The long-rumored Twitter purge is finally underway. In the guise of confronting “violence,” accounts are being banned by the platform [ Twitter Rolls Out New “Hate-Speech Guidelines , WND, December 18, 2017]. Among today’s victims: American Renaissance and its Editor Jared Taylor (you can follow both at Gab.ai ).

Taylor was accused by Twitter of being “affiliated with a violent extremist group,” that is, “organizations that––whether by their own statements or activity both on and off the platform––use or promote violence against civilians to further their causes.”

But as Taylor himself put it:

Not even our worst enemies say we are a ‘violent extremist organization.’ And if not AmRen, with what other violent group am I affiliated?

Others banned include:

Innumerable others have also been banned. But others remain. There seems to be no overall pattern to it. However, probably more will follow, as the platform has begun tracking users’ behavior “both on and off the platform” as one of the factors it examines when determining whether to ban an account or not [ Twitter vs. Free Speech , by Chace Paulson, Capital Research Center, November 29, 2017. Emphasis added].

(Off the platform? Where will that leave President Trump—the Tweeter-In-Chief?)

Needless to say, Main Stream Media journalists/ PC Enforcers are cheering these actions.

Which is especially ironic given the MSM commissars’ supposed rationale for opposing “net neutrality.” Earlier this week, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai rolled back the policy which forced Internet service providers to treat all content the same, a decision unpopular in the Main Stream Media. Author Aja Romano [Tweet her] moaned in Vox that the decision would open the door to “forced redirection, content-blocking, software-blocking, website-blocking… and censorship of controversial subjects” [Net neutrality is now officially on life support. Here’s what happens next, December 14, 2017]

But the very next day, Romano giddily promoted her support for corporate censorship, this time in the service of banning “Nazis” from Twitter.

[I]t’s kinda nice to keep the faith and hope for the best, especially as we come to the end of a tense and exhausting year. ‘Banning the Nazis’ in 3, 2, 1 days won’t make them any less pernicious or toxic offline. But if Twitter indeed follows through, its actions will hopefully, finally, be a sign that the site — a platform to which many of us have probably entrusted too much of our lives and friendship networks — has at long last established a clear, firm line when it comes to hate speech. [Twitter is days away from finally banning the Nazis. Yes, really, December 15, 2017]

Of course, by “Nazis” Romano means any right-of-center white person. Today “Nazi” does not mean a supporter of the National Socialist German Workers Party or even a follower of the late George Lincoln Rockwell . Instead, “Nazi” is a kind of racial slur to identify and demonize all white people . As one the main groups involved in determining which users or will not be permitted is the Anti-Defamation League, it’s clear the main rationale behind Twitter’s policies simply anti-white hatred as such. [ Google, Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft Join Forces With ADL To Create ‘Cyberhate Problem-Solving Lab,’ by Allum Bokhari, Breitbart, October 10, 2017]

In fact, Twitter has plenty of “hate speech” remaining on the platform, even under verified accounts. Figures who openly and unironically call for “white genocide” and preach hate against whites are still proudly hosted [Why Is Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey Allowing ‘Verified’ Users To ‘Promote Hate’ Against White People? By Chris Menahan, Infowars, November 16, 2017] Anti-white ideologue Tim Wise will never lose his verification, let alone his Twitter account, for his call to “destroy white Alabama” if the Roy Moore/Doug Jones race hadn’t gone his way.

This Purge is simply the culmination of steadily increasing repression by Twitter. Last month, Twitter changed its verification policies which governed the grant of the “blue checkmarks” used to identify public figures. The point of the checkmarks was simply to identify which account was the “real” account of a public figure who could otherwise be imitated. Thus, celebrities and politicians were obvious candidates, but activists such as Jason Kessler were also verified. This didn’t mean Twitter agreed with Kessler, it simply showed which account was actually him, the same as it showed which account was really John McCain or Barack Obama.

Nevertheless, after sufficient screaming from Leftist journalists, Twitter changed its policy. It now defines the following as reasons to remove verification:

Promoting hate and/or violence against, or directly attacking or threatening other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or disease. Supporting organizations or individuals that promote the above.

In short: if you have a blue tick on your account, Twitter's staff agree with what you say. If you have a blue tick withdrawn, Twitter staff no longer approve of what you say and have edited your account to remove their endorsement. The blue tick is no longer a mere "this person is definitely who they claim to be" verification of identity. Put another way, Twitter staff are using the tick as an editorial seal of approval. [Twitter’s blue tick rule changes may lower the sueball barrier, by Gareth Corfield, November 21, 2017]

But as the tech website The Register observes, what this really means is that Twitter is now imposing an ideological test.Thus one can properly interpret as every anti-white post from a verified user as essentially Twitter-endorsed. Mainstream conservative outlets are relatively sanguine about anti-white hatred, but even they can’t help but notice anti-Semites are permitted, as long as the anti-Semites in question are black [ Twitter Refuses To Unverify Noted Anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan , by Amber Randall, Daily Caller, November 16, 2017].

Twitter is "closing a loophole" by December 18 and will begin a purge (as if it hasn't already) on anyone who even signal boosts anyone that the ADL and the SPLC have deemed to be "hate groups" pic.twitter.com/4lToJSkalS — Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) November 19, 2017

Corporate Cultural Marxist repression won’t stop with Twitter. There also is a coordinated campaign to encourage further censorship across all other websites:

CNN recently ran a puff piece praising the volunteer commissars who spend their lives defending nonwhites on Facebook from arguments which might make them feel sad. [CNN glorifies “white allies” who want to police your “insensitive” Facebook comments, by Scott Greer, Daily Caller, December 6, 2017]

The New York Times slammed Gab and other free speech alternatives to larger Internet sites in yet another hit piece. [The Alt-Right Created A Parallel Internet. It’s An Unholy Mess, by Kevin Roose, New York Times, December 11, 2017]

The groundwork is being laid for a move against BitCoin, one of the few ways that Dissident Right individuals and websites can still raise money. [White supremacists are the big winners of bitcoin’s epic rally, by Elizabeth Preza, Raw Story, December 8, 2017]

Nor, of course, will the purge stop with the “Far Right.” Indeed, even Twitter itself has promoted a call on its “moments” feature for President Trump to be kicked off the platform.

Does this mean there will be no patriots left on Twitter? Only time will tell; as of this writing, VDARE.com is still on Twitter, but who knows how long that will last?

In the short run, the Purge could strengthen the Conservatism Inc. pundits. As Scott Greer recently noted, the professional “conservatives” who constantly counter-signal President Trump and promote the likes of Jeff Flake and Evan McMullin don’t have a constituency within the GOP. Their constituency consists of donors and the Leftist journalists they shadowbox with on TV. [There is no GOP civil war, Daily Caller, November 20, 2017] There is always an incentive for a budding pundit to follow the likes of Ana Navarro or Jennifer Rubin, attacking the Right constantly while somehow still claiming to be a “conservative.”

But the Purge will hurt the conservative grassroots, invariably branded “trolls” for mocking the Narratives promoted by System journalists. These “trolls” serve a purpose. Trolling is a weapon of the weak; the value of all those anime avatars and Pepes who baited journalists and politicians in the Great Meme War of 2016—a.k.a. the presidential election—was that they revealed what System journalists actually believed and how extreme they really were.

Removing “trolls” won’t open the way up to respectful discussion; no System journalists are running to give VDARE.com Editor Peter Brimelow a respectful hearing, even though no pundit so accurately anticipated both the 2016 race and the future of American politics.

If Twitter is converted into a giant hugbox for corporate shills promoting pop culture franchises and journalists constantly agreeing with each other about everything important, free discussion in America will be weakened. It will be much harder for patriots to organize opposition to the demographic transformation of America. And it will make it that much harder for President Trump to stay in office.

Of course, those imposing this repression know all of this. Does Trump?

The more experienced among us have always recognized that the Beltway Right was never serious about winning anyway. In the end, it’s just up to us.

Still, in this instance, it’s just possible Twitter has overplayed its hand. To his great credit, when FCC Chairman Pai eliminated net neutrality, he also dismissed the MSM’s free speech howling by noting that Twitter is already “part of the problem,” accusing the company of using its “viewpoint to discriminate,” even citing the censorship of the neo-Nazi Daily Stormer (which has fought back ferociously but that link probably won't last) [FCC’s Pai, addressing net neutrality rules, calls Twitter biased, by Ginger Gibson, Reuters, November 28, 2017]

Recently, Ann Coulter, Tucker Carlson and Mark Steyn, along with Conservatism, Inc pundits at the Hoover Institution, the Manhattan Institute, and even National Review (in the person of its immigration beard Mark Krikorian—note his documentation of Twitter's refusal to let his Center For Immigration Studies use the term "illegal immigrant") have in effect advocated making Twitter and other social media giants common carriers, which would guarantee freedom of speech. Legislation is being discussed.

It would also be nice if President Trump commented on the banning of many of his supporters.

But this is Trump—who can say he won’t?

James Kirkpatrick [Email him] is a Beltway veteran and a refugee from Conservatism Inc.