Can we voice any well considered, well stated, well supported opinion without fear of reprisal?
No. We can not. In the age of political correctness, the Marxist media are thought police. In order to even say anything we need to seek alternative media that is not controlled.
Do you know who Shakespeare is? No. You don’t. William Shakespeare is a pseudonym. None of us know, for certain, who he was.
He planned his anonymity because he knew that in order for people to think for themselves they must only be guided by what they see, so that they can think for themselves and reach their own conclusions, without being influenced by someone else’s power, prestige or money. These are second hand, attributed characteristics that someone else, with a different agenda than your own well being has given the “expert.”
The fallacy that William Shakespeare fought, with great success, is called “argumentum ad verecundiam” — it means to rely on someone else’s opinion because they are the expert, instead of thinking, judging and concluding for yourself. It is to the advantage of the existing power structure that people do not think for themselves. The MSM wants people to accept what they say and not to question it. They are devastated when people question their truth, their opinion and their motives because when people question the “experts” they often come to a different conclusion than what they are told to think and believe.
And there is another, very important reason. As William Shakespeare showed controversial truths, he alienated many in the status quo of power, prestige and money. He made many enemies among the rich and powerful. And if they knew who he was, they would silence him, because silencing the messenger is much easier than debunking the message. He fought the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem — the now commonly known as Alinsky tactic of destroying and discrediting the person instead of the argument, because the person is easy to destroy in comparison to a well considered thought.
And those are the same reasons why Patriota 35 and Herman Gazort remain anonymous.
But if anonymity in the Internet is destroyed and people had to identify themselves, the only ones that would gain would be the political enemies of the thought — those with a vested interest in that no one critically examines the truth for themselves.
No. We cannot rely on “the authorities” to do the right thing and punish only the criminals. They are more likely to protect the criminal and punish the dissenter to squelch dissenting opinion.