Libtard Barbeque Postgame Thread

[anthony]

In response to shoutbox discussion.

Last Sunday Aaron Bushnell, 25 year old Chair Force DevOps humanoid-drone, walked up to the Israeli embassy in Washington DC wearing his fatigues and self immolated while screaming 'FREE PALESTINE'.

This is all known because he was recording himself in the lead up, his last message to the world being (according to a transcript from a guy on twitter):

"Hi my name is Aaron Bushnell, I am an active duty member of the United States Air Force and I will no longer be complicit in genocide. I am about to engage in an extreme act of protest, but compared to what people have been experiencing in Palestine at the hands of their colonizers it's not extreme at all. This is what our ruling class has decided, will be normal". *Bushnell arrives at embassy gate and places the camera down, empties flammable liquid from canteen on his head and takes out light* "Free Palestine!" *uses lighter to ignite himself* "Free Palestine! FREE PALESTINE! FREE PALESTINE! FREE PALESTINE! FREE PALESTINE!" *screams of pain* "Free Palestine" *Bushnell is silent*

Thanks to TIME we can read some more or his last thoughts and statements.

Bushnell reportedly sent a message to media outlets before his self-immolation. “Today, I am planning to engage in an extreme act of protest against the genocide of the Palestinian people,” he warned.

On Facebook Sunday morning, he also wrote: “Many of us like to ask ourselves, ‘What would I do if I was alive during slavery? Or the Jim Crow South? Or apartheid? What would I do if my country was committing genocide?’ The answer is, you’re doing it. Right now.” The post included a link to a live-stream of his protest on the web-broadcasting platform Twitch, which took down the video for violations of its community guidelines and terms of service.

“I will no longer be complicit in genocide. I’m about to engage in an extreme act of protest,” the airman repeated, in footage reviewed by TIME, as he walked toward the driveway of the Israeli embassy. “But compared to what people have been experiencing in Palestine at the hands of their colonizers, it’s not extreme at all. This is what our ruling class has decided will be normal.”
After Bushnell doused himself with liquid and reached for his lighter, unidentified law enforcement or security officers could be heard asking him, “Can I help you?” After setting himself aflame, Bushnell repeatedly shouted “Free Palestine.”

So, this was clearly about Palestine, but also clearly about more than Palestine. As TIME themselves say, self-immolation is a tradition. Rather like libtardism. That's what I want to talk about first. The tradition. Here's how TIME puts it.

The practice of self-immolation dates back centuries, according to ancient Hindu tales of Sati, the wife of a Hindu god who got married without her father’s approval. Some retellings of her life say that Sati burned herself to death on her husband’s funeral pyre, and are used as justification for the practice of ritual suicide that has long been banned in India. Self-immolation was also seen as a sacrificial act committed by Christian devotees who chose to be burned alive when they were being persecuted for their religion by Roman emperor Diocletian around 300 A.D. 

One of the first and most well known acts of self-immolation in modern history was conducted by Thich Quang Duc during the Vietnam War. The Vietnamese monk set himself on fire in Saigon in 1963 in protest of the persecution of Buddhists by the South Vietnamese government backed by the U.S. Several other monks followed his example.

Thich Quang Duc’s self-immolation became one of the most enduring and haunting images of the war. “The average American would have said, ‘Well, we're supporting democracy, and fighting against communism,’ and this image of this monk choosing this terrible way to die to protest against the American government, was really shocking,” says Michael Biggs, associate professor of sociology at Oxford University.

The attempt at branching out to India I just find funny, but the Christian connection is what I really find interesting. Before I get to the bolded part.

Some people in the U.S. also self-immolated as a means of protest during the Vietnam War, including a Quaker named Norman Morrison who set himself on fire outside the Pentagon while clinging to his child.

Morrison didn't kill himself with his child, TIME are retarded and got that part wrong. But a Quaker got in on the party during Vietnam. Isn't that interesting.

But back to the above, why did I bold that part? Doesn't it seem so perfectly striking an episode in libtard history? Dumb Americans thought they were doing democracy against communism, and then a monk kills himself to protest the American government. Because America is uniquely offensive to Asian monks apparently. Have you ever thought about this story?

Conservative elements of American society and the press were dissenting all along, and appear to have been very strongly vindicated. Several of these people were very experienced, such as reporters who had witnessed the communisation of China and Cuba. Mark Moyar, probably the Vietnam War's strongest American revisionist, shares in 'Triumph Forsaken'



Interesting point about the conservative skepticism over the "buddhist" protests, one of the greatest pioneering lady journalists of all time got memory holed over this. Have you ever heard of Margueritte Higgins? If you haven't it's because she thought David Halberstram was a retarded pinko Jew (which he was).

In 1963, she joined Newsday and was assigned to cover South Vietnam, where she "visited hundreds of villages", interviewed most of the major figures, and wrote a book entitled Our Vietnam Nightmare.[sup][10][/sup] While in South Vietnam, another feud developed between Higgins and David Halberstam, a New York Times correspondent who was assigned to replace Bigart.[sup][2][/sup] Her battle was not for scoops or headlines this time. Instead, it was based on the ideological differences and ego between an experienced correspondent, Higgins, and a young Halberstam.[sup][5][/sup]
As a war correspondent with two decades under her belt, Higgins's anti-Communist sentiments were well established. There were many Buddhist protests against the Ngo Dinh Diem regime, which she believed were set up by communists. This contradicted Halberstam's views and reporting, who thought of Higgins as a "past-her-prime sell-out whose anti-Communist views rose to the level of propaganda."[sup][5][/sup] Halberstam and many of the young correspondents in Vietnam at the time opposed the Diem regime and reported a negative view of the war. Higgins believed they did not have a real understanding of the war and oftentimes called them Rover Boys, who never ventured outside of Saigon to the countryside to see what was going on. The Higgins–Halberstam rivalry never seemed to end, as Halberstam would continue to criticize her after her death in 1966.[sup][5][/sup]

You can find 'Our Vietnam Nightmare' in all the usual places. Here she is investigating the suicide of a young monk at his home village's pagoda, after observing a battle between the city buddhist authorities and the monk's parents over the remains.






Do you think if I had forced Aaron Bushnell to read these pages at gunpoint the morning before he did this there would have been any impact? Would he, perhaps like Pham Ngoc Cam, have found himself agape? Or does it not matter? Or would he not be able to process this (stupid or zealous?)?

My point in sharing this is to raise several questions. What did Bushnell see himself doing? Is this about Palestine, or a greater perceived tradition of progressive resistance to tyranny and social injustice? The duped Vietnamese rubes believed both that they would be reincarnated, and that their people were suffering unique and extreme oppression and that their sacrifices would strike an immediate counterblow. There is a clear perceived self-interest on the part of the Vietnamese suicides.

Zed called Bushnell's self-immolation "an act of profound conviction". But I don't think that's a clear conclusion at all here. It was conclusive, sure. He's fucking dead. Aaron Bushnell has concluded. But was it profound? I hope that Miss Higgins' hard work above demonstrates the point that it is possible for very ignorant and deluded people to reach very conclusive positions and make very conclusive actions. But where does profundity come in? The depth or strength of the belief? Again, the above should demonstrate that it's possible to draw strong conviction from shallow sources. Depth and strength do not always correlate. Strong, shallow, convictions exist. In fact not only do they exist, I would say that they constitute the majority.

The words "heroic act" appear in our shoutbox too. Again I ask, where does "heroism" come into this? He's dead. Conclusive act. Life spent, willingly. Is this innately heroic?

Zed sez:

What bothers me here is not so much that, as much as... watching a guy fighting to scream his manta as he is burning alive and trying to maintain physical composure, and then getting mocked by faggots without a thousandth of the courage. It bothers me in the same way as when people mock school shooters, 9/11 hijackers, suicide bombers, etc.

The inability to kind of distill such a thing as a sacred act. Even, perhaps especially, if it is opposition to your values.

[...]

What he said is of no consequence to me, nor his reasons or justifications. His act will have no bearing on my politics, but the willingness to die for a cause (any cause) in such a brutal fashion is indicative of a kind of strength of conscience that should be esteemed. One should wish for allies whose commitment was as resolute.

To diminish the act, in my eyes, is to diminish the will from which such things emerge.

"Courage"... "the will from which such things emerge"...

Was this an act of will or courage? The premise of this thread I suppose is, is it possible to do something this radical from feeble, fickle, insipid, and downright stupid foundations of character? I am personally of the opinion that yes, it absolutely is. Not only that, but that that is the only place actions of this specific type could be coming from.

This man is not achieving the apotheosis of a complete vision of humanity and justice. He is ending his life by becoming a living r/history meme he saw last month so that he can escape the gaze of Cool Nigger and maybe become worthy.



Hope he didn't think it'd be that easy. He's not good looking so nobody cares, and he's white, so these people won't even pretend to care. Intelligence assets tell me girl instagram gives zero fucks about this guy.

Of course it probably goes without saying that there isn't really a good principled position upon which to believe that what's happening in Palestine is a uniquely criminal or evil thing, or at least if there is one, this guy didn't have it. What this guy has is Current Thing Brain. Sure maybe there's a general standing opinion for violence and terror being bad, with all of the standard modifiers for niggers and browns to do what they want. This guy is a complete tool and saying that he had any kind of integrity or courage is absurd. Attempting to pin any kind of vision or greater intention towards his act surely paints him as merely deeply insane, rather than shallowly deluded to the point of zeal/mania.

My read of all of this is that there is no good case to be made for this man's actions and there is nothing innately courageous or heroic about killing yourself. I would say this is far less respectable an act than the average personal suicide. This is just a news cycle casualty. A particularly pathetic one.

But please, everyone else weigh in now. Especially Zed.

[a system is failing]

It almost feels like one phenomenon between this and the trannies. What do you do as a modern man when you confront the fact the current world doesn't really offer you anything to actually do with your life in its paradigm of social acceptability? Heroic self-sacrifice...sure I get that...how does heroic self-withering sound? You can either spend decades, preferrably, as a miserable taxcow for palestinians and minorities while your retarded government bungles everything trying to rule the world or do this. It's actually more pathetic than it seems because your libtard compatriots sort of have to kick themselves and police other libtards into really caring about your burnination...more meaningfully Aaron's legacy is being a new trivia fact on the Rage Against the Machine wikipedia article...but it is at least a few minutes of pain instead of a few decades. 

In spite of how much it's going to be touted by them as devotion or idealism, I would actually call Aaron's choice the more pragmatic and level-headed one. Yes, if you are a hysterical libtard it does make more sense to just commit suicide in some publicly visible and potentially viral marketable way rather than going on as the living doormat that is known as an "ally".

[GraphWalkWithMe]

The whole scene struck me with a sad, unhinged man deliberately meaning to stake out futile afterlife status as a martyr, with a man utterly beholden to "hard" Leftist (RE: utterly socially acceptable) moral tenets for eternity.

Imo, the footage made such a hard impact on everyone not only because it was so ugly and violent, but also severely ideological in intent. Politically-minded people mostly seem to either cry for or laugh at him. Or else they maybe just pity him disengagedly, like most else probably do.

In any case people simply don't do this sort of thing unless they've already some desire to cease living. I'm sure in some other Universe where the guy's similarly situated and the whole Israel-Palestine fiasco didn't exist, he would have eventually found another socially-acceptable cause to film himself committing public suicide for, for self-perceived eternal rectitude.

[anthony]

lowstatusunchristlikeclasslessdysgenics

[anthony]

Hey remember how I was quoted in the shoutbox recently for that comment

"The idea that a good and healthy man is one who is pure unconsidered vital action is a neurotic's fantasy of escape."

His Reddit account turned up.



Most people are fixating upon the obvious. That he was a turboshitlib neurotic. But I'm interested in drawing particulars here. One of his last reddit comments was policing somebody for fatshaming while making fun of cops, who are of course an otherwise appropriate target.

His account is still up so I can show you these things, read it yourself while you can if you care to: https://old.reddit.com/user/acebush1





What a life. Work at the Air Force IT support division. Finish your shift. Tell redditors to not make fat jokes. He has been doing this long enough to accrue almost 77 thousand comment karma. Considering the 29 for this post, that seems like it'd take a while.

Otherwise he had stock human interests.



Play the new game. Because it's the new game. He was one of those guys who was really into From games but basically talked about them like an inorganic combination of a fighting game and WoW lore novels.

But back to his first post. Anarchism, and a kind of primitivism. First there's an idealisation of a pre or non-white ideal cultural form, in which culture is spontaneous and stems from social interaction. But this also includes intentional acts, to attempt to make some degree of sense. I believe that beneath the words he's putting down the real belief can be imposed. Whites are soulless automaton people who break souls towards inorganic patterns of existence (which all non-white folx maintained in perfect harmony pre-colonisation) and that Cool Nigger may one day lead us back to bovine perfection if we do sufficient work to shed our whiteness. "Spontaneous" and "Social Interaction" I believe are the key terms, and what he actually likes, while "intentional" I think is his attempt at rigour, which also breaks what he's doing. What are whites if not people who practice sophisticated intentional social interaction? How can you have intention towards a group without imposition and conformity? Obviously you cannot.

I have some sympathy with certain anarchic areas of thought and theory. I understand wanting oute. But Lanza had the balls to take this all the way. If culture is unacceptable imposition and rape then ALL ARE GUILTY. There is no coherent exception one can make for even the lowest and simplest groupings of humanity.

My point being, I believe that the theory is a cope, reason is a whore (most of the time anyway, definitely here), and that what underlies this is a growing awareness of the pressures and ordeals of civility and culture viewed with extreme ideological blinder. This man was under STRESS. He knows the world is bad. He knows that most (non white) people are good. He knows his few enjoyed reliefs are creepy incel shit. He knows he'll never be trusted by the truly good and worthy. He knows he has to work and that things probably won't get better and that in some essential way he is barred from any kind of solution he's allowed to think about.

He is under PRESSURE. Sooner or later he is DONE.

As AS IF and Graph have already said, this man's life situation and psychological profile suggest some kind of break and/or suicide as a possibility at any old time. Palestine feels very incidental to all of this.

[august]

Others have already expounded on most of what I said on this initially, and better than I would have done anyway. But I was the one to first engage Zed on this so I guess I'll try to convert from shoutbox message to post my general feeling as to why this guy being owed any respect whatsoever by ME, of all people ("The inability to kind of distill such a thing as a sacred act. Even, perhaps especially, if it is opposition to your values"), is simply a laugh.

To start, the first problem is that there's this idea underpinning Zed's whole argument that I find completely incoherent: that it's possible to remove from consideration his reason for doing this ("his cause to die for") and simultaneously credit him with doing something worthy of admiration ("what should unambiguously be regarded as a heroic act, even in opposition"). In case anyone is still confused about things, we aren't living in the 19th century anymore. This isn't akin to Arthur Wellesley calling Napoleon a backwater boar in private but then praising him as being worth 40,000 men on the battlefield in public. I don't think I need to really explain further how some random self-hating commie killing himself in the name of Race Communism fails to meet the threshold for some current year-contrived standard of chivalric respect. "Profound conviction ... heroic ... sacred ..." Either these words have meaning or they don't. The guy didn't conquer a continent in the pursuit of higher life (or let alone, God forbid, his own people) or in fulfillment of some grand, divinely imparted sense of destiny. He awkwardly burned himself alive on a livestream for people to see. Okay... I guess we can call this "sacred" ... but only if we acknowledge him to be the good and willing martyr for the Gospel of Infinity Niggers that he clearly wanted to be. 

So his views shouldn't matter, "but the willingness to die for a cause (any cause) in such a brutal fashion is indicative of a kind of strength of conscience that should be esteemed." One thing I'm curious about: if some crackhead torched himself in the middle of Times Square after rambling about how space aliens told him that everyone in his vicinity is a coward that will die a second death in burning pools of fire and ash, should I look at that and say, "wow, what strength of conscience, what personal conviction"? Should I "wish for allies whose commitment was as resolute"? Commitment to what exactly, though? Commitment to "a cause (any cause)" or commitment to killing themselves in "brutal fashion" completely irrespective of whatever the cause may be? Does what I'm trying to illustrate make sense? The cause is inseparable. 

Nor do I care that mocking this clearly broken VICTIM would have been considered "disgraceful" or "shameful" or "beyond distasteful" just two or three decades ago. I mean come on. Am I really supposed to sit here and let the cosmetic mores of 90s and 00s civility guide my response to this? It's Year 8 AT, and unless you've been in a cryogenic chamber since November 4, 2008, I don't see how this reference to the seemingly 'good ol' days' sticks. This was the reason for the following point, which may have seemed unrelated, but wasn't: "If his last words would've been 'MORE FAT BLACK WOMEN IN POWER' there would've been fundamentally no difference between what his last words actually were. It's all the same."



It's a kind of bravery that she doesn't know how to process. Killing yourself on livestream and not taking your HIV medication "for a free palestine" ... now that's brave. Since most people aren't that brave, annoying the shit out of your ""friends"" and family with Instagram story infographs that they don't give a single shit about "should be the absolute floor" ... the BARE MINIMUM.  



Actually, you know what you're going to do that's even better than that? You're going to sit your yt ass down, shut your yt mouth up, and LISTEN when a BLACK WOMAN is gracious enough to take the time out of HER DAY just to EDUCATE YOU! 

And no, you won't ever understand, no matter how many times she HAS to tell you. Rest assured though, that doesn't mean she's going to stop trying to get it through your thick HONKY skull.





How I wish I was an American taxpayer. How soundly I would sleep at night knowing that my money was going toward keeping the spirit of something noble alive. That noble something? Black girl magic.

[turnip]

Ludwig Klages made a good point about psychology that I've wanted to share here, namely, that the existence of extreme beliefs/behaviors doesn't actually tell you anything about the vitality of a person's character (the only real important thing). The reason being that extreme behavior can actually result from a total absence of inner life. People can be extreme and impulsive simply because they utterly lack any kind of inhibiting thoughts or feelings. It doesn't necessarily mean that there is some great vital tension in their mind.

Indeed, many people have the ability to devote themselves entirely to whatever inane cause that seems relatively expedient for them. They don't have the burden of consciousness, the understanding that something else is going on, the pressure to at least try to think objectively about themselves and what is actually happening around them. I don't think it is an exaggeration to say that such people (e.g. 3rd world brown nationalist suicide bombers) suffer less in their entire lives than many of us do from mundane daily torments, nor do I see any real reason to think that they are in possession of some vital power that we are lacking. I won't kill myself for any retarded political agenda. I have my own carefully-considered convictions and I am no one's tool. 

This is just a general comment, anyway, as I haven't yet done my own investigation into this individual. But this polemic has been a bit confusing to me.

[Aizen]

"Courage"... "the will from which such things emerge"...
Was this an act of will or courage? The premise of this thread I suppose is, is it possible to do something this radical from feeble, fickle, insipid, and downright stupid foundations of character? I am personally of the opinion that yes, it absolutely is. Not only that, but that that is the only place actions of this specific type could be coming from.

Fantastic post. All I think I can add is that the fag's self immolation comes from a deep internalization of Current Year Morality. This may be a morality he didn't subscribe to 10 years ago but one he subscribes to now--because of some aspect of character that leads to the "belief in the TV" meme you see used against boomers, but it's obviously a biological trait. It could be characterized as belief in superiors, or in this case those perceived as moral superiors--that is niggers and other oppressed as having moral superiority by virtue of historical oppression.

I think Zed may have been confusing the depth of the internalized morality with an actual depth of spirit and will.

[obscurefish]

It's not enough to interpret Aaron Bushnell's act as a reaction to stress, or simple conformity to the prevailing culture. His words and deed are the clear and logical expression of a commitment to self-annihilation that went beyond his peers. The destruction of historical monuments, the conceiving of one's own country as a product of genocide, transgenderism, and the act of self-immolation are all expressions of this desire for "emancipation" from one's own historical existence.

In his last Reddit post, his description of "settler-colonialism" as the antithesis of culture implies that White Americans like himself have no cultural origin. In this view, they simply are beings of pure power, power understood as negativity, but this was actually the final aim of his very own political engagement. There is no comparison here to Buddhist monks in Vietnam.

Leftists like Bushnell rail against liberals for being insufficiently committed to such principles, and they are correct. Centrist liberals are still hypocritically attached to the concrete realities of this existing society that leftists would destroy. Liberals, however, have no ability to oppose leftists because they pledge allegiance to the same principles. The accusations of anarchists like Bushnell may finally come true, when liberals realize that their only hope for preserving any of the institutions they control is siding with "the Fash".

"Now this this is obviously a pure negativity when you want to destroy what lies at the foundation of the present, because past is in ontological, even metaphysical terms dare I say, the logical the mode of Being that is symbolized by the cause or by the origin, by what is first, and negative freedom therefore is obvious impetus to destroy the causality which it cannot appropriate because you cannot change the past. You cannot change for instance, who Winston Churchill was, Great Britain was, what USA was, what any country and people was, and consequently you cannot remove all the warts all those historical entities have, but I think that people who are now rioting in a complete abandon, in a complete desolation, spiritual desolation, want in fact something far far far deeper. They don't I would posit care about about evil deeds of their ancestors, they care about not having ancestors at all. This is the essence of negative freedom."

"So this kind of modern liberal standpoint is doomed in the face of this drive to annihilation and ultimately self-annihilation. I would just add that we have to bear in mind that there is no moral value in this, so that these are not misguided people that are appalled by some kind of evil that they have on their their heads because of their ancestors, I don't think so. These are people who want to recreate themselves, to make a clean slate, and this is not new. Revolutionaries always did this, but what what I find interesting is these are mostly in my estimation middle social strata people that lead probably quite sheltered lives that are not in any way shape or form radical, they are spearheaded by radicals but they themselves are not and what they are doing is trying to destroy the foundation of the safety net that is under their asses probably from their birth, and these things come about always in the guise of fighting for the cause of being selfless, but it is in fact the ultimate of selfishness because it's a kind of an attempt to transcend the comfort to something higher than comfort, that is to say to have besides your middle class middle social strata life and securities that now you have also this radical freedom of the bloodthirsty animal maybe because violence, especially this kind of mindless violence is animalistic. It's not the violence that is institutionalized in police or army or something like that where violence unfortunately has a function and necessity -- apparently not from what I see for British police violence is mostly upon them so -- I say this because I think there should be no sympathy and no understanding for these people, there is no reason for -- this is very important -- no outside reason besides the reasons of their own deliberation, of their own wish to do something that they deem will make them in a sense more powerful -- I would say more free, and ultimately free from themselves, because being free from the past means being free from yourself. Nobody should try to pull that off because the abyss in which you fall is the abyss of annihilation there is no bottom to it and I don't doubt that great majority of the masses in these countries or in England, Ireland for instance, that people are really brainwashed themselves into this for years, and that there is nothing redemptive about them, because to wake up from this state and realizing how far you've gone, I think this that shame and realization of one's own abandon would be too great for them to handle, because those are people that can't handle offensive Twitter posts. Imagine how would they handle the insight into their own nothingness and corruption, those insights are not easy even with strong field willed people, because we all have these corrupted part of us since this evil -- let me say sinful part of ourselves that -- is not merely part, but something that is in essence together with its original good, and even if you are what would like one might call a good man, that is to say men who tested his own or her own goodness, that person had some real trials in his life because this never comes easy. No matter how good man you are, you become good through this to this struggle with yourself and the world, these people from what I see never struggled with anything more than putting the complaint over bad service in a restaurant or something like that, these people are I think realistically speaking, not metaphysically speaking, not capable of redeeming themselves because one that should redeem them the only one that can put them on this way of coming to their senses are themselves, something that they're too weak for.

Police will have in the future will have to act differently, and by this I mean using quite an euphemism for something I was predicting for this part of developed Europe for a long time now. I mentioned it few times before, that the only way in which this self-annihilation will cease is the radical way. So the further it goes the more radical the swing of pendulum will be if there will be any swing of the pendulum, but it's in the nature of pendulum that when you swing it it comes back so it probably happens and I was usually saying this in the context of my country and other countries this middle to Eastern Europe countries mostly post-communist countries, where this lunacy had never really took root as in the West, and we are also we are regularly looked upon as more right wing. The right wing of the future for the West will be so right that it will fall off of the cliff of the Right-Left dichotomy, if we can imagine it that way, because there is no other way to go, because there is no way that people can wake up from these delusions, and the only way to assure survival of these societies, despite these are economically strong and militarily strong societies, this is inner destruction and only way to stop it would will be I'm afraid a radical right politics of the future, and something that will not be classical fascism I think or something like that because the mere incorporation of the people in the state of economy and politics in the state, something that was originally a fascist drive, this attempt to resolve this unity incorporating all not be enough, because fascism among other things requires well this sentiment of belonging and so on, and as bad as the fascism is it must it must take root in at least something good to grow, same applies to every system, but I think there is nothing good to to take hold to at all."


Righteous Beyond Redemption
https://en.kalitribune.com/righteous-beyond-redemption/

[BillyONare]

How is the Fuentesphere reacting to this event? Post funny screenshots if you got em’!

[Zed]

Looks like I’m going hard against the crowd on this one - Alright. Too many angles to defend against - so I'll endeavor to post my feelings on this, as clear as they are to me.

What are the politics of the present? We can see that there is artifice, performance, and games. But our time has greatly confused action with commentary, and so that many now engage in commentary fashion themselves as radicals. The best of them tell you: You can support our radicalism by subscribing to our substack ($9.99/mo, annual subscription discounts available). Let us tell you what is wrong with the modern world, and navel-gaze on what needs to be done (by other people) to change the world. That said, you can also do that on here for free: https://amarna-forum.net/t-The-True-Cost-of-TND-TKD-etc

But maybe you have other options, you can spend five minutes in photoshop and make a topical edit of ‘jak-on-fire for Soybooru. It’ll make your friends laugh, and you’ll feel part of something - your thing. You can shitpost in Will Stancil’s twitter (#StancilSquad), supporting his engagement farm and having a good laugh at the same time. You can post your fantasies on the multitude of of different ways to to enact TND #WhenWeWin (...has anyone suggested world’s longest human centipede yet…). If you’re successful in your community, perhaps you can exert some influence on local politics to get Antiracist Baby banned from your local library.

If you’re leftist, you do get a little bit more freedom. Some potential political victories include: Cancelling your coworker who has the MAGA bumpersticker on his F150. Getting the transphobic chud banned from the HoI2 discord. Or, if you particularly bold and in the right location (at the right time), you can participate in a Floyd-esque riot and maybe snag a 70 inch Samsung NeoQLED from the local best buy, all while fighting racism. And if you successful, you have a few other options - perhaps pushing for your employer to hire more black woman. …Shaniqa won’t thank you for that, but she might when hand her a reparations letter with cash in it each Black History month.

The scope and complexities of the world is so large and the scope of making a contribution is so limited. Nick Fuentes is a well known figure here, who command a powerful platform, but only relative to many others. In truth, he is insignificant and marginal in wider political context of the western world, commanding influence over a group of brownish lumpenchuds with next-to-no real influence.

…Point being: There are no freikorps and no communist militias to meet them on the streets. There is commentary, posting, and fantasy.  A good deal of it is even happening in this thread.  Pretending there is anything else, with small exceptions, remains delusional.

Nothing is more tiresome and tedious than the reality of this. It’s true that I wish to live in a world where people don’t care about politics, where they are content and embedded within the spirits of the localities and families. But if we cannot have that, I would rather live in a world where belief was backed with conviction - where souls were once more willing to fight and die upon the altar of their beliefs. I’m as sick of hearing right-wing rant against degeneracy as I am in reading left-wing screeds against imperialism and privelege. Enough time, and all settles at the same grey morass of meaningless emotions, expaserations,  and regurgitations. Can anything be authentic, let alone meaningful, when the world presents itself as performative and without consequence?

As for the topic at hand: A guy burnt himself alive for a cause that I’m not substantially invested in. True, he was a chinless redditor with a spirit that would have otherwise struck me as mundane. I'll leave it to the rest you to espouse on all the ways that he was a subhuman. You have plenty of content to work with.

…But still, I watched a video where he took his last walk, and said his last words, poured gasoline on himself - and lit himself on fire, holding his composure to scream his mantra for as long as he could. I watched it. And I shivered.

How many of those who post about genocide (black, brown, white, jewish, trans) or any of the other flavors ever spur themselves to such action? How many take seriously the language and thoughts they dance with? And consequently, how many words now ring hollow now after so long overused without substance?

Aaron Bushnell died for words and ideas, one that were suitably ridiculous. But to him - mere words meant something more than group signification, more than claiming an identity in some leftist fringe. For him: To believe that there was a genocide taking place was at once an obligation to take radical action. The essence of conviction – that our words, thoughts, and beliefs may hold such weight and so oblige us towards action. I may condemn his cause and his action, but I will not mock it - because to mock it to sink yet further into the morass of semantic meaninglessness. I wish for a world wherein our words and beliefs might once more hold a similar weight.

[Cyber Viking]

I think Aaron Bushnell had genuine conviction, but not any conviction of any worth. Which is why he he is not worthy of respect in my opinion. His conviction was that of the flagellant; it was not based around love for the Palestinian people or even hate for Israel, but rather loathing and disrespect of the self. Bushnell is not a person who strikes me as someone with a deep inner world and passions; he doesn't strike me as someone who really feels or cares about anything. Bushnell martyred himself not because he genuinely thought doing so would prevent genocide (Though he may have lied to himself about as much.) But rather because he felt that his life was meaningless and that there was no point to living; and that he could bring meaning to his existence through death for some cause that he was ostensibly passionate for.

Was Bushnell a worthy foe? No, he was pathetic and vapid. Were his actions effective at pursuing some higher goal? No, Palestine does not benefit from some white libtard lighting himself on fire and people laughing at him on the internet. Was Bushnell brave? I'm ambivalent on the question; but what worth is bravery if it used for a stupid causes by people who don't have the energy to even think things through? Plenty of brave people do stupid shit and die for no reason, it's also brave to try and jump someone wielding a gun while you're unarmed, it's also stupid. Idealizing Bushnell is idealizing pointless and painful suicide. Sure maybe it's "aesthetic" in a sense, but aesthetics are only so valuable; I'd prefer an aesthetic sacrifice that actually means something beyond just being an art piece.

Did Bushnell actually care about his purported cause? I don't think so, I think he hated his life and wanted to be a hero. As a mediocre NPC, Bushnell fails even in this. The best idea he could come up with is lighting himself on fire because he heard some monks in Asialand did the same. Why didn't Bushnell go volunteer and fight? Why didn't he destroy Israeli soldiers or propagandists? I think it's because the idea of actually fighting scared him; I think he wasn't emotionally equipped or even had the energy even to actually want to wage war for a cause, or even for himself. Bushnell took the very painful but low energy path to martyrdom, I do not admire this. There's nothing to admire. He killed himself in a painful way for no good reason. it isn't even a good reason if you accept the left's worldview. Libtards might celebrate Bushnell because they feel like they have to, but how many actually think what he did was a good idea or that it changed anything?

The one thing I respect about Bushnell is that he actually WANTED to make his mark on the world, and history. He was a retarded NPC, but a retarded NPC who at-least wanted to be remembered as something more. In a proper society, that drive for heroism would be channeled into productive and truly meaningful and heroic pursuits (Building Empires and waging war.) Rather than pointless self flagellation and suicide. Bushnell may have had no self worth, but did he deserve any? I don't think so, there was nothing to be proud of. It's actually sad, Bushnell is a prime example for why modern society is evil and wrong. Look at the beaten dogs it creates! I don't mourn the man Bushnell was, but the man he could have been.

We're all not living up to our potentials. We allow ourselves to be mediocre, mediocre deaths for mediocre men who should be demigods. I'm not any better, I'm a retard on the internet posting bullshit. I respect Zed's passion for wanting real struggles instead of all this pointless bullshit we're all living in. If you don't feel way I do, your death will be just as meaningless as Bushnell's. Just don't make Bushnell's mistake and think that dying for a cause is of worth by itself. For your doom to mean something it actually has be effective. Heroes that win and live happily ever after are as just as worthy of praise if not more-so too.

[anthony]

Looks like I’m going hard against the crowd on this one - Alright. Too many angles to defend against - so I'll endeavor to post my feelings on this, as clear as they are to me.

What are the politics of the present? We can see that there is artifice, performance, and games. But our time has greatly confused action with commentary, and so that many now engage in commentary fashion themselves as radicals. The best of them tell you: You can support our radicalism by subscribing to our substack ($9.99/mo, annual subscription discounts available). Let us tell you what is wrong with the modern world, and navel-gaze on what needs to be done (by other people) to change the world. That said, you can also do that on here for free: https://amarna-forum.net/t-The-True-Cost-of-TND-TKD-etc

But maybe you have other options, you can spend five minutes in photoshop and make a topical edit of ‘jak-on-fire for Soybooru. It’ll make your friends laugh, and you’ll feel part of something - your thing. You can shitpost in Will Stancil’s twitter (#StancilSquad), supporting his engagement farm and having a good laugh at the same time. You can post your fantasies on the multitude of of different ways to to enact TND #WhenWeWin (...has anyone suggested world’s longest human centipede yet…). If you’re successful in your community, perhaps you can exert some influence on local politics to get Antiracist Baby banned from your local library.

If you’re leftist, you do get a little bit more freedom. Some potential political victories include: Cancelling your coworker who has the MAGA bumpersticker on his F150. Getting the transphobic chud banned from the HoI2 discord. Or, if you particularly bold and in the right location (at the right time), you can participate in a Floyd-esque riot and maybe snag a 70 inch Samsung NeoQLED from the local best buy, all while fighting racism. And if you successful, you have a few other options - perhaps pushing for your employer to hire more black woman. …Shaniqa won’t thank you for that, but she might when hand her a reparations letter with cash in it each Black History month.

The scope and complexities of the world is so large and the scope of making a contribution is so limited. Nick Fuentes is a well known figure here, who command a powerful platform, but only relative to many others. In truth, he is insignificant and marginal in wider political context of the western world, commanding influence over a group of brownish lumpenchuds with next-to-no real influence.

…Point being: There are no freikorps and no communist militias to meet them on the streets. There is commentary, posting, and fantasy.  A good deal of it is even happening in this thread.  Pretending there is anything else, with small exceptions, remains delusional.

Okay I could have made this reply for the poster who turned out to be Green Groyper on tunisbayclub, but at that time I instead opted to call him "pussy retard" because his thoughts on the matter struck me as so weak and unworthy. You're clearly trying harder so you'll get the real answer.

I see you're bored with a self-satisfied lack of "action". Sure. But under this (and your attitude on fireman) I see a skew. There's allegedly an equivalence between right and left interest in culture fights in that they're both inconsequential. Have you somehow failed to notice that all new memes (and an increasing number of firmer beliefs and worldviews) come from the online right, while control of hard historic institutions is entirely in the hands of people informed by the online left? If this doesn't matter then the entire real life information and ideas world has some kind of value that's so negative we can't even quantify it. This forum probably has a greater influence on the ideas of the world than most universities could ever hope to. Not saying we're extraordinarily influential, more that even though money flies around and there's some vestigial prestige left, the real wasted life dead zone of hollow ideas is academia. Ditto for legacy media, they do nothing and are nothing. Tucker Carlson is autoadmit's puppet.

As I've said in other discussions, I do actually believe that it's a better quality person's tendency to hold unfair standards against themselves. It's something good people do, but it's not good. It's something we have to overcome. If we aren't doing anything what the hell is your appraisal of everyone else? Mikka is writing procedures to capture British government for the right in coming elections and practical programs to rebuild the country afterwards that are devoid of fancy or flamboyance. What more do you want done in the realm of ideas that translates into action? And again, ideas are important. The collective efforts of the online right have pretty much annihilated leftist prestige in non-loyalist minds.

Nothing is more tiresome and tedious than the reality of this. It’s true that I wish to live in a world where people don’t care about politics, where they are content and embedded within the spirits of the localities and families. But if we cannot have that, I would rather live in a world where belief was backed with conviction - where souls were once more willing to fight and die upon the altar of their beliefs. I’m as sick of hearing right-wing rant against degeneracy as I am in reading left-wing screeds against imperialism and privelege. Enough time, and all settles at the same grey morass of meaningless emotions, expaserations,  and regurgitations. Can anything be authentic, let alone meaningful, when the world presents itself as performative and without consequence?

Without consequence. Again I think this is wilful self-deprecation. One has to declare very arbitrary lines to declare what happens online inconsequential.

As for the topic at hand: A guy burnt himself alive for a cause that I’m not substantially invested in. True, he was a chinless redditor with a spirit that would have otherwise struck me as mundane. I'll leave it to the rest you to espouse on all the ways that he was a subhuman. You have plenty of content to work with.

…But still, I watched a video where he took his last walk, and said his last words, poured gasoline on himself - and lit himself on fire, holding his composure to scream his mantra for as long as he could. I watched it. And I shivered.

How many of those who post about genocide (black, brown, white, jewish, trans) or any of the other flavors ever spur themselves to such action? How many take seriously the language and thoughts they dance with? And consequently, how many words now ring hollow now after so long overused without substance?

Aaron Bushnell died for words and ideas, one that were suitably ridiculous. But to him - mere words meant something more than group signification, more than claiming an identity in some leftist fringe. For him: To believe that there was a genocide taking place was at once an obligation to take radical action. The essence of conviction – that our words, thoughts, and beliefs may hold such weight and so oblige us towards action. I may condemn his cause and his action, but I will not mock it - because to mock it to sink yet further into the morass of semantic meaninglessness. I wish for a world wherein our words and beliefs might once more hold a similar weight.

You are forcing my hand here. You and Green Groyper.



To you and him (I'm sure he'll be here), how does this make you feel?



Or this?



Or this?




Do you feel "chills", or this lowstatusunchristlikeclasslessdysgenics and therefore disqualified from mattering? I know Green Groyper would say that because white people are capable of forming practical aims we are all tainted and unworthy. Where do you stand?

The idea that violent conviction is a leftist trait is on one hand cuckolding and weakness fetishism and defeatism, and on the other the impulse of the conscientious to put themselves down and others up, as I've already gone into. Now do I believe that these violent acts are a good idea? I'm with Moldbug, not really since you don't get what you want by doing this. But as a demonstration of a capacity for violent self destructive conviction their power is undeniable.

Bushnell was posting about Elden Ring a few days ago. This conflict is not very old. This was not a particularly strong commitment. He probably saw a few particularly stunning and brave tiktoks in a row. Breivik made up his mind and spent years at work getting ready. That is a level of commitment which is unimaginable in Bushnell and his type. Also the fact that what he did was so much more extreme. Bushnell had the "courage" to hate himself, but would he have the courage to hate his alleged enemies? Could he shoot a coloniser family? His worldview demands it. The drive Contrary describes really deserves its own thread, but what I'll say on it for now. Does the fact Bushnell turned his feelings onto himself and a general and distant cause not suggest conflict within himself? A serious wavering in his commitment? Was his out not an escape which allowed him to avoid the full implications of his beliefs? Was he perhaps, as Dirlewanger said to Junger, "a liberal"?

[Zed]

Do you feel "chills", or this lowstatusunchristlikeclasslessdysgenics and therefore disqualified from mattering? I know Green Groyper would say that because white people are capable of forming practical aims we are all tainted and unworthy. Where do you stand?

I feel much the same thing, actually. You may pad the list out more (and go back further) -  Add McVeigh, Kaczynski, 9/11 hijackers, Koresh, and throw in the post-Columbine school shooters too. I see true conviction in all of that. But this is not an endorsement.

The idea that violent conviction is a leftist trait is on one hand cuckolding and weakness fetishism and defeatism, and on the other the impulse of the conscientious to put themselves down and others up, as I've already gone into. Now do I believe that these violent acts are a good idea? I'm with Moldbug, not really since you don't get what you want by doing this. But as a demonstration of a capacity for violent self destructive conviction their power is undeniable.

I may have buried my point too much. 

As long as the ideas and beliefs of people are disconnected from the substance of actions, I expect the delusions of our age will continue and intensify. If I pray for anything, I pray to see those delusions shattered and that necessitates a certain reintroduction of violence into politics. Then, and only then, will people draw back towards sanity and once more see the world as it is. Let the standard of opposing genocide be that of burning yourself alive, so that more healthy minds will look upon the cause and reject it. Any movement towards a saner future requires a reconciliation and a general move towards ideas that are both practical and pragmatic. This will require people to know themselves and know what is truly important to them. We are not there yet, nor anywhere close. Unfortunately, we don't get there from here without some measure of blood being spilled.

[Guest]

TGG here, I really didn't want to do this, but since you referenced me directly, I'll respond.

"To you and him (I'm sure he'll be here), how does this make you feel?"

I don't have an issue with it, in principle. (I think its tactically unwise, given we lack the necessary organization and backing for such efforts to bear fruit).

"The idea that violent conviction is a leftist trait is on one hand cuckolding and weakness fetishism and defeatism, and on the other the impulse of the conscientious to put themselves down and others up, as I've already gone into. Now do I believe that these violent acts are a good idea? I'm with Moldbug, not really since you don't get what you want by doing this. But as a demonstration of a capacity for violent self destructive conviction their power is undeniable."

I have never said it was only a leftist trait. I said it was unwise and foolish to presume Leftists lack it. All I've said is basically regurgitating memory grove. "Communists are sincere and dangerous, for their sincerity, take the threat they pose seriously." It's called a realistic appraisal of the enemy.

"Okay I could have made this reply for the poster who turned out to be Green Groyper on tunisbayclub, but at that time I instead opted to call him "pussy retard" because his thoughts on the matter struck me as so weak and unworthy. You're clearly trying harder so you'll get the real answer."

If I may charitable-you seem to think here, I'm trying to demoralize you or the board. This isn't the case. I don't enjoy bringing bad news or being a "negative nelly" but I've never been able to bs anyone including myself about how negatives are actually positives. Leftists are dangerous, as they are suicidal and insane. This shouldn't be controversial, what is controversial is me saying they are 1. out there. 2. number more than a handful, and 3. Will back up their words.

Its easy on a RW space to dismiss the Left as unserious or a joke, or belittle how seriously compromised Jewish indoctrination has made Whites-its bad for morale and isn't pleasant. But if I want anything, I want folks here and everywhere to understand the threat is real and we shouldn't ignore it.

Feel free to ban this guest account, or don't. Whatever-but if I leave any parting words-its remembering Albert Speer. Many in the NSDAP did not take the US seriously, considering it half negrified, half judaized-Speer understood how dangerous the US entering the war would be for Germany.

Same for Admiral Yamamoto. It is easy to get lost in a haze of optimism and courageous contempt for the enemy, but if you don't want to be blindsided know the real danger they pose, whether it makes for good dinner chatter or not.

[anthony]

I may have buried my point too much. 

As long as the ideas and beliefs of people are disconnected from the substance of actions, I expect the delusions of our age will continue and intensify. If I pray for anything, I pray to see those delusions shattered and that necessitates a certain reintroduction of violence into politics. Then, and only then, will people draw back towards sanity and once more see the world as it is. Let the standard of opposing genocide be that of burning yourself alive, so that more healthy minds will look upon the cause and reject it. Any movement towards a saner future requires a reconciliation and a general move towards ideas that are both practical and pragmatic. This will require people to know themselves and know what is truly important to them. We are not there yet, nor anywhere close. Unfortunately, we don't get there from here without some measure of blood being spilled.

Until we have practical reasons to, associating seriousness with violent (spiritual or actual) action is just silly. Wanting more action in the world is something else entirely. But there is not rational stepping up equivalent to Bushnell's self immolation for our side that we could be taking up but aren't. Equivalent irrational expressions happen constantly though, as I've already said. To be our Bushnell I could shove my hand inside an active blender while screaming FUCK NIGGERS if you want. But there are probably better things I could use my hands for.

TGG here, I really didn't want to do this

I'm sure.

, but since you referenced me directly, I'll respond.

"To you and him (I'm sure he'll be here), how does this make you feel?"

I don't have an issue with it, in principle. (I think its tactically unwise, given we lack the necessary organization and backing for such efforts to bear fruit).

You're already back on your usual thing and being a fucking creep about violence. Do you see what your phrasing suggests? I don't want to see. We're already toeing the line enough as iGod damn it you're dumb and unpleasant.

"The idea that violent conviction is a leftist trait is on one hand cuckolding and weakness fetishism and defeatism, and on the other the impulse of the conscientious to put themselves down and others up, as I've already gone into. Now do I believe that these violent acts are a good idea? I'm with Moldbug, not really since you don't get what you want by doing this. But as a demonstration of a capacity for violent self destructive conviction their power is undeniable."

I have never said it was only a leftist trait. I said it was unwise and foolish to presume Leftists lack it. All I've said is basically regurgitating memory grove. "Communists are sincere and dangerous, for their sincerity, take the threat they pose seriously." It's called a realistic appraisal of the enemy.

And of course we all remember your shoutbox episodes. No I can't be bothered digging for screenshots there.

"Okay I could have made this reply for the poster who turned out to be Green Groyper on tunisbayclub, but at that time I instead opted to call him "pussy retard" because his thoughts on the matter struck me as so weak and unworthy. You're clearly trying harder so you'll get the real answer."

If I may charitable-you seem to think here, I'm trying to demoralize you or the board. This isn't the case. I don't enjoy bringing bad news or being a "negative nelly" but I've never been able to bs anyone including myself about how negatives are actually positives. Leftists are dangerous, as they are suicidal and insane. This shouldn't be controversial, what is controversial is me saying they are 1. out there. 2. number more than a handful, and 3. Will back up their words.

Its easy on a RW space to dismiss the Left as unserious or a joke, or belittle how seriously compromised Jewish indoctrination has made Whites-its bad for morale and isn't pleasant. But if I want anything, I want folks here and everywhere to understand the threat is real and we shouldn't ignore it.

Feel free to ban this guest account, or don't. Whatever-but if I leave any parting words-its remembering Albert Speer. Many in the NSDAP did not take the US seriously, considering it half negrified, half judaized-Speer understood how dangerous the US entering the war would be for Germany.

Same for Admiral Yamamoto. It is easy to get lost in a haze of optimism and courageous contempt for the enemy, but if you don't want to be blindsided know the real danger they pose, whether it makes for good dinner chatter or not.

I don't think you're trying to actively demoralise. I think you're just an idiot with a poisoned skew to how you see the world. This is how you see things. You weren't banned for dishonesty. I think you're rude, unpleasant and stupid.

[a system is failing]

When I went to the only Trump rally I ever technically attended, it was specifically to provoke the protesters and I had no intention of seeing Trump and never went inside the venue. I spent the entire time walking amongst the protest crowd and insulting them and trying to start arguments with them. This was the first place I saw libtard / communist gun factions, actually, around 2018 before bedwetting faggots like Mystery Grove started memeing them. They were irrelevant enough outside of their circles I didn't know they existed otherwise. I'm not saying this to be some le epic tough guy, these people literally didn't do shit and modern leftists are not in any way violent enough to think what I did was actually dangerous. I've tasted the real life stuff, and I would like more simply because it is quite fun, but it was not meaningful on any level. The meaning of all those rallies and the counter protests occurred in commentary that followed them afterwards. Nothing happened as a result of me attending that dwarfs me simply writing and discussing and theorizing on the internet. 

Right wing chuds like myself attending lefty protests for inciteful reasons wasn't some uncommon thing either. That's what the whole "proud boys" thing initially was, and there were many widely memed figures who emerged from these early political street brawls. Antifa themselves first broke into prominence in the mainstream because of them and the right's reaction was very quick and it was extremely entertaining for a while before it was completely and utterly cracked down on. Why? Because we kept winning, obviously. "Moldylocks" was the left wing side of these street brawls, a dumb dirty looking and unsympathetic girl being punched in the face by a chudmaxxed guy in a buttoned shirt. Not one of you ACTIONFAGS has ever been seen singing their praises. None of you stood up for the truckers or the proud boys or any other group when their drastic actions prompted an extremely heavy handed response FROM THE GOVERNMENT ITSELF. That's how we know it's defeatist cuckholdry. Because the most minor, pathetic, psyop-support empty gestures from leftist get all this intimidated crying cheems rhetoric from you people...and yet you are VERY quiet when it comes to having to glorify right wing figures who are equivelant. And I'm talking about the NON edgy ones that you can't use to further affrct a le detached psycho stance. When did the ACTIONFAGS stand up for j6ers, Qanon, the trucker protests, anti-vaxx, proud boys etc? They absolutely never have and never will and they universally want you to consider THOSE protests as examples of impotence and failure and yet treat this DUMBFUCK ZOGDRONE crying about palestinian kids while REMOVING HIMSELF FROM ANY POSSIBILITY OF BEING A THREAT as "dangerous". You aren't fucking clever at all with this shit.

[Cyber Viking]

A system is failing is right. You want to see a real martyr? Look to Ashli Babbitt.

 

Decry her for being a stupid femoid or whatever; she put her safety and freedom on the line for what was right; and she was murdered by some subhuman pig for it. Babbitt was not some pathetic libtard moron who probably couldn't even point out Gaza on a map who simply wanted an excuse to die. Babbitt cared about real people, real shit that actually affected her and the people she cared about. Argue she was a stupid conservacuck all you want, I don't care, she was a person of value and bravery whose life was stolen. A martyr is not any suicidal attention whoring retard who decides to end it all, a martyr is someone whose death has meaning. 

Babbit's end had meaning, she was a normie suburban woman who supported her president who was murdered by thugs. Ashli's name should be shouted from the lips of heroes enraged by her murder! But no one cares, that's a mistake. Even if you don't care about Ashli as a person (which you should) On a purely logical level you guys should be able to see her value as a figure for propaganda. Libtards should never be allowed to forget they support a murderous regime; if they show their true colors and mock her death, all the better.

[NuclearAbsolutist]

this DUMBFUCK ZOGDRONE crying about palestinian kids while REMOVING HIMSELF FROM ANY POSSIBILITY OF BEING A THREAT as "dangerous".

Which was not his point. I feel it bears repeating as Anthony pointed out Mr Bushnell was working in the third worldist tendency of draw attention via a eye catching extreme act.  Bushnell could have done something kinetic but his net history shows a character not built for that, clearly. But he did have a devotion enough to follow the exact logic of the organizations he was with in spirit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018%E2%80...r_protests

Human Rights Watch (HRW) observers stated, with regard to 30 March, "while some protesters near the border fence burned tires and threw rocks, [HRW] could find no evidence of any protester using firearms or any IDF claim of threatened firearm use at the demonstrations." The organization said there is evidence of Palestinians who did not pose any threat to Israeli guards being shot.[45] B'Tselem said that "shooting unarmed demonstrators is illegal and the command that allows it is manifestly illegal."[46]

On 29 April 2018, with the death toll at 44, an Israeli officer claimed that most of the deaths were unintentional, and that the snipers aimed for protesters' legs but sometimes missed, the bullets ricocheted, or the protesters suddenly bent over

Welcome to the game of devoted politics in the modern age, or at least its most common manifestation. Bushnell's act was in no vacuum but indeed was to draw attention to a conflict I feel quite illustrative of the ideas mused on so far here. Those being the lack of resolutions in modern society how battles for minds are waged and  political actions born of zeal  and their logical paths.  So many players, constant clashes that range the full spectrum of methods over existential goals-but all mediated by Americas world order rule book, and every party makes sure to never overreach in efforts. Or that would be unmanaged escalation. In the big picture we can see Bushnell as one of the many countless names over the years whose sacrifice amounts to both a showcase of dedication and lubricant to keep attention going in the sub battle of the eyeball gap. In which many across the world are taught to give utmost attention to from the schools to Instagram discourse on top ten ways to bring victory. And is one of the main focuses of every actor in these Big Issues.

[womanobliterator]

This is one of the gayest threads I've seen in ages

Aaron Bushnell did *not* have conviction he was just a mentally ill retard looking for an excuse to go out, it's like saying those suicide bombers/mass shooters from the 2010's had "conviction" no they were just loser faggots who had nothing going on and were convinced they'd have some form of martyrdom if they blew themselves up in a crowd. What sets Aaron Bushnell apart from the rest of his leftist brethren is that he took his desire to die to its logical conclusion and ACKed himself instead of trying to pull down the rest of civilization with him to get back at his dad/ex girlfriend/vague grievances against white society.

Aaron Bushnell was a gay pseud who probably read a bunch of retarded commie history and saw some shit about brown people self immolating to protest being forced to not eat literal shit from the ground and thought "wow, truly these oppressed dung munchers were brave, maybe if I do that I'll go down in the history books and 30 years from now everyone will look at me as the reason that Netanyahu committed ritual suicide on live TV and bought peace to the middle east leading to the U.S. becoming a communist nation where white people are all beheaded on sight". 

Aaron Bushnell will be forgotten 2 weeks from now and his only contribution to society will have been removing himself from it before he could do any more damage to it, if anything the only truly brave thing he did was taking himself out without the collateral damage of any normal people alongside him.