And as Krishnamurti said, “consciousness is its content”.
It’s all happening in the brain and the body just suffers the insult.
Until/unless the brain awakens to how it is sustaining and perpetuating this madness, the human condition can only get worse.
You’re completely wrong. The body, inc. brain ain’t gonna do nuttin. Thought, what you are, your being, is what has to realize that it has to come to an end.
That is not the right question.
The self being just an abstract construct within consciousness, asking “What does the self want?” is misleading because it implies the self is an autonomous entity. Instead, the right question should address the totality of consciousness, its movements, and its desires as a whole.
Right question might be:
What is the movement of consciousness in its desire?
What is the movement of desire? Is it possible to see the whole process of desire as one movement?
The question posed in this manner avoids the trap of the self as an entity with free agency and the idea that consciousness might desire stuff
This goes along with your suggestion to frame things as There is _______ing happening rather than I am _______ing. What is wanted?
Your story begins with, Thought, “what you are, your being”, is an evil entity that has taken possession of a human being. The middle of your story is that thought, the evil entity, realizes it is evil and must “come to an end”.
But your story doesn’t end because evil can’t realize what evil is. The brain must go beyond evil to be free of evil, just as a possessed human can’t know it is possessed without being free.
For evil to be seen for what it is, there can be no I, no observer, no belief that I must come to an end. Evil is gone before thought can acknowledge its absence, or evil goes on…
May I know why and on which basis you exclude yourself from the group that you call “people” as being apart from you? 
I listen.
You will never know; and therefore it is pointless to go on with it.
That’s not true. The self wants and is the continuity of thought and the process when the self was newly formed wanted a spectacular ending.
I’d say that the fundamental perception, that psychologically, the observer is the observed, is the most difficult reality to put into words because it’s the closest and most obvious of all perceptions.
There are pronouncements that cannot come from the state.
I don’t want to waste anymore time on you, so I’ll quote from the horses mouth:
“Thought itself must deny itself. Thought itself sees what it is doing - right? - and therefore thought itself realizes that it has to come of itself to an end. There is no other factor than itself.”
from 'You Are The World, Second Public talk, 1969 at Stanford University."
But first it must see all the ways it has kept itself in power and continues to do so.
Agreed. The answers to this question are probably correct. It is the question itself which is wrong.
What does it mean to negate?
Thought itself does not know what it is doing by thinking, I would say. It does not see how it creates its own reality by thinking; it cannot negate itself.
However, once it is clear what thinking is, this is clarity and not thinking, no conclusion. Does that mean negation?
Is this ‘once’ an event in the past, in the future or in the present? The past and the future are mapped out by thought; this map prevents clarity. Thinking without a map is possible. Thinking then is the negation of thought.