A messenger with a gun

"Deep Green Resistance" is a disturbing book calling for eco-terrorism on a massive scale as the only way to save the planet (and perhaps ourselves). The authors, Lierre Keith and Aric McBay, are spokespersons for Deep Green Resistance (DGR), a small eco-radical group in the United States. They are backed by the author Derrick Jensen. Some of the material in this book has also been posted at the DGR's website.

DGR blends deep ecology with left-wing politics. The group is feminist, anti-racist, anti-imperialist and (broadly) anarchist. Since "civilization" is seen as inherently oppressive, the only way to secure a non-hierarchic society is to dismantle civilization. Of course, this is also necessary in order to save the planet itself. Judging by context, the authors believe that animals, plants and biota have intrinsic value independent of humans. So far, DGR sounds similar to other groups attempting to amalgamate deep ecology with the politics of the New Left. The term "civilization" refers to all cultures based on advanced technology and (perhaps) also to all forms of agriculture. In effect, DGR believes that only a Palaeolithic lifestyle is in harmony with nature. Even this somewhat extreme position has a previous precedent: the anarcho-primitivists at Fifth Estate and similar publications.

What makes DGR distinctive is their explicit call for "Decisive Ecological Warfare". DGR argues that we can't wait until civilization runs its course and collapses all by itself. By then, it might already be too late to save the planet. (DGR believes that global warming might destroy all life on Earth in a Venus-like scenario.) Industrial civilization must therefore be actively destroyed. But how? In the film "END CIV", Derrick Jensen says that our culture and most of its members are sociopathic and driven by a death wish to exterminate nature. In "Deep Green Resistance", the inevitable conclusion from this is sharply drawn: no mass movement for social change is possible, certainly not for the abolition of civilization. Therefore, the only way to eradicate the modern world is for a small group of dedicated revolutionaries to attack the most important hubs of the industrial system in a series of massive, coordinated terrorist attacks. Oil rigs, ports, dams, bridges and power stations the world over are prime targets.

I'm not exaggerating. "Deep Green Resistance" actually proposes this. If the authors seriously believe it can be done, is perhaps another matter. In another book, "Endgame", Jensen fantasizes about E-bombs, devices that can neutralize all electricity in a target area, thereby destroying civilization as we know it. The whole scenario sounds like science fiction. The book also contradicts itself when discussing military matters, constantly referring to the French resistance, the Irish independence movement or the ANC. But these movements had broad popular support. Michael Collins taking up arms against the British on the Green Island is a somewhat different proposition than creating a Green al-Qaeda...

Apart from the rather obvious logistical difficulties in carrying out the world's largest string of terrorist attacks, there is an additional problem: the chaos and mayhem that would follow the immediate collapse of civilization would lead to unspeakable suffering, especially for the poor and oppressed the DGR claims to fight for. Imagine the urban slums after a permanent black out and collapse of communications! Ironically, an overnight collapse of civilization would probably also lead to more environmental destruction, not less, as 7 billion people cut down the last remaining forests to get fuel, destroy the land in a desperate attempt at subsistence farming, or hunt most large mammals and birds to extinction to get meat. Eventually, a mass die-off would ensue. DGR has no real answer to this. Sometimes, they suggest that the poor in the Third World would actually be better off if civilization disappeared and the West no longer stole their resources. This may be true for some rural or nomadic communities, but since a non-technological society can't feed or clothe 7 billion people, a mass die-off would be the bottom line anyway. DGR might whine all they like about it, but most of Earth's population live in the Third World. Therefore, most of the people who must die to reach DGR's population optimum of about 200 million live in the nations the DGR considers oppressed by American imperialism.

Ultimately, I suspect that the DGR doesn't really care. After all, they believe that most humans are irredeemable and are driven by a death wish. It's interesting to note that Jensen has a chronic disease and admits that *he* will be the first to die in the event of a collapse. He says he's willing to sacrifice himself. Sounds like a death wish. Is somebody having issues of projection around here? Keith constantly complains about infantilism, calling on people to mature and grow up (especially hippies, new agers and leftists). Projection again? After all, her revolutionary scenario sounds like the dreams of a disturbed, psychotic 14-year old boy...

Of course, none of this means that the ecological crisis is unreal, or that a burgeoning mass movement of red-greens exist to solve it to our satisfaction. But surely there's a difference between pointing out that billions might die due to system failure, and actively *wishing* for such a scenario? People like Kunstler, Greer or Catton are just messengers. It's obviously unwise to shoot the messenger.

But what should we say about a messenger who wants to shoot us?