Why I’m No Longer with WarGate Books

Bottom line upfront: On September 16, 2025, after I criticized specific extremist dehumanizing rhetoric publicly, some of which targeted my own immediate family members, WarGate Books informed me they would no longer promote my work, claiming I was unmarketable to their audience. They suggested I take my Dark Dominion sequence, which was pending publication with two full manuscripts already delivered, elsewhere.

I’m establishing this on public record because the facts matter and third-party agitators with extensively documented credibility problems are attempting to twist the narrative. People can agree or disagree with my political analysis and personal views, but I believe the timeline and circumstances of the separation should be clear and documented. Accuracy matters, and I won’t accept mischaracterization of what happened or why.

The Timeline

In late August 2025, I began publishing a series of essays analyzing extremist rhetoric within American conservatism. These essays examined specific patterns of dehumanizing language targeting immigrants, Muslims, and LGBTQ+ Americans, drawing on genocide studies frameworks and data from sources including the Global Terrorism Database, CSIS, NIJ, and ADL.

My analysis focused on documented escalation and normalization of dehumanizing rhetoric on the Right—replacement theory, blood and soil ideology, and eliminationist language. It was not an attack on conservatism broadly or Republican voters generally. 

But when Charlie Kirk was assassinated at Utah Valley University on September 10th, my conservative circles erupted.

Not in grief. Not in calls for unity. In alarmist vitriol against the entire Left. Half the country. Claims that liberal violence was surging, that “they” wanted “our” blood. That September 10th was “our October 7th”—as if the death of one man, however tragic, equated to 1,200 Israelis massacred. As if hordes of leftists were about to descend from the hills and murder conservatives in their beds.

Yes, some on the Left—a small number, but highly visible due to social media’s algorithmic boosting of controversy and accounts like @libsoftiktok—celebrated his death. I agreed it was disgusting. But the reaction in conservative circles was disproportionate mass hysteria on a national scale. And the dehumanizing rhetoric I’d been tracking was rapidly turning into calls to “lock and load” and “take to the streets.”

I was watching tempers flare and the language of atrocity accelerate in real-time, and in response, two days after Kirk’s assassination, on September 12th, I posted an observation on X about the difference in dehumanizing rhetoric between the Left and the Right, and why what the Right was engaging in was historically far more dangerous.

Dehumanizing rhetoric on the Left: You’re racist. You’re fascist. You’re a Nazi. You’re a homophobe. Etc.

Dehumanizing rhetoric on the Right: You’re poisoning our country’s blood. You’re an abomination. You’re vermin. You’re eating our pets. You’re raping our daughters. Etc.

What’s my point? 

It’s actually rather simple:

Left-leaning rhetoric tends to use labels that, while often applied too broadly or unfairly, are still fundamentally about human moral categories: accusing someone of holding racist views, fascist politics, etc. These are harsh moral judgments about people’s beliefs or behaviors.

Right-leaning rhetoric increasingly uses language that literally dehumanizes: describing people as “vermin,” talking about “poisoning blood,” calling people “abominations.” This language doesn’t just make moral judgments about humans, it portrays certain groups as non-human, existential threats, or inherently corrupting.

These aren’t two equally problematic rhetorical strategies. One is harsh political discourse, the other is the specific type of language that historically enables atrocities.

WarGate Books’ CEO Jason Anspach publicly commented, “This is a bad take.”

The next day I published two comprehensive essays on Substack, cross-posted to my blog and social media. The first clarified my argument about how rhetoric that targets WHO people are (race, ethnicity, sexuality) poses fundamentally different dangers than rhetoric targeting WHAT people believe or do (political positions, professional roles, policy decisions). The second analyzed how the current administration wasn’t just normalizing the kind of dehumanizing rhetoric that historically precedes atrocities, but was also actively building the infrastructure that enables them.

In answer to alarmist claims that “radical leftist” violence was surging, on September 14th I also published the findings of my research into ideological violence over the last twenty years, demonstrating that right-wing extremism is responsible for a disproportionate number of ideologically-motivated killings—by an order of magnitude.

That same day I also posted on X calling for de-escalation.

Can everyone on BOTH sides stop tribalisming harder please? The enemy is NOT your neighbor or coworker who votes differently from you. Bad actors are creating a false narrative of a division that DOESN’T EXIST to rip the country apart.

It’s so exhausting to watch this happening.

That post drew the ire of conservative author Larry Correia (among many others), who accused me of false equivalence and enabling in a colorful several-hundred-word multi-part diatribe.

The Fallout

Two days later, on September 16, 2025, Nick Cole sent me the email signed by him and Jason Anspach stating that WarGate Books’ reader base was “unlikely to purchase” my books, and that I had “alienated” their core audience. They wrote: “It seems… reading your views on-line, that you have problems with values and beliefs that many of our readers, and the company owners, hold dear.”

The email continued: “You espouse that people with our personal voting record, belief system, and values, are highly problematic and morally reprehensible, and disingenuous.”

But I hadn’t.

I replied that I still strongly shared WarGate’s stated core values—pro-liberty, pro-2nd Amendment, anti-cancel culture. My growing concern was the normalization of extremist rhetoric spreading through the Right, rhetoric that undermines the very principles America was founded on and hands ammunition to those who want to paint all conservatives as extremists. That wasn’t an attack on WarGate, its founders, or their audience. It was a defense of conservatism itself.

I asked why criticism of extremist ideology or dehumanizing speech within conservatism would be seen as an attack on WarGate or its leadership personally. I said, “My posts were specifically critiquing extremist actions and rhetoric within our movement that I believe are growing and harmful to conservatism and our nation’s future. It’s true I’m not keen on the sitting president and don’t identify as MAGA, and yes, I’m progressive on civil rights, but I don’t think that makes me antithetical to the core values most conservative voters stand for… I haven’t been radicalized by leftists… This isn’t about partisanship; it’s about identifying and eliminating bad actors on our side… I’m a reformer, not a revolutionary.”

I also stressed that, politics aside, “I’m not going to stop standing up for loved ones affected by dehumanizing rhetoric against immigrants, minorities, or LGBTQ+. If someone says people like my late immigrant Muslim mother-in-law are an ‘existential threat to civilization,’ or my wife is somehow ‘less American,’ or my son is an affront to ‘God’s perfect law,’ I will continue to shut them down, and hard. Replacement theory, blood and soil rhetoric, and overt homophobia are not topics I tolerate, as I’m certain both you and Jason can sympathize with.”

They succinctly thanked me for “laying out your perspective on this” and offered me a choice: they could publish the Dark Dominion sequence with no promotion—the equivalent of “just pressing ‘publish’ on KDP”—or I could take the series elsewhere to “a publisher more in alignment with your views and advocacy.”

This was framed as a business decision based on audience response. But when a publisher tells an author their only options are zero promotion or leaving, that’s cancellation—regardless of how diplomatically it’s worded.

WarGate Books was co-founded by Nick Cole, whose entire author brand was built on being cancelled by Harper Voyager in 2016 for political content in his manuscript. WarGate’s foundational identity is being “anti-cancel culture” and providing a home for authors who’ve been dropped for ideological reasons.

When they terminated my contract, it was for the same reason: political content they found objectionable.

And as far as I’m concerned, that’s their right. I believe free association is an important principle. Publishers face real business pressures when authors’ public statements alienate their readership. I understand that. But the specific reason given—that I’d called their values “morally reprehensible”—is a mischaracterization requiring explicit correction.

I have no interest in conflict with WarGate Books. Thus far they’ve conducted the separation professionally and I’m friends with many of their authors. I wish them all well.

Meanwhile, I have books to write and an audience more aligned with my values to build. So this will be my last word on the topic. I’m moving on and as far as I’m concerned nothing more about this needs to be said.