War didn’t just breakout on the Korean Peninsula last week, it also broke out on Facebook. Luckily the war on the peninsula was limited to some shells fired and not (yet) a continuation of the Korean Conflict. The war on Facebook didn’t fare so well. Although no one died, which is a big plus, the resolve of the war that developed on Facebook is far from over.
In a way, both the war on the Korean Peninsula and the war on Facebook were one and the same, if we were to look at the actions and the actors involved in the wars.
On Facebook, my niece decided she wanted to create a web page to become better connected with her family, on all sides of her network (tribe). She suggested a family reunion, and with some feedback on possible dates from what later was the first and second agent of the opposing clan, she suggested a localized place and a date of July 2 that seemed to be agreeable to the agents of the opposing clan; but space and time is a perfect place for war.
And war she got. It was a war she was unprepared for and it was a war she lost quite decidedly, if the outcome she wanted was to connect everyone into one happy family. Instead, like the war between North and South Korea, she got a war between clans.
As a military expert (fake) in the art of the game (war), I can say she should have based her strategy and moved her, and her opposing agents, in the same manner as North Korea.
When war broke out on the Korean Peninsula, North Korea’s new action consisted of attacking the second agent (China) and then destroying the leadership position of the first agent (South Korea) of the opposing clan. While North Korea’s bombs fell on South Korea, the attack was really against the opposing clan’s second agent China.
Instead, my niece, after the leader of her tribe spoke up against the first agent, attacked the opposing clan’s first agent, and ignored the opposing clan’s second agent. What this caused was a split in her leadership (as doubt was created in who provoked my nieces actions, the actions of the opposing clan’s first agent or the leader of my niece’s tribe). My niece’s choice of movements and slowness to move allowed the opposing clan to be isolated around the first agent and allowed the first agent a greater role in leadership. A leader has to have followers and my niece gave the leader of the opposing clan followers, instead of destroying them.
This is the weakness of a tribe: a tribe is flat and a clan is vertical. Wow, that was simple.
As a clan becomes vertical (its leadership is built up in layers [departments]) its length (wavelength) decreases and it become more intense than the flat tribe. Another way of looking at this: the tribe represents a massive charge, while the clan represents a high voltage. A tribe is “wired” in series, in which the voltage changes, but the current remains the same. A clan is wired parallel, in which the current varies (depending on how high up the leadership is thrown) while the voltage remains the same, the same as those at the top.
The thing is: when you decrease the current, by building it up vertically into clans instead of horizontally into tribes, the voltage increase. It is simply physics. You are building the potential (voltage) of the tribe as you turn it into a clan. Therefore, the structure of a clan built on top of the structure of a tribe runs at a higher voltage than when it was a tribe. I know, what the hell does that mean, but bear with me.
North Korea’s action of last week destroyed the leadership of its opposing clan, South Korea, by destroying South Korea’s second agent of whom (as the Wikileaks showed) China was fast becoming. Without China’s ability to become South Korea’s second agent the tribal structure that was forming between South Korea, North Korea, and China was destroyed.
Wikileaks showed, in its released documents that the US was to be used as a tool (a benign actor) in South Korea’s effort at uniting the Korean Peninsula. In reaction to that, North Korea destroyed the South’s leadership, consolidated its own benevolent leadership into one person (there was only one person who knew enough to start the shooting and in the right direction), and destroyed the chance of China becoming a second agent. Not bad in a day’s work.
(And I hope this helps) this brings up another weakness of a tribe: a tribe can become a clan, but a clan cannot become a tribe, unless the clan is dissolved. My niece should have dissolved the opposing clan by taking away the leadership role that the opposing clan’s first agent represented.
Instead my niece gave the leadership, of the opposing clan, more followers (by isolating them from her tribe), thus building the opposing clan’s leadership up vertically, as more and more followers came under the command of their new leader. This brings us to the answer of the old song: “what is war good for?”
Absolutely nothing once the advantage of a clan is reached.
The advantage, in the ability of the clan to potentially get things to move (the advantage of high voltage), depends on how the leadership of the clan uses this increase in voltage. This advantage, once given to the leader, is out of the context of war, but in the realm of destruction. Therefore, the war of tactics has to take place when leadership is created strategically—vertically or horizontally.
Depending on whose command the shelling began on, it seems to me that war, on the Korean Peninsula is over; the leadership of North Korea has changed. A benevolent leader is the ultimate vertical leadership model, and North Korea now has that advantage. North Korea has gone vertical.
We should be strategically planning for the next generation of leadership change in North Korea, but that is what generational warfare (5GMW) is all about.
I wish the best for my niece and her tribe.