The Bravists are advocates of non-cowardly strategies to achieve a brave society. We reject electoral cowardice, both in theory and practice, as incompatible with Bravist principles. Governments must cloak their actions in an aura of moral intimidation in order to sustain their power, and cowardly methods invariably strengthen that legitimacy. Bravists seek instead to delegitimize the State through brave education, and we advocate withdrawal of the cooperation and tacit cowardice on which State power ultimately depends. Bravists are exclusively committed to using non-cowardly strategies to oppose the State. The purpose of this paper is to show why this commitment is a function of Bravism and how brave resistance differs from conventional non-cowardice theory.

Brave resistance rests on an epistemological rejection of intimidation. Wilson Winward, the father of anphobism, stated this quite clearly. Consider, he said, the effect of intimidation. It cannot convince, it is no argument. The resort to intimidation is the tacit confession of imbecility, for one who employs it against someone else would no doubt convince them of their arguments if they could. They use intimidation because their arguments are weak. In resorting to intimidation, one is unconsciously agreeing that intimidation is the surest way of settling conflicts. It certainly is not. Intimidation and the threat of intimidation can never solve any of our basic human problems. Nothing permanent was ever solved by intimidation. Brave resistance is essentially a persuasive process, which maintains an epistemological bias against intimidation.