TotW: Martyrdom

A guest TotW from Artxmis

On Feb 25, Aaron Bushnell, an active duty airman for the US Airforce, lit himself on fire in front of the Israeli Embassy. This echoes the 1965 event where Norman Morrison, a Quaker, also self-immolated in protest against the Vietnam War. Many people are talking about Aaron's death and the history of this extreme form of "nonviolent" protest. (Is it really nonviolent?) But... what did it actually do? People are already discussing Israel's occupation and genocide of the Palestinian peoples. Is this form of protest meaningful? Does bringing attention or bearing witness mean anything when the news is already showing us the events every day? Why do we need more martyrs? Is this just self-sacrifice to no end?

Listen to the conversation here!

There are 70 Comments

When discussing martyrdom, one can examine the person who died, and the people who remember them, and how. There are different ways anarchists can live, die, and be remembered and forgotten. We can compare the different deaths of Czolgosz, Novatore, Tortuguita, Mauricio Morales, Van Spronsen, anarchists who have died in a battlefield in Rojava or Ukraine, and now Bushnell. We can compare how they gave meaning to their own deaths, and how their different contemporaries chose to memorialize them, or use their names to mobilize for a course of action, or to bolster a demand.

Emotions run high, and they're placed as a barrier to criticisms of the deceased's actions, or the valorization of these actions.

Broadly speaking, there's a difference between someone who is killed by cops when they hadn't planned for that to happen, someone who commits "death by cop", someone who dies in a shootout or standoff with police, someone who dies in the middle of a failed attack, someone who dies during a successful attack, someone who dies after a successful or failed attack, in death sentence, in jail, or by their own hand, someone who commits a private suicide, someone who commits a public suicide, someone who dies as a result of a hunger strike, or caught by a stray bullet in a war zone, or during a heroic charge, etc. They each lend themselves to different narratives, rhetorics, and political causes as poster children. Depending of their optics and traits, they have different utility and catchiness for petty politicians. Friends may remember them dearly and fondly, but they're also not invulnerable to ideology.

Everything is biased or frames things a certain way, including these questions and the intro to them (as well as my own writing).

Aaron Bushnell's act may echo Norman Morrison's to the extent that they were both anti-war self-immolations, but Morrison wasn't an active duty member of the armed forces like Bushnell was. Which leads into the question of "what did it actually do?", as if this is mysterious or is limited to raising awareness, bringing attention and creating discussion.

The first thing it did was take out an active duty member of the US armed forces, which is probably much more than what most anarchists these days will ever do in their entire lives.

The second thing it did was inspire Palestinians and Yemenis and people resisting American/Israeli imperialism, and force other active duty members of the American armed forces to further grapple with their own convictions and actions.

The third thing it did was show that it is possible for an anarchist to resolve a contradiction and live in consistency with his principles (as he himself told us, and in sharp contrast to anarchists in the US or Ukraine who advocate for abandoning anarchist principles in favor of collaboration with state armed forces, or who also actively engaged in such collaboration at the same time as promoting it, as in the case of Dmitry Petrov).

If only your fixation with anarchists fighting for the Ukrainian state wouldn’t be in such stark contradiction with your confusion of Palestinians and Yemenis with their respective states/militaries.

Wasn't aware I had either a fixation on anarchists being in the Ukrainian military or that I confused Palestinians and Yemenis with their respective states/militaries (especially since I wasn't even aware Palestine has a state). Thanks for bringing this to my attention though. I will seek therapy immediately at my closest CrimethInc Liberal Pop-Psychology office.

I too am somewhat fixated on the fact that anarchists are laying down their lives alongside fascists, and that somehow doesn’t provoke the discussion of martyrdom that this does? As far as Yemen and Palestine I think you are the one who’s confused. I assume they were mentioned together because Yemen is the only state actively fighting against the Israeli genocide.

they could reasonably be thinking the Yemeni state doesn't represent the people but would be wrong on this specific issue, as shown by the massive demonstrations in Yemen alongside longtime opposition putting aside conflicts to support the attacks on israeli trade.

The state and the people aren't the same entity regardless of how representative a particular state is, however you define representation, numbers of people at a rally, whatever, the representation is always an abstraction that leaves something out, the state and the people are always distinct even if the state is always made up of people.

Now I'm confused as to what the other anon is even referring to with regard to my supposed confusion. Seems like they just made up an idea, projected it onto me and then got mad at it, Who's to say? But the reason why I mentioned those two countries, Palestine and Yemen, is because they're both being attacked by the US and people in those countries (including people within the state in Yemen's case) are resisting. I could have mentioned other countries being attacked by the US and/or Israel, but those two seemed particularly relevant, if not exhaustive. Not sure simply mentioning facts of the matter means I'm confusing peoples and states or not acknowledging how representative a state is. The one thing doesn't necessarily lead to the other. But useful for making shit up I suppose.

"The first thing it did was take out an active duty member of the US armed forces, which is probably much more than what most anarchists these days will ever do in their entire lives."

All anarchists will die, everyone will die, that's what Bushnell did.

"The third thing it did was show that it is possible for an anarchist to resolve a contradiction and live in consistency with his principles..."

Anarchists that never join the military, the police, or government need not require to kill themselves to resolve any contradiction, and those who do, can just quit, defect, desert. Plus the act of suicide is a contradiction in itself.

Not everyone who dies will die an active duty member of the armed forces, or die at their own hands, wearing their uniforms, explicitly telling us they will no longer be complicit. That is the whole point that you completely missed. All anarchists will breathe air too. Completely irrelevant, just like your point.

Except your second point contradicts your first, as you then acknowledge that not all anarchists will join the military in their lives (or necessarily stay in it until death), and won't thereby create or suffer a contradiction between principle and practice in the first place (refusal to enlist or desertion after conscription are also good, in my view and don't diminish or contradict Bushnell's action).

Bushnell's act doesn't mean that other people can't or won't now refuse to enlist or desert. Hopefully it will encourage them in those directions. It forces them to think more about it, or consider it for the first time. Maybe Bushnell's principles evolved during his time in the armed forces, so the contradiction appeared during and not before. Bushnell didn't have a time machine, as far as we know.

Not sure how suicide itself is a contradiction. Not sure humans have an inherent unchangeable desire to always stay alive no matter what the conditions of the world or their lives are. And obviously it doesn't contradict what humans are capable of, because some people have managed to do it. I don't think framing Bushnell's act as mere suicide is very exhaustive or useful though. Seems like an intentional distraction from his own words and action.

There are various precedents of traumatized veterans who become disgruntled mass shooters, or go postal, there are various precedents of the victims of abuse at the hands of cults committing suicide. The fact that he was an anarchist was accidental. People give meaning to their life, to their actions, to their suffering. But it's just a forced framing. It's all meaningless

Your precedents and comment are not meaningless to me. They have meaning insofar as they're totally irrelevant distractions from the undeniable facts of what actually took place, which I'd guess is why anons like you are scraping the bottom of the barrel, clutching at straws, whatnot and what-have-you, whoops-a-daisy, missing the mark.

So you are the self-appointed defender of burning oneself as a privileged sphere of activity beyond questioning or reproach. What a sublime form of activism. In Russia, a man got arrested because he shot a recruitment officer so that his brother wouldn't get drafted, and there were people who set enlistment offices on fire. I think people are capable of self-reflection and that someone considering self-immolation may reconsider upon reflection. Self-immolation is a contrived form of ineffective protest, and its apologists are politicians, ideologues, demagogues, or either cult leaders or followers.

Do you need someone else to appoint you to have your own views? I don't. I also don't think anyone needs to subscribe to mine.

I never said self-immolation should be beyond critique or whatever. Everything should be critiqued.

I just said our lives aren't other people's private property. If we owe respect to others, they owe it to us too. No amount of moralistic shaming from commentators can change the effectiveness of an action.

That's all fine and nice if people somewhere else did some other action. I never said self-immolation is the only possible action or is inherently morally superior to other actions. It is what it is. Other things are what they are. Maybe more than one thing is necessary or useful. Hope this helps.

wow, super cool dawg, how brave of you to take a firm stand against all those that self-immolated!

I do, and I don’t think it’s brave for me to do so. It is remarkable how much willpower, commitment, tenacity, courage, and strength it takes to do really stupid misguided and tragic things. I know of a case of a man who shot himself in front of a government building protesting layoffs and pension cuts. Tell me how that’s any good? I’ll tell you what happened after that. Barely anyone heard the news and there was no protest afterward. Employees didn’t get hired back, their pensions still got cut. Getting laid off is depressing and can drive people to suicide. It can be framed as righteous protest, that’s one stylish way to do it. Sure, our hearts bleed for those suffering in Gaza. How the fuck does setting yourself on fire help anyone? Beyond the specifics of this guy, applied to those with terminal activism brain, don’t do the civil disobedience ritual surrender of letting yourself die or be arrested like the tired trope of pacifists, or self-defeating Extinction Rebellion types. We can mourn our own and encourage others among us not to leave us. Let’s leave the self-immolations to non-anarchists, they’ve got more people to spare.

we're just talking past each other. i don't think most people here would call self-immolation "beyond questioning or reproach", but we're engaging in the aftermath without pathologically moralizing. i don't have to wring my hands over what other people do, as if too many sympathetic comments in this thread would... what, make this make sense? it doesn't make sense and it doesn't have to but this person apparently had a message to the world and they seemed to have been effective in getting attention for once, moreso than the other immolation a few months ago that I saw a headline about? anyway, i appreciate your enthusiasm for keeping comrades alive and all that. there's no harm in it but as other commenters said, every person is going to bring their own personal baggage into talking about this, if they choose to talk about it at all.

self-flaggelation, self-managed divine punishment, to experience hell fire for his sins of being complicit in genocide. it’s a very christian and very punitive rationale behind the act.

the worst part of being dead is all the people who make up shit about you, projecting their own fears and desires and motivations onto your memory.

i mean, i'm guessing that's the worst part. some people believe in hel though...

I just think it’s a bit weird that the US military just dropped food aid in Gaza and all these leftists are simultaneously condemning the US military via praising Bushnell’s action. In mainstream news every day there is reporting on progress being made for negotiations between Hamas and Israel to come to a mutual ceasefire while Leftists act like no one is listening, no one in power cares, no one is doing enough to stop this.

Well because ceasefire talks are not a ceasefire... Just politics behind closed doors between our conscious, well-meaning bureaucrats who for sure do their best for the little people.

So if you wanna better understand an act of desperation like this one, let's look into how hierarchical and exclusive the crisis management is. As you'll notice, this here is an anarchist forum. Duh.

but aren't these negotations obviously the domain of power and the forces that need to be resisted as anarchists? your point actually makes no sense seeing as these negotations could only legitimize the Israeli state and further kick Palestinian liberation down the curb. Something more like an uprising is brewing instead.

Activists (anarchist or not) should set realistic goals. Of course the ongoing negotiations will kick Palestinian liberation down the road. It’s a lower priority issue than ending the war. Israel’s legitimacy doesn’t depend on these negotiations. It depends on international recognition by other states and the recognition of its own population as legitimate. Hamas has done more to convince Israelis that they need a state than anarchists have. Netanyahu is a different story.

Anyway, enjoy some news about the Vice President of the United States calling for an immediate ceasefire: https://www.politico.com/news/2024/03/03/harris-immediate-cease-fire-gaz...

What I meant to say was that Hamas has convinced Israelis they need a state more than anarchists have been able to convince them otherwise.

"Hamas has done more to convince Israelis that they need a state than anarchists have."

Well, THANKFULLY. But even if that was Hama's "achievement", thousands of deaths and the destruction of "your" land was a price to pay for a Palestinian state. As states, as far as history can tell, are based on militaristic, authoritarian violence causing mass graves.

...which might explain maybe maybe anarchists aren't that much interested in supporting authoritarian, antisemitic political formations along with their ethno-nationalist agendas that involve having a police force that clamps down on queer people and all other kinds of non-normative people.

But for sure that's gotta be due to their "purism" or White Western cowardice, at least 'till they commit suicide to get finally recognised as soldiers for the Cause... :-/

Just too bad there's yet no remote control to direct anarchists to fight and/or die for the formation of some completely irrelevant ethno-state, far away in a corner of the Middle-East... Maybe you should have less invested on indoctrinating flimsy liberal college kids running after bureaucratic careers, and more on those non-normie undesirables that you so much despise, like these poors living under bridges or something? ;-)

The airdrops into Gaza are a publicity stunt that does next to nothing to relieve the ongoing mass starvation while providing an excuse to continue the genocidal mass killings. Please grow up a little and stop believing in what institutions like the US state and the mainstream media say.

Wow the things you decide to call a publicity stunt. Grow up and support good things when they happen instead of looking for any excuse to discredit your enemies.

lol, who’s paying you to post on this anarchist website about how humane and just the US government is? Congrats on scamming them I guess!

the US government has an interest in preventing a genocide ruling against Israel, which could carry over to them. It isn’t mere publicity. Not to mention basic state interests in Middle Eastern trade normalization. There is a ton of mainstream support for a ceasefire:

“80 percent of Democratic voters, over 500 Biden campaign alumni, Oxfam, Amnesty International, Doctors Without Borders, 35 Arab and Jewish peace groups in Israel, and 18 United Nations agencies”

https://www.thenation.com/article/world/biden-redefines-cease-fire-gaza/

what are leftist activists hoping to add to all this with their strategy of annoying people?

"the US government has an interest in preventing a genocide ruling against Israel, which could carry over to them"

That sounds like publicity to me, or at least just performative.

And I really don't care about the mainstream support. The death toll in Palestine keeps going up, and the US keeps giving Israel money for weapons

or, you could just not say anything. (not an agreement with that other article).

telling people to not say anything is very authoritarian

well aware. thx for making it plain.

"But... what did it actually do? Is this form of protest meaningful?"

It was a tragically poetic act charged with meaning and intention, it was a potent expression, not a form of effective activism, nor tacticool insurrecto attack. It doesn't play in the same sphere as geopolitics between states, it was individual self-expression.

"Does bringing attention or bearing witness mean anything when the news is already showing us the events every day?"

It retains its meaning, despite being redundant or being drowned in the noise and quickly forgotten.

"Why do we need more martyrs?"

Leftists require more mass, critical mass, full revolution, lots of bodies as barricade, cannon fodder, guillotine.

"Is this just self-sacrifice to no end?"

The ends were clear. Was it worth it? That's for everyone to decide for themselves. You might not like it, but some do and don't regret it. I for one hate it.

https://anarchistnews.org/comment/67092#comment-67092

Would it be said that self immolation is sensational or would it be said that it is part of the spectacle? Both probably, or perhaps neither. Or maybe both and neither at the same time? The telling of the tale in media (mainstream & anarchist) seems to lean toward the sensational. The fight over meaning has already caused sides to coalesce, at least here on anews in the comments and dueling articles.

What am I getting at? Maybe that the meaning is almost always multiple. Like a Rorschach test. Maybe also no act is wholly anarchist. Maybe we sensationalize our acts to convince ourselves alone. The one thing that can be said about self immolation, the conviction required comes before the act.

I think leftist activist are more concerned with effectiveness rather than meaning and they're discombobulated because they can't reconcile the ineffectiveness of said actions and their endless thirst for extreme sacrifice and suffering in the name of collective salvation and grand narratives.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the S.I. wrote about this exact thing. Perhaps as part of their critiques of the Surrealists.

Why not just kill the people causing the genocide instead of killing ourselves?

m. goldhawks argument is that he did because he was a soldier. imagine if John Brown had killed himself instead of doing what he chose to do with his life. Would he had better served abolition via self-immolation? And yet he’s a martyr in his own right.

John Brown wasn't a soldier in the US army complicit in the assault on Palestine, so he couldn't have done what Aaron Bushnell did. More than one thing can be good at once (or at different times). You can like oranges and apples. Not ever orange has to be an apple or vice versa. Also, it's not my "argument [...] that he did [it] because he was a soldier," that was Bushnell's statement about himself and what he was refusing further complicity with.

He wasn’t a US army soldier, but he was a white man who refused to be complicit with slavery, just like Bushnell refused to be complicit with genocide. The only difference is one is a positive inspiring example to emulate, and the other if a picture of depths of despair one can reach.

you yourself just said it wasn't the only difference. one was in the army, one wasn't. no amount of other differences erases the first. one was young when he died, the other older. add a billion more differences, it will never make both or neither an army soldier. hope this helps you sort your head out

You're just evading the point. The person you're arguing with said

"m. goldhawks argument is that he did because he was a soldier. imagine if John Brown had killed himself instead of doing what he chose to do with his life. "

And that is what matters here. Even (!) a soldier could do what John Brown did. So whether Brown was a soldier or not has nothing to do with it. Come on.

I'm not evading anything because a soldier couldn't actually do what John Brown did because Brown wasn't a soldier in the first place and modern day soldiers can't reverse time so that they were never soldiers. They could instead mutiny or desert, I'm well aware, and not against it. As I said before, if oranges are good, that doesn't mean apples must be bad. Two or more things can be good at once and don't need to be the same in order to be good

yes, let's do that thought experiment: how many people are we estimating we need to kill?

just pile genocide on top of genocide, that'll solve all problems. (sarcasm)

the thing that needs to be eliminated is not a particular, nameable set of individuals (however much that may make you feel better in the short term), it's a mode of thought, an orientation toward the existant, that says there are Nations. that, further, says the Earth can be destroyed because (they) own it.

in a way, Aaron Bushnell, by his act, is saying the us govt. may own his body but he took it back and destroyed it his way rather than being destroyed by continuing complicity in genocide.

but i have no idea what his thoughts were. i won't either laud or condemn self immolation.

the discussion so far here and what i've encountered elsewhere on and off screen has focused on questions of efficacy, ethics, who does or doesn't have a claim, in the case of crimethinc's statement, arguably, the putative value of a life for future revolutionary returns or whatever. broadly, litigating how this individual act should be generalized. should it be a warning? is it heroic and those grounds untouchable? does the actor's prior choices and principled failures delimit what can be learned or appreciated from the act? will we have the courage and will to make it meaningful despite any of these contingent concerns by the collective might of our individual choices to not also just set ourselves on fire? as the last commenter suggested, why not redirect all of this towards violence against those responsible for the conditions that gave rise to the act in question?

none of which is to suggest that the concerns people are raising aren't worth considering. for me, though, the first question is always what is recognizable about this act? what can be affirmed, as if immediately? and maybe the answer is so obvious that others dont feel like it's worth mentioning. but what i see is a person who took to the final end the same anxiety that i routinely hear from my friends, that it's intolerable to think there's nothing that can be done to stop this thing we're forced to be complicit in, and maybe (here it's never clear what's a joke or a nascent plan) itd be better to go out in a blast, or just die anyway.

i don't think trying to paper that over with abstract principle or social litigation will answer the topic here, insofar as the topic is what does this thing mean. i think on these grounds it was a definitive stand on clear terms and an act that cant be questioned in terms of honesty unless you pathologize it--as many are trying to do--and it's no surprise that people who feel anything about where it came from find it inspiring. so i'd say it was heroic on that count, and like any heroism doesn't answer to use or efficacy. but, having said that, i don't want to see people driven to heroism, any more than despair. i can respect the martyrdom of a martyr, both by witnessing and by trying to understand the conditions that drove them there, without thinking that anyone else should become one.

on my view, death only defers the question to someone else. that means the question must be answered (or really, approached) by living, or thrown out as useless to the ones who both agree these things are intolerable and want to live.

this is why i’ll never tell an anarchist when i’m suicidal, because i’ll more likely be encouraged to do it, than to reconsider. i bet he must have been encouraged to do so by peers.

online comments that include phrases like "i bet he... " "i bet they..." ie attributing intentions or behaviors to people who the commenter DOESN"T KNOW are always asinine.

literally.

you're right not to trust anyone who wants to exploit your life or death for the sake of their own vision of things, but i don't think it's helpful to anyone to take your circumstances and put them on the dead either. if something like that comes out about bushnell it'll be beat to death like any other racehorse, no need to do that work in advance or really ever. my point is that those questions are our own and whatever his were burnt up with him, which is part of the power of the act regardless of how anyone else might try to etch their face into the ashes

"etching their face in the ashes" is the name of the zine i want to make about how people put their own shit on the dead, whether laudatory or hostile.
rest in power is part of that very thing, far as i'm concerned.
thanks for the poetry, alex.

The buddhist monk self-immolated before Norman Morrison did. Monk's death wasn't martyrdom, it was sadness at friends and relatives dying and saying Fuck it, I die in disgust! But Norman Morrison's was a cpmmie martyrdom plus some crazy self-esteem issues thrown in.

"the buddhist monk" was quite literally martyred; in that his politicized death led to his veneration as a deified figure. his relics were collected, including his incorruptible heart and various srariras in the ashes.

Ewe, yuk! , sorry, but these Eastern spooks disgust me sometimes! This isn't racial, this is cultural.

I reckon setting oneself on fire violent. I can't imagine the pain felt before the flame steals the breathe and the world goes dark. I have scolded and burnt myself badly a couple of times. They were painful experiences that I'm unsure were worth the lessons they taught. I've unintentionally caught clothing on fire while I've been wearing them, and while it was exciting, I'd be better describing my experience as panicked. Doubtless, we've all experienced the warmth of a fire becoming intolerable. Doubtless many of us experienced a flammable liquid catching suddenly, warming the skin and taking some hair with it. All these happenstances are violent; our instincts perhaps wouldn't subvert our consciousness in the reaction unless it were violent. I can't imagine any of them being sustained and prolonged beyond flashbulb moments. I imagine you only get to go beyond that once, and that is what was actually done.

As for it being a meaningful form of protest? That is easy, it obviously had immense meaning for Aaron and Norman. After watching Aaron become a flame torn ghost, I definitely feel something meaningful. Though, I believe the meaningfulness only applies itself to those who give a shit. I suppose if it gets someone to ditch their shitty HP printer, become outspoken in the street where quietude once reigned, or stick a bullet in Netanyahu; they all have meaning. As for what was and is Aaron Bushnell to "the system", it's shock is ephemeral and negated. I am not one for fate, though what happened happened, we're all reacting all the time to the everyday brutalizing shit show, nevermind the pantomime the media broadcasts, and this "system" is gonna die a fuckin' death and it can't come soon enough for me.

With regard to martyrs, I'm neither for them nor against them. I know I'm not one, but I wouldn't rule out the possibility of becoming one. At this moment, I want to live as freely as I possibly can. If I'm not here, there's no longer a me to do shit. I know I can have my dead friends and relatives doing cartwheels together in my head, but they sure as hell wouldn't be doing it if they were alive. Them being here subverts any presumption, however benign, I'd whimsy to impose. Who knows what Aaron will become for the individual, the media, Capital, or the State. Aaron's self-sacrifice has an affect and an effect. Aaron was likely only trying to get a breathe in at the end. So, there is an end. Whether cumulatively, in some grand conceit or endeavor, we all will only be trying to get a breathe in; who knows? I can guarantee it will end.

activists always achieve different degrees of burnout

The importance is not to take one’s life, but to burn. To burn oneself by fire is to prove that what one is saying is of the utmost importance. There is nothing more painful than burning oneself. To say something while experiencing this kind of pain is to say it with the utmost of courage, frankness, determination and sincerity.

I had to look this up and make sure it was a real quote... yup.

I like this other quote of his: "When you feel angry with someone, give them a gift."

I suspect that suicide-as-protest, when undertaken by people not facing extreme circumstances (like the Vietnamese monk, Palestinian suicide bombers, etc), likely often presents a similar profile to those who would have been at risk of dying by suicide, in general. Political angst and frustration interacts in some way with the other conditions that make a persons angst and frustration more or less able to bear. The guy who shot at the immigrant prison in the PNW in a kind of suicide-by-cop attack; why didn’t he have any friends he could have pulled off a more viable action with?

I say this as someone who has at one moment or another contemplated doing something even like Bushnell’s protest… because of the extreme powerlessness and anguish I feel, but I’m sure it’s also because there have been many moments when it felt like my life was not worth living in itself, totally apart from the circumstances of the wider world and how more or less awful they might have seemed to me. I know that’s crazy, please don’t take it up with me. I’m just saying I guess is that it doesn’t untangle neatly especially in such an intensely personal and individual act.

"Is this form of protest meaningful?"

It was meaningful to Aaron, Artxmis. That is enough. I hope your time at the Nude House has been HORRIBLE and that you get bed bugs.

RIP, Aaron.

god damn it, you're confusing this other person for that catfish, likely on purpose? please stop it

hmmm. it is hard to take too seriously the thought process of someone who can’t decide whether they want to be a soldier for the U.S. military (or any government or cause for that matter) or an “anarchist”, fluctuating between scrolling government propaganda sites and Its Going Down propaganda pages. just another lost soul in a fractured, displaced, continual-identity-switching (the real cis), post-modern reality who probably spent most of his short life playing video games and watching tiktok. just shows how loose the term “anarchist” has become, compounded with the global cyber-network which “allows” us to “care”. . . and don’t get me started on crimethinc. (who would want to stay alive to fight along side them, that would be the real burn).

i reject the concept of martyrdom as an anarchistic act, absolutely nothing to advocate for. it is a tool proposed by authoritarians and ideologues and zealots and taken on by mindless drones. BUT, suicide as a personal decision to off one’s self for their own reasons? sure, all for it. 8 billion and rising. go for it. it seems more effective than any climate change activism that i have ever heard about, especially if it goes viral, and, well, you know…..accelerates!!! every single human life displaces endless other living beings now and into the future exponentially. if someone doesn’t want to be here. bye bye. see ya later (or not). my only little hope is that some other pig’ish players are taken out in the process. its why i always love a good ol' frag’in.

my two cents. that’s all i got, ya know, “inflation”.

The second paragraph is really gross. It reminds me of the Canadian governments decision to euthanize depressed people, truly dystopian and hateful.

whhaaaawwhhhaaaa. i don't like what you said. help!

yeah, pretty much the same thing, except one is a personal opinion with no specific subject, and one is a state directive.

go vote for biden already.

This is like the third guy to self-immolate over Israel and Palestine in the past month or two. Dude should've tried to get into one of the 18 consulates/embassies located like right next door to each other. Then light himself on fire. Other than that, he didn't do jack shit.

Add new comment