Derrick Jensen's endgame

Derrick Jensen is one of the leaders of Deep Green Resistance (DGR), arguably one of the most extreme ecologist groups. He is also listed as co-author of the book "Deep Green Resistance", reviewed by me elsewhere on this site. The DGR calls for eco-terrorism on a massive scale (!) as the only solution to the present ecological crisis. *All* of modern civilization must be smashed and replaced by self-governing local communities living in harmony with nature.

While "Deep Green Resistance" is considered to be an official policy statement of the DGR, "Endgame" blends personal and political reflections by Jensen himself. This is the second volume, subtitled "Resistance". The book is, in a very relative sense, less extreme than the official statement. Thus, Jensen believes that civilization might actually collapse all by itself, perhaps due to peak oil, climate change or pandemics. The powers-that-be will respond with fascism, but eventually, the fascist regimes will crumble due to lack of fuel and other needed resources. He also hopes that revolutions with massive popular support will break out in the Third World. But if these scenarios are a distinct possibility, why does Jensen still call for small group violence and sabotage as his own preferred strategy? Why not wait until the system collapses under its own weight, or move to Latin America and start organizing?

When Jensen discusses sabotage through hacking or bombings, he is at his least convincing. The system can surely "go manual" in response to Jensen's geek friends hacking enough computers. Transport, industry and large-scale trade worked just fine centuries before the first computer was invented. It's also hard to see how attacks with home made bombs can bring down civilization, unless you have The Perfect Plan. Which the DGR obviously hasn't, since we're all still here...

At least to me, Jensen's opinions about other issues than strictly Green ones are often unacceptable. He supports the Iraqi "resistance" against the U.S. intervention, in effect Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. The first volume of "Endgame" actually starts with a paen to the 9/11 terrorists! Although it's hypothetical, one wonders to what extent this literary device reflects the author's own thinking? Jensen is quick to condemn U.S. atrocities around the world, but what about the regimes in Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Serbia, Sudan... At least, Jensen supports the Allies in World War II (thank you). While Jensen's feminism is clearly visible in the book, his (later?) radical feminist opposition to transsexualism and transgenderism isn't.

I don't deny that the ecological crises is severe, and that civilization is on the brink of disaster. However, a book like this will with a high degree of probability not accomplish anything at all, except maybe to fool a few activists into perpetrating acts of violence which will accomplish nothing, except land them in prison. If the crisis looks like Jensen says it does, a more logical option is to stay put and build resilient communities, rather than dream about world revolutionary endgames...