Some time ago the idea of the Philosopher King was described in a lot of detail in an attempt to identify better “leadership” for society. But philosophers don’t actually like being kings themselves and society (in general) does not care either, but the American military might have used that train of thought to develop the Strategic Corporal as a leader-in-operations or on-the-ground as it were. In other words, a person that could do the basic job while incorporating the wider requirements of their society simultaneously:
Marines involved in these amorphous conflicts will be confronted by the entire spectrum of tactical challenges in the span of a few hours and, potentially, within the space of three contiguous city blocks. Thus, we refer to this phenomenon as the “three block war.” Success or failure will rest, increasingly, with the individual Marine on the ground — and with his or her ability to make the right decision, at the right time, while under extreme duress. Without direct supervision, young Marines will be required to make rapid, well-reasoned, independent decisions while facing a bewildering array of challenges and threats. These decisions will be subject to the harsh scrutiny of both the media and the court of public opinion. In many cases, the individual Marine will be the most conspicuous symbol of American foreign policy. His or her actions may not only influence the immediate tactical situation, but have operational and strategic implications as well. If we accept the maxim “battles are won and lost [first] in the mind of the commanders,” we can safely assume that the three block war, may very well be won or lost in the minds of our “strategic corporals.”
Much more on this over here.
That a Military would adopt this means it was necessary in reality and not some progressive idea. One driver apparently was Network Centric Warfare. Another pointer to this new warfare is the networking of fighter aircraft. Future networking envisions Networked Swarming Warfare that already affects normal organizational theory and of course organizations themselves.
In the context where geographical organizations are opposed by global organizations, the idea is that both these are of the previous “Establishment” and that a networked organisation like Apple, Amazon and Google will overrun them eventually.
There is an interesting link from the Italian engineering genius of Leonardo da Vinci to the engineering investments of Lanza techVentures in America. This point to the new emerging Oligarchs of America literally changing politics from being “dull” to becoming “preposterous.”
It would be fair to say that first there was a philosopher that promoted the idea of a (dull) Philosopher King, followed by a General implementing the idea of a (high duress) Strategic Corporal, followed by engineers that promote the idea of the Engineer King.
Seeing that engineers also don’t want to be kings, they encourage preposterous figureheads such as Obama as transformative improvement over the proven failed “dull” kings.
Although old Dull Kings destroyed markets in this new world, the wrong transformative “ging” will too (Obama and Mandela). The catch is (as Google now realizes after two engineers Mike Wacker and Greg Coppola exposed them) that they should not undermine their own market. Because this “market” wants to win this war too, and don’t forget that all those Strategic Corporals are now part of the network.
The Human Rights and Global Warming Oligarchs pushed Vibrant Kings to lead the Rainbow Underclass, but instead the Engineer Oligarchs succeeded in overturning that unreality by unknowingly opening up a new networked capitalism where realistic Strategic Corporals have a say.
We now have Engineer Kings in Australia, England and America not discounting others like Hungary, Italy and Brazil so it’s expected for Engineer Oligarchs (Larry Page, Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk and Peter Diamandis) to follow the real networked market because we know engineers don’t really care about politics or philosophy, but they really care about reality.