Well, for starters, I think that you vastly overestimate philosophy's impact on the world. The revolutions you cite were definitely not the "direct consequence" of philosophers, but rather the consequence of a complex web of social, economic, and political factors, factos that were in a complex feedback relation with philosophy. To credit the history of the entire 20th century to "Continental Philosophy", whatever that means (is Carnap a continental philosopher? Schlick? Cassirer? Hermann Cohen? What about figures such as Max Weber or Simmel?), seems to me not only absurd, but incredibly naive and borderline idealistic (in the sense of believing that history is solely shaped by ideas---note that I'm not denying that ideas are a factor, rather, I'm denying that they are the sole factor).

But leaving to the side your faulty characterization of history and of continental philosophy, I'm also concerned about your characterization of analytic philosophy as somehow technocrat. It is true that logic, and the sciences more generally, inform much of analytic philosophy, but that does not mean that analytic philosophy is reducible to a bunch of techniques. Consider, by way of example, Hartry Field's extremely technical account of truth. The details are rather unimportant, but Field defends a non-classical reading of truth (he denies universal validity to the excluded middle) and also an extreme nominalist position in the philosophy of mathematics (for the former, cf. his very demanding Saving Truth from Paradox and for the latter the essays in Realism, Mathematics, and Modality). These may seem as purely technical exercises that are entertained as answers to purely technical problems (e.g. formal versions of the liar), but I think this would be a mistake. Field adopts both views in part because he thinks those are the only views that cohere with a certain outlook of human's situatedness in nature, a certain view of the human capacities for knowledge. That is, the ultimate aim of his philosophy is to try and make sense of our place in the world, even if this worry is not always in the foreground. In other words, technique is not here an end in itself, but is at the service of a broader project, which Sellars once characterized, in a phrase that is almost a cliche now, as "to understand how things in the broadest possible sense of the term hang together in the broadest possible sense of the term".

True, it is sometimes easy to forget this ultimate aim and simply concentrate on the latest trendy logical puzzle (this is the inevitable consequence of professionalization, I think, which might be one of the factors which explain why analytic philosophy became dominant in the academic world today). And if you read just journal articles, which are perforce just one piece of a giant jigsaw puzzle, you may leave with the impression that's all professional philosophers do. It would, however, be a rather myopic impression, I think.

Finally, I don't see what's so absurd with the comparison with the sciences. I do think philosophy is increasingly becoming more science-like, and this reflects the degree to which the many sciences have become more mature and autonomous. For example, in the beginning of the twentieth century, philosophers could more or less ignore the contributions from linguistics (at their own peril!), since it was still a fledgling science. Not so today, when even semantics and pragmatics are rather advanced (in part thanks to philosophers such as Carnap, Montague, and Lewis, not to mention philosophy-inclined linguists such as Barbara Partee, Angelika Kratzer, and Irene Heim). Similarly with cognitive psychology. And as philosophy enters with diverse partnerships with the sciences, it is not surprising that it becomes science-like.

Well, as we all know, the analytical philosophy niche has been gaining more and more strength in the West, with its more rational, logical, and technical way of thinking, — Gus Lamarch

I didn't know that.

What does analytical philosophy analyse? Presumably it analyses normative values and beliefs that are just as likely to be 'false' as they are to be 'true'. So where does it go from there?

The future of philosophy may be the past of philosophy, when the natural sciences and philosophy were closer and philosophy was able to keep up with the sciences. In a similar vein, a lawyer who is a philosopher has an edge over a legal philosopher who isn't.

The only one true valid analytical philosophy is summarized by this formula. All other claims are just noise. :-)

And the conclusion is $=t? Time is money?