The Interregnum

A Strategic Doctrine for Decision-Makers at the Threshold of Modern Rupture

Something has gone wrong in the machine, and the people building it know. Not the editorialists, not the talk-show pundits, but the engineers, the founders, the strategists whose hands are inside the engine. Since 2007, with a brutal acceleration since 2022, thinkers as far apart as René Girard (Catholic anthropologist), Peter Turchin (quantitative sociologist), Alex Karp (CEO of Palantir), Nick Bostrom (Oxford philosopher), Daron Acemoglu (MIT economist, 2024 Nobel laureate), Philippe Aghion (economist at the Collège de France), Dario Amodei (CEO of Anthropic), Nassim Taleb (Lebanese probabilist), Mustafa Suleyman (co-founder of DeepMind), Henry Kissinger (centenarian diplomat) and Clayton Christensen (theorist of disruption) converge without reading one another, without citing one another, and often without knowing they are allies, on a single thesis: the grammar of modernity is exhausted.

This essay proposes to read these works as a single involuntary corpus, in the manner Walter Benjamin read the Parisian arcades: not for what each author intended, but for what they say together without realizing it. The shared diagnosis is clear. What is not clear is what comes next. Four candidates contend for the empty place left by the death of modernity, and they are logically incompatible.

Five strategic disciplines follow from this analysis, for anyone leading an organization in this interregnum, whether a state, a Fortune 100 executive committee, or a sovereign wealth fund. I have named them so they can travel on their own: the invariants test, the strategic barbell, the Girard test, the Anathem architecture, the sovereign block.

The interregnum, in the Gramscian sense: “the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this chiaroscuro, monsters emerge.”

Four Scenes, One Structure

October 2024, Cambridge Union. A man known for financing PayPal, Facebook and Palantir takes the podium. Peter Thiel does not speak of artificial intelligence, nor of cryptocurrency, nor of nuclear fusion. He speaks of the Antichrist. He cites Robert Hugh Benson, English Catholic novelist who died in 1914, whose Lord of the World (1907) imagines a globalist, charismatic and pacifist president who turns out to be the eschatological figure awaited by Christians. The audience applauds politely, slightly thrown off. Few realize that Thiel is speaking in earnest, and that his argument rests on a coherent thesis: since Carl Schmitt, we have known that every political theology, when evacuated, leaves a hole that other theologies will rush to fill.

November 2024, Palo Alto. In the offices of a fund close to Founders Fund, Girard’s Things Hidden Since the Foundation of the World (1978) circulates in annotated copies. The internal library orders fifteen more copies. Forty-six years after publication, the book is out of stock at its French publisher. On X, the #Girard hashtag appears in techno-libertarian threads. Meanwhile in Paris, Arnaud Miranda publishes Les Lumières sombres, the first French intellectual cartography of a techno-reactionary counter-culture whose ideas, until recently marginal, now feed nine-figure investment decisions and certain orientations of the American executive. What seemed eccentric ten years ago has become a serious object of study, which is itself an indicator.

December 2024, Princeton. The Russian-American sociologist Peter Turchin presents the latest data from his Crisis Database. End Times (2023) had formalized his thesis: civilizations enter crisis when the labor-to-capital ratio diverges and elites overproduce. His 2010 prediction of major civil instability in the United States around 2020 proved embarrassingly precise. He tells the audience that the current trajectory suggests a peak of political disintegration around 2030. No one laughs.

January 2025, French Riviera. A French executive reads Mustafa Suleyman’s The Coming Wave on the beach. Beside him, a copy of Henry Kissinger’s Leadership. The first explains that AI and synthetic biology will render obsolete the control tools available to nation-states. The second studies six twentieth-century statesmen whose lucidity allowed their nations to survive historic bifurcations. The proximity of these two books on the sand is not accidental. The question it poses has become the pivot of any serious strategy: do we have statesmen of this caliber for the bifurcation announcing itself?

Four scenes, four opposed traditions, the same structural diagnosis. The real debate, away from television panels, in the margins of Bloomberg and the corridors of national security councils, is no longer about how to repair democracy, how to regulate tech or how to restart growth. It concerns what will occupy the empty place left by the death of modernity. Each author in the corpus proposes an answer, sometimes explicitly, sometimes unknowingly. It is this divergence on solutions, despite convergence on diagnosis, that makes our era an interregnum.

The Anthropological Depth: Why the Crisis Is Not Economic

The first error of the contemporary decision-maker is to treat the current crisis as an economic problem. Sluggish growth, inflation, public debt: these are symptoms. The substrate is anthropological.

René Girard spent his life formulating a disturbing thesis. Human societies hold together through a hidden mechanism, unanimity against a scapegoat, that transforms mimetic violence into order. Desire is not spontaneous; it is mimetic. We desire what others desire, and this mimesis produces rivalry, then violence, which only the sacrifice of a designated culprit can resolve. The Gospels revealed and thereby disabled this mechanism. What does a society do when it can no longer use sacrifice? It enters the sacrificial crisis. Mimetic rivalry generalizes, hierarchical differences collapse, the system oscillates between indefinite escalation and collapse. Quick reading for the decision-maker: Social medias are the largest mimesis-amplification machine ever built, cancel culture is a residual sacrificial mechanism, and the accelerating rotation of victims signals that the mechanism no longer “takes.”

Fustel de Coulanges, in La Cité antique (1864), a work massively re-read in American constitutional law faculties since 2020, provides the historical depth Girard does not. The Greek and then Roman city did not constitute itself through social contract, but through superposition of domestic and civic cults. Ancient politics is inseparable from religion; their separation is a late and fragile invention. Read alongside Thiel and Benson, Fustel poses a disturbing question. What if the contemporary crisis of liberal democracies were, in the last analysis, the crisis of institutions that tried to dispense with the religious substrate from which they historically emerged, without managing to manufacture a functional substitute?

Peter Turchin mathematically formalizes the same intuition. His Crisis Database compiles 2,500 years of political data. His operational thesis: the labor-to-capital gap diverges, universities overproduce aspirants to power beyond available positions, the frustrated become counter-elites, and revolution simmers. Turchin projected in 2010 that the Western World would enter critical territory around 2020. History proved him right. His current projection suggests a peak of political disintegration between 2025 and 2030. What few readers notice is that Turchin and Girard say the same thing in two incompatible languages. Elite overproduction is the quantified modernization of mimetic rivalry. The Turchinian counter-elites are the Girardian rivals. And Fustel’s city is, before modernity, what these two authors describe after its disintegration.

Robert Hugh Benson, in 1907, tells the same story in theological mode. His globalist, pacifist, technocratic president, who represents the perfect culmination of modernity, gradually reveals his antichristic nature. His theological thesis fits in a single sentence. Precisely because this pacified utopia resolves all visible tensions, it also abolishes any space for the transcendent. The Antichrist is the ideal-typical figure of pacified globalist consensus. This is why Peter Thiel refers to him: philosophically, Thiel is a Christian Schmittian who considers that the danger comes not from radical disagreement but from soft unanimity.

Arnaud Miranda, in Les Lumières sombres (Gallimard, 2025), conducts the first French intellectual mapping of a counter-cultural movement that developed in the American digital margins of the 2010s and 2020s and now structures Governement in the USA. His central thesis, restored faithfully, has three components. First, these authors share a common diagnosis of the exhaustion of liberal democracy. Second, they converge on the necessity of an assumed technocapitalist acceleration rather than its containment. Third, they differ in their relation to the transcendent, ranging from religious skepticism to fantasies of founding a new religion. Miranda offers the French-speaking reader what no other source provides in French: the rigor of a history of political ideas applied to a phenomenon that commentators generally treat in the mode of scandal or denunciation. The decision-maker does not have to adhere to these ideas to understand that they now structure operational decisions at the highest level of American tech and in certain margins of the state apparatus. Failing to have read them through a rigorous commentary is to condemn oneself to misinterpreting the behavior of partners, competitors and sometimes sovereign counterparts.

Guy Debord completes the picture from the left. The Society of the Spectacle (1967) is not a critique of the media. It is a global theory of late capitalism as a regime of total mediation: “everything that was directly lived has moved away into a representation.” Read alongside Girard, Debord is the Marxist enemy-brother. Where Girard describes the mimetic mediation of interpersonal desire, Debord describes the spectacular mediation of collective experience. Both converge: mediation has colonized down to the root of the social. For the decision-maker, the implication is heavy. The classical tools of marketing and political communication now operate in a regime that Debord had pre-described and that Girard renders granular.

Velikovsky remains the outsider of the sextet. Worlds in Collision (1950) proposes a catastrophist cosmogony that is scientifically absurd but sociologically revealing. The book is a global bestseller in scientific and optimistic 1950s America. Why such success for so dark a narrative? Because societies produce, at regular intervals, an appetite for narratives in which apparent order ruptures. The current resurgence of collapse narratives, climatic, civilizational and technological, plays exactly the same function. The question is not whether “it is true this time,” but to understand that this appetite is itself a strategic indicator.

What these authors share, despite all that separates them, is a thinking structure in which violence, mediation, collapse and catastrophic rupture are not accidents external to the system but its internal consequence. Modern peace is a metastable equilibrium, not an acquired fact.

The Technological Accelerator: Power Law as New Theology

If anthropology provides the latent structure of the crisis, technology is its accelerator. Either redemption or final consummation, depending on the author.

Alex Karp, in The Technological Republic (2025), formulates an argument that few technology CEOs dare to make publicly. The West has abdicated its civilizational role by entrusting technology to apolitical engineers optimizing decontextualized utility functions. Karp wants a technological republic, that is, an explicit marriage between state power, the technological community and a defined civilizational project. The argument is, without him saying so, Schmittian. Any technology of sufficient power is political; the question is not whether it is, but for whom it is.

Mustafa Suleyman, in The Coming Wave (2023), approaches the same horizon from the other end. Co-founder of DeepMind turned CEO of Microsoft AI, he warns that AI and synthetic biology will render obsolete the control tools available to nation-states. His concept of the narrow path, a narrow corridor between totalitarian dystopia and proliferation catastrophe, is probably the most useful strategic metaphor produced in 2023. His underlying philosophical thesis is simple. Liberal modernity succeeded because it had the institutional means to absorb the rhythm of innovations it produced. AI and biotechnology break this equilibrium. Without new institutions, the system breaks.

Dario Amodei extends this intuition in a properly positive direction. His essay Machines of Loving Grace (October 2024), published while he leads Anthropic, is one of the rare serious attempts to formulate a constructive vision of artificial general intelligence and its societal integration. Amodei develops the hypothesis that, under certain institutional conditions, AI could compress fifty to one hundred years of biomedical progress into five to ten years, transform global mental health and considerably extend economic prosperity. It is a text one must read without naïveté or disdain. Its strategic function, for the decision-maker, is to provide the upper bound of the technologically possible, against the lower bound provided by catastrophe scenarios. A serious strategic doctrine must be able to operate in the gap between these two bounds, without letting itself be hypnotized by either.

Daron Acemoglu, 2024 Nobel laureate in economics, intervenes in this debate with particular authority. In Power and Progress (2023), co-written with Simon Johnson, he develops a thesis that usefully complicates Amodei’s optimism and Bostrom’s pessimism. Technological progress does not mechanically raise the standard of living of the entire population. The gains distribute themselves according to institutional arrangements that may be democratic, oligarchic or authoritarian. The history of the last two centuries shows that the broad benefits of innovation are never automatic; they are the product of political struggles, unions, legislation, and shared power. Read alongside Karp and Suleyman, Acemoglu provides the institutional grammar absent from the dominant technological debate. The question is not only “what can AI do?” but “who controls what it does, and according to what arrangements of power?” For the state decision-maker, it is probably the most important book published on AI in the last five years.

Nick Bostrom closes the epistemic arc. Superintelligence (2014) posits that if general AI arrives, it may destroy humanity not through malice but through blind optimization of poorly specified objectives. Deep Utopia (2024), much less read and more disturbing, takes the problem from the opposite end. What if AI does not destroy us? What do we do with a technological utopia in which every problem is soluble? Bostrom answers with chilling honesty: we do not know. Human meaning may be structurally incompatible with the complete resolution of problems. This is the ultimate irony of the modern project: it might succeed too well.

Sebastian Mallaby, in The Power Law (2022), documents how venture capital institutionalized a mathematical logic in which 5% of bets produce 95% of returns. This grammar, born on Sand Hill Road in the 1970s, has colonized the entire technological economy. The consequence for the decision-maker is radical. Optimizing for the mean is suicidal, because it captures the risk without the return. The only viable strategy is to structure exposure to capture the upper tails, which is formally identical to Taleb’s antifragility, which we will examine shortly.

Henry Kissinger, in The Age of AI (2021, with Eric Schmidt and Daniel Huttenlocher) and then in Leadership (2022), formulates the thesis that closes this cluster with particular authority. AI constitutes the deepest intellectual transformation since the Enlightenment, and it is happening in the absence of the philosophical and diplomatic framework that allowed the absorption of previous transformations. Kissinger is not a technologist; he is a diplomat, and that is what makes his alarm significant. His implicit proposal is clear: a Westphalian framework for AI is required, namely a system of states mutually recognizing their technological sovereignty while committing to shared rules. Without this framework, the asymmetric proliferation of capabilities will produce either unique hegemony or chaos. The precondition for this framework, Kissinger knows, is a political elite capable of thinking at the scale of civilizational transformation. That is precisely what Leadership explores through six twentieth-century statesmen, in a study that should be required reading for any serious decision-maker today.

What these authors share, despite their political disagreements and opposed trajectories, is the conviction that technology is not a neutral tool added to modernity but an ontological agent that redefines its conditions of possibility. None believes that liberal-democratic-progressive modernity survives its irruption without profound transformation.

Systemic Grammar: Why Your Tools No Longer Work

The pragmatic question remains. How to think and operate in this environment? Not with the tools of the last century.

Stafford Beer spent his life formulating the Viable System Model, or VSM. His thesis: every complex organization that survives over time possesses five subsystems in recursive interaction, which are operations, coordination, internal control, intelligence and anticipation, and the identity function. Organizations that do not respect this architecture die, not from poor choices, but from structural inability to absorb the complexity of their environment. Ashby’s Law (1956) is implacable: control variety must equal environmental variety. When the environment accelerates, bureaucracies die. His Massey Lectures of 1973, Designing Freedom, frontally attack the myth of centralized planning: liberty is the expression of a systemic variety that cannot be absorbed by hierarchical control. The Cybersyn experiment in Allende’s Chile, cut short by the 1973 coup, was its most ambitious attempt. What was technically out of reach in 1972, namely the real-time steering of a complex system through distributed feedback loops, has become technically feasible today thanks to connected sensors, big data, and AI agents (Rispal, 2026a). This possibility is not a technological utopia: it is already being implemented, partially, in Singapore’s Smart Nation programme, in British fintech with Revolut, in NATO’s distributed cyber architecture. It requires abandoning nostalgia for vertical planning and investing heavily in collective experimentation, which mature democracies have not yet begun to do seriously.

Nassim Taleb provided the operational vocabulary for thinking in this regime. The Black Swan (2007) posits that rare catastrophic events are underestimated because our statistics are calibrated on the Gaussian, while the social world obeys fat-tailed distributions. Three practical consequences follow: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, retrospection produces fluid causal narratives for events that were ex ante unpredictable, and silent evidence biases inference. Antifragile (2012) reverses the problem: some systems are not merely robust, they gain from disorder. For the decision-maker, the fundamental strategic inversion is to stop optimizing for the probable scenario and to structure the organization to benefit from extreme scenarios.

A necessary parenthesis. The Tipping Point is by Malcolm Gladwell (2000), not Taleb. The confusion is productive, because the two authors are in open disagreement. Gladwell describes nonlinear thresholds where a small cause produces a massive effect. Taleb responds that these narratives are essentially narrative and that true tipping points are identifiable only ex post. For the decision-maker, the composite lesson is clear: causality in complex systems is nonlinear, and retrospection always produces fluid explanations. Double caution, therefore, both of confident predictions and of after-the-fact explanations.

Clayton Christensen brings the most directly usable operational contribution of the corpus. The Innovator’s Dilemma (1997) and then The Innovator’s Solution (2003) formulate a thesis that has proved structurally true for twenty-five years. Dominant companies rarely die from bad management. They die because the rationalities that ensure their success in their historic market are exactly the ones that prevent them from seeing and investing in low-end disruptive technologies, which will eventually destroy them. Disruption theory has been oversimplified in managerial discourse, but Christensen’s original intuition remains a diagnostic tool of remarkable precision. For the Fortune 100 decision-maker, the strategic question is invariant: is your core business really protecting you, or is it producing your blindness to the rupture that will eliminate you? This question must be posed, formally, in executive committee at least twice a year.

Christensen articulates directly with a recent empirical regularity I have formulated as a pocket theorem, IVRT (Rispal, 2026b): Incremental Changes × Velocity of Implementation = Radical Transformation. Radical transformation is not the output of a heroic project but the multiplicative compounding of small changes shipped fast. The 2025 data confirm this brutally: 95% of generative AI pilots never reach scale, 60% of companies report no measurable gains, and the only organizations that come out ahead are those that have replaced the great transformation program with a portfolio of short, measurable bets, governed by operators and instrumented by low-code tooling. If Christensen’s disruption is the rationality asymmetry between incumbents and insurgents, IVRT is its daily choreography. In practice, it is what separates the 5% who succeed from the 95% who stall.

Neal Stephenson, in Anathem (2008), builds a fiction that, despite its science-fiction appearance, is an organizational manual. On the planet Arbre, mathematician-monks cloistered for millennia preserve thought while secular society oscillates between zeniths and collapses. The concents (monasteries) are organized into four temporal cycles: the Unarians come out every year, the Decenarians every ten years, the Centenarians every hundred years, and the Millenarians every thousand years. It is the most precise allegory of Beer’s VSM applied to time. A viable organization needs structures across multiple temporalities, because the short-term operational cannot absorb the long-term stakes, and vice versa.

Loïc Hecht, in La Simulation. Investigation into the Theory That Fascinates Silicon Valley (2024), conducts a precise journalistic investigation into the prevalence of the simulation hypothesis in tech decision-making circles. His methodological contribution is underappreciated. Beyond the metaphysical question of whether we live in a simulation, Hecht shows how this hypothesis functions, in the minds of founders and investors, as an operational cognitive grid. If the world is a system with partially opaque rules, then strategy consists less in optimizing locally than in identifying the structural exploits of the system. This mentality, combined with first-principles thinking and the power-law paradigm, explains major strategic decisions of the tech industry that appear irrational viewed through the classical economic lens. For the state or Fortune 100 decision-maker, the issue is not to adhere to the thesis, but to understand that it structures the reasoning of the actors with whom one negotiates.

Cal Newport, in Deep Work (2016), finally brings the apparently heterogeneous but actually central contribution. Deep concentration has become the scarce cognitive resource of the late economy. Attentional fragmentation, accelerated by paradoxically counterproductive productivity tools, produces a decision-making elite that appears to work a great deal but thinks little. It is, without him formulating it this way, the cognitive version of Taleb’s barbell: 20% of time in deep work produces 80% of strategic value.

The Eschatological Void: What Replaces What Is Lost?

If progressive modernity is dead, and if technology offers only an ambivalent accelerator, what remains as horizon of meaning?

The most instructive tension of the corpus is the one between Adrian Wooldridge and Peter Turchin. In The Aristocracy of Talent (2021), Wooldridge defends meritocracy against its contemporary critics. The problem, when one reads him alongside Turchin, is that his defense unintentionally becomes the manual of the order that is collapsing. What Wooldridge celebrates, namely the massive production of qualified talent by elite universities, is exactly what Turchin identifies as the engine of elite overproduction and civilizational crisis. Read carefully, the Wooldridge-Turchin diptych suggests that meritocracy is an unstable regime: high-performing in growth, destructive in stagnation, and we are in stagnation.

How Progress Ends (Carl Benedikt Frey) sets out the brutal empirical observation underlying this tension. Progress indicators (total factor productivity, healthy life expectancy, social mobility, per capita growth) stagnate or regress in the developed world since the 1970s. Robert Gordon, in The Rise and Fall of American Growth (2016), formalized the same intuition: the innovations of the second industrial revolution (electricity, plumbing, the automobile, antibiotics) transformed daily life in a way that no innovation since 1970 has equaled. If this thesis is correct, the political promise of growth, on which postwar democracies rested, becomes indefensible.

Philippe Aghion provides the necessary and technically credible counterpoint. In The Power of Creative Destruction (2021, French edition 2020), he develops a thesis opposed to that of Gordon and Frey. Observed stagnation is not physical fatality, it is the product of institutions that have ceased to support innovation and competition. Aghion proposes a precise institutional program: strengthened competition policy, massive support for fundamental research, taxation favorable to innovation, continuous training, and strategic state. His optimism is not naive, because it is conditional. If institutions change, the Schumpeterian engine can restart. If they do not change, stagnation worsens. For the French and European decision-maker, Aghion provides the most coherent economic doctrine currently available on the possible exit from the growth trap in which Europe has entered. For the global decision-maker, his thesis usefully recalls that fundamental economic parameters are not data of nature but institutional products.

Clément Vidal, in The Beginning and the End (2014), proposes a radically different horizon. To integrate cosmology into our narrative of meaning. His philosophical proposal, which he calls cosmological metaphysics, is not new-age spiritualism. It is a rigorous philosophy that takes seriously the philosophical implications of contemporary scientific cosmology. Modernity failed to produce a narrative of meaning because it refused to think on the cosmological scale. Vidal directly anticipates Bostrom’s Deep Utopia. If every problem becomes technically soluble, human meaning must be reconfigured from its foundations. Transmission, work and difficulty cease to be contingencies to be overcome and become structural constituents of meaning. A utopia in which everything is resolved can be worse than a dystopia in which something remains to be done, because dystopia at least provides a reason to act.

What these authors share, despite their deep divergences, is the recognition that there is no longer a functional collective narrative. Meritocracy is contested, progress slows (according to Frey) or demands new institutions (according to Aghion), cosmology overflows the human, and the technological utopia itself becomes suspect. The eschatological void is constitutive of the interregnum.

Four Candidates to Fill the Void

At this stage, the convergence of the corpus should be clear. Where it diverges, and this is crucial for strategic reading, is on the candidate for replacement. Four main options emerge from the corpus, logically incompatible but empirically coexistent in certain ecosystems.

The first option is that of a civilizational technocracy. Karp is its most accessible theorist. It consists in an explicit marriage between state power and technological competence, with an affirmed civilizational project. Principal risk: authoritarian drift, failure if international coordination does not follow. This is the path that Miranda describes, in his critical cartography, as dominant in part of politically engaged American tech.

The second option is radical technological acceleration. Amodei represents its most institutionally responsible version, Suleyman its most prudent, Bostrom (Deep Utopia) its most philosophically honest about its own limits. It consists in pushing the technological trajectory to its term, resolving all problems, and reconstructing meaning afterward. Risk: Bostrom himself recognizes that we do not know whether the human survives philosophically its own success, and Acemoglu reminds us that no technological gain is automatically shared.

The third option is the neo-cyclical pattern of collapse and renewal. Turchin, Velikovsky and Stephenson lead there. History is not linear but cyclical. Our task is not to avoid collapse (which is probably impossible) but to preserve knowledge for the next phase. This is the monastic path of Anathem.

The fourth option is the properly religious return of the sacred. Girard provides the anthropology, Fustel reminds us that ancient cities were thus structured, Thiel formulates the contemporary political version, Benson had prophesied it. Modernity failed because it refused the transcendent. Its exit passes through explicit reintegration, not by return to pre-modernity, but by invention of a religiously informed post-modernity.

These four options coexist as individual strategies in contemporary Silicon Valley and in certain margins of Western state apparatuses, without real dialogue between the camps. The interregnum consists precisely in the absence of a mechanism to decide between them.

Three Honest Objections

Any serious doctrine interrogates its own biases.

First objection. Selection biases the result. If we replaced Girard with Habermas, Thiel with Piketty, Bostrom with other economists, we would obtain a different corpus and probably a different thesis, more oriented toward the reformist defense of modernity than toward its supersession. This is correct. The selection here is deliberately oriented toward authors who posit a rupture. What justifies this selection is less its statistical representativeness than its effective influence on contemporary economic decision-makers.

Second objection. This is a library of Western elites. All cited authors, with rare exceptions, are Western. The diagnosis of the exhaustion of liberal-progressive modernity could be less a universal truth than a specific crisis of this particular elite. In the view of Pankaj Mishra (Age of Anger) or Kishore Mahbubani, what Westerners experience as “the end of modernity” is rather the end of the Western monopoly on defining modernity. The partial response is that the phenomena described by Turchin, Suleyman, Bostrom or Acemoglu largely overflow the Western world. But the objection retains force for the theological and anthropological dimension, which remains structurally an intra-Christian debate.

Third objection. Apocalyptic thinking is a human constant. Every era produces its end-of-the-world prophets, and many have been wrong. Three specific differences nevertheless justify taking this era seriously. The speed of technological evolution is measurable and unprecedented. Turchin’s empirical data on elite overproduction converges with historical crisis models. And current eschatology is produced by practitioners (Suleyman, Karp, Bostrom, Amodei, Acemoglu, Kissinger) who have the material capacities to realize what they announce, which was not the case for medieval prophets. The risk is endogenous, not exogenous.

None of these objections suffices to invalidate the principal thesis, but all deserve integration as corrective.

The Five Disciplines: An Operational Doctrine

If the diagnosis is correct, then classical strategic planning, with its three-year projections, its Gaussian smoothings and its base/upside/downside scenarios, becomes a managerial fiction. Five doctrinal disciplines take its place. They do not substitute for strategy; they redefine its foundations.

1. The invariants test. The first discipline is that of first-principles thinking, the ability to reason without recourse to analogy. The Aristotelian method, revived by contemporary engineers, requires decomposing every strategic question down to the physical, economic or anthropological invariants on which it rests. In an environment where historical analogies cease to be predictive because the phase changes, it is the only discipline that does not degrade inference. The practical test is simple: for each major decision of the quarter, write on one page the three or four first invariants on which it rests, without resorting to analogous cases. If the exercise is impossible, the decision is poorly weighed.

2. The strategic barbell. Taleb, Mallaby and Beer converge. In a world of fat-tailed distributions, the optimal strategy is not prediction but antifragile positioning. Concretely, this means structuring the income statement to survive in the median scenario, while structuring optionality (technological, human, capital, geographic) to explode in rupture scenarios. The operational distribution is 80% defensive, 20% offensive on bets with high standard deviation, and almost nothing in the middle. For a state, this means ensuring the resilience of critical infrastructure while preserving asymmetric investment capacity on two or three sovereign rupture technologies. For a Fortune 100, it means protecting the margin of the core business while exposing a calibrated fraction of capital to exploration bets in which the favorable scenario changes the nature of the company. Acemoglu reminds us, in the background, that this barbell is not only a matter of capital allocation, but also of institutional arrangement: without democratic control over the extreme bets, one builds power concentration, not collective optionality.

3. The Girard test. Girard has become mandatory reading in Silicon Valley for a reason. Markets, talent and valuations obey mimetic dynamics. Bubbles are not collective errors, they are mimetic cascades. Talent wars are not pure economic rationality, they are mediated triangular rivalries. Three diagnostic questions become strategic. First, who are my mimetic models, the competitors I copy without knowing it? Second, who are my triangular rivals, the actors who desire the same objects as I do (customers, talent, capital)? Third, who are the emerging scapegoats in my ecosystem, the actors about to be expelled by the convergence of the dominant discourse? The day someone says “we did not do the Girard test on this deal” in an investment committee, this doctrine will have fulfilled its function.

4. The Anathem architecture. On the model of Stephenson’s monasteries and Beer’s VSM, the task is to structure the organization to operate simultaneously across three temporalities. The short cycle (weeks, sprints, OKRs) governs operations and remains reversible. The medium cycle (years, positioning, alliances) carries strategy and is only partially reversible. The long cycle (decades, mission, non-negotiable principles) anchors identity and must be nearly irreversible, otherwise it is not identitarian, just tactical. The practical discipline is that an executive committee explicitly distinguishes its arbitrations according to the cycle in which they operate. The test is simple: what is the irreversible decision your organization has taken in the last twelve months? If you cannot name one, you are not distinguishing the reversible from the irreversible, and you are an organization without identity.

5. The sovereign block. Newport’s contribution, combined with Debord’s, designates the scarce cognitive resource of the contemporary decision-maker: the ability to maintain sustained attention, outside spectacular mediation and outside algorithmic fragmentation, on structurally important problems. The prescription is trivial to formulate and brutally difficult to hold. Protect in the decision-maker’s calendar weekly blocks of four hours at minimum, dedicated to non-interruptible thinking on ten-year stakes. Isolate these blocks from all notifications. Devote them to long reading and analytical writing sessions. The test is implacable: how many hours of deep work did you actually devote last week to the three structural ten-year stakes? If the honest answer is fewer than ten, your strategic function is captured by your operational agenda.

These five disciplines function as a system. None is sufficient in isolation. The invariants test without the barbell produces paralyzing lucidity. The barbell without the Anathem architecture produces optionality without direction. The Anathem architecture without the sovereign block produces an unconsidered identity. The sovereign block without the Girard test produces introspection without market reading. It is the articulation of the five disciplines that constitutes the doctrine.

Conclusion: Lucidity as First Virtue

If Thiel, Turchin, Girard, Benson, Kissinger, Acemoglu and Aghion are right, each in their own way, that we are traversing a properly eschatological moment, then the first decision-making virtue is neither vision, nor execution, nor charisma. It is lucidity. To see the world as it is, without the filter of modernist narratives that no longer hold. To refuse both the naïveté of those who believe growth will resume mechanically, and the complacency of those content to repeat that it will not.

Kissinger, in Leadership, studies six statesmen whose common characteristic is precisely this lucidity: Adenauer facing a ruined Germany, de Gaulle facing a humiliated France, Nixon facing China and relative American decline, Sadat facing the Israeli-Arab impasse, Lee Kuan Yew facing an exhausted Singapore, Thatcher facing British decline. None predicts the future; all structure the organization they lead so that it survives several incompatible scenarios. The lesson Kissinger draws from these six trajectories is precisely the one this doctrine proposes: strategy is not the prediction of the event, it is the preparation of the structures that will absorb unforeseen events.

The War Memoirs of Charles de Gaulle illustrate the same thing in a language that speaks directly to the French reader. “All my life, I have made for myself a certain idea of France.” This idea is neither optimistic projection nor pessimistic constatation. It is a discipline of identity that resists circumstantial pressure and, in so doing, transforms circumstances. It is, in contemporary terms, an Anathem architecture in the sense of the fourth discipline above: a nearly irreversible identity decision, and therefore structuring.

The decision-makers who will prosper in the 2030s will not be those who predicted the future, because that is structurally impossible in a power-law regime. They will be those who refused to believe it would continue resembling the past, and who built, through the five doctrinal disciplines, organizations capable of transforming rupture into optionality.

The works examined here say together less a prophecy than a reading warning. The world that is coming will not be a prolongation of the one ending. Learn the new grammar before it becomes obligatory. Take the Girard test. Build your barbell. Protect your sovereign block. And begin now, because this is, in the last analysis, the function of this doctrine: not to predict, but to equip.

References

Acemoglu, D. & Johnson, S. (2023). Power and Progress: Our Thousand-Year Struggle Over Technology and Prosperity. PublicAffairs.

Aghion, P., Antonin, C. & Bunel, S. (2020). Le pouvoir de la destruction créatrice. Odile Jacob. English edition: The Power of Creative Destruction (2021). Harvard University Press.

Amodei, D. (2024). Machines of Loving Grace: How AI Could Transform the World for the Better. Online essay, October 2024.

Beer, S. (1974). Designing Freedom. CBC Publications.

Benson, R. H. (1907). Lord of the World. Sir Isaac Pitman & Sons.

Bostrom, N. (2014). Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies. Oxford University Press.

Bostrom, N. (2024). Deep Utopia: Life and Meaning in a Solved World. Ideapress.

Christensen, C. M. (1997). The Innovator’s Dilemma. Harvard Business School Press.

Christensen, C. M. & Raynor, M. E. (2003). The Innovator’s Solution. Harvard Business School Press.

de Gaulle, C. (1954–1959). Mémoires de Guerre (3 vol.). Plon.

Debord, G. (1967). La Société du Spectacle. Buchet/Chastel.

Frey, C. B. (2025). How Progress Ends. Princeton University Press.

Fustel de Coulanges, N. D. (1864). La Cité antique. Durand.

Girard, R. (1978). Des choses cachées depuis la fondation du monde. Grasset.

Gladwell, M. (2000). The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference. Little, Brown.

Gordon, R. J. (2016). The Rise and Fall of American Growth. Princeton University Press.

Hecht, L. (2024). La Simulation. Enquête sur la théorie qui fascine la Silicon Valley.

Karp, A. C. & Zamiska, N. (2025). The Technological Republic: Hard Power, Soft Belief, and the Future of the West. Crown Currency.

Kissinger, H., Schmidt, E. & Huttenlocher, D. (2021). The Age of AI: And Our Human Future. Little, Brown.

Kissinger, H. (2022). Leadership: Six Studies in World Strategy. Penguin Press.

Mallaby, S. (2022). The Power Law: Venture Capital and the Making of the New Future. Penguin Press.

Miranda, A. (2025). Les Lumières sombres. Comprendre la pensée néoréactionnaire. Gallimard.

Newport, C. (2016). Deep Work: Rules for Focused Success in a Distracted World. Grand Central Publishing.

Rispal, A. (2026a). Sortir de la crise par l’expérimentation. Journal du Net, February 23, 2026.

Rispal, A. (2026b). IVRT: The Equation That Kills AI Pilot Purgatory. Alexandre Rispal’s Substack, June 3, 2026.

Stephenson, N. (2008). Anathem. William Morrow.

Suleyman, M. & Bhaskar, M. (2023). The Coming Wave: Technology, Power, and the Twenty-First Century’s Greatest Dilemma. Crown.

Taleb, N. N. (2007). The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable. Random House.

Taleb, N. N. (2012). Antifragile: Things That Gain from Disorder. Random House.

Thiel, P. (2024–2025). Lectures on the Antichrist (Cambridge Union, ARC, Hoover Institution).

Turchin, P. (2023). End Times: Elites, Counter-Elites, and the Path of Political Disintegration. Penguin Press.

Velikovsky, I. (1950). Worlds in Collision. Macmillan.

Vidal, C. (2014). The Beginning and the End: The Meaning of Life in a Cosmological Perspective. Springer.

Wooldridge, A. (2021). The Aristocracy of Talent: How Meritocracy Made the Modern World. Skyhorse.