Review of “Endgame, Volume 2: Resistance”

Book review by Squalor

Endgame, Vol. 2: Resistance

by Derrick Jensen

New York, Seven Stories Press, 2006.

“This is a big book about a big subject, but there are many areas I've left unexplored. I’ve not… even provided any more than the most basic guidelines for choosing what actions to take. I’ve provided no detailed examination of the workings of the economic system… And I’ve not talked at all about organizing. Should we act in small cells or as parts of a larger, more cohesive organization? How do these cells coordinate? How does this organization make decisions? Who decides what we do? What do we do about infiltrators? What about snitches? What sort of training do we give people, and how do we do it?

…I am not an organizer. I am not a general. I am a writer. I am a philosopher.”

—Derrick Jensen, Endgame, Volume 2: Resistance[1]

“My definition of dismantling civilization is depriving the rich of their ability to steal from the poor and depriving the powerful of their ability to destroy the planet. Nobody but a capitalist or a sociopath (insofar as there is a difference) could disagree with that.”

—Derrick Jensen, taken from the Deep Green Resistance website[2]

Introduction

In a rather revealing letter from Derrick Jensen to Ted Kaczynski dated November 6th, 1998, Jensen writes: “...one of the things I really like about our correspondence is that normally I am always the one who pushes people to think more deeply and to push more radically and/or militantly, and you do that for me.” At first glance, one could draw some superficial parallels between Jensen’s anti-civilization and Kaczynski’s anti-tech ideologies, since it seems that the two share the same overarching message: the industrial system must be brought down in order to save wild nature. However, when one familiar with Kaczynski’s works goes on to read Jensen’s Endgame, they will see that the problem isn’t just that Jensen is far less radical than Kaczynski, but also that Jensen gets bogged down by self-indulgent philosophizing, obsessive moralizing, and a strong fixation with victimization that fails to approach the core issue of the technological system in a rational and analytical fashion. This failure to rationally approach the root of the problem taints everything in Jensen’s writing, from his faulty understanding of the issues inherent to the technological system to his vague, confused, and bare-bones attempt at offering any practical steps for those who want to do something productive about it. Quite possibly his most egregious error is his strong tendency towards leftist thinking, which is fundamentally incompatible with his environmentalist goals. While Jensen’s work arrives at one of the same conclusions as Kaczynski—that in order to save wild nature the industrial system must be brought down, sooner rather than later—it misses the mark entirely in nearly every other respect. In the opinion of this writer, this book is actively harmful, in that it could draw in readers that may sense that there is something wrong with the modern world and feel that something needs to be done about it, and then leave them with a confused understanding of the root problem (that is, the technological system) and what needs to be done about it.

Jensen, “the philosopher poet of the ecological movement,”[3] has made a name for himself in certain environmental circles as a writer that opposes industrial civilization. He is a founding member of the organization Deep Green Resistance (DGR),[4] a group that aims to bring down industrial civilization in order to save the planet. While this sounds well and good on its own, even the quickest glance at DGR reveals that the group is happily repeating many of the exact same mistakes that the Earth First! movement made decades ago. Though the media likes to prop up Deep Green Resistance as an organization that is an actual threat to the current system, or even something akin to the type of organization that Kaczynski outlines in Anti-Tech Revolution: Why and How,[5] Deep Green Resistance is nothing more than another leftist organization that will mislead and ultimately discourage and burn out individuals who want to actually do something about the system. A thorough takedown of Deep Green Resistance warrants an entire essay on its own, but in short, the group makes four irredeemable errors:

1)    They do not have a single, primary, concrete goal. They are pulled in many directions, aiming to “dismantle gender and the entire system of patriarchy which it embodies”, and bring down “[class inequality], white privilege, misogyny, and human supremacism.”[4] By focusing on multiple goals, rather than the overarching goal of ending the technological system, the group pulls itself into many different directions and renders itself ineffective.

2)    They believe that they can build “just,” “sustainable” societies after the collapse of the industrial system. In addition to this, they adopt a paradoxical and self-contradictory approach in advocating a reform of industrial society while also the destruction of it.[6]

3)    They focus on victimization issues that are irrelevant to a group whose aim is to bring down industrial civilization in order to save wild nature. In fact, it is worse than irrelevant, since such a focus: (a) attracts leftists that will corrupt the movement and shift the focus to social issues rather than ending the system, and (b) distracts vital energy and attention from what should be the only goal.[7]

4)   They encourage the formation of underground cells that carry out acts of industrial sabotage. Although these cells are (in theory) supposed to be composed of individuals that are not involved in the DGR organization, this tacit endorsement of incitement is a foolish strategic error that risks serious sanction by the system’s authorities. An above-ground group opposed to the technological system must remain strictly legal and have no association with any sort of “underground,” so as not to compromise the security of the entire movement.

The issues with Deep Green Resistance are reflected in Jensen’s book Endgame, Volume 2, a messy, oftentimes stream-of-consciousness work that is meant to serve as an impassioned call to action for those that care about the fate of the natural world. Including next to nothing of practical importance, this book is less a strategic and analytical guide for how to organize to end the technological system for good, and much more a sort of sermon to try and convince the average pacifist why using violence to end the industrial system is necessary. (It borders on being a spiritual self-help book at times, with long passages encouraging the reader to ask the soil, the salmon, the land base, etc., what it wants and to listen.[8]) The thesis[9] of Jensen’s work essentially boils down to this: we live in a “culture of abuse,” and industrial civilization itself is akin to an abusive partner. Since you cannot reason with an abusive partner in order to get them to see the error of their ways, we can infer that we also cannot reason with those “in charge” of the industrial system in order to get them to voluntarily stop destroying wild nature. Since we live in a “culture of abuse” that seeks to dominate wild nature, women, children, indigenous people, etc., even if the people “in charge” were replaced, their replacements would also seek to dominate wild nature since those that live in industrial civilization are taught from birth[10] to hate wild nature and see it as theirs to dominate. Thus, in order to stop the ravaging of the planet, Jensen argues that we have no choice but to engage in violence, and therefore dismantle industrial infrastructure. Jensen’s worldview highlights the major flaws we will be looking at in this work, namely: his masturbatory philosophizing, his strong propensity towards victimization, and his strict view of cultural beliefs as being the main culprit of environmental destruction.

Now, let’s take a deeper look at each of these flaws.

Refuting Pacifist Arguments

“Within this culture pacifism has in many circles been able to claim the moral high ground, having presumably found it empty after its previous holders—those who defended themselves and those they loved—had their landbases, cultures, bodies, and souls destroyed by the relentless physical, rhetorical, and spiritual attacks of the civilized.”

—Derrick Jensen, Endgame, Volume 2: Resistance[11]

It is a bizarre choice, spending most of the first half of the book attacking the foundations of pacifism rather than the actual issue at hand: why the technological system itself must be destroyed and how to go about it. Jensen spends over two hundred pages making long, droning arguments about how pacifism will accomplish nothing, presumably aimed at the average reformist who has been brainwashed their whole life to believe non-violence is among the highest virtues. It’s incredibly unlikely that these types will be stirred out of their conditioning through counterargument after counterargument, as any devout pacifist will be completely turned off by the amount of human suffering that the collapse of the technological system will entail so as to be useless to a revolutionary movement that seeks to end it.[12] I suspect Jensen knows this, so why exert so much effort to preach to these cowards and conformists? In a book that is aimed at those that want to save wild nature, nonetheless? Jensen complains about having “to spend…months deconstructing pacifist arguments that don’t make any sense anyway” and how he had to “spend the last three years writing this book to show conclusions that should be pretty damn obvious” (p. 750) as if this drawn-out rebuttal of pacifism were adding anything to a discussion on the issue industrial civilization or were of great practical importance to the formation of a revolutionary movement against it. Despite his claims otherwise, when reading this work one gets the sense that Jensen simply enjoys engaging in these long-winded philosophical arguments and does not want to put in the work to come to any significant conclusions about the practical application of his ideas. This book doesn’t exist to sway the average pacifist, it exists because Jensen does not want to take practical action against the system but merely gets a kick out of philosophizing, and perhaps feeling like he is delivering a truly revolutionary message in the process. He openly admits time and time again that practical action frightens him. Repeatedly Jensen reminds the reader: “I’m glad I’m a writer”[13] (and nothing more).

It should be obvious that a blind adherence to non-violence is pushed by the mainstream media, taught in schools, and instilled in modern individuals through other means of propaganda because a meek and docile population will never be a threat to the system (and because an obedient population is necessary for the smooth and orderly functioning of the system). Abiding by the morality that the system itself sets forth for its own preservation will accomplish nothing to bring down the system itself, that’s why such morals are touted by the system in the first place. It takes Jensen over 200 pages to argue something that can be done in a page or less. Allow me to argue for the (strategic) use of violence (when necessary) in a much more straightforward and simplistic way:

Technological progress has caused extensive damage to the natural world, and if left to continue unabated will result in biosphere collapse, spelling the end for all complex lifeforms on Earth. The only way to circumvent this fate is to bring about the collapse of the technological system. In order to bring about this collapse, revolutionaries will need to use all available means at their disposal and act without hesitation. Due to the fact that the technological system uses violence in order to sustain itself, and during its disruption various organizations will use violence in ruthless competition for power, revolutionaries will need to use violence when it is strategic to do so in order to achieve their goal of taking down the technological system. Those that disagree will be useless as revolutionaries, for their irrational commitment to nonviolence is emblematic of their enslavement to the values of the system or the fact that they do not truly want to see the technological system eliminated, at least not to the extent that they are willing to take the necessary measures to save the biosphere.

In engaging so deeply with pacifist arguments, even if to refute them, Jensen offers them more weight than they are worth. Cowards and conformists with a deep-seated aversion to violence won’t be convinced to abandon their values through rational argument and should not be the audience that a group truly opposed to the technological system should dignify or attempt to reach. It’s a waste of time for everyone involved. In order to form a truly radical, revolutionary movement against the technological system, one needs to reach a small minority of individuals[14] that will have no qualms about getting their hands dirty. These people will not need to be endlessly preached to, and will only be turned off by arguments for the obvious that do not respect their intelligence and only waste their time.

Leftism

“To bring down civilization will involve, so far as I can tell, six different broad categories of work. The first is the personal. We need to change ourselves. As Gandhi and countless other pacifists have said, we need to become the change we wish to see. Not only must we reject the reward system of capitalism, but we must attempt to eradicate oppression wherever we find it…

…So the first personal change we must make is to eradicate the desire to dominate, exploit, use others. To challenge our perceived entitlements. For someone like myself, a well-educated white male, that’s a lot of perceived entitlements to attempt to sort through.”

—Derrick Jensen, Endgame, Volume 2: Resistance[15]

Jensen’s obsession with victimization issues is a grave strategic error. Leftist values are the values of the technological system itself, since the system needs a cooperative and harmonious population in order to function smoothly as a social machine. The things that leftism seeks to eliminate: sexism, racism, homophobia, etc., are all things that get in the way of orderly cooperation in service of the technological system.[16] In urging readers to “eradicate the desire to dominate, exploit, use others. To challenge our perceived entitlements…” and stating that “...we must attempt to eradicate oppression wherever we find it…” he is not only asking readers to internalize the values of the technological system, but also to do the work of the technological system for it. Thus, these "first steps" offered by Jensen to bring down industrial civilization are, in effect, nothing more than enticements to engage in a kind of pseudo-rebellion that actually strengthens it. And therein encapsulates the issue of leftism: It is poison to any truly revolutionary movement. It will take ideas that are genuinely revolutionary (ending the technological system, for example), and pervert them until they are no longer any threat to the system. In spreading leftist values and ideas, for example, by asking others to eliminate attitudes that are not egalitarian or politically correct, Jensen advocates a paradox: adhering to the values and priorities of the system in order to destroy the system. This can only create a cognitive dissonance in the intelligent reader, as the direct contradiction between a pro-wilderness message and a social justice one should be apparent: on the one hand the technological system is the root cause behind the destruction of wilderness, and on the other hand social justice issues are only solvable within the context of a technological system.  For example, you need organized, systematic, wide-scale and rationally coordinated systems of mass education and rapid and long-distance communication for propaganda in order to realize social justice ideals.  Furthermore, at this point in time, social justice values are largely the values shared by the technological system.  For the sake of its own efficiency and security, the technological system needs people to be collectivist, tolerant, and egalitarian, etc.  These traits reduce tensions within a technological society that could be disruptive to the smooth orderly functioning of the industrial machine, transfer more loyalties to the system itself and away from any competing in-group loyalties, and provide more readily exploitable human resources.  Lastly, the fight against the technological system is an enormous one.  A movement that seeks to end it can't afford to divert its focus and dilute its energies on other goals. By emphasizing social justice matters as Jensen does, he distracts vital attention away from the primary target—the technological system itself.

Practically speaking, catering to leftists and drawing them into the ranks of what should be a revolutionary movement will spell disaster for a group that is meant to be contrary to the existing system. Quite apart from the fact that leftist values are by and large currently the values of the technological system, any movement that seeks to bring about the collapse of the technological system must concentrate all their efforts on one clear, concrete goal. Even if one weren’t taking this into account, the allowance of values and aims that compete against the principal goal of dismantling the technological system will inevitably end up corrupting the movement to the point that it is no longer a threat to the system. For an example of this one only needs to look to Earth First!, a group whose initial aim was to save wild nature, but in allowing leftists into their ranks became corrupted to the point of no longer being a radical group, and instead just another social justice faction. Jensen’s, and DGR’s, allowance for leftist values and goals has already spelled their downfall.

“The Culture”

“The culture’s problem lies above all in the belief that controlling and abusing the natural world is justifiable…Within this culture, economics—not community well-being, not morals, not ethics, not justice, not life itself—drives social decisions.

—Derrick Jensen, Endgame, Volume 2: Resistance.[17]

“...your ideological attack must be focused on modern technology itself. An attempt to eliminate capitalism, globalization, centralization or any other subordinate evil can only distract attention from the need to eliminate the entire technological system.”

—Ted Kaczynski, Anti-Tech Revolution: Why and How. [18]

In light of the severe environmental degradation and loss of wild nature that we are experiencing in the modern age, Jensen lays blame on a “culture”[19] of abuse rather than the material fact that the modern technological system not only necessitates, but outright requires, the mass destruction of wild nature in order to perpetuate itself. Throughout the book Jensen writes how we are in our environmental mess today because industrial civilization is a culture of exploitation and domination, where civilized people are taught from birth to exploit the land (and others) for their own economic gain. We see mass destruction of wilderness as a result of the fact that people do not take into account the long-term consequences that their actions will have on the “landbase,” and this extends to those in power who see the Earth as theirs to exploit. Nowhere in this book does Jensen address that it is the material infrastructure of a given society that determines the superstructure (its values and beliefs), rather than the other way around. The technological system is not the primary result of a “culture” or superstructure in which humans view themselves as separate from nature and thus able to subjugate it to their own whims. It is not the primary result of a belief system or set of values. It is a fundamentally material problem. Jensen’s confusion on this matter appears throughout the book, but to highlight just one example:

“I know, to start with, that it’s a lot easier to not put in exotics than it is to take them out later. I wish people had thought of this before they brought in Himalayan blackberries. A couple of years ago my mom made the offhand suggestion that I put koi in the pond outside my home. I don’t want goldfish here in a thousand years, and they’re easier to not put in than to take out later, so I didn’t put them in. I wish the entire culture followed this one simple rule.”

—Derrick Jensen, Endgame, Volume 2: Resistance.[20]

The wish that everyone follow this stated rule—that they think about the long-term consequences that their actions will have on the land (assuming that the long-term consequences can even be predicted)—highlights the leftist mindset that everyone simply needs to think the same and act for the collective good. This ignores the fact that so long as technology allows humans to travel rapidly across continents there will inevitably be introduction of non-native species to areas around the globe. So long as humans have the tools to severely disrupt the balance of the natural world there will be an issue of invasive species, alongside every other environmental issue we see today. To blame those at the top of the technological system, to blame their sociopathic tendencies and criticize the “culture,” misses the big picture: It is the physical infrastructure of the technological system that is fundamentally at odds with wild nature and human freedom. It also fails to take into account that society cannot be rationally controlled, as the long-term consequences of one's actions are ultimately unpredictable.

Jensen often falls into a sort of mumbo jumbo that is reminiscent of Deep ecologists like Arne Naess.[21] That if only we could “fix” the culture and instill the right values in the population then we would be able to live in a sustainable utopia that is harmonious with wild nature. Though Jensen ultimately understands that this won’t happen he does not argue so in a way that accurately reflects the root of the problem: modern technology. Instead, he derides the fact that we cannot reason with the “abusers” at the top of the system, and that they will continue to mismanage technology and destroy nature in order to line their pockets. 

This focus on blaming those “at the top” of the current system is not a mere rhetorical misstep, it has dire consequences when drawing conclusions about practical action against the system. This can be seen in a letter from Jesen to Kaczynski, dated November 6th, 1998, in which Jesen says the following: “...I’m going to write a novel called ‘Flashpoint.’ It will be about how all sorts of groups get together to start trying to take down civilization, by any means possible. Here’s my question: one of the central groups of people in the book will be fairly small. Do you think it would be a better use of their small numbers to try to first go after totally inexcusable and gratuitous forms of technology (for example, jet ski factories) that produce absolutely no good value, or to go after the infrastructure itself?” While this may seem innocuous, it serves to highlight the end result of Jensen’s thinking: a misunderstanding of the fact that technological infrastructure must be dismantled rather than inconsequential aspects of the technological system that may seem especially egregious to the public, but won’t do much as far as ending the system as a whole.

Contrast Jensen’s view of the root problem with Kaczynski’s theory of self-propagating systems, which posits that under any complex society systems will arise and that, in order to survive must outcompete other systems in the short-term without any regard for the long-term, as those that do take into account long-term consequences (such as environmental integrity) lose their competitive edge against those that do not. Thus, they lose out in a sort of Darwinian competition for survival. These systems compete for power regardless of attempts by the government, or any other entity, to rationally steer society in any way. Jensen, rather than recognizing the technological system as one that is autonomous, and is not capable of being rationally controlled (due to many factors, from the fact that it is impossible to predict the long-term consequences of actions, to chaos theory, to the nature of self-propagating systems), focuses on criticizing people and organizations in positions of power within the system (which, if they were to care about wild nature would simply lose out in the battle for power against other self-propagating systems that did not take into account long-term consequences) or the economic system (which is a dependent variable selected for by the technological system due to its superior efficiency over alternative systems, i.e., it is the economic system most conductive to technological growth).

Jensen’s murky understanding of the problem we are facing not only serves to confuse the reader, it also allows for corruption of any movement based off of his works, since it does not explicitly state that it is modern technology itself that needs to be done away with. Talk of “the culture” is sometimes (though very rarely, to Jensen’s credit) swapped with “capitalism,” which is also not dealing with the problem at its source, just simply one of the many evil symptoms of the technological system.

Positives

As disjointed and irrational as this book can be, there are some small things that those committed to a revolution against the technological system can take away from it–though these ideas admittedly aren’t novel or exciting. Jensen’s passion for wilderness is admirable, and potentially infectious. While the preachy tone that Jensen often uses will likely turn away rational, intellectual individuals that should be forming the core of a movement against the technological system, there is something to be said about (strategically) stressing our genuine fondness for wild nature without delving into irrationalism that will alienate those we want to draw in.[22] There is also something to be said about Jensen’s steadfast, unshakable conviction that wild nature will triumph in the end, although this too delves into irrationality at times.[23] While this kind of optimism may serve to downplay the severity of the situation that we are currently facing (Jensen either fails to realize or clearly emphasize that continued, unabated technological progress would logically end in biosphere collapse), it does leave the reader with a sense of hope and resolve. The highlights in this work are when Jensen describes his love for nature, how he found it a refuge during a dark time in his life, and how it continues to bring him peace to this day. A movement against the technological system would be wise to appeal to this love of nature, and not shy away from outright stating our admiration for the wilderness in our writings.

Conclusion

In sum, this book is entirely useless to those that are already familiar with anti-tech ideas, and for those that aren’t this book can only serve to frustrate or confuse them on the problem at hand. A large portion of this book serves no real purpose other than for Jensen to engage in impractical philosophizing. This book is also wildly misguided, in that the focus on leftist issues openly invites corruption of what should be a movement devoted to ending the technological system. There are many issues with this book that I did not touch on deeply in this review: Jensen at times understates the severity of the situation, or simply fails to take into consideration that the technological system, if allowed to progress unabated, will likely result in unmitigated disaster for all complex lifeforms on Earth. There is a complete lack of focus on practical matters; Jensen himself admits that he is simply a writer, a philosophizer, and not an organizer. He can’t even spell out the bare minimum when it comes to the fact that a serious, well-organized group must form in order to strike at the system when it is at its weakest (thrown into a crisis). There is no clear understanding of the fact that a publicly visible movement opposed to the technological system must remain strictly legal; Jensen advocating for the illegal removal of dams (which could be interpreted as “incitement”) is foolish. For a book with such a bold title, it fails to deliver on every front.

___________

NOTES:

[1] Jensen, Derrick, Endgame, Volume Two: Resistance, New York, Seven Stories Press, 2006, p. 883.

[2] https://deepgreenresistance.org/frequently-asked-questions-faqs/

[3] https://derrickjensen.org/endgame/

[4] Deep Green Resistance: https://deepgreenresistance.org/about-us/

[5] See: https://www.versobooks.com/blogs/news/stone-age-daydreams, or https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/12/the-unabomberAbout Us | Deep Green Resistance-ted-kaczynski-new-generation-of-acolytes.html

[6] From the Deep Green Resistance “Decisive Ecological Warfare” page: “Goal 2: To defend and rebuild just, sustainable, and autonomous human communities, and, as part of that, to assist in the recovery of the land.” In addition to this: “Strategy B: Aid and participate in ongoing social and ecological justice struggles; promote equality and undermine exploitation by those in power.”

[7] From the Deep Green Resistance “About Us” page: “Deep Green Resistance is a radical feminist organization… As radicals, we intend to dismantle gender and the entire system of patriarchy which it embodies. The freedom of women as a class cannot be separated from the resistance to the dominant culture as a whole.” And: “ We are enmeshed in overlapping systems of sadistic power built on stolen wealth, white privilege, misogyny, and human supremacism. As individuals, it is our responsibility to acknowledge those systems, overcome our entitlement, and make alliances with the dispossessed. Collectively, it is our task to bring those systems down.” And: “This ecological crisis is linked to the social crisis. Wealth inequality is at an all-time high. Corruption is rife in governments around the world. Sweatshop labor and ruthless labor exploitation powers the global market. Militaries, police, and mercenaries murder and terrorize vast swathes of the population—especially the poorest, the indigenous, the people of color. Sexual violence is commonplace and objectification is celebrated in corporate media.” One could go on and on pointing out such examples.

[8] E.g., p. 534: “What do you want? The question is not rhetorical. Don’t just pass it by and move to the next chapter. Stop. Put down the book. Go outside. Take a long walk. Look at the stars. Pet the bark of trees. Smell the soil. Listen to a river. Ask them what they want. Ask your heart what you want. Ask your head. Ask your heart again. Then figure out how you’re going to get it.”

[9] E.g., p. 570: “Well, if you agree with my thesis… that the motivations, dynamics, and damage of abuse play out not only in the bedrooms of little girls and boys, not only in the black eyes and bruised and torn vaginas of women, not only in the fragmented and fearful psyches of the traumatized, but also in blasted streams and dammed rivers, poisoned oceans and extirpated species, and in enslaved, domesticated, or destroyed humans (and nonhumans, and landscapes), then it means that asking, cajoling, or even sending lovingkindnessTM to abusers is at best a waste of time.”

[10] For just another example of Jensen’s irrationality, Jensen states that he feels that people are taught even before birth to hate wild nature. E.g., p. XI: “From birth on—and probably from conception, but I’m not sure how I’d make the case—we are individually and collectively enculturated to hate life, hate the natural world, hate the wild, hate wild animals, hate women, hate children, hate our bodies, hate and fear our emotions, hate ourselves. If we did not hate the world, we could not allow it to be destroyed before our eyes. If we did not hate ourselves, we could not allow our homes—and our bodies—to be poisoned.”

[11] Page 759.

[12] The author of this review does not believe that informing devout pacifists that if the technological system were to progress to its logical conclusion then all life on this planet would die with it would do anything to stir them out of their commitment to nonviolence, except for perhaps in the rarest of cases. This will remain to be seen.

[13] His own cowardice is a running joke in his book. See, e.g., p. 645: “I was thinking how glad I am that I’m a writer.”; p. 646: “I went back to thinking about how glad I am that I’m a writer… Did I mention that I’m glad I’m a writer?”; p. 650: “I cannot tell you how glad I am that I am a writer.”; p. 813: “Have I mentioned lately that I’m glad I’m a writer?”.

[14] If one were being charitable, one could assume that Jensen is attempting to convince the average pacifist to ditch their adherence to non-violence since he believes that he needs to reach a critical mass of people and convert them to his anti-industrial ideology in order to take down industrial civilization. This would explain why he exerts so much effort towards trying to sway the average person to his position. However, this is not the case. Jensen, for his faults, does seem to recognize that the issue of forming a movement against the industrial system is not simply a matter of numbers. In one chapter, titled “Fewer Than Jesus Had Apostles”, Jensen recounts a discussion with some hackers in which one told him that “[i]t would take far fewer than Jesus had Apostles” to bring down industrial civilization (p. 744). Elsewhere, Jensen says that he is “not talking about convincing some hypothetical mass movement of people, which will not happen within this culture.” (p. 717).

[15] Pages 844-845.

[16] And this is not to say that rightist values represent any significant threat to the system either. In fact, In addition to promoting technological progress and economic growth, rightism plays into the industrial system by providing leftists with an adversary, tricking them into thinking that they are actually facing opposition in implementing changes that contribute to the overall smooth functioning of the technological system.

[17] Page XII.

[18] Page 226.

[19] “...deer, elk, bears (brown and grizzly), wolves, and everyone else whose home this was and shall be. What do each of these want in their home? How can I help make this land as inviting for them as it was before the arrival of civilization?…these sorts of questions, are almost entirely absent within this culture, and carry almost zero weight in policy decisions at the corporate, governmental, or cultural level, and at the level of personal decisions made by almost every civilized person...” (p. 582)

[20] Page 582.

[21] See: Excerpts from Kaczynski's letter to Anonymous, July 1st, 2003, in which he reviews Arne Naess’ essay for Deep Ecology for the Twenty-First Century: Readings on the Philosophy and Practice of the New Environmentalism, https://www.wildernessfront.com/blog/tk-letter-070103

[22] For an example of the silliness that Jensen falls into, see the “Pretend You Are a River” chapter in which Jensen asks readers to pretend that they are a river and that they miss the salmon that used to be abundant in their streams, pretend to be a tree and feel the moss growing on them, etc., etc. This goes on for several pages.

[23] See p. 521 of Endgame, Volume 2. While Jensen interpreting his dreams as symbolically conveying that wild nature will prevail over the destruction that the technological system causes is nice and feel-good, it quite literally is not grounded in reality.

Copyright 2023 by Wilderness Front. All rights reserved. This is published with the permission of the copyright owner.