For the past several days the nation of Georgia has been in turmoil following anti-foreign influence legislation being presented to the Georgian parliament. The proposed bill introduced back on Tuesday (March 7) would require any organization that receives more than 20% of their annual income from abroad to register as a “foreign agent” with the national government. The goal of the bill was to promote transparency within the Georgian government, furthering the nation’s sovereignty against foreign influence.
Despite the seemingly obvious and innocuous nature of the bill, it was met with strong condemnation from Western foreign interest groups. The bill has been decried by the US embassy in Georgia as “Kremlin inspired” and “a dark day for Georgia’s democracy.” The European Union made similar statements against the bill. EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell stated the bill would have, “a chilling effect on civil society and media organizations,” and that the ‘foreign agent’ bill is “incompatible with EU values and standards.”
After the bill was condemned by US and EU officials, rioters took to the streets in Georgia, fighting with police for multiple nights in the city’s capital of Tbilisi.
Protesters were seen waving American, Ukrainian, and European Union Flags, signaling their allegiance to the foreign and international governments whose influence would be made transparent by such a ‘foreign agent’ bill.
After two nights of rioting outside of the parliament building, the rioters and agitators finally got their wish. On Friday (March 10), the Georgian parliament, now thoroughly intimidated by threats of physical violence from the frenzied mob outside, voted to stop the bill.
Initially, the bill was met with popular support in the Georgian legislature. In the first parliamentary vote, the bill received an overwhelming 76-13 majority in favor. The fourth and final vote on the bill was a 35-1 vote against it. One source reported that the final vote “lasted just four minutes and featured no discussion,” underscoring the sad reality that the bill was not defeated through the thoughtful debate of policy, but after a frightened submission to the mob.
Several mainstream Western outlets have reported on the controversy and riots surrounding the bill, but none have given significant commentary on several glaring double standards. The first of many striking contradictions is that the United States has a nearly identical version of the same bill on its books.
The Foreign Agents Registration Act (or FARA), signed into law in 1938, requires “the registration of, and disclosures by” foreign agents acting in nearly any capacity in the United States. This almost century-old American law has the exact same aim as the proposed bill in Georgia, namely transparency in government.
The only difference is the American policy goes further than its Georgian counterpart. Where Georgia’s bill calls for transparency in the case of a certain threshold of annual funding, the American version states that a foreign agent must disclose activities relating to any “political activities,” among a host of other broad conditions like solicitation of funds or “loans, money, or other things of value for or in the interest of a foreign principal.”
On the official American Department of Justice website, The US government defends the obvious necessity for such a law:
The central purpose of FARA is to promote transparency with respect to foreign influence within the United States by ensuring that the United States government and the public know the source of certain information from foreign agents intended to influence American public opinion, policy, and laws, thereby facilitating informed evaluation of that information.
The mixed messaging doesn’t end there. Just recently, the EU commissioned a study that would develop a policy to force NGOs to disclose non-EU funding. Politico reported on Monday, March 13:
The European Union is working on a law that would force nongovernmental groups, consultancies, and academic institutions to disclose any non-EU funding as part of a crackdown on foreign influence in the bloc, three sources confirmed to POLITICO.
Despite the EU condemning Georgia’s ‘foreign agent’ bill as anti-democratic, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen described their identical in-house policy development as part of her “defense of democracy” package.
If America and the EU have no issue with this kind of policy for themselves, why would they criticize and stifle the sovereignty of Georgia, which is also trying to protect its national interests from foreign influence? Why is the bill being dismissed as ‘Russian’ when it doesn’t have anything directly to do with Russia, but foreign influence as a whole? The answer lies in one of the 21st century’s most important emerging conflicts: sovereignty vs democracy.
In the modern era, sovereignty is incompatible with what is now called ‘democracy.’ Sovereignty is meant to denote the government of a nation acting with its own will, in the interests of the people of their country. This independent, sovereign behavior clashes directly with the hegemonic Liberal world order acting under the superficial banner of ‘promoting democracy.’
When government mouthpieces like the US embassy or the EU speak of damages to ‘democracy’ and ‘civil society’ as their primary contentions against an anti-foreign influence policy, they are not employing our traditional understanding of these words. word. If that were the case, we would expect them to not interfere with the elected legislature of Georgia, which is concerned (much like the nominal stances of the US and EU) with foreign money controlling their country. Instead, the United States and EU take the opportunity to bash Russia, despite no tangible explanation as to the connection between a blanket ‘foreign agent’ bill and Russia.
It becomes clear these institutions are outlining a new concept of democracy. This new definition means, in effect, a total surrender of national sovereignty. Countries are not allowed to make decisions that upset a larger international order. As a supplement for the will of each nation’s people, there must be forced deference to an international web of foreign governments, intelligence agencies, and special interest groups.
These groups may vie for power amongst themselves in different factions, but the overarching feature shared between them is their opaque, unaccountable structure. This nebulous coalition of ‘democratic institutions’ will run the world, promoting radical social progressivism, internationalism, and multiculturalism. These are just the main goals alongside a host of other agenda items which they push to maintain their power.
The story of Georgia’s stifled foreign influence bill is the most recent display of what ‘democracy’ looks like in the 21st century. Georgia attempted to pass a law in the interests of its own people: to make the Georgian public aware of the extent to which its media and political institutions are influenced by foreign powers. In other words, Georgia tried to exercise its authority as a sovereign state. In response, international groups demonized the effort, accusing Georgia of supporting Putin, one of the modern avatars of so-called “anti-democratic” (or sovereign) values. Soon after, massive waves of pro-foreign interest protestors are assembled to riot for days and bully the Georgian parliament into compliance. It begs the question, who organized these thousands of protestors? Who is able to fund the organizers of these massive violent demonstrations? Who is funding the broader initiatives against transparency in the Georgian government, along with other nominally ‘pro-democracy’ NGOs? These questions could only be fully answered through the kind of legislation now crushed in Georgia.
After a cursory viewing of photos taken in Tbilisi, it is easy to ascertain what groups are likely funding these recent Georgian protests. The rioters are showing their true allegiance: waving the flags of foreign governments and international institutions like NATO. All the foreign influences in question: the US, the EU, even the flag of Ukraine, another puppet state of NATO, and other dark money funds, are on full display. For every Georgian flag, there is a matching flag from one of these domineering foreign forces.
Americans would be wise to take note of Georgia as the template for how dissent is likely to be attacked (and in fact has been attacked) by our own ruling international regime. When we see large demonstrations in support of Black Lives Matter, Antifa, or conspicuously pay-rolled initiatives like March For Our Lives or the 2017 Women’s March, we should be asking similar questions. Do the views of these groups support national pride and independence, in other words, sovereignty? Or do they openly seek to undermine and subvert their own country in some way? Who benefits from all the additional confusion and violence? Who is funding these groups and what are their agendas?
These kinds of liberal protests are one of the primary vectors of attack for any foreign influence wanting to destabilize our country on a social and political level. They deliberately target the most aggrieved and easily influenced members of society: young people, women, and racial or ethnic minorities who want to replace the current majority leadership. These international agencies stir up those with cosmopolitan allegiances, in other words, the most pro-democracy, anti-nationalist groups in these major cities. These radicalized activists, many of whom are paid for their services, are not only willing but eager to commit violence. They are rightly confident they will be bailed out of jail by their wealthy NGOs benefactors and other ‘pro-democracy’ funds.
Countries like Georgia are forbidden from disobeying the whims of the Liberal world order. If Georgia’s people, who voted in their representatives, (which is supposedly what democracy entails) want transparency in their government, to the ire of ‘pro-democracy’ groups, they will be met with the soft power arsenal of foreign powers like the US and EU. There will be an onslaught of social media propaganda and narrative control in the (foreign-influenced) national media. This will in turn activate the most liberal demographics of a population to commit violence under the moral pretext of ‘fighting for democracy.’ Much like what we saw in the Aftermath of the Black Lives Matter protests here in America, many of the rioters and other criminals will be released from jail.
The events in Georgia gave away the entire playbook of modern democracy in less than a week. Democracy is now merely a codeword for foreign influence in the form of intelligence agencies and other groups, funneling dark money from private sources to fuel coordinated terror tactics around the world to enforce their agenda.
It is critical moving forward to understand democracy as it currently is: a clandestine force that works in opposition to sovereignty, not alongside it. This revelation helps to clarify the strange modern phenomenon of everything being dreaded as, a threat to democracy.
Much of what is labeled a threat to democracy is in fact the efforts of people protecting the sovereignty of their nations, exerting a nationalist will over a globalist one. Figures like Donald Trump are given the moniker ‘threat to democracy’ or ‘authoritarian’ because the modern system loathes strong, charismatic leaders fighting for national independence.
The same can be said of other countries which are considered the least democratic. Russia and China are among the most “anti-democratic” nations in the world and yet also are the countries most independent of foreign policing and influence. This fact is not a coincidence, but proof of this emergent dichotomy.
While they remain competitors or adversaries to the United States, governments like those in Russia or China are deeply concerned with the well-being and identity of their nations. They are not under the direct thumb of the international clique de jour and enjoy the benefits of a much tighter social fabric as a result.
For the crime of not being a slave to unelected international bodies, these nations are ruthlessly smeared in the Western press. This past year of coverage of the war in Ukraine is a further testament to this fact. Russia is demonized for protecting the sovereignty and safety of Russian citizens in the Eastern regions of Ukraine. Despite Russia being labeled the instigator, the war has lasted far longer than necessary as a direct result of billions of dollars being funneled from the West to Ukraine’s military.
Georgia is not the first country to be the victim of these subversive bullying tactics. They aren’t even the most recent victim. Just after Georgia canceled its ‘foreign agent’ bill, Republika Srpska (the Serbian part of Bosnia-Herzegovina) has been criticized by the West for trying to copy America’s FARA system in their own country.
The situation is identical: all the way down to allusions to the Kremlin and the coded phrasing of “anti-democratic.” It remains to be seen how forcing foreign influence to be made public qualifies as allowing “corruption to flourish.”
As this battle between sovereignty and ‘democracy’ grows, all modern nations will soon be left with a choice. Will they work to put their national interest first, or abandon their constituents and be at the mercy of international robber-barons and foreign agents?