Why I go overtly

[Ed Jewett]

On an internet forum I feel that a message can also not be fully understood, if the reader does not know, who has written it, what is the background of that person and what other material that person has produced.

Of course there is a risk. Standing up against a criminal system is supposed to be risky. Standing up under a pseudonym does not protect you from that risk, but it limits the effectiveness of your action and it eliminates the possible protection from being a publicly known enemy of that system. The more publicly known opponents are attacked, the more people will realize that there is indeed a criminal system at work, desperately trying to suppress the reality to enter the consciousness of the masses.
Carsten

Welcome back, Carsten. The first paragraph of yours which I have quoted is quite similar to what I have said about the subject on another forum. The use of a pseudonym masks that vital background. The same would be true if I encountered another on a street wearing a costume or mask or not having some recognizable prior identity. Another factor in this discussion is authenticity. A third is the phenomenon of "being a witness", made famous in many places but notably in the film of the same name. It is difficult to be seen taking a stance when one's persona is partially hidden. But then I think part of the strategy used by those we stand against is to break down or demean 'self' and individual identity and to mask their policy or approach as the desire of the mass of people who do not speak out. In a discusison elsewhere about 9/11 and the current mess in Afghanistan, I was told I needed to prove allegations of statist complicity in the crimes because such attitudes went against the "conventional wisdom", which surely is some amorphous mass of perspective held by anonymous commentators.

I am Ed Jewett, and I approved this message.