“Now I Know What’s Real, What’s Fake”
A Review of Antipolitics, Vol.1

3,889 words

John Sweeney & Evelyn Grant
Antipolitics, Volume 1
Wyflings Publishing, 2025

Many a time, if you meet political science students at even the most prestigious institutions, you will encounter readers of Carl Schmitt, Joseph De Maistre, and even Thomas Carlyle who ostensibly grasp what they are talking about when they mention power, but in reality know nothing of the sort. Why is this? To use the parlance of John Sweeney and Evelyn Grant, they have failed to “deglobalize” their minds and focus on the nature of their lives, from one day to the next; such “scientists” cannot grasp the material realities in front of them, and have very often been deliberately trained to regard ideologies—lies that power tells to justify its rule over them—as not only worth study, but useful for articulating political reality. In an old podcast with James Delingpole, Sweeney once summarised what was done to these sorts of students very succinctly: “We taught him wrong on purpose because it’s funny.”

Most students who do not fall into this ignorant category, whether at Ivy League or European universities, are non-white foreigners who fundamentally understand their claim to being American or European is marginal, and therefore grasp the urgent necessity of getting power. As a junior academic, I once encountered a well-respected Hispanic woman who told me about her intention to do “anything she could” to pack all the US circuit courts with her own race, and deliberately crack open the Mexican border to prevent WASP society from ever rising again.

On a related note, just yesterday I bumped into a Stanford-educated Indian man whose favourite legal professional of all time was Justice Earl Warren, and who went on to explain that he was currently working at The Hague on AI law reforms to stop black men from being racially profiled by Cybernetic White Supremacists such as Peter Thiel. In contrast, white academics are prone to a dialecticism that these people of colour are not. Early career white technocrats regard the realm of ideas as fundamentally distinct from the concrete, material world and cannot—for the life of them—work out, that when their Marxist professor acknowledges that Schmitt is right when he says that “Sovereignty is conserved” that this has a direct bearing on the world they live in, and that there is a political class who are currently in power, after all. Brown people tend to be so power hungry that they grasp this immediately, whether or not they have actually done the reading.

This is all worth mentioning because John Sweeney and Evelyn Grant’s new book is effectively a toolkit for right-wingers who wish to understand power like high IQ non-whites and our current elite do: in other words, those who truly do rule over us, rather than those we would wish to. It is not a book about the “Aryan worldview”, but what it really takes to control the masses of human material so many of our people have become. In brief, as Vladimir Lenin’s The State and Revolution (1917) was for the left, so Sweeney and Grant’s Antipolitics, vol. I (2025) is for the right. And why is this? Because, having internalised the basics of Marxist doctrine—(that there are classes, class interests, and systems of unnecessary dominion latent in “democracy”)—these authors approach the world we currently live in whilst taking absolutely nothing about it for granted.

Here is their own summary of the book:

To engage earnestly in politics, and the abstract rules of “The Political Process,” is to already have been defeated. This is why we engage in Antipolitics and why we gave the project that name: we aim to systematically strip the security blanket of “the process” from people’s minds and lay bare that Power is still the same as it was in the age of kings. It is simply wielded by lesser men with backs too weak and shoulders too narrow to wield it openly.

You can have a good king, or you can have a bad king—but SOMEONE will always be in charge.

This assumption of the necessity of power, which is the same as the necessity of rule and being ruled over, has the enormous advantage of presenting the antipolitical reader with the same perspective that those outside “the West” have. Notably, Bashar-Al Assad used the term “deep state” to describe the nature of embedded American rule seemingly without being influenced by the kind of Western conspiracy discourse that coined that term to begin with. The same goes to a lesser extent with Vladimir Putin’s now infamous speech that described our regime, on the eve of the Ukraine invasion, as an “Empire of Lies”. From one day to the next, this is a better description for what we are living under than any that those in the UK Parliament have provided to me, with the exclusion of one Rupert Lowe.

And yet the difference between our regime, that is the Global American Empire, according to Sweeney and Grant, and those of China and Russia, is principally that it pretends to be a “democracy” even though such a regime—where the demos, the plebians rule—has never been possible. Relevantly, the term “Whig”, after which both the British proto-liberal faction and later Henry Clay’s American party were named, derives from “Whiggamore”: a historic Lowland Scots slur for mare or cattle drivers. I mention this because embedded in this coinage is the reactionary idea that if you abolish the naturally emergent English aristocracy, or real rulers, you will not get a “people” or disorganised mass in charge. No, you will empower a false, lying theatre of hypnotists who will do and say anything in order to stimulate a crowd into voting for them, and the crowd, being as the majority of people are, will oblige them fully.  To this liberal democratic school, the likes of Clinton (and Trump) most notably belong in our own time, just as Woodrow Wilson’s use of the Ku Klux Klan as a democratic client-class is exposed by Sweeney and Grant to have been a prior instance of the same sort of oligarchic obfuscation. For the reality of power is that those that want it, rather than inheriting it as an hereditary monarchy or aristocracy, will turn out always to be little more than an arrogant group of psychopaths. Once you have seen the face of a “Democrat” campaign advisor shift from horror to affection on realising the conversation she occupies requires a race realist attitude to attain likeability, you will understand that words do not matter to such people, and that the masters of the West believe in nothing.[1]

One of the book’s standout essays, in this regard, is “Meloni World”—the short story of how a woman from the “Ultra-Mega Hitler Party” came into office and became a standard, faceless EU bureaucrat. This occurred due to the fact the kind of oppressive state mechanisms that were employed to ground up and annihilate the Greek Golden Dawn party in 2015 were not in use during her election, and because Meloni, now a dear friend of the EU Commission Tsarina, Ursula von der Leyn, was therefore never opposition to begin with. Her party, Brothers of Italy, is by no means the AfD, and it shows. If you actually oppose the ruling elite, Evelyn Grant noted during another Delingpod appearance, you end up being portrayed like Oswald Mosley. That’s how it works, whether you’re a peace advocate or not. The power of our elite is all in the “framing”—they are an entertainment regime, and the state reaches you, day to day, through your television more often than via any other means.

The journalist Adam Curtis is briefly invoked by Sweeney and Grant in another essay; this is the “Old Labour” grandee filmmaker who once, in his documentary Hypernormalisation (2016), described the career of Putin’s media man Vladislav Surkov. Why mention him? Surkov was effectively responsible for sponsoring every political party in Russia with money from Putin’s government and then revealing this in order to delegitimise not only the opposition, but the entire post-Soviet political spectrum. This had the effect of destabilising all power not requisite in the regime itself and therefore of strengthening the regime: (here “power” is little more than the framing of the political class, or leader, as unchallengeable or unkillable.) We can compare this, using a Sweeneyo-Evelynian analysis[2], to the way in which “Russian [or] Chinese money” is utilised by the Western political class to delegitimise all the real opposition factions within it as fake, foreign, and insincere: from Fuentes to Farage to Trump as he ran in 2016. In short, my point is that Sweeney and Grant effectively understand Anglophone and European politics as little more than another inescapable theatre show that is used to generate the news cycles, “current things”, and “seas of worry” necessary for our contemporary elite to rule. Since they have quoted Lenin on this topic, so will I.

The state is an organ of class rule, an organ for the oppression of one class by another: it is the creation of ‘order’, which legalises and perpetuates this oppression by moderating the conflict. (The State and Revolution, 1917)

What, in reality, our “elite” is, is extraordinarily similar to what Lenin refers to here as “the state”. Namely, it is a permanent ruling class that cycles itself in and out of power, and yet always remains in it, whether as government or opposition, in the “public” or “private” sphere, like any difference between such “spheres” exists! Understanding reality from this truly elitist perspective, for the first time, is like finding the golden thread out of the labyrinth you were born into and abandoned in and expected never to escape. You read and you begin to ask yourself questions, however “of the right” you assumed yourself to be initially.

Who is in charge? The people in charge are in charge. Why are they in charge? Because they have power and have been led to secure it through a combination of electioneering, university recruitment schemes, kompromat, and due to the fact the emergence of mass society means that despicable types who would be publicly hanged in the remnants of bourgeois society in the early twentieth century, are disguised 24/7 as normal by those talented, otherwise out of work media artists who would have been royally patronised poets and painters in another time.

Not all the elite are conscious of their identity as a political class, and yet enough are; and those who are conscious of the nature of their dominion, are, more often than not, those who guide its course within the West. These are the rulers, akin to Gavin Newsom and Van der leyn, who despite promoting interracial marriage for the middle and working classes they hope to further transform into a miscegenated, semi-useless disorganised massenmenschen, have four and seven Aryan children respectively. Tony Blair is another, as are Pelosi, Gates, Ellison.

Consequently, such an attitude as that of Sweeney and Grant has a number of consequences for the right:

1. The Great Replacement isn’t real (in the way you probably think that it is)

Assuming that a rational elite are in charge of the Global American Empire, they will understand the consequences of systematically diminishing the productivity of their own workforce, the IQ of Western nations, and the fertility of their women. Why, if they are aware of all these things, do they continue doing this anyway by embracing mass immigration?

According to plenty of smart right-wingers, either the ongoing decline of the West is the result of an evolved European low in-group preference being extended too far (Ricardo Duchesne) or the result of pernicious Jewish influences on the native populations (Devon Stack). Both these interpretations of modern history regard our annihilation as being the horrifically inevitable result of people who either don’t know what they are doing or are willing to turn their own neighbourhoods into Pakistan and relocate from New York to Israel in order to make this possible.[3]

But, assuming that The Elite^TM know as well as we do that European genius cannot be replaced, and whether you are talking about Chinese mega cities or the Burj Khalifa, all such things prey on our cultures and could not have been constructed by their own, then such an elite cannot “get rid of us” and continue to function.

Certainly, the world proposed by The Great Reset (2020) manifesto, like a recent attempt by Saudi Arabia to replace the extinguished Palestinian engineer-stock with Europeans, is a possible alternative. Europeans can be grown in horrific, lab-like conditions, or fifteen-minute cities. Yet this is not extinction. So what is “The Great Replacement”, in reality? At least in my reading of Sweeney and Grant, the Great Replacement really operates to crush the possibility of a competent middle class-working class alliance[4] from emerging and overthrowing our current order. The Great Replacement will continue insofar as this middle-low alliance is a threat, and it will end as soon as it becomes concerning that these people, who actually sustain the West and make it at all liveable for our elite, have been sabotaged too much to sustain it: if you haven’t noticed, this is currently what is occurring due to the fact Donald Trump was allowed to win the American presidency. Thus, “putting the Woke away”, to quote Neema Parvini, isn’t about our elite apologising for years of belligerent anti-white discrimination, but keeping the system running.

If this process goes wrong, because SSRI-addled female college students with perhaps five abortions on average before the age of 25 sympathise a little too much with Palestinian children, then Wokeness will be even more rigorously stomped out: Palestine Action has already been proscribed as a terrorist organisation in Great Britain, and all major political parties now use the term “mass deportations”.

The elite will even employ the term remigration (and perform it) in less than five years if it seems that their class will be the target of a nationalist terrorist organisation in the style of the IRA. This will not be because they have changed their ways at all, but because they care more than anything about themselves as a class, whether gentile or Jew.

They lie; they lie; secure in the decay
Of blood, blood-marks, crowns hacked and coveted,
Before the scouring fires of trial-day
Alight on men
—Geoffrey Hill

2. The elite are still evil

(Or at least perfectly happy to miscegenate or have your child fed to asylum seekers if it serves the particular political formula of the day; the fact they probably can’t do this on a mass scale and continue to get away with it, doesn’t mean that they weren’t happy to create the social conditions to make it at all possible to begin with. This is the allure of power that Suetonius’s child rapist Emperor Tiberius was supposed to have felt: these are not “people” like you and I, and the Q-tards are almost right to consider them Satanic Spirit-Cookers and patrons of Maria Abramović. In all likelihood, much less of this was necessary for them to rule whatsoever, and they employ these tactics because they just enjoy humiliating their foes. Yes, the elite are evil.)[5]

3. But they really fumbled the ball on The Competency Crisis

Right at the start of Sweeney and Grant’s Antipolitics, vol. I, they tackle what they refer to as “the Conservative Given”, or the idea promoted by Senator Josh Hawley that being a white American family man who goes to church, has his wife stay at home, and most importantly pays his taxes is somehow a threat to the regime. This is connected with a broader discussion about why the right—the nominal cultural enemy of the regime—are kept around. Sweeney and Grant answer this question thusly: “In the same way that the ConInc Uber-man, who works 60+ hours a week, pays for a mortgage, keeps up with car payments, and saves a small fortune to send his children to a prestigious (subverted) educational institution, is held up as the ideal, he also keeps the regime functioning in a way that bio-Leninist patronage and loyalty cannot.”

The reason why black people are capable of living in your town or city whatsoever is because people like you pay taxes. The state redistribution of tax to Muslims and Feminists is also the reason why these two apparently disparate groups vote in exactly the same way in my country: they are dependent populations whose main purpose is to humiliate the working and middle class white men who keep things running. No one in power actually thinks that the Tavistock Institute publishing guidelines to deal with Djinn possession is a good thing in its own right.

But what happens when the regime becomes, at least in part, seriously convinced that white men can be fully replaced by “skilled” workers i.e. Brahmin Indians and Han Chinese? Whilst Sweeney and Grant indicate that “importing skilled workers from abroad has been a powerful way of diluting the interests of native, homogenous groups…a degree paid for in bribes from Mumbai does not in reality make one able to deliver functional work.” The epidemic in-group hiring of Indians in the British National Health Service and the exclusion of trained, native doctors, who we are meant to have a shortage of anyway, is a live example of this crisis in development. But that is only one example, and there are many more severe.

This slow-motion car crash has been going on for a long time, and the prospects of escaping it have only gotten worse. In fact, I am now pretty convinced, like Sweeney and Grant, that we cannot escape it. And neither is this a good thing for our elite, or us.

Once again, I would point out that these trends predate the modern conception of ‘woke ideology’ and find their roots in the western educational environment in the 1990s. The collapse is being celebrated with a post-hoc rationalisation. It was already happening, and has been happening as Western nations de-industrialise, which is why it is felt most sharply in heavy industry: the dream of a service-based economy for Western nations, a globalised world where whole countries are simply industrial zones, is rapidly fading—as are the liberal myths of ever greater freedom and prosperity…With the negative feedback loop of skill loss, we are seeing many who seem to be sticking with the mindset of the baby boomer generation: they simply hope to be dead before the real hardship comes.

Forget today’s deliberately managed mass immigration. What about what happens when Africa, a continent reliant on majority Western imported food, no longer has access to our supply chains and mass starvation like never before begins? Meanwhile, our own border forces will struggle to even aim and fire their guns at the hungry invaders in an organised fashion, that is, if guns work whatsoever after manufacturing has been outsourced to India, and Boomers have proven systematically unable to transfer engineering skills down to future generations; Sweeney and Grant note that “It is not uncommon to have workplaces where the majority of engineers are over 50. In fact, the average age of an engineer in the UK is 54.” These people are now leaving the workforce and amazingly few have managed to train replacements.

4. The Society of Divine Law > Space

AI is, in all likelihood, a bubble—as is colonising Mars; as is “rejuvenation” tech.

The outsourcing of resources to these projects is indicative of an earnest desire among elite professionals to escape their current scenario via scientific magic. Of course, the reality is that they have delayed a recirculation of elites at the direct cost of a competent regime and this will lead to the total collapse of their reign as a political class, the rise of comparatively more competent counter elites both within and outside the West, and the end of the relationship with technology which has enabled them to preside over a porn-addicted, socially inept European plebian caste, as “rulers” who would be merchants in any other historical period. In the process of this collapse, the systems that have sustained mass society and have brought into existence the mass-as-organism to begin with, are going to come undone, and it is likely that an enormous number of people incapable of living by relying on their own agricultural produce and physical labour are going to die. This is the bleakest reading of Sweeney and Grant’s book possible, and yet I do not believe it to be beyond the remit of reality.

Great Britain, for instance, does not have the dacha culture that permitted the Russians to effectively cut themselves off from the American regime in 2022 and, it is becoming increasingly obvious, survive and thrive. Most of us, in truth, do not know how to grow, farm, or cook, let alone fight, and no matter what we call ourselves politically, our capacity for organisation is the lowest it has ever been; the recent development of the Epping, Manchester, and Canary Wharf protests is the exception rather than the rule.

Resultantly, those who do well in the coming collapse will not be white collar office workers or AI professionals, but those who can competently form what Sweeney and Grant refer to as “something between church hobby groups and Project Mayhem.” If all that they warn about comes to pass, it will be more important than anything else to establish the very guilds, unions and neighbourhood security forces that mass society destroyed in order to take over in the mid-twentieth century to begin with.[2] It will be a version of South Africa, yes, but at the same time it will be a return to the domain of Medieval Divine Law, in which local hearth gods, Christian or otherwise, bind communities together and sovereignty is recognised on the basis of phratry or local patriarchal organisations rather than at the ends of the long fingernails of our hermaphroditic state.

Will this mean that Europe falls as Russia rises as a power? In all likelihood, yes: some Israeli voices are already considering the Jewish oblast as a preferable spot to the modern United States. Focussing primarily on Britain, however, our role in the coming years will be nothing less than to partake in the recolonisation of our own heritage as the cash to sustain our elite dries away. For at the end of the day, it is they who are going down, and at the beginning of the next, it will still be us who remain—even if we will have to pull ourselves out from under a pile of ashes with a tattered Pride flag on top, because every regime ends, and eventually the easy and the false must give way to the hard and the true.

 Notes

[1] Can even Israel be put away by them? It depends whether the seat of sovereignty is located in Tel Aviv or the CIA.

[2] Sorry.

[3] The Jews, from my experience, are not reacting well to Zohran Mamdani.

[4] Sam Francis refers to this as the new order latent in the “MAR” (or downwardly mobile Middle American Radical) class in the last section of his masterpiece, The Leviathan and its Enemies (2005).

[5] If there are any lingering doubts about my use of the word “evil”, I recommend this stream by Sweeney and Grant on “The Dutroux Affair”.

[6] Vigilante security forces are already emerging in Bournemouth.