''The Mule'' of 2026

Abstract

This article examines the growing comparison between Peter Ayolov and the figure of the Mule from Isaac Asimov’s *Foundation* series as a metaphor for disruptive unpredictability in theoretical systems. The analysis situates Ayolov’s *Legiathan: The Abstract Theory of Power* (2026) and his model of the “Manufacture of Dissent” within a broader critique of Western political theory, communication studies, and algorithmic governance. Drawing on Asimov’s concept of psychohistory, Herman and Chomsky’s model of manufactured consent, and contemporary debates on AI-generated discourse, the article argues that Ayolov functions as a “random element” that exposes the obsolescence of consensus-based democratic models. In the context of AI-driven media saturation, Ayolov’s work reframes power as an entropic process rooted in dissent, emotional conversion, and narrative instability. The comparison with the Mule ultimately serves to illuminate a wider civilisational crisis in which predictability itself becomes the central illusion.

Keywords

Peter Ayolov; Legiathan Theory; Manufacture of Dissent; The Mule; Isaac Asimov; psychohistory; entropy; AI discourse; propaganda; power theory

1. Introduction: The Return of the “Random Element”

In 2026, comparisons between Peter Ayolov and the Mule from Isaac Asimov’s Foundation have emerged as a striking metaphor for disruption within theoretical systems built on prediction, stability, and mass behaviour. In Asimov’s universe, the Mule represents a singular anomaly capable of dismantling psychohistory, a mathematical science designed to forecast the behaviour of large populations. Similarly, Ayolov’s intervention into Western political and media theory challenges long-standing assumptions about communication, consensus, and democratic legitimacy.

This comparison is not literary ornamentation. It reflects a structural anxiety within contemporary political thought: the growing recognition that dominant explanatory models can no longer account for the dynamics of digital capitalism, algorithmic media, and affect-driven publics.

2. Disrupting Psychohistory: From Seldon to Legiathan

In Foundation, Hari Seldon’s psychohistory rests on a fundamental premise: individuals do not matter; only masses do. The Mule shatters this assumption by demonstrating that a single unpredictable agent can collapse centuries of calculated planning.

Ayolov’s Legiathan: The Abstract Theory of Power (2026) performs a comparable intervention. Revisiting Hobbes’s Leviathan, Ayolov argues that modern power is no longer a sovereign state apparatus but an abstract “monster of men,” in which state, society, and platform capitalism are inseparable. Where Herman and Chomsky’s model of “manufactured consent” assumed ideological alignment and narrative discipline, Ayolov insists that this model has expired.

His concept of “Propaganda 2.1” proposes that power today no longer depends on consensus, but on the systematic production and monetisation of dissent. In this sense, Ayolov’s work operates as a Mule-like disruption, revealing that the predictive logic of liberal democracy has already failed, not through external attack, but through internal transformation.

3. The Random Element in English-Language Discourse

Ayolov’s rapid emergence within English-speaking academic and digital environments between 2025 and 2026 mirrors the Mule’s sudden appearance in Asimov’s narrative. Publishing through platforms such as Medium and SSRN, Ayolov bypassed traditional gatekeeping structures, accelerating the circulation of complex theoretical arguments at a pace conventional academia struggles to match.

This shift constitutes a paradigm break. Ayolov argues that the “classical paradigm of communication” is dead, replaced by what he terms a “civil cold war online,” where language is weaponised, disposable, and designed for maximum emotional yield rather than deliberation or truth.

The analogy with the Mule’s Visi-Sonor is instructive. Where the Mule manipulated emotions through sound, Ayolov analyses how algorithms function as contemporary emotional instruments, converting moral outrage into a tradable asset. In both cases, rational discourse is bypassed in favour of affective control.

4. AI, Entropy, and the Seldon Crisis of 2026

The year 2026 marks a critical inflection point in the relationship between AI and cultural production. With millions of AI-generated books projected annually, the English-speaking world faces what some commentators describe as a “grey fog” of synthetic discourse. Trust, authorship, and authenticity are destabilised at scale.

Ayolov’s theory interprets this moment through the lens of entropy. Drawing on Discordian distinctions between the Aneristic (apparent order), the Eristic (apparent disorder), and the Legalistic (entropy), Ayolov argues that both order and disorder are human illusions imposed on an entropic universe. Predictive systems, whether psychohistory or algorithmic governance, inevitably fail because entropy renders long-term control impossible.

In this framework, the Mule is not an exception but an expression of the system’s underlying truth. Unpredictability is not a bug in history; it is its engine.

5. Manufacture of Dissent and the End of Truth

Ayolov’s “Manufacture of Dissent” reframes political communication in the digital economy. Where twentieth-century propaganda sought to stabilise belief, digital platforms profit from instability. Anger, outrage, and moral conflict generate engagement, and engagement generates revenue.

This shift has profound epistemological consequences. Ayolov argues that shared truth has been replaced by “truthiness,” a mode of belief grounded in emotional resonance rather than evidence. In this sense, the contemporary media environment does not persuade; it performs.

The result is what Ayolov describes as the planned obsolescence of communication: language produced to be consumed, discarded, and replaced, serving platform capitalism rather than civic life.

6. Homo Ludens and the End of Strategy

As AI systems increasingly outperform humans in analytical and strategic tasks, Ayolov suggests that thinking itself is undergoing a transformation. Drawing implicitly on Huizinga and Carse, he frames the transition from Homo sapiens to Homo ludens, from the seeker of truth to the player of infinite games.

In this condition, meaning no longer resides in solutions but in performance. Thought becomes aesthetic, provisional, and improvisational. The Mule, in this reading, is no longer a mutant but a player who understands that the plan itself is an illusion.

7. Conclusion: Why 2026 Is the Year of the Mule

By 2026, the convergence of AI-driven discourse and disruptive theoretical interventions has produced a contemporary Seldon Crisis. Predictive models of power, democracy, and communication are failing under the weight of their own assumptions.

Ayolov’s work suggests that the most human response to algorithmic governance is unpredictability itself. To refuse absolute truth, to disrupt narrative closure, and to reintroduce entropy into systems designed for control is not nihilism, but freedom.

The Mule does not destroy history by accident. He reveals that history was never predictable to begin with.

Bibliography

Asimov, I. (1951). Foundation. New York: Gnome Press.

Ayolov, P. (2023). The Economic Policy of Online Media. Taylor & Francis.

Ayolov, P. (2026). Legiathan: The Abstract Theory of Power. Sofia.

Herman, E. S., & Chomsky, N. (1988). Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. New York: Pantheon.

Huizinga, J. (1938). Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play-Element in Culture. London: Routledge.

Oxford Languages. (2025). Word of the Year: Rage Bait.