The Predators of Democracy: Understanding Oligarchic Power in the West
In a recent interview with market analyst Alex Krainer and foreign policy researcher Glenn Diesen, a provocative thesis emerged: Western democracies are not actually ruled by the people, but by a hidden oligarchy operating behind a democratic facade. This isn’t conspiracy theory, it’s an argument grounded in empirical evidence and historical patterns that stretch from ancient Rome to modern Russia. What makes this analysis particularly compelling is how it explains the persistent gap between what voters want and what they actually get from their governments.
After exploring this framework in depth, a striking metaphor emerged: these oligarchs function much like apex predators on the savannah: powerful, coordinated when necessary, territorial, and operating according to instincts that ordinary democratic persuasion cannot constrain. Understanding this predator dynamic may be essential to understanding why our current systems seem so resistant to reform.
The Democratic Facade
According to Krainer, we have been culturally conditioned to believe democracy means government "of the people, by the people, for the people”. The reality, he argues, is far different. Using empirical evidence from studies of Britain and the United States, he contends that what we have is a "shallow democracy”, meaning democratic only on the surface while actual governance is controlled by an unaccountable oligarchy.
The proof, Krainer suggests, is in the outcomes. Western populations have lived under democracies for three generations, consistently voting for prosperity, high living standards, peace, and security. Instead, they receive rolling economic and financial crises, repression and censorship, deteriorating infrastructure, declining standards of living, and forever wars abroad. Something is clearly not working as advertised.
As Krainer puts it, democracy has become merely ritualistic... we go through the motions of elections, but the fundamental direction of policy remains unchanged regardless of who wins.
The Blob: How Oligarchy Operates
Krainer identifies the mechanism through which this oligarchy operates: what is called "the blob" or the permanent secretariat, sometimes referred to as the deep state. This administrative apparatus takes its direction from oligarchic groupings principally in three key sectors: banking, technology, and military/defense.
The structure works in tiers. At the top are the oligarchs themselves - largely invisible, unaccountable figures wielding enormous power. In the middle sits the blob, the permanent bureaucracy that implements oligarchic priorities regardless of which politicians are nominally in charge. At the bottom are elected officials and democratic rituals, providing legitimacy while being fundamentally subordinate to the structure above them.
Krainer describes this system as "democratic despotism" characterised by "soft tyranny." The oligarchy infantilises the population, making citizens dependent and passive while maintaining the appearance of freedom and choice. The interests of the wealthy consistently take precedence over democratic outcomes, but the process is subtle enough that many people don’t recognise what’s going on.
While Krainer admits "we don’t know for sure who the oligarchs are" by placing specific identities "in the conspiracy theory domain", he argues their existence can be inferred from the consistent patterns of policy that emerge regardless of policies that get majority support at elections.
Policies No Democracy Would Choose
To illustrate the disconnect between popular will and actual governance, Krainer provides specific examples of policies he argues no electorate would voluntarily choose:
Forever Wars: Endless military conflicts that populations consistently oppose but that continue regardless of electoral outcomes.
Financial Crises Resolved With Public Money: Repeated bailouts where taxpayers absorb the losses from elite financial mismanagement while the architects of crisis face no consequences.
Self-Destructive Anti-Russia Policies: Sanctions and confrontational measures that damage Western economies more than they harm Russia, yet persist despite their evident failure.
Extreme Climate Policies: Net zero initiatives including carbon capture technology that serves no practical purpose, solar panel installations covering productive agricultural land, and even proposals to dim the sun - all implemented despite questionable efficacy and public skepticism.
Social Engineering Projects: What Krainer describes as the "sudden offensive" of LGBT ideology and other cultural initiatives that appeared seemingly from nowhere and were imposed top-down rather than emerging from organic democratic demand.
These examples, Krainer argues, reveal policy being driven by oligarchic interests, be they financial, ideological, or related to control, rather than popular preference.
The Russian Model: Constraining Oligarchs
Krainer points to Russia’s experience with oligarchy in the 1990s as both a warning and a potential model for how to address the problem. After the Soviet collapse, Russia became what he calls "one of the best examples of what happens to a society when it has an unrestrained oligarchy in power”. The result was economic devastation, social disintegration, and political chaos.
When Vladimir Putin came to power in 2000-2001, he took decisive action. Rather than imprisoning or killing the oligarchs, he summoned them and laid down clear rules: "You stole what you stole. It’s yours. Continue to run your businesses. Continue to enjoy your profits. But you have to pay your taxes correctly. You have to treat your employees correctly. And most importantly, you have to stay out of politics”.
Some oligarchs accepted these terms. Others, accustomed to treating Russia as their "private fiefdom" where they could "nominate ministers and take them out at their discretion”, resisted. This resistance led to legal battles, with the most famous case being Mikhail Khodorkovsky, who spent nine years in prison for tax evasion after challenging Putin politically.
The result of constraining oligarchic power was dramatic. Russia experienced what Krainer describes as "spectacular economic revival”. Standards of living have increased substantially since Putin’s tenure. For a period, Russian economic growth even outpaced Chinese growth. The country’s resilience became evident when it weathered "the biggest sanctions package ever imposed on any country in history" without destabilisation.
The critical difference from the West, Krainer argues, is that Putin could summon oligarchs to the Kremlin and dictate terms because he possessed superior power. In contrast, Western presidents and prime ministers are subordinate to their oligarchs, making such confrontation "unthinkable”.
Historical Parallels: Rome and the Banking Oligarchy
Krainer draws extensive parallels between contemporary Western oligarchy and ancient Rome, arguing that the patterns of decay we observe today mirror those that destroyed the Roman Republic and eventually the Empire itself.
The key similarity is that Rome was controlled by a banking and moneylending oligarchy. Krainer offers the example of Brutus, who is remembered in conventional history as a defender of republican democracy for assassinating Julius Caesar. The reality, he argues, was quite different. Brutus was a "rapacious moneylender and usurer" who charged interest rates as high as 48 percent.
When officials in the Cypriot town of Salamis disputed the excessive interest Brutus was charging, he sent cavalry to lay siege to the town. At least five city officials died of starvation, but Brutus insisted on payment in full. This, Krainer argues, "was basically the modus operandi of the Roman Empire because it was run by the moneylending oligarchies, by the bankers” .
Julius Caesar, by contrast, attempted to reform Rome and curb oligarchic power... which is precisely why he was assassinated. Far from being a would-be tyrant, Caesar was trying to save Rome from the oligarchy that was destroying it.
Rome’s eventual fall, Krainer notes, was characterised by constant civil war, with Roman generals spending "more time fighting other Roman generals than barbarians or other invaders”. The standard historical narrative conceals what he sees as the most important lesson: "it was about debt and banking and oligarchy and colonisation and imperialism” .
These same patterns appear in other historical periods, including the Lombard banking period in Italy during the 12th and 13th centuries, suggesting a recurring cycle throughout Western history.
The Oligarchs: Who Are They?
While Krainer acknowledges uncertainty about specific identities, the interview identifies oligarchic power as concentrated principally in three sectors:
Banking and Finance: Figures who control massive pools of capital and credit creation. Examples might include leaders of major investment banks like JPMorgan Chase (Jamie Dimon), asset management firms like BlackRock (Larry Fink), and possibly central banking officials like Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell.
Technology: Those controlling digital infrastructure, data, and emerging technologies. This includes figures like Elon Musk (Tesla, SpaceX, X/Twitter), Mark Zuckerberg (Meta/Facebook), and leadership at companies like Microsoft and Google.
Military and Defense: Executives from major defense contractors and those who rotate between Pentagon positions and private industry through the notorious "revolving door”. Companies like Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and Northrop Grumman feature prominently.
Krainer also notes the historical pattern that ruling oligarchies have "always" been "the money lending class”, with modern oligarchs using debt and credit creation to gain control over other nations’ resources. By extending loans to develop resources in places like Ukraine, Iraq, Iran, or Venezuela, financial oligarchs effectively "turn that nation’s labour and resources into their own collateral”, creating wealth or managing debt by issuing credit against someone else’s assets.
The Predator Analogy: Understanding Oligarchic Nature
Perhaps the most illuminating way to understand oligarchic power is through the metaphor of apex predators on the African savannah. This comparison captures several essential characteristics:
Apex Position
Like lions or leopards, oligarchs have no natural predators above them. They operate with essential impunity, constrained only by their own “moral code” or others of similar power. Democratic institutions that might check their power have been captured or subordinated.
Pack Hunting and Competition
Oligarchs coordinate when it serves their interests - through forums like Davos, Bilderberg meetings, and various international organisations. Yet they also compete amongst themselves for territory, resources, and dominance. They are simultaneously cooperative and rivalrous, depending on circumstances.
Territorial Control
Like predators defending hunting grounds, oligarchs control and defend their domains - specific markets, sectors, regions, or resources. Intrusions by competitors or attempts at regulation are resisted fiercely.
Instinctive Rather Than Ideological
Perhaps most importantly, the predator analogy suggests that oligarchic behavior is not necessarily malicious or conspiratorial in the conventional sense. A lion hunting a gazelle is not evil, it is simply being a lion. Similarly, oligarchs may be operating according to their nature and position, seeking power, resources, and dominance as naturally as a predator seeks prey, mates, food and dominion.
This doesn’t make their impact less harmful to the majority of the population, but it does suggest that appeals to conscience or democratic values may be fundamentally misguided. You cannot convince a lion to become vegetarian through moral argument!
Culling the Weak
Financial crises, wars, and austerity measures disproportionately harm the vulnerable while oligarchs not only survive but often profit. This mirrors how predators target the weak, sick, and isolated members of prey populations. It’s not personal, it’s simply efficient resource extraction.
Emotional Detachment
A predator doesn’t hate its prey. Similarly, oligarchs may not harbour malice toward ordinary people - they simply view them as resources, obstacles, or irrelevant to their concerns. Decisions affecting millions are made via spreadsheets and models, abstracted from human consequences.
Patient Stalking
Predators plan carefully, wait for the right moment, and strike decisively when opportunity presents itself. Oligarchs similarly think in decades rather than election cycles, positioning assets and influence long before making major moves.
What the Predator Metaphor Reveals
The predator framing illuminates why democratic reform seems so difficult. We are trying to use democratic persuasion and moral appeals against actors who operate according to power dynamics, not ethical considerations. It’s not primarily about ideology or conspiracy, it’s about power in its rawest form.
This connects directly back to Krainer’s example of Putin and the Russian oligarchs. Putin didn’t appeal to their better nature or try to win them over through democratic process. He constrained them with superior force and established clear boundaries. The predator only respects another apex predator.
The defining characteristics of oligarchic personalities reinforce this predator model. Research into elite leadership and wealth accumulation reveals consistent traits: extreme risk tolerance, relentless ambition, low or compartmentalised empathy, strategic thinking that prioritises outcomes over ethics, and narcissistic tendencies. They share an instrumental view of society, seeing populations and even nations as resources to be managed or consumed, rather than communities with inherent dignity.
What unites these individuals across banking, technology, and military sectors is not a shared ideology but a shared position in the social hierarchy and a common approach to wielding power. They network extensively, often know each other personally, attend the same elite institutions, move between government and corporate positions through revolving doors, and maintain what might be called "class solidarity" ie protecting elite interests even across apparent political divides.
Breaking the Cycle
Despite the grim diagnosis, Krainer ends on an optimistic note. He argues that we now have the tools to understand these patterns clearly, thanks to the internet and new historical research that is "uncovering all these lessons" that traditional narratives tried to conceal.
The key is refusing to accept another cycle of crisis, war, and reset, followed by gradual oligarchic reconsolidation and repeat. As Krainer puts it, "we have to break this cycle of history, but the only way we’re going to break it is by really understanding where the problems are coming from with as much clarity as is possible."
This requires several shifts in thinking:
First, we must abandon the illusion that our current systems are genuine democracies that simply need minor reforms. The problem is structural, not superficial.
Second, we need to recognise that moral appeals and democratic persuasion alone cannot constrain oligarchic power. The predator responds to force and boundaries, not ethical argument.
Third, we must identify the specific mechanisms through which oligarchic power operates - the blob, the revolving doors, the capture of regulatory agencies, the use of debt and credit creation to control resources - and develop strategies to dismantle or constrain these mechanisms.
Fourth, we need leaders willing and able to confront oligarchic power directly, as Putin did with Russian oligarchs, establishing clear rules and enforcing them despite resistance.
Krainer acknowledges this won’t be easy: "They’re not just going to be going silently into the night. They will put up a fight. They will resist”. But he insists we must "stand firm" and "demand real change" rather than accepting another cycle of destruction and reset.
The alternative is continuing the historical pattern: more financial crises resolved with public money, more forever wars, more policies that serve elite interests while populations suffer, and potentially another world war - this time the most serious of all imaginable - to reset the debt cycle and clear the board for the next round of oligarchic consolidation.
Conclusion: Facing the Predators
The thesis presented by Krainer and explored through our conversation here is unsettling: Western democracies are controlled by oligarchic interests operating through permanent bureaucratic structures, implementing policies no electorate would choose, and maintaining power through what amounts to soft tyranny and democratic theatre.
The predator analogy helps us understand why this system is so resistant to reform. We are dealing not with a conspiracy that can be exposed or an ideology that can be debated, but with apex predators operating according to their nature. They coordinate when useful, compete when necessary, and view the rest of humanity as resources to be consumed, managed, or as obstacles “to be removed”.
Historical parallels from Rome to modern Russia suggest this pattern is ancient and recurring. Banking oligarchies have repeatedly captured political systems, extracted wealth through debt and usury, provoked conflicts to expand their resource base, and eventually presided over social collapse when their extractions became unsustainable intolerable to the masses.
Yet there is also a historical model for success: Putin’s confrontation with Russian oligarchs in the early 2000s. By establishing clear boundaries, enforcing them despite resistance, and subordinating oligarchic interests to national governance, Russia achieved economic revival and stability. Perhaps this is what western elites fear in Russia.
The question facing Western societies is whether similar action is possible in our context, where oligarchic capture appears far more complete and politicians are subordinate to rather than superior to oligarchic power. Can we find leaders capable of confronting these predators? Can we build movements that understand the nature of the problem clearly enough to demand real structural change rather than cosmetic reforms?
Or will we continue the cycle, voting for prosperity but receiving crisis, demanding peace but getting war, seeking security but experiencing danger and decay... until that is, the system collapses under its own contradictions, as Rome and all empires eventually do?
The answer may determine not just our political future, but whether we break free from a pattern that has repeated throughout Western history for millennia. As Krainer notes, "that’s the future we’re going to leave behind to our children and their children”.
Understanding that we face predators rather than partners in democratic discourse is the first step. The second is deciding whether we have the will and capability to establish boundaries and enforce them - or whether we will remain perpetual prey in a system designed to extract our wealth, our effort, and ultimately our futures, for the benefit of an unaccountable handful of elites.
The predators are unlikely to relinquish power voluntarily. The question is whether we can summon the collective strength to constrain them before the next cycle of crisis and collapse begins.
