Alexander H. Joffe, a pro-Israel academic, has been a featured writer in the pages of this JINSA publication, and that he was given so much space to tout his theories certainly reflects the high regard in which his views are held.

According to Michael Collins Piper. quoted from his book until further notice:

In his essay, Joffee frankly admitted that “America is an empire” and asserts that, yes, this is a very good thing. Joffe says that when the UN dared to take on Zionism, that marked the demise of the UN in the minds of the internationalists.

Joffe writes:

“The end of the General Assembly as a credible body may plausibly be ascribed to the infamous ‘Zionism is Racism’ resolution in 1975.” The JINSA author contends that the world should be “grateful” that the UN has been “discredited, reduced to farce and ultimately ground to a halt,” referring, of course, to UN positions that the Zionists and their allies in the world empire movement find offensive.

As a result of the UN being shelved as a world government vehicle, writes Joffe, “We now have the opportunity, and obligation, to begin again.” However, he warns that the emerging European Union (EU) is a threat to the dream of a global empire.

The JINSA writer asserts that the EU is an:

“alternative vision for the international community,” one that, as he puts it, frankly is “the authentic countervision to an American Empire.”

According to the Zionist writer, the biggest problem with Europe and the EU is that:

“culture remains at the core of Europe’s problems. Nationalism was a doctrine born in Europe, as were its vicious mutant offspring: fascism and communism.”

(Note: A fervent advocate of Israeli super-nationalism, the writer, Joffe, doesn’t seem to see the lack of logic in his attack on other peoples’ nationalism—but then, again, honesty has never been integral to the hard- line Zionist point of view.)

Joffe complains that although “the new European Empire is multi- cultural in theory . . . in reality it is dominated politically and culturally by France and economically by Germany.”

Today, in the EU, he says:

“driven by a sense of postcolonial guilt and postwar ennui the door have been thrown open to all ideas. At the most sinister levels it has permitted and even legitimized a vast explosion of unhinged thought and action, namely anti-Americanism, anti-Semitism, and a wide variety of conspir- acy theories.”

(The so-called “conspiracy theories” that so alarm this Zionist theo- retician are those that dare to challenge the “official” views of what real- ly happened on September 11, 2001. He is inflamed that millions of peo- ple in Europe and the Muslim world—not to mention the United States—have raised questions about Israeli foreknowledge and/or involvement in those events.)

In any case, what Joffe describes as:

“the other kind of liberal internationalism”

...is what the Zionist movement favors and Joffe defines it:

The American Empire has no real or theoretical competitors. The goal of the American Empire in the 21st century is not territorial control or the exploitation of resources but political and economic leadership which defends and advances American interests, and which promotes the development and well being of all nations. Given our history and our values, that future lies in leveraging the American Empire in such a way that it becomes the basis of a new democratic international system.

Ultimately the only answer for a stable and prosperous planet will be a glob- al system that is structurally and morally similar to the American union—semi- autonomous states with secular, liberal democratic systems; where states have both prescribed rights and agreed upon responsibilities in a larger secular, liberal dem- ocratic framework; one equipped with checks and balances and meaningful insti- tutions; with governance based on rule of law and tolerant and pluralist values. In the second-part of his extended essay, published in the Winter 2004 issue of JINSA’s journal, Joffe pursued this line of thought further, expanding on his call for what he described as “an empire that looks like America.” 138

Amazingly, Joffe frankly talks about the United States engaging in massive imperial conquests in the trouble-torn regions of Africa—pre- sumably after the United States has already made havoc in the Arab coun- tries of the Middle East:

The conditions under which America and its allies would simply take over and restore African countries are far from clear. What are the thresholds for inter- vention? What are the procedures and outcomes? Who will fight and who will pay? The restoration of Africa would involve long-term commitments and immense costs, of the sort that could only be paid for by Africa itself. That is to say, it would probably require American economic control, to go along with political and cultural control. Colonialism is always pay as you go, and it is not pretty. The question is both whether Africa can pay the price (or afford not to) and whether America has the stomach.

Of course, Africa is not the only target of Joffe and his like-minded schemers (and that is precisely what they are, however, “extreme” that term may be perceived). In fact, Joffe talks of a wide-ranging global agenda—well beyond the African continent.

In the end, however, Joffe lets the cat out of the bag, about the real intentions of those who are using United States military power as the mechanism for a bigger agenda.

“New arrangements,” he says, “must come into being under American leadership to provide an alternative for states that are willing to accept rights and responsibilities.”

Joffe dreams of a United Nations that has been re-made under the imperial force of the United States. And ultimately, he predicts the possibility of a world government, writing:

Possibly, after a period of chaos and anger, which in any event would simply intensify existing states of being, the institution [the United Nations] might be bludgeoned into changing. [Note his use of the term “bludgeoned.”—MCP]

Rather than a club that admits all, the 21st century United Nations might— someday, somehow—be remade into an exclusive, by invitation, members-only group, of free, democratic states, sharing similar values. Or in the end, replaced by one. That day, however, may be decades off.

Should there be any doubt that he is talking about world government, note Joffe’s concluding words:

The best way to preserve the American empire is to eventually give it up.

Setting the stage for global governance can only be done with American leader- ship and American-led institutions of the sort schematically outlined here.

So it is. Despite all the high-sounding rhetoric about “democracy,” what it all comes down to—in the words of this pro-Israel ideologue—is the use of America’s military power to advance another (secret) agenda altogether. Even many of those grass-roots American flag-wavers (who may be genuine patriots) who relish the concept of an American empire may find Joffe’s concepts somewhat different from what they otherwise might perceive.

But here, in the pages of a devotedly pro-Zionist journal, we learn precisely what the “story behind the story” actually happens to be. It has nothing to do, really, even with a “strong America” or, for that matter, even with America itself.

The United States of America is simply a pawn—albeit a powerful one—in the game, being ruthlessly shifted about in a scheme for world dominance by an elite few operating behind the scenes. And, in the end, this does tell us very much about who The High Priests of War really are and what their agenda is really all about. There’s no mystery at all.

What remains to be determined is what the American people—and all other real patriots in nations around the globe—intend to do about it. The question is this: will the world finally decide it is time to declare war on The High Priests of War?