When Canada’s Prime Minister Mark Carney unveiled the 2025 G7 priorities, one might have expected, amid talk of “protecting communities” and “building security,” at least a passing reference to the basic moral purpose of government: to secure the rights of its people.
But no such language appears.
Not once—not in its some 700 words of communiqués and talking points—does the G7 mention life, liberty, property, or the pursuit of happiness. Not a word about natural rights. Not a phrase invoking freedom of speech, conscience, or lawful dissent. The very grammar of Western civilization is gone.
And in its place? A single, unexamined line:
“…using artificial intelligence and quantum to unleash economic growth.”
That’s it. One mention. Brief. Assumed. Smuggled into a sentence about “digital transitions” and “critical mineral supply chains.”
This is not a summit of free peoples. It is a convocation of systems managers. And the United States should not attend unless it goes to overthrow the agenda completely.
No Rights, No Republic
A summit of the world’s leading democracies convenes in 2025, amid conflict, inflation, and social fracture—and not one of them affirms the foundational purpose of a just government?
- No life.
- No liberty.
- No property.
- No pursuit of happiness.
Just “resilience.” Just “coordination.” Just “acceleration.”
The G7 does not speak the language of liberty because it no longer believes in liberty. It believes in alignment. Optimization. Stability. Outcomes.
But governments that speak only of outcomes—and never of rights—soon forget that free people are not systems to be managed.
The Algorithm Enters Quietly
And make no mistake: AI is now central to this architecture.
It is not framed as a neutral tool, or debated as a subject of governance. It is assumed. Buried mid-sentence. Introduced not to enhance freedom, but to “unleash growth” and “fortify transitions.”
This is not oversight. This is the plan.
Artificial intelligence is not being used here to protect liberty. It is being positioned to replace it—to shape behavior, route incentives, surveil dissent, and deliver preemptive governance without the mess of laws or voters.
The United States should read that one sentence—“using artificial intelligence”—as the true clause of conquest.
You Are Being Modeled, Not Represented
Already we see what this looks like:
- Social media feeds structured to suppress disfavored speech.
- Political donations flagged and frozen algorithmically.
- “Disinformation” defined by opaque panels and downranked without appeal.
- “Digital transitions” rolled out via private-sector infrastructure but driven by public-sector mandates—without democratic consent.
And now the G7 aims to coordinate this globally, with the U.S. at the table.
Unless America enters that summit to reject the model outright, it will end up blessing a system that governs not by law, but by probability.
The Founders Wouldn’t Even Attend
Jefferson would never sit down with governments that refuse to affirm the rights of man.
Madison would dismantle a summit that allows enforcement without law.
Franklin would mock their metrics and burn the briefing book.
Hamilton would demand: “What sovereign people authorized this agenda?”
They would all recognize this as the reappearance of tyranny—this time in code.
They would say: If there are no rights, there is no legitimacy. And if AI enforces the rules, there must be law above it.
Should the U.S. Go?
Only under one condition: to confront.
Not to “participate.” Not to “contribute.” But to overrule the entire framework and say, clearly:
“We do not recognize governance that excludes liberty.
We will not comply with systems that do not acknowledge rights.
We reject the deployment of artificial intelligence in the service of unaccountable power.
And we demand that any summit of free nations speak the language of the free.”
If the G7 refuses?
Then walk out. Loudly.
The Final Tragedy
Let us not pretend the danger lies only in elite consensus. The deeper crisis is this: many citizens now defend coordination over conscience, compliance over freedom. They don’t demand liberty—they demand protection by the very systems that quietly erode it.
If a government omits natural rights, they shrug.
If it automates obedience, they cheer.
The algorithm doesn’t need force—it has familiarity.
Tyranny no longer needs to wear a crown. It only needs a dashboard.
Conclusion: Make the Declaration Again
This is not a diplomatic gathering. This is the beta release of coordinated digital governance—with AI as the engine and rights quietly deprecated as legacy code.
The United States must either reset the moral frame, or publicly refuse to bless it.
Because a world run by consensus models, transition frameworks, and machine-learning governance is not a free world.
And a nation that attends such a summit without naming these truths is not just complicit in the loss of freedom—
it is led by those who no longer believe the people deserve it.
