High-Low against the Middle-Globalism’s Moral Model

In my last article on the moral trichotomy, I ended with the line, “the master moralist will triumph in this world, the servant moralist will triumph in the next, while the slave moralist will triumph in their heads”. I hoped this would puzzle many readers as it would seem to be inconsistent with what we see in our world today. 

If we look at who the powerful capitalists are promoting, there’s a noticeable occurrence. Straight white male = bad; women, coloured people, sexual deviants, the ugly, the disabled = good. Therefore, the bad group must be stripped of their power and the good group must be given more power for justice to occur.

If you consider this designation to be too blunt and simplistic, we can use their terminology they openly espouse. Just switch ‘bad’ with ‘oppressor’ and ‘good’ with ‘oppressed’ and you have the exact same formula. And as they define a straight white males oppressor status to be intrinsic to them and can never be translated over to any other group, along with oppressor being a negative trait we identify with bad people, we arrive at the same conclusion. 

Either way the same enemy-friend, good-bad distinction occurs. More importantly, the low status is always identified as the good and the high status is always identified as bad. Or in a Nietzschean context, we can describe it as a biological slave moralism. This biological slave moralism has infiltrated the morals of us to such an extent that even those that supposedly oppose our current culture still argue against it within the framework of slave morality. The American meme of ‘Democrats are the real racists’ typifies this mindset perfectly.

It would seem that the master moralist isn’t actually triumphing in this world as I stated in my last article, but the exact opposite is happening. The slave moralist is somehow triumphing, even though his values of weakness and depravity should naturally be defeated by the master moralist who values strength and courage.

An introduction to high-low against the middle

One can only make sense of all of this when you understand the strategy of high-low against the middle. It can be argued that this strategy was inaugurated into the world by Satan himself in the Garden of Eden. To break the bond Adam and Eve had with God, Satan devised a plan to overturn this bond by promising higher status to the low status—which in this case was Eve—if only they disobeyed their current ruler. 

As the story goes, Satan tempted Eve by saying that if she eats the forbidden fruit her “eyes shall be opened: and you shall be as Gods, knowing good and evil”. Eve was allured by the utopia promised to her, so she gave into her envious passions and disobeyed her master who had instructed her not to eat from this tree. What Eve wasn’t aware was that Satan would now be her new master even though she may have considered herself now to be free and equal.

The fundamentals of high-low against the middle is that the original regime has an overt ruling class that has all the power and makes the decisions, and a subordinate underclass that follows orders. Then a new rival ruling class seeks to replace the established ruling class, not by foreign invasion, but by alliancing themselves with the underclass against the current ruling class.

The new rival ruling class needs to promise them something in order to gain support for their revolution, so they promise them something that all humans want: higher status. This isn’t explicitly stated but it is draped in the language of equality and is justified by highlighting the supposed oppressive nature of the current ruling class.

The rival ruling class, if successful in their propaganda mission, mobilises and leads the subordinate masses in overthrowing the regime so that they would now be the new ruling class. Although the subordinate masses are unaware that they are being duped and are merely helping a new ruling class—usually more oppressive than the previous one—establish power over them.

The reason they can be duped so easily is because the new ruling class doesn’t identify themselves as a new ruling class. This is important for the new ruling class as it deludes the masses into thinking they have created an egalitarian society where the people are the new ruling class. Once the new order has been created, the new ruling class faces the same obstacle every new ruling class faces: continuation and stability of the new regime.  

This can only be achieved through loyalty and belief in the new order. Therefore, the lowest status members of the old order are assigned to positions of power. These ex-low status people are assigned to these powerful positions by the ruling class because they will be the most fanatically loyal adherents to the new regime because they know that if the regime falls, they fall too, back into the low status subservient position they were once assigned to in the old order. 

During the French Revolution, the old overt ruling class was King Louis XVI and the aristocracy, while the new covert ruling class was Freemasonry. After the Bolshevik revolution, the Communist Party was the not so covert new ruling class that overthrew the Tsar. The fact that the Communist Party wasn’t as covert as the Freemason hierarchy of the French Revolution isn’t that important as long as they claimed to not be a new ruling class in pre-revolution Russia. The concept of the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ was enough to trick the masses into giving them power. 

To use the terminology of the strategy applied to the Garden of Eden. The high is Satan as he is now the new leader in this society, the middle is God as he is the old leader who is now denigrated as an oppressor for forbidding Adam and Eve to eat from the tree of knowledge and commanding that they subordinate themselves to him in all things, and finally, the low is Eve but also Adam, who are now led by Satan but falsely believe that they are equal and free. 

In the examples above of the French and Russian Revolution, the middle was the king and his aristocracy, and the low was the peasantry. From this we can understand that a class-centered high-low against the middle framework is successful under feudalism, but it leaves a grey area as to whether it will work in the bourgeoise democracies that succeeded feudalism.

The modern version of high-low against the middle 

Tracing out these historical examples, you may be able to piece together the high-low against the middle strategy being played out today. As I outlined in a previous article I wrote, Marxist intellectuals in the 1930s realised that Marx’s theories about a proletariat revolution being inevitable under capitalism weren’t entirely correct. A peasant revolution was possible due to the extreme class divide and the abject poverty peasants usually face. The proletariat on the other hand generally had their basic means met so staging a violent revolution wasn’t something they were willing to undertake.

At this early stage, Marxist intellectuals knew a class-based high-low against the middle would fail in the bourgeois democracies of Europe and America, therefore they teamed up with the international financiers they were supposedly against to create a high-low against the middle that would work in a capitalist country. For this to work they totally abandoned the strategy being applied to economics and instead moved it over into the domain of biology, which is far more potent than class as biology is unchanging, whereas class is situational. This new movement was called the New Left, or to use the term used in academia, Western Marxism.

The middle was now the straight white male, the power core and ruling class of the world throughout history. The low is merely just the antithesis of this middle: women, coloured people, sexual deviants, ugly people, the disabled etc. 

The high of today is harder to pinpoint due to their covert nature, even more covert than the Freemasons of the French Revolution. At least during the French Revolution, everyone knew the Freemasons were an influential organisation but may have misunderstood how powerful they really were. Nowadays only a very small section of the population know that there exist a global ruling class that manufactures and directs world affairs. 

What’s worse is that a good section of those that acknowledge the existence of our ruling class are afraid to admit it openly due to the high popularising the term of derision ‘conspiracy theorist’ to stigmatise those that correctly identify them as the ruling class. Further still, those that aren’t afraid to identify them openly find it hard to label this nameless group. The best people can do is to use terms like ‘the elite’, ‘regime’, ‘deep-state’ as an identifier. 

A few facts can be pieced together about the structure of the high. There seems to be an inner party where they craft the agenda of society behind closed doors and propagate it through their outer party institutions like the World Bank, CIA, IMF, EU that are supposedly independent or under government supervision. The origins of the high may trace in some way back to the Freemasons and more definitively trace back to the international bankers that dominated Europe and America in the 19^th and early 20^th century. 

As the basis of the high are in the corporations, we only need to look at the twitter pages of any big corporation to see what the high-low alliance looks like. Although there is a lot of counterpropaganda about how corporations only celebrate transgenderism or feminism as a way to appeal to the consumer and by extension increase their profits, this theory is inconsistent with the numerous incidents like the infamous Gillette ad where corporations risk upsetting their own consumer base to push a narrative. 

The high-low attack on the middle is more subtle than their unspoken alliance as it generally consists of language about ending inequality or injustice in society, or campaigning to fight racism and sexism. These words and phrases all have official definitions that were created by the high to trick the blind masses into approving their aims, but the practical implications of their aims result in denying the middle (straight white males) positions of power, and conversely promoting the low (non-binary disabled Muslim) to positions of power. Thus, as stated earlier, solidifying loyalty to the new regime.

This promotion of the low begun as an unofficial rule, now they are official policies at corporations or laws in governments. Examples of this can be seen when the BBC banned white people from applying for a job they had available or in the gender (and soon to be racial and sexuality) quotas we see in the Dáil.

The brilliance of the current high-low against the middle strategy is that it deludes the low into thinking that the true ruler of society is the middle. If the straight white male were truly the rulers of society as we are told, why would they allow the media that they own to consistently denigrate their own group? Note as well that highlighting the high as the true ruler of society gets you labelled as some looney conspiracy theorist or crypto fascist. This ability to swiftly denigrate those that attack you is true power, which further proves that they truly are the ruling class.

With the current high-low against the middle strategy that is currently being played out, it also doubles as a mechanism to distract and degenerate the population. Most people nowadays are too distracted by the novelties and trivialities of the world to actually think clearly about how the world actually operates. 

Going back to the quote I began with, it should now become clearer how the master moralist actually does triumph in this world. The ruling class of the world today do believe in the tenants of master morality. They believe that since their will is stronger than ours, they have a right to rule humanity. They only promote slave morality to further their power, they don’t honestly believe in abstractions about human rights and equality, sure they created those concepts as a means to further their aims. 

The slave moralists of today think they are triumphing, or to use their language, progressing. In actuality, they are triumphing only in their heads. Many of these people to some extent realise the serf state they have been reduced to where they own nothing but aren’t happy. They may even begin to identify themselves as anti-capitalist and denounce ‘rainbow capitalism’, but this will all be in vain as the means of their oppression is the supposed ‘progress’ they believe in.