The Spirit of Gravity

A liberal capitalist open humanitarian society keeps children out of farms and workshops, saves women from lives of prostitution, saves countless millions from painful disease, allows people to have diets better than rationed cans of soup, etc. Because of that, normal people will always side with open liberal capitalists over authoritarians. This is supposed to lead to endless exponential growth and basically eliminate poverty across the world. Slowly but surely, the problems of overpopulation are mitigated.

This is the only acceptable program for modern government, or even any modern morality or religion. You either aid in the relief of Malthusian conditions for all, or you are a fascist. For some on the right, the problem with this is the elimination of borders and national/racial identity. But the technological end of history can still occur without massive demographic change. Will people on the right join the march for progress as long as their neighborhoods don’t become too alien? It’s a reasonable demand that still works within the bounds of a liberal capitalist worldview.

Most people on the right, however, don’t oppose liberalism because it eliminates poverty and provides a fairer justice system—their opposition is more instinctive. It’s about the weight and presumptiveness of liberal morality. Some conservatives do overreact to the point where they valorize poverty or oppose modern medicine, but this is an extreme response to a more general opposition to the modern liberal taste.

In the early 2000s, I was first exposed to “the modern liberal taste” through pro-gay marriage political commercials I saw on TV. Growing up in a conservative religious family at the time, I interpreted “the gay rights movement” as a strange and hostile force. By the time I was in high school, the pro-gay moral indignation was at its peak. Shows like Glee would depict a gay character getting mercilessly bullied and we were forced to recognize the ugliness of such exaggerated cruelty. Rejecting cruelty and accepting that many people, with no fault of their own, don’t exemplify traditional heterosexuality. This was all very rational and most people, including conservatives, accept that today.

The thing that really bothered me and the thing that made me oppose the modern liberal taste was the pathetic moralizing around gay people. I can perfectly accept that an ugly bigot bullying some kind-hearted lesbian is cringe and lame. I cannot accept that someone is better than me simply for having more pity for the weak than me. The argument “you are a bad person for being anti-gay and I am a good person for being pro-gay” completely gave away the conceit. Even as a 12-year-old I had a sharp Nietzschean sense for discerning resentful power plays disguised as morality. Having a morality, or system of values, revolving around pity for the marginalized was always a very feminine, shallow, and pathetic thing to me.

Liberal secularists like Steven Pinker and Francis Fukuyama make the mistake of conflating the general trend of scientific progress, intellectual openness, and representative government with the embrace of the modern liberal spirit and a rejection of any anti-liberal program. This is illustrated in Pinker’s commentary on Nietzsche. Despite Nietzsche being one of the earliest and strongest advocates of absolute scientific seriousness in all matters, Pinker responds to him with absurd moral hysteria. Pinker says in Enlightenment Now:

If I could go back in time, I might confront him as follows: “I am a superman: hard, cold, terrible, without feelings and without conscience. As you recommend, I will achieve heroic glory by exterminating some chattering dwarves. Starting with you, Shorty. And I might do a few things to that Nazi sister of yours, too. Unless, that is, you can think of a reason why I should not.”

This is the typical crash out of any moralist who can’t cope with Nietzsche suggesting that their values may not be metaphysically, objectively, magically true.

The question is: is modern liberal morality a rational and justified force—“goodness itself”—moving against the tide of ignorance, superstition, and old white guys trying to cling on to the past? Or is it a generally reasonable and justified force that has become exaggerated, spiritualized, and ultimately irrational and nonscientific? Is the weight and spirit of gravity connected to liberal morality something that we all ought to carry, or is it an echo of past memories of trauma, bitter humiliation, ethnic woundedness, and hereditary exhaustion?

When I saw my devil, I found him serious, thorough, profound, solemn: he was the spirit of gravity—through him all things fall.

Not by wrath, but by laughter, do we slay. Come, let us slay the spirit of gravity!

A heavy spirit of gravity from liberal moralists has been conditioned into us. They fill our heads with images of violence and exploitation of minorities and the weak. But even outside the left, we are filled with this heaviness. Life in general is a fragile and depressing thing requiring endless moments of repose and sentimentalism. There is a constant demanding for more personal responsibility because internal collapse could occur at any moment, but also a constant fear of outside predators. This whole political orientation around fear is extremely ignoble and prevents any kind of politics based on egoism, privilege, or artistic vision. Everyone is a slave to the spirit of gravity.

In The End of History and The Last Man, Fukuyama points out that despite the ability of science to fulfill all of the survival needs of humanity, a system of political order is still required because of man’s “need for recognition”. He concedes that a purely materialist, economic identity is not adequate and that the wants of people are always changing. A perfect example is the entire new range of material benefits of the capitalist Western world after WWII. Most of the political and material needs of people living under the Soviet Union were fully met, but there is always something more tempting. Material goods were simply more beneficial than any guise of traditional or righteous political order the corrupt communist bureaucrats could offer.

Now we are in a time where the bounds of this are pushed even further. Many are asking if there is anything more that science or technology could offer their decadent lives. The Malthusian conditions have been lifted long enough for a moment of clarity. Can there be any kind of political vision outside this endless march toward economic/material safety?

Our Atmosphere pic.twitter.com/5fW2mTcQY4

— wpp🎭🔨 (@skycaptaingroyp) December 13, 2025

Science can turn the human struggle into a very simple thing. Any one of us could work a part-time job, live in a small house or trailer, have a diet and exercise routine that completely maximizes our physical health and enjoy plenty of healthy recreation. Almost any desperate situation—any situation of sickness, abuse, exploitation, oppression—is self-imposed in some way.

Here, Nietzsche sees an opportunity for self-imposed scientific seriousness. To see your body, your status, and your emotions like a doctor objectively analyzing a patient. To see things completely physiologically, and thus “amorally”.

The modern rise of the alternative right was always an act of Dionysian amorality. A rejection of the irrational and decadent spirit of gravity that was foisted upon us. We can accept the natural process of the mass mobilization, education, and enfranchisement of the lower classes due to the overwhelming power of technological change, but this doesn’t require an adoption of an irrational, trauma-based liberal morality, taste, or spirit of gravity. We don’t have to have resentment toward all expressions of elitism, hierarchy, biological/racial privilege, or artistic grand visions of past noble castes. Liberals like Pinker and Fukuyama must allow moral and intellectual space for these ideas. If not, they must be recognized as anti-science, anti-liberal, mob moralists who are driven by a superstitious destructive impulse.

People like Pinker, and everyone possessed by the spirit of gravity, suffer from hereditary exhaustion. Historical trauma toward the political is passed down between generations—for example, Jews flipping off the Arch of Titus. But parents also pass on genetic defects, genetic proclivities toward destructive things, insecurities about sexuality, race, politics, the modern world, and all kinds of fears and exaggerated values about the world. These tendencies are still quite prevalent among most white Americans and Europeans. This exhaustion and desire for repose causes them to identify with the forces of liberal humanitarianism. A middle-class white man will identify with the plight of a Somali immigrant because of the memories of his family struggling to make ends meet when he was a kid. He becomes locked into the moralist world mission.

It seems, however, that the spirit of gravity is being lifted across the world. Science and technology don’t lead to a buy-in of the liberal moralist superstition. Figures like Nick Fuentes and Clavicular are rejecting biblical masculinity and heralding the overman. The spirit of gravity relating to the mythology of the Holocaust has been completely vaporized. Now everyone understands that morality is fake and gay. The structures that uphold the liberal scientific world order will act as scaffolding for a scientific seriousness that will destroy liberal morality.