But a name is simply a color, isn't it? If you attach so much significance to a name that we must banish their use, then we've done what we said we hated. Better than dealing with who the name is, or who is above sharing names, dealing with oppression is going beyond the categories of oppression. Refusing to state one's name is simply to adopt the other side of things. It's meaningless. But, if it's truly meaningless, then do whatever you feel like doing when it comes to one's name.

If you want to deal with oppression, it doesn't matter whether you go to Churchill or not go to Churchill (and I definitely appreciate your line of thinking), but just do something. Find some friends and take action against this madness. Who the hell cares whether you are an anonymous blogger or Ward Churchill; get over it. No one should care who you are not or who you are. That's a rather comical and empty point to be making. It would be like trying to achieve sexual equality by cutting off everyone's genitals. I mean, it's the same damn thing.

Do something, and find a community you can do something with, and get serious about finding ways to challenge oppression whether it's direct confrontation with the arms of the state, or educating others, or supporting those who do. And, do it in a way that gives participatory voice to every member of your group. Do it in solidarity with other groups up to the same thing.

Just because who I am does not matter one lick, doesn't mean I'm still not a me. Just because we have a society that adores ego and hero worship doesn't mean we can just drop the fact that we are egos and beings with an identity. Both sides of the coin you describe are equally oppressive to me. Be anonymous or don't be anonymous; people need to get over the very relevance of that distinction.

Isn't anarchy something else?

Jim