American Independence vs. Global Government: Are We Losing the Struggle?

American Independence vs. Global Government: Are We Losing the Struggle?

In 1933, H.G. Wells, by then nearing the end of an illustrious career as a novelist, social scientist, and encyclopedist, wroteThe Shape of Things to Come, a counter-factual history of the world from 1933 to the year 2106. Ever the utopian, Wells spun out a tale of all-consuming world wars, territorial ambition, and general chaos which would end in a 100-year tyranny followed finally by the establishment of the Modern World State – the prototype for global govrnment.

The book is a chilling portrait, not so much of the world as it might one day exist (it was too static a read for that), but rather of the mind of an early 20th Century utopian who seemed to have no qualms suggesting that the massacre of millions, the forcible eradication of religious practice and the sequestration of all private property would be necessary for the establishment of a world paradise. The utopian, globalist agenda – justifying any means to achieve a progressive end – today casts a pall over the reputations of the socialists who conceived it.

The globalist dream did not end with H.G. Wells nor those of his generation. In fact, the movement he and the other Fabian romantics spawned was really just beginning.

Today, although few advocates talk about a world government in which a single political entity would govern all humanity, a sophisticated and extremely well financed movement to advance global governance has taken root in most western countries. Insisting on the UN as a conduit for enacting international protocols and regulations, almost all of which would override national legislation, globalists use international environmental accords, humanitarian law and international treaties as their vehicles to advance an agenda that is becoming increasingly aggressive and unwilling to brook opposition.

This well-financed campaign, designed to strip sovereign governments of their ability to regulate and monitor human rights and environmental protection, has naturally put the globalist agenda on a collision course with constitutional democracy. Put simply, transnationalists in the UN and the European Union, but more importantly among America’s elites, are using the demands for a global rule of law to make American constitutional law subservient to a global authority. And in many respects they are succeeding.

To examine how this is happening and what the consequences might be for the United States and other Western nations, the American Freedom Alliance has convened a two-day conference in Los Angeles titled “Global Governance vs National Sovereignty: Is It the West’s Next Great Ideological War?Drawing upon an international list of speakers and panelists, with representatives from Australia, Central Europe, the U.K. and France, the conference will cover the full gamut of issues regarding the global governance movement’s assault on national sovereignty — from the politicization of international law to the uses and abuses of lawfare to the role of non-governmental organizations as purveyors of global rule.

The conference will be headlined by three national leaders who have made firm commitments to the defense and preservation of national sovereignty: John Bolton, former US Ambassador to the United Nations; Vaclav Klaus, the current president of the Czech Republic; and John Howard, the former Prime Minister of Australia. Other speakers include John Yoo, former deputy assistant attorney general in the Bush Administration; John Fonte, author of Sovereignty or Submission: Will Americans Rule Themselves?;  and Pierre Prosper, Ambassador-at-Large under the Bush Administration.

The conference will conclude on Monday, June 11 with a discussion amongst all the speakers of a strategy for resisting global governance activism and with a carefully crafted declaration, signed by the conference participants, calling world leaders to action on the issue.

It is fitting to remember that H.G. Wells, who died in 1946 just months after the defeat of Nazi Germany, lived to see to the devastation that Britain’s policies of appeasement brought upon the West. But strangely enough, his 1933 book, which had accurately predicted the onset of the Second World War, failed to predict the causes of that war — proposing that it would be Poland who would be the aggressor against an innocent Germany, not the other way around.

In this there is an important lesson for the modern world: In a brutal time, we are lost when we don’t respond immediately to obvious threats as soon as they appear. The global governance movement is one of those threats. We ignore it at our peril.

Avi Davis is the president of the American Freedom Alliance and the coordinator of the Global Governance vs National Sovereignty Conference.

Headline image: Bobby Mikul


Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.