Far-Right Publisher 'Lomez' Identified as Former UC Irvine Lecturer, Then Used the Exposure to Sell Books

The Reveal

For years, the online publisher who went by "Lomez" kept his real name private. His company, Passage Publishing, had put out books from a German nationalist, anti-democracy monarchists, and authors promoting what they call "human biodiversity" — a phrase commonly used to dress up race science in academic language. On X, where Lomez had accumulated more than 70,000 followers, the account suggested journalists be killed, praised Kyle Rittenhouse, and posted at least one homophobic slur.

Last month, The Guardian reporter Jason Wilson published a piece identifying Lomez as Jonathan Keeperman, a former lecturer at UC Irvine. Keeperman did not respond to a request for comment.

The Reaction Was Predictable — and Then It Wasn't

The backlash followed a pattern by now familiar to anyone who covers the online right. Keeperman called Wilson's reporting "obsessive" and "delusional" during an appearance on a conservative podcast. Conservative activist Christopher Rufo posted on X that Wilson is "a human worm," adding, "Even the mafia has a greater sense of decency." A conservative Substack writer warned that the identity reveal would invite the "threat of violence" from "antifa goons," according to The Atlantic.

Then something shifted. Within an hour of venting publicly about being exposed, Keeperman told his followers they could use the discount code "Wilson" on Passage Publishing books. He described being doxxed as a "badge of honor."

The outrage and the salesmanship ran in parallel.

Doxxing Is a Real Problem — and It Gets Weaponized

The legitimate concern here deserves a fair hearing. Doxxing has caused genuine harm to real people. LGBTQ individuals have been driven to suicide by targeted exposure campaigns. Swatting — using a doxxed address to send armed police to someone's home via a false 911 call — has endangered lives. Privacy matters, and the fact that someone expresses offensive views in public does not automatically make their home address or employer fair game.

Critics of Wilson's Guardian piece would argue that even someone who publishes bigoted material is entitled to some separation between their public persona and their private life. That's a coherent position and it's shared by people across the political spectrum.

At the same time, Keeperman wasn't a private individual targeted for his personal beliefs. He was running a publishing operation under a pseudonym, actively building a brand and a following, and those books were for sale to the public. Investigative reporting on who runs a commercial operation that promotes extremist material is not the same as leaking someone's home address to a mob.

The Pattern Matters More Than the Individual Case

The Keeperman story fits a documented arc. When The Washington Post identified Chaya Raichik as the person behind the Libs of TikTok account in 2022, then-Senate candidate J.D. Vance publicly condemned the exposure. When the anti-Semitic internet cartoonist known as StoneToss was identified this March, X announced a policy change: accounts that reveal others' identities are now subject to suspension from the platform.

The practical effect of X's new policy is that investigative reporting on pseudonymous influencers who peddle discriminatory content becomes a platform-level violation. The reporter can get suspended. The subject can sell discount books.

None of that makes every act of identity exposure legitimate. But the policy as written does not distinguish between someone exposing a vulnerable private individual and a journalist identifying who runs a commercial publishing house. X has not offered public criteria for where that line sits.

What's Actually at Stake

The conservative argument that press exposure of right-wing influencers constitutes harassment is, at minimum, selectively applied. The same online ecosystems that rallied around Keeperman have run coordinated campaigns to expose the identities of journalists, trans individuals, and school administrators. The doxxing-is-wrong principle tends to activate or deactivate based on whose ox is being gored.

Keeperman himself signaled how seriously he took the threat: he monetized it within an hour. That doesn't mean the principle is wrong. It means it was being deployed tactically rather than sincerely.

Whether X's new identity-disclosure policy will be enforced evenhandedly remains unclear. It could be applied equally when the target is a left-wing activist or a conservative influencer, or it could function as selective protection for a specific class of accounts. X has not responded publicly to that question.