Bravery or Cowardice

I have interviewed many, many people in order to gather an acute understanding of the human psyche. Over a span of forty or more years (I started young!) not one has admitted to being a coward. Many have expressed fear and loathing and, as a consequence, chosen to run and hide from peril. Yet none have admitted their cowardice. Of course, to be fair, few understand what cowardice is.

Cowardice is the opposite of bravery. The problem is that bravery is regularly overstated, sometimes non-existent and occasionally substituted cowardice according to the mainstream media. By that, I mean the “Western” news originating from Reuters feeds (be it some are “borrowed” from other sources). Though the news is nothing more than infomercials or propaganda per Illuminati managed oversight, it does resonate around collaborative Western social views even if it doesn’t champion all of them. In as much rape victims who speak out believe or, more precisely, have been conned into believing they are brave. Rape is a curiously interesting social phenomenon. As consequence derives from perception, in some cases the rapist can be innocent of aggravated assault. Cowardice plays a big part in victimhood. Victims who endured unwanted advances in fear of their lives set the social standard.

Darwin’s “survival of the fittest” is not merely glib sentiment. Eat, survive and thrive becomes the understated aim of every plebeian. And so it would fair to say, the more brave the individual; the less the likelihood of survival. Real bravery looks very different to the Illuminati constructed mainstream version.

Let us imagine a war scenario when one invading soldier closes on an opponent who is boxed in and unarmed or not suitably armed to repel an attack. For this example, let us imagine the attacking invading soldier is an expert marksman and in normal circumstances his opponent’s death would be guaranteed should he desire it. However, this time, for my example, he says in a loud voice, “I have every right to kill you now and it is required of me as the invading force”. To which there is silence. “But, I have decided to kill you would be wrong as the act would need to be balanced by karmic revenge”. “As I was the invader, I must present you my weapon for you to with it as you will”. Silence! “Will you use it against me?” A murmur rises to a below from the opponent, “I will kill you and one thousand dogs like you”. To wit the invading soldier hands him his loaded weapon.

That is bravery.

I am not suggesting that soldiers should turn their weapons over to opposing forces, as there is a much simpler solution. If soldiers never went to war in the first place, they would not need to give up their guns for conscience. Timothy McVeigh knew of another very good reason not for being a soldier.

The destruction of the federal building and trade centre in Oklahoma 1993 was merely a cover for grand tyranny. The bombing, not committed by McVeigh, was the template for the destruction of the Twin Towers New York in 2001 where the effectiveness of a new type of incendiary device was tested. McVeigh, of course, was in part culpable for the Oklahoma attack. He did drive a van laden with explosives. He did intend to raise the federal building. His fraudulent coerced hand written confession Fox News offers as closure is gibberish.

The reason McVeigh intended to raise the federal building is federal authorities were not listening. Indeed the consensus of unofficial reports suggests they were scornful to the point of branding him insane.  He was complaining about the federal government’s abuse of their armed forces in the first Gulf conflict. Though officially 148 US servicemen were killed in combat (including 35 in friendly fire), there are unofficial reports of thousands dead and tens of thousands ill from the medication issued to protect against Iraq’s non-existent threat. This threat, in line with the weapons of mass destruction propaganda, included phantom chemical and biological weapons.

As the federal government was particularly cowardly and corrupt, it had decided to reduce costs for “impoverished” pharmaceutical companies. Ironically many individual senators were indirectly or directly connected to the same pharmaceutical companies that benefited from free test subjects, but that is a whole separate story. Maybe all this was done in good faith, but knowing governments as I do, I think not. Not surprisingly Tim McVeigh, 1st Gulf veteran, took umbrage when he learned his buddies were sick and dying. That was a bitter pill to swallow, but McVeigh was put to death to save toxic medications. Praise be, Uncle Sam.

There is the other side of war which was witnessed in McVeigh’s vigilant behaviour. Troops take their values home. They don’t switch off the tap, hang up the fatigues and hand in the guns. Once the box is opened, Pandora is out for good. Propagandists, which do you think is better; bravery or cowardice?

Advertisement