An Open Letter to a (Former) Fan

This response to my summary of the WarGate Books situation was waiting for me in my inbox this morning.

What a selective memory. You grouped all of “the right” with racist violence, as if it were a singular group, and ignored left-wing transgressions in your claim that Trump was uniquely pushing the envelope of Constitutional limits.

You chose to go down the path of alienating people who loved your work, and agreed with 90% of your politics, because you are blinded by hate.

And that’s fine, you do you, but don’t pretend you didn’t burn the bridges of so many people who loved you, but didn’t like being compared to Nazis, genocidal dictators, or racists.

Randy

---

Dear Randy,

First, thank you for your kind words about my work. I’m thrilled to hear you love my books. That means a lot.

Second, let me address what you said, point by point, because apparently the timestamped public record of what I really said (and didn’t say) isn’t enough.

“What a selective memory.”

The irony here is rich. Every single thing I’ve said is documented and timestamped. Anyone can go back and read my blog and social media posts, verify the claims, check the dates. It’s all there. Your comment argues against positions I never took. You’ve constructed a straw man you can bash down instead of engaging with what I actually wrote. Why?

“You grouped all of ‘the right’ with racist violence, as if it were a singular group…”

I never once made that collective claim. Here’s what I actually wrote in “The Evil Isn’t Coming; It’s Already Being Retweeted”:

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.

And:

I didn’t claim genocide was happening now, or even MAGA’s intended goal. I argued we were heading down a well-documented path and the red flags were popping up everywhere. I said we needed to course-correct. That we had bad actors in our ranks. A cancer that needed to be cut out.

“Bad actors in our ranks.” “A cancer that needed to be cut out.” Randy, that’s not attacking all conservatives – that’s trying to save conservatism from extremists.

I distinguished rhetoric targeting who people are—race, sexuality, ethnicity—from rhetoric targeting what people believe: political positions, chosen roles. This isn’t subtle. From “Sticks and Stones: When Words Kill”:

When you target people for immutable characteristics, you create eliminationist potential. When you target people for beliefs or actions, you create confrontational politics. Both can be ugly. Only one historically precedes genocide.

I criticized specific rhetoric patterns: replacement theory, blood libel, eliminationist language targeting immutable characteristics. That’s not attacking “all conservatives.” That’s identifying dangerous elements within conservatism that need to be confronted by conservatives.

“…and ignored left-wing transgressions in your claim that Trump was uniquely pushing the envelope of Constitutional limits.”

This claim is demonstrably false. I compiled 20 years of ideological violence data documenting every left-wing incident I could find—the Charlie Kirk assassination, Portland 2020, the Congressional baseball shooting, all of it’s there. The results? Left-wing extremism accounted for less than 3% of ideological fatalities over two decades. My own findings are confirmed by multiple professional studies including peer-reviewed research published in PNAS.

As for Constitutional limits, I explicitly compared Trump to previous presidents including Obama. From “He Who Saves His Country Does Not Violate Any Law”:

Yes, all presidents test executive authority. Obama used executive actions on immigration. Bush claimed broad war powers after 9/11. I get it. But there’s a difference between testing boundaries within the system and rejecting that boundaries exist.

Obama complied when courts blocked DACA. He complied when courts blocked the Clean Power Plan. When Congress refused appropriations, he accepted it. He didn’t claim impoundment authority. When inspectors general investigated his officials, the investigations proceeded. When courts ruled against surveillance programs, he made modifications.

Trump deploys troops in defiance of court orders. Courts rule the IG firings unlawful and he continues operating without them. Congress establishes independent agencies and he claims authority to eliminate their independence. Statutory protections exist and he asserts authority to ignore them. A judge blocks his action and he threatens emergency powers to override.

This isn’t testing boundaries. This is asserting boundaries don’t apply.

I documented the specific differences in “Things Aren’t as Bad as They Seem; They’re Much Worse”:

Obama’s IG firing in 2009 involved Gerald Walpin. Congress investigated. Bipartisan criticism followed. Obama provided justification (claimed performance issues). No systematic purge of oversight occurred. Other IGs continued operating. Congressional oversight continued functioning. One controversial firing within operating constraints, then everyone moved on.

Trump’s IG purge in January 2025 looked different. Seventeen fired simultaneously in a late-night action. No justification provided beyond “changing priorities.” Federal law requiring 30 days’ notice violated. A judge ruled the firings unlawful. No reinstatement – the court ruling had no effect. Multiple fired IGs were investigating Trump allies, including Musk companies. Congressional oversight stymied by same-party control. This was systematic elimination of oversight.

You didn’t address a single piece of that evidence. You just accused me of ignoring left-wing issues and previous presidents while yourself ignoring the comprehensive comparisons I provided.

“You chose to go down the path of alienating people who loved your work…”

No, Randy. I chose to speak up at the risk of alienating people because it needed to be said by someone inside conservative circles. As I wrote in “The Evil Isn’t Coming”:

Speaking truth while your tribe demands silence. Maintaining standards when your side abandons them. Being expelled precisely for holding principles the tribe claims to share.

I wasn’t trying to alienate anyone. I was trying to prevent my movement from going down a path that historically ends in atrocity.

Recall the timeline and let’s correct any suggestion I capitalized on tragedy. From “The Price of Reform”:

• August 30: Genocide bingo card
• September 3: Analysis of how social media boosts extremist rhetoric and conspiracy theories while burying truth and nuance
• September 10: Charlie Kirk assassinated
• September 12: Posted rhetoric distinction because the extremist dehumanizing rhetoric on the Right was reaching a fever pitch and is demonstrably more dangerous
• September 13–14: Published comprehensive essays bringing context and nuance to my framework not possible on social media, plus research proving there was not, in fact, a “rising tide” of left-wing violence

I documented the pattern weeks before the crisis. I maintained analysis during the crisis when tribal loyalty demanded silence. That’s exactly when maintaining standards mattered most. And exactly when it became most “unforgivable.”

“…and agreed with 90% of your politics…”

If the 10% of my politics you don’t agree with includes basic human decency and condemning autocracy, then I’m not sorry I alienated you. That 10% includes whether replacement theory is acceptable conservative discourse, whether we should amplify blood libel against refugees, whether dehumanizing entire groups based on immutable characteristics is legitimate politics, and whether autocratic executive overreach is acceptable.

That’s not a 10% difference. That’s everything that matters to me. The other 90%? That’s just debates about policy.

“…because you are blinded by hate.”

Hate? Randy, my wife is Indonesian. My son is gay. My late mother-in-law was Muslim. When Trump talks about immigrants “poisoning the blood” of America, he’s talking about my family. When conservative influencers amplify replacement theory, they’re saying my marriage is “white genocide.” When pastors cite Leviticus 20:13 as “God’s perfect law,” that’s stochastic terrorism calling for my son’s death.

I’m not blinded by hate. I’m defending my family from dehumanization while people who claim to share my values cheer it on. If you think that’s unreasonable, we don’t share values at all.

Yes, I hate totalitarians and bigots. As I said way, way back in March 2024, long before any of this controversy: “I fear that because I write military fiction and like guns and generally don’t like a lot of Liberals people think I’m cool with bagging on minorities and gays or something. Spoiler alert: I don’t like a lot of Conservatives either. Especially Nazis. They can fuck themselves.”

That position hasn’t changed. If calling out Nazis means I’m “blinded by hate,” then guilty as charged.

“And that’s fine, you do you, but don’t pretend you didn’t burn the bridges…”

Let’s be precise about who burned what bridges, Randy. I drew a line at replacement theory, blood libel, and eliminationist rhetoric targeting people’s identities. I drew a line at executive overreach exceeding any president in our nation’s history. I said I wouldn’t stop standing up for my immediate family and others like them when they’re dehumanized.

My publisher made that line a loyalty test. Conservative circles made calling out extremism grounds for expulsion. The r/Republican subreddit permanently banned me for simply asking people to consider what precedents we’re setting.

I didn’t burn those bridges. I refused to cross a line. They burned the bridges because I stood up for what I believe.

You want to know what happens when I try to engage in good faith? After I published “The Price of Reform” documenting my timeline, someone sent me 500 words attempting to refute my thesis. The email deployed whataboutism, deflection, and historical grievance—then ended by suggesting I might “Charlie Kirk your family.”

That’s not bridge-burning, Randy. That’s what happens when you point out dangerous patterns while the pattern-makers are listening. The email proved my thesis while attempting to refute it, ending with the exact eliminationist rhetoric I’d warned about, directed at my immediate family.

“…of so many people who loved you…”

Frankly I find this framing manipulative. As if the problem is that I threw away genuine affection rather than discovering that affection was conditional on staying silent about replacement theory and blood libel.

Let me show you what that “love” looked like when I posted this on September 12th:

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.…

— Ryan Williamson has flounced off to bluer skies (@rywilwrite) September 13, 2025

It’s a straightforward distinction between rhetoric targeting beliefs versus rhetoric targeting humanity itself backed by decades of genocide scholarship. I didn’t make up the framework. It’s extensively documented.

And here’s what that “love” looked like in response:

“You are murderers, nobody cares about your opinions any more.”

“You can vomit this deceitful verbal shit all day…”

“Absolutely ridiculous pile of horseshit.”

“You cry out as you stab, strike, and rape, fuckface.”

“What category is ‘shitstained windbag’ in? Is that dehumanizing? Good.”

One of the most popular responses (345 likes) told me to “get back on your meds.” Several told me it was “epic bullshit” and there would be “no more” reading my books.

That’s not love, Randy. That’s conditional approval based on tribal loyalty. Love doesn’t evaporate because someone makes a basic distinction between moral judgment and dehumanization. Love doesn’t turn to “fuckface,” “shitstained windbag,” and accusations of rape because someone points out that “abomination” and “poisoning blood” are different from “racist” and “fascist.”

You’re framing this as if I carelessly discarded relationships that mattered, when what actually happened is I discovered those relationships were contingent on never making that distinction—on treating replacement theory and blood libel as equivalent to calling someone a fascist. The “love” you’re describing disappeared the instant I refused to stay silent, replaced by coordinated mockery, attacks on my mental health, explicit dehumanization, and accusations of violence.

That’s not a loss I caused. It was a revelation.

“…but didn’t like being compared to Nazis, genocidal dictators, or racists.”

Again, I never compared all conservatives to Nazis. I compared specific extremist rhetoric that’s becoming increasingly normalized to the language used by Nazis and other genocidal regimes, and I documented those comparisons with historical sources. From “The Infrastructure of Atrocity”:

Donald Trump began his 2016 campaign calling Mexican immigrants “rapists” and criminals. This escalated by 2025 to explicitly denying their humanity: “if you call them people. I don’t know if you call them people. In some cases, they’re not people, in my opinion.”

And:

Trump uses terms like “vermin” and talks about immigrants “poisoning the blood” of America—acknowledging this “is the kind of language that Hitler and Mussolini used” but justifying it by claiming “our country is being poisoned.”

That’s not me calling all conservatives Nazis. That’s me documenting when specific people use language that historians explicitly compare to Nazi rhetoric. Language, not incidentally, Trump himself acknowledged parallels Hitler’s words.

If you feel personally attacked by me calling out specific instances of replacement theory, blood libel, and eliminationist rhetoric, you’re telling on yourself.

I swore an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. That oath had no expiration date that I’m aware of. It contained no partisan exception. When I see domestic enemies dismantling constitutional checks and balances, my oath requires me to speak, even when it’s my own political tribe doing the dismantling.

The question isn’t why I spoke up. The question is why more veterans who swore the same oath aren’t speaking up with me.

You made a straw man of me and entirely avoided the actual important questions:

Is replacement theory acceptable conservative discourse?

Should politicians amplify blood libel that results in bomb threats against immigrant communities?

Should citing biblical death penalties for LGBTQ+ people as “God’s perfect law” be considered legitimate political speech?

Should conservatives who call out this rhetoric be canceled, or should the people amplifying it face consequences?

You accuse me of selective memory, hate, and bridge-burning. But you won’t address the data showing right-wing extremism accounts for an order of magnitude more ideological fatalities than left-wing. You won’t engage with the documented comparisons I made between Trump and previous presidents, showing exactly how Trump’s behavior differs from Obama’s when checked by courts. You won’t answer whether movements that systematically expel internal critics have become cults rather than political coalitions.

Instead, Randy, you make this about hurt feelings, as if the real problem is that I made people uncomfortable by pointing out the extremism growing in our ranks.

As if I spurned your “love.”

Your response perfectly demonstrates what I documented in “The Evil Isn’t Coming; It’s Already Being Retweeted”:

Movements that systematically expel internal critics, that can’t tolerate evidence contradicting their narrative, that demand absolute loyalty over principle—they aren’t political coalitions. They’re cults.

You conflate “we have extremists in our movement who need to be called out” with “all conservatives are extremists.” You treat my attempt to address dangerous rhetoric as an attack on conservatism itself. And you accuse me of burning bridges when all I did was refuse to stay silent about replacement theory and blood libel.

That’s not a legitimate grievance. It’s the thought-terminating defensiveness that makes course correction impossible.

If I could go back to September 12th before hitting “post,” knowing what it would cost, I’d absolutely do it again.

Because the alternative is watching the pattern succeed because I suspended analysis when it mattered most. Trading truth for tribal belonging. Staying silent while my family members face the exact rhetoric I’d identified as dangerous.

And Randy, I don’t think you’re the problem. I think you’re a symptom of what happens when good-faith conservatives are convinced that calling out extremism is the real betrayal. When pointing out replacement theory becomes more offensive than amplifying it. When documenting eliminationist rhetoric becomes the unforgivable act rather than using it. You’ve been taught to defend the tribe against internal critique rather than defend the principles the tribe claims to hold.

I’d rather be banned for defending the Constitution than welcomed for abandoning it.

The door remains open if you want to engage with my actual words rather than a caricature you’ve constructed of me.

Ryan