The explosive report recently published by National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard on the origins of Russiagate provides extraordinary empirical confirmation of libertarian philosopher Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s thesis on the inherently parasitic nature of democratic power. What emerges from the 2,300 hours of analysis conducted by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence is not merely a story of information manipulation, but a perfect case study of how democratic institutions actually operate to preserve the interests of specific political elites.
The recent National Intelligence Director’s report has revealed the shaky foundations upon which rested the accusation of Russian interference in the 2016 elections. The Intelligence Community Assessment of January 2017—drafted by just five analysts—was based on four pieces of evidence of questionable quality.
Among these stood out a fragment of human intelligence so ambiguous it was interpreted differently by the very analysts who examined it—an email of uncertain origin lacking clear identifiers, diplomatic reports that often contradicted the main thesis, and the controversial Steele Dossier—a document financed by the Clinton campaign that many analysts considered inadequate for professional standards.
The House Intelligence Committee investigation—conducted through thousands of hours of analysis at CIA headquarters—documented how information contradicting the official narrative was systematically excluded from the final report. Particularly significant is that sources close to the Kremlin indicated Putin had no specific preferences between candidates, considering both potentially influenceable. What emerges is a picture in which the American intelligence apparatus constructed a politically-convenient narrative on fragile empirical grounds, deliberately omitting elements that contradicted it.
This scandal perfectly illuminates what Hoppe had theorized about democracy’s parasitic character. In his Democracy: The God That Failed, the Austrian-libertarian philosopher argued that the democratic system does not eliminate political exploitation but makes it more pervasive and systemic. Democracy, according to Hoppe, creates perverse incentives where those who temporarily control power have an interest in maximizing immediate benefits at the expense of truth and the general interest.
Russiagate represents the epitome of this mechanism. The American intelligence apparatus—theoretically serving the national interest—was utilized as an instrument of partisan political warfare and the establishment leadership exploited the prestige of federal agencies to influence the electoral process, demonstrating how “democratic” institutions actually operate for personalistic and factional purposes.
The affair also reveals the intrinsically personalistic character of democratic power that Hoppe criticized. Unlike traditional monarchs, who at least had the incentive to preserve the long-term value of their domains, democratic rulers operate with limited time horizons. This drives them to intensively exploit available resources—including institutional credibility—to maximize immediate advantages.
In the case of Russiagate, the Democratic establishment sacrificed American intelligence credibility, fueled deep social divisions, and undermined trust in institutions, all to pursue short-term partisan objectives. As Hoppe predicted, the result was a form of “institutional cannibalism” where state structures are devoured from within to feed immediate political appetites.
What makes this case particularly instructive is how it demonstrates the systematic nature of democratic parasitism. This was not an isolated incident of corruption, but the logical outcome of institutional incentives inherent in the democratic system. When political control is temporary and competitive, those in power face irresistible pressure to use all available means—including intelligence agencies, media manipulation, and judicial processes—to maintain their position.
The Russiagate apparatus involved not just intelligence agencies, but a coordinated effort spanning media, legal institutions, and political networks. This represents exactly the kind of parasitic exploitation Hoppe warned about: the use of societal resources ostensibly dedicated to the common good for the private benefit of political factions.
The lesson that emerges is that even in the most “mature” Western democracies, political power naturally tends toward forms of parasitic exploitation. Russiagate confirms Hoppe’s analysis of the moral and economic superiority of systems based on private property and voluntary contracts over democratic political coercion.
While the legacy media for years labeled as “pro-Russian” or “conspiratorial” anyone who dared challenge the official narrative, the emerging truth confirms that the real danger to freedom and truth comes not from foreign powers, but from the intrinsically corrupting character of democratic political power itself. A lesson that Hoppe had anticipated decades ago, and which today finds in the Russiagate debacle its most eloquent empirical confirmation.
The collapse of the Russiagate narrative thus serves as more than just a political scandal—it stands as a monument to the prophetic insights of Hoppian political theory and a warning about the inexorable tendency of democratic systems toward parasitic degeneration.
