All essays published before July 2022 are considered obsolete. Kindly wait for the upcoming book.
In previous articles, we alluded to a typology of what we call the Occupational Classes based on how much theoretical knowledge each class needs. We expound on this concept here:
Working class - work jobs that require low theoretical knowledge. Not necessarily just peasants or proletariat in the Marxian sense; our typology includes the petty bourgeoisie, kulaks, and other small-scale traditional factor owners. The main draw between the working classes is their little need for theoretical knowledge, supplanted by experience in the field, boots on the ground decision making, craft dedication, and character shaped by their work.
Academic class - work jobs that require high theoretical knowledge, whether researchers, academics, or scientific consultants. Once again, ownership of traditional factors of production is not a requirement. This class works in theoretical fields, using their expertise on bigger picture matters. May be deficient in ground level matters, but knowing these lets them direct all strands to a whole tapestry.
Professional-managerial class - work jobs that require middle of the road theoretical knowledge, with what little existing justifying standards, ethics, codes of conduct, and other regulated rules. Neither proficient in the bigger picture nor the ground level, instead very self-centered and competitive.
Unlike traditional castes and class, this typology relies on a nonstandard factor of production - human capital. Formal and legal credentials matter not - Clark Maxwell had no formal education, yet can definitely be counted as part of the academic class for founding Electromagnetism. Similarly, doctors and lawyers who engage with biochemical and political theory can also be counted as part of the academic class - this was the order in pre-industrial times, where academics also performed white-collar services as consultants. Lastly, engineers and architects used to rely on quick calculations and rules of thumb before advances in Physics and Mechanics made engineering a more exact craft - a working class occupation transformed into a professional-managerial one. An engineer who works in theoretical mechanics would immediately ascend to the academic class. As Aristotle would think, it is what the worker does that matter, not what he is called.
The professional-managerial class evolved from centralizing power and authority, with absolute monarchs and corporate boards needing obedient, subservient workers to manage what they own. Like the mamelukes, however, this class subsumed the centralized monarchies and turned them into oligarchies, as the Iron Law predicts. Now, the professional-managerial elite display their midwitery anywhere they go, to anyone they meet. Vapid platitudes matter more than passed-down knowledge or theoretical frameworks. Out-of-context quotes and aphorisms now count as philosophy - see Nietzsche's and Sartre's, Einstein's and Carl Sagan's popularity over political theorists, economists, mathematicians, and scientists. No professional-managerial would know who Menger or Mandelbrot were, or know the difference between a homeomorphism or a hylemorphism. They wouldn't know to measure twice and cut once, what side of a tool to use. Instead, they have arrogant knowledge of codes and standards, which require no thinking and all application, a prime practice to purge prudence from their ranks.
Hence Machiavelli defines three types of intelligence:
One who makes new knowledge.
One who appreciates others' made knowledge.
One who neither makes nor appreciates' others' new knowledge.
Of course, all three types exist in all classes. However, the Managerial Elite's nature - what they do, how they do, and for what purposes - makes the third type concentrate in their ranks. Type 1 and 2 intelligences in the Managerial Elite will be more drawn to the academe, or the very least escape their midwitery. The working class produces new knowledge on the ground, the academic class produces new knowledge in the world of forms. Both appreciate what their colleagues do, and can definitely appreciate what the other class does for society. The professional-managerial class envies not just other classes, but each other within their ranks - the rat race to the top is prime breeding ground for this kind of behavior.
Now we can cast Curtis Yarvin's BDH-OV conflict as a divide between Leftists from all occupational classes, and an alliance of high (academic) and low (working) on the Right. Right-wing professional-managerials do not have the capability to fight - instead, an Aristocrat-Pleb alliance is the only viable tactic in advancing a new Paleo alliance.
We end this piece by envisioning the new Paleo alliance - paleoconservatives, paleolibertarians, and neoreaction. These three groups share more than what they differ in, and most differences are a question of semantics, empirical knowledge, historical knowledge, some theory, and other accidental matters. These can be easily mended by calm discussion, and a strong desire not to argue past the other. Words like state become an issue because one camp uses the Declarative definition (people, land, ruler, sovereignty) while another uses the Weberian definition (coercive entity with a monopoly of violence) while yet others would use the Recognition definition (a state becomes one upon recognition by other states). Anarchy is also a contentious word, with some declaring it the nonexistence of hierarchy, while others the lack of coercive governments, and still others with chaos and disorder. This new Paleo alliance draws back to similar ideas from the Old Right, from Scholastic and Aristotelian thought, from Right-wing political theory, and so on. Its existence is definitely possible if interested parties actually discuss their views.