Why Nom de Guerre are for more than just Rock Throwing Peasants.
I appreciate much of what Matt Forney writes, however, he at times takes on the air of discrediting the pseudonymous qua their pseudonymity. Such ire might be directed solely at the spineless and sackless MRAs, as the disparity for anonymity and lackluster whiners often go hand in hand at his site. All the same the line of thought has been opened.
Dissident thinking is a crime. It always has been.
But not for everyone. For instance, if one is so little known, if his voice is swallowed by the sea of noise, if his influence goes not beyond his doorpost, then dissident thinking is an exercise in futility, however, were one to find for himself a soapbox upon which to cry out to the masses, were an audience come to listen, if by chance the spark of one’s dissident idea was to catch fire and burn into a flame, were those flames to grow into a beacon then one would expect to find himself under the thumb of brother Guillotine.
If a man is bitching about women on the internet in the sackless fashion of the MRAs he need not expect his thoughts to be picked as dissident. First, because men who are bitching are as unattractive as women bitching, no one gives a shit. Second, it is a net gain for feminism when the sackless bitches bitching is the loudest noise. There is nothing dissident about it.
Now, if one were for instance, to call for an anonymous betting system to be implemented on the web wherein one could bet upon the day that a political figure might happen to pass to the shades, and given a big enough pot, be incentivized to make a concerted effort to see that his betting day and the dying day were the same day; in that case, anonymity may well be called for; we’ll get’em next time Bell.
Stepping out into danger a martyr does not make.
Not every pseudonym belongs to a dissident voice, nor is every pseudonym a cover built of fear. Xsplat extols such a life as the way to live and thrive. Not all anonymity is imitable, neither is every act of one stepping into the public light. Neither position is more deserving of respect than the other. One’s ideas are not less valid for being pseudonymous anymore than their having greater validity for being claimed publicly. A man’s reputation might fortify his position as easy as his position might destroy his reputation. The choice of anonymity is one of practicality.
Is there something to be gained from the mystery of the unknown? Is something gained from the details of a man that are only known in the light? Cui bono?
Anonymity has a long and colored past; one may be as honored among the rank of the misnamed as among the publicly recognized. Who would not be well received with the likes of Swift, Voltaire, The Cato Letters and The Federalists, Kierkegaard, and innumerable others?
All the same Matt Forney is stepping out on principle and if for nothing else he at least is giving the world and all her whorish opinions the finger. Bully to you.
Veritas numquam perit,