A topologic determinism stems from the structure of power: allying those far (who threaten us less because of the distance) against those near (who are more threatening). It is similar to the geographical determinism of alliances between countries.

We can establish a hierarchy of power, from those having no power at the bottom to those having the most at the top.

The relative positions in that hierarchy give us the High-low vs. middle alliance, of HLvM for short. The high is at risk from only the middle and uses the low as a proxy predator against the middle. The elite-underclass alliance against the middle class is an example of this. Anarcho-tyranny is a consequence, where the State allows thugs to operate while preventing the middle-class to defend itself.

Of course, the low is not immune if there is an even lower class the middle can weaponise in a similar manner. This generates a race to the bottom, each low and middle becoming respectively middle and high. Kings could not rule over their kingdom alone. They had to delegate power to the nobility. Louis XIV consolidated his power against the aristocracy by establishing the civil service. It was bureaucracy consisting of commoners who would have nothing otherwise, ensuring their loyalty. Less than one century after his death, the commoners officialised their power with the French Revolution.

The evolution of social sciences follows the change of political class in power, legitimising their overtake. From Mr Douglas Smythe:

For secular academics: Centuries-long inter-generational contests in which each new ascending generation of scholars will try to position their work as more useful to the ends of progress, equality, and liberation than that of the previous generation. Thus the study of economics was supposed to be more progressive than theology; then the study of sociology was supposed to be more progressive than economics; finally, identity studies is supposed to be more progressive than sociology. Each upstart discipline positions itself as the vanguard of progress by denouncing its predecessor and rival as an "ideology" that thwarts and obstructs the march of Progress in favour of the existing social hierarchy. Accordingly, each new discipline will take up the cause of the class immediately beneath the one that is socially most powerful at the time. Thus, economics took up the cause of industrialists against the landed aristocracy; once the industrialists took pride of place, sociology took up the cause of industrial workers against the industrial capitalists; and once the industrial workers were assimilated into the middle class that was supposed to take pride of place in New-Deal Liberal democracy, identity studies took up the cause of gays, racial minorities, women, etc. that opposed the prosperous working man. Hence "diversity".

• Next: Liberalism