Joseph or Mary? Scripture states “spare the rod, and spoil the child. Did Joseph ever apply the rod to Jesus in fatherly admonishment for an inadvertent violation of the rules of the household? It would seem that such punishment would be considered to be scripturally correct parenting. [Compare to the approach of the Jewish sage, Dr. Spock.]

In Matthew 18:16 Jesus warned against “offending one of these little ones.” He surely was primarily concerned with injuring the faith of the child in him. However, he could also be recalling a punishment episode in his boyhood, and, in effect, rewriting Old Testament wisdom. He might be teaching his disciples that hitting a child does not strengthen faith between child and parents; love, truth and honesty strengthen faith within a family one unto another.

Still, if Joseph had in a state of temporary anger wrongly spanked Jesus too hard, he may have offended the heavens.

In Matthew 18:10 [also see Mark 9:42, Luke 17:2] Jesus said to his disciples to “take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven. How much more would that apply to the child Jesus?

Is it possible that Joseph lost control on one or more occasions and struck Jesus with a rod to reprimand him for careless playing? The life of Joseph might have been more pressured than normally perceived. There was a possibility that an occasional doubt about Jesus arose in his mind. Who was his father – really? Is it possible that Joseph offended the child Jesus on occasion?

Such a parental punishment by Joseph of the child Jesus may have been the trigger for heavenly reprimand of Joseph by means of a premature death. Heavenly intervention had occurred in the case of the Canaanite warrior Uriah, who was the victim of David’s machination, but who, had he lived would have been in Jesus ancestral bloodline, which was unthinkable.

Parenthetically, the reprobate minds that claim that Jesus’ allusions to his “father in heaven” were to Joseph and not The Most High cannot be tolerated and must be despised.

Still, I do believe that Joseph the carpenter died before Jesus had reached the age of thirteen. He was last alluded to in scripture when Jesus was twelve years old and with his parents in Jerusalem for an annual matter.

What was Jesus doing between twelve and thirty years of age?

I must acknowledge that I belong to the small group of people who believes that Joseph of Arimathea was a close relative of Jesus – possibly an uncle by blood. He, Joseph of Arimathea, may have occasionally been alluded to in scripture, but biblical scholars assumed incorrectly that the allusion was to Joseph the carpenter. It is even possible that Joseph the carpenter died much earlier than even I have suggested.

Joseph of Arimathea was accounted in scripture and in history as a “wealthy” man and a member of the Sanhedrin. As such, he was probably allied with Nicodemus. The rich man who “would be perfect” may also have been part of the Joseph-Nicodemus crowd of Israelites. No doubt they contended with the Edomite-led Pharisees for the implementation of correct law and policy.

Joseph of Arimathea has been cited as a high official within the Roman Empire’s economics sphere, operating and/or overseeing some mining operations in England and perhaps Iberia as well. At the minimum he was a man with official authority to operate/oversee mining – probably tin – in parts of southern England near York. Therefore, Joseph of Arimathea was probably wealthy from the mining of tin and was something of a merchant lord.

It might be well to state that trade was a well-developed craft in the Holy Lands long pre-dating the advent of Jesus. Ships and caravans routinely travelled to distant lands for purpose of trade.

If Joseph of Arimathea had cause to be the guardian of the child Jesus, due to the premature death of Joseph the carpenter, which might well be natural if Jesus was his nephew or grand-nephew, then the boy Jesus would often see his important, wealthy guardian. It may well be that Joseph of Arimathea owned an estate which included vineyards. No doubt, these would have impressed the boy Jesus. This environment may well have set the stage for Jesus’ subsequent enjoyment of wine.

I personally believe that, as Jesus matured in his teen years, he was allowed to travel with Joseph of Arimathea as Joseph pursued his mining and trading interests. It is also possible that Joseph owned a ship to use in his trade missions. Undoubtedly, if Mary allowed Jesus to travel, it was on a gradual basis. At first Jesus was allowed to go on short trips and, in time, more lengthy trips were allowed.

If my belief is correct, Jesus may well have set foot in southern England, accompanying his guardian, Joseph of Arimathea. Therefore, the answer to the English poet, William Blake, would be affirmative.

If Jesus made several lengthy voyages on a ship owned by or leased to Joseph of Arimathea, he would be afforded the opportunity of “rubbing shoulders with” the ship’s crew of seamen. Joseph might well be their boss as the owner or, if leased, at least an important merchant. Hence, the seamen aboard would know in time who the young man Jesus was. Jesus would be treated well. In fact there would be every reason to suppose that Jesus developed a fondness for these brave, hardworking men who nevertheless were “game” for a joke or some other fun, when time was available. These seamen would be rough sorts that the yuppie crowd in contemporary America would avoid at all costs.

Jesus certainly would have experienced fearsome storms at sea.

In thinking about the life of Jesus and especially his ministry, one may well be struck by Jesus’ affinity for the sea. It might well be said that the sea was his familiar neighborhood. When he began his ministry, Jesus was drawn to water. He chose fishermen at first to be his disciples. Repeatedly, Jesus travelled to the seacoast for purposes of preaching and otherwise. When relaxing, he often enjoyed the company of rough men and “sinners” to such a degree that Pharisees challenged him on the issue of the company he kept. For Jesus the company of these people brought back many happy times spent on his guardian’s ship with its crew.

Not only did Jesus seek the sea to “soothe his soul,” when the occasion arose for a storm at sea with Peter and Andrew, he wasn’t fazed. He slept through a fearsome storm. As a lad, he must have encountered many turbulent moments at sea, so the storm that frightened Peter would be a familiar event for Jesus. I state this hypothesis not meaning to lessen the tranquility that arose from Jesus’ faith.

Ostensibly not a fisherman, Jesus seemed to know a lot about fish. On his guardian’s ship he would have many occasions for the seamen to teach him the craft of fishing. Repeatedly, Jesus turned to fish as a tool for a miracle in his ministry. Water was also used, even if in the form of spit.

Not only do readers of the New Testament note the use of the sea in Jesus’ ministry, but frequently he developed parables whose messages were clothed in events that involved a wealthy merchant or lord of a vineyard. I believe that Jesus’ relationship with Joseph of Arimathea provided the background for such imagery. Jesus had virtually lived with such a lord.

Going back to Joseph the carpenter, I want to make the point that his influence on the mind of Jesus is completely invisible. At no point in Jesus’ ministry did he illustrate a point by reference to carpentry. Jesus does not speak of the tools of the carpenter in making a point. If Joseph’s craft as a carpenter had any influence over Jesus, why did he not use the imagery of the carpenter’s tools, construction or working materials to make his points? There’s no there, there!

Some may wonder why carpentry has been adhered to the lifestyle of Jesus, especially in the last few hundred years. I believe that the influence of Freemasons accounts for much of it. Freemasons fancy themselves to be “builders,” although philosophically it is themselves that they hope to “reconstruct.” Since they have infiltrated between 30% and 60% of the major Protestant denominations, they have achieved excellent vantage point for influencing imagery. [“My Boss Is A Jewish Carpenter,” etc.] In the lodges of the Great Architect the mention of Jesus and Christianity have been discouraged, according to people in a position to know. Positive commentary such as “Jesus was the Messiah of Israel and Savior of the World” frowned upon, if not forbidden under pain of death.

At one time when the masonic lodges were the meeting place of actual members of the masonry trade, lodge laws typically included clear statements that they were defenders of Jesus Christ. This ended completely when “philosophical” infiltration took over the old masonry lodges. A new order was developed. References to the Old Testament – especially symbolically – abounded, but the name of “Jesus” was left out in the cold.

One may recall Matthew 21:42: “Jesus saith…The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner:” [See also Mark 12:10, Luke 20:17]

Holy Scripture is a wonderful thing to see, for those with eyes to see.