What do you think?
Rate this book
Endgame #2
Endgame, Vol. 2: Resistance
Whereas Volume 1 of Endgame presents the problem of civilization, Volume 2 of this pivotal work illustrates our means of resistance. Incensed and hopeful, impassioned and lucid, Endgame leapfrogs the environmental movement's deadlock over our willingness to change our conduct, focusing instead on our ability to adapt to the impending ecological revolution.
496 pages, Paperback
Published June 6, 2006
53 people are currently reading
1600 people want to read
About the author
Derrick Jensen
52 books685 followersDerrick Jensen is an American author and environmental activist living in Crescent City, California. He has published several books questioning and critiquing contemporary society and its values, including A Language Older Than Words, The Culture of Make Believe, and Endgame. He holds a B.S. in Mineral Engineering Physics from the Colorado School of Mines and an M.F.A. in Creative Writing from Eastern Washington University. He has also taught creative writing at Pelican Bay State Prison and Eastern Washington University.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 56 reviews
February 26, 2021
Finally someone has put these thoughts into coherent arguments. Better than Volume 1 (because it deals more with action -- see my review here) Volume II is still far from perfect. But my overriding feeling about both is an excited gratitude that someone has actually written them. And regardless of the flaws, it is obvious that Jensen has put an incredible amount of thought and consideration into this work. It's not just a brainless rant against civilization, but composed rather of arguments that have been clearly analyzed and meditated upon, in order to break down each phenomena into its component parts.
A great example would be the discussion on symbolic and non-symbolic violence. Jensen defines his terms, describes what each one looks like, and even posits two requisites for symbolic action to be effective: 1) The message has to be able to reach its intended target and 2) That target has to have the agency and the will to change the situation. By making such a thorough analysis with clear definitions, Jensen develops his argument such that you cannot disagree on grounds that he is being obscure or illogical, even if you do disagree with his premises (then again, I would defy critics to disprove even one of those 20 premises).
The conversations with the hackers and with the ex-military personnel were actually exciting, and made me terribly hopeful for the possibilities (even remembering from Volume I that hope is a waste of time). And am I mistaken or did he pretty much destroy Gandhi right around the first 100 pages or so? Are you kidding? First Buddhism and then the Holy Cow. Whether or not I agree with Jensen on this point (and honestly I haven't studied Gandhi enough to fully accept or reject Jensen's argument), I love the guy's sheer audacity.
Like I said, though, it wasn't perfect (five stars are for the content). As are all of the 5 books of his I've read, the narrative is disfocused to say the least, and a little distracting because of it. It's hard to tell if he wrote it that way, stream-of-consciousness-esque, or just sort of mixed and matched after he had completed everything. I tend to think the former. But it results in him repeating many of the same phrases and passages, themes and ideas throughout the book, ad nauseum. I love Jensen for his lack of restraint, but here it would have made his book more readable, and wasted less paper.
Another complaint to go along with the disfocus/length is that the stylistic layout of the book is wasteful. For someone who is concerned with deforestation, it's surprising that in the last three books of his I've read (The Culture of Make Believe -- see my review -- and the Endgames), there are hundreds of blank pages, or pages used only for a big block quote. I understand his argument that cutting back on 50 pages or so is not going to save any particular forests, but couldn't it make a small difference at least? At least if he was publishing a more physically efficient/ecological/sustainable book, he would be sending an effective symbolic message, by his own definition.
One last thing, and minor, is that Jensen mentions vivisection over and over again, but doesn't ever really go into details. What is he referring to when he uses the word? How prevalent is it? Where is this going on? Where are all of these "vivisection labs"? My understanding is that most of the egregious stuff (actually dissecting live animals to see how they tick) has been phased out, am I mistaken on this? Development of this discussion would have been helpful.
A response to those who criticize Jensen for not providing enough concrete solutions or action plans to these problems: I personally found Jensen's treatment of this issue both satisfactory and understandable. While providing a loose framework of what he thinks the most effecitve resistance will look like (whether it is small guerrilla units taking out infrastructure, hackers messing with communications, or lone activists taking out a dam), he also develops what for me was some very helpful basic strategy: "Get there first with the most" (i.e. select your battlefield/terms of argument and make them fight on your terms, not vice versa), and "Hit 'em where they ain´t" (and where it causes the most harm).
Additionally there is his discussion of fulcra, leverage, and bottlenecks, all of which lay out some broad tactical patterns. He also states, which some may view as a cop-out but which I happen to agree with, that he cannot tell people specifically what to do, because part of the entire destruction of civilization has to come from people reclaiming their own agency. He implores people to use his basic suggestions and be creative with them.
My question to the critics of Jensen's treatment is: What more did you expect/want? What about this is lacking? Do you need him to tell you specifically which dams to take out? He says over and over that you have to pay attention to the land closest to where you live. Do you expect him to recommend you an ex-military guy to blow stuff up with? Do you want him to introduce you to your own personal guerrilla unit? To make a list of every single destructive activity you could perform?
I'm not sure what more Jensen could have done here than what he did. With all due respect, these criticisms strike me as an excuse to avoid using your own creativity and agency to do something yourself -- which is to say it reeks of physical and mental laziness. Jensen is fulfilling his chosen role by writing about this in the most public manner possibility. The readers, in order to hold up their end, will have to do something eventually as well -- not everything will be handed to us on a platter.
Not Bad Reviews
@pointblaek
A great example would be the discussion on symbolic and non-symbolic violence. Jensen defines his terms, describes what each one looks like, and even posits two requisites for symbolic action to be effective: 1) The message has to be able to reach its intended target and 2) That target has to have the agency and the will to change the situation. By making such a thorough analysis with clear definitions, Jensen develops his argument such that you cannot disagree on grounds that he is being obscure or illogical, even if you do disagree with his premises (then again, I would defy critics to disprove even one of those 20 premises).
The conversations with the hackers and with the ex-military personnel were actually exciting, and made me terribly hopeful for the possibilities (even remembering from Volume I that hope is a waste of time). And am I mistaken or did he pretty much destroy Gandhi right around the first 100 pages or so? Are you kidding? First Buddhism and then the Holy Cow. Whether or not I agree with Jensen on this point (and honestly I haven't studied Gandhi enough to fully accept or reject Jensen's argument), I love the guy's sheer audacity.
Like I said, though, it wasn't perfect (five stars are for the content). As are all of the 5 books of his I've read, the narrative is disfocused to say the least, and a little distracting because of it. It's hard to tell if he wrote it that way, stream-of-consciousness-esque, or just sort of mixed and matched after he had completed everything. I tend to think the former. But it results in him repeating many of the same phrases and passages, themes and ideas throughout the book, ad nauseum. I love Jensen for his lack of restraint, but here it would have made his book more readable, and wasted less paper.
Another complaint to go along with the disfocus/length is that the stylistic layout of the book is wasteful. For someone who is concerned with deforestation, it's surprising that in the last three books of his I've read (The Culture of Make Believe -- see my review -- and the Endgames), there are hundreds of blank pages, or pages used only for a big block quote. I understand his argument that cutting back on 50 pages or so is not going to save any particular forests, but couldn't it make a small difference at least? At least if he was publishing a more physically efficient/ecological/sustainable book, he would be sending an effective symbolic message, by his own definition.
One last thing, and minor, is that Jensen mentions vivisection over and over again, but doesn't ever really go into details. What is he referring to when he uses the word? How prevalent is it? Where is this going on? Where are all of these "vivisection labs"? My understanding is that most of the egregious stuff (actually dissecting live animals to see how they tick) has been phased out, am I mistaken on this? Development of this discussion would have been helpful.
A response to those who criticize Jensen for not providing enough concrete solutions or action plans to these problems: I personally found Jensen's treatment of this issue both satisfactory and understandable. While providing a loose framework of what he thinks the most effecitve resistance will look like (whether it is small guerrilla units taking out infrastructure, hackers messing with communications, or lone activists taking out a dam), he also develops what for me was some very helpful basic strategy: "Get there first with the most" (i.e. select your battlefield/terms of argument and make them fight on your terms, not vice versa), and "Hit 'em where they ain´t" (and where it causes the most harm).
Additionally there is his discussion of fulcra, leverage, and bottlenecks, all of which lay out some broad tactical patterns. He also states, which some may view as a cop-out but which I happen to agree with, that he cannot tell people specifically what to do, because part of the entire destruction of civilization has to come from people reclaiming their own agency. He implores people to use his basic suggestions and be creative with them.
My question to the critics of Jensen's treatment is: What more did you expect/want? What about this is lacking? Do you need him to tell you specifically which dams to take out? He says over and over that you have to pay attention to the land closest to where you live. Do you expect him to recommend you an ex-military guy to blow stuff up with? Do you want him to introduce you to your own personal guerrilla unit? To make a list of every single destructive activity you could perform?
I'm not sure what more Jensen could have done here than what he did. With all due respect, these criticisms strike me as an excuse to avoid using your own creativity and agency to do something yourself -- which is to say it reeks of physical and mental laziness. Jensen is fulfilling his chosen role by writing about this in the most public manner possibility. The readers, in order to hold up their end, will have to do something eventually as well -- not everything will be handed to us on a platter.
Not Bad Reviews
@pointblaek
March 31, 2013
There’s some murky morality in Jensen’s second volume of Endgame. The first couple hundred pages are, again, somewhat rambling and continuation of a call to conscience. But then it starts to become more focused and we finally get to the purported title of the book. Assuming everything is fucked, what’s the endgame?
Jensen’s basic premise is that preservation of a healthy landbase is the primary ethic which should guide our actions. The current threat to a healthy landbase is civilization. The Therefore statement is then pretty obvious.
Jensen makes a point of side-stepping any direct suggestions, but his endorsement of violence is clear. Much of his writing is designed to counter the objections of those he has encountered in the activist sphere. He rejects pacifist arguments, attacks the historical efficacy of non-violent actions and relates some of his efforts to learn what that next step should look like. Desperate times and such.
But this is where it falls apart for me. Jensen wants to tear it all down, return us to a state of nature and then let society reorganize itself in small clusters of eco-conscious communities. But the problem is just as obvious. There is no definable entity which he is resisting against. He is rebelling not against a thing or a group, but against our own natures.
We can’t go back. Despite all the sanitized nostalgia for existing in a pre-civilized state, we couldn’t get there even if everyone wanted to. Unless there is some catastrophic circumstance, humanity is not going to unlearn what it knows. Someone, somewhere (or many people, most everywhere) will eventually continue to produce, consume and build. Civilization comes out from innovation and innovation is the story of our species. And I’ll assume we are trying to save our species along with the planet. Like it or not, it has to be about responsible civilization, not destroying civilization. Otherwise, aren’t we just immersing ourselves in fantasy? A blood-soaked, ultimately oppressive, fantasy?
Jensen’s passion is engaging. He wants action. He wants results. He wants courageous stands and justice for those that plunder the future. Unfortunately, his endgame looks just as ineffective as the current game.
Jensen’s basic premise is that preservation of a healthy landbase is the primary ethic which should guide our actions. The current threat to a healthy landbase is civilization. The Therefore statement is then pretty obvious.
Jensen makes a point of side-stepping any direct suggestions, but his endorsement of violence is clear. Much of his writing is designed to counter the objections of those he has encountered in the activist sphere. He rejects pacifist arguments, attacks the historical efficacy of non-violent actions and relates some of his efforts to learn what that next step should look like. Desperate times and such.
But this is where it falls apart for me. Jensen wants to tear it all down, return us to a state of nature and then let society reorganize itself in small clusters of eco-conscious communities. But the problem is just as obvious. There is no definable entity which he is resisting against. He is rebelling not against a thing or a group, but against our own natures.
We can’t go back. Despite all the sanitized nostalgia for existing in a pre-civilized state, we couldn’t get there even if everyone wanted to. Unless there is some catastrophic circumstance, humanity is not going to unlearn what it knows. Someone, somewhere (or many people, most everywhere) will eventually continue to produce, consume and build. Civilization comes out from innovation and innovation is the story of our species. And I’ll assume we are trying to save our species along with the planet. Like it or not, it has to be about responsible civilization, not destroying civilization. Otherwise, aren’t we just immersing ourselves in fantasy? A blood-soaked, ultimately oppressive, fantasy?
Jensen’s passion is engaging. He wants action. He wants results. He wants courageous stands and justice for those that plunder the future. Unfortunately, his endgame looks just as ineffective as the current game.
January 2, 2024
Review of Endgame, Volume 2: Resistance
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," 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), 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, 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.” 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.
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.
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.) The thesis 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 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.
Read the rest of the review at Wilderness Front
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," 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), 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, 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.” 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.
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.
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.) The thesis 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 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.
Read the rest of the review at Wilderness Front
December 7, 2020
For most of human existence (before the rise of agriculture) humans lived sustainably by nurturing their landbase through faith in it, not in technologies. “The landbase is not only primary, it is everything. It is the source of all life.” To this came the new non-sustainable singular “deal” offered by “Civilization”: “If you let us destroy your community and your landbase, we will give you money. If you do not accept the money, we will destroy you as well.” Before “Civilization” got to Iraq, it had cedar forests so thick that sunlight never touched the ground. “Civilization is based on violence.” Civilization destroys diversity across the board. Monocropping and soil depletion anyone? Putting women in charge of US weapon manufacturing, or ordering war crimes in Libya, is NOT diversity. A sociopathic culture is an abusive culture where nature is shunned or commodified, and intimacy is neither a goal nor a value. The US has twenty-two nuclear subs which each could “effectively eliminate 408 cities across an entire hemisphere.” Salmon used to provide thousands of pounds of phosphorus and nitrogen to the river ecosystems where they travelled. Trees grow three times faster in streams filled with salmon, than with none. “Civilization” sends violence down it’s imposed hierarchy. Civilization, like government, only works with the consent of the governed, but we are too bought off with iPads and Ralph Macchiatos to dare look at, let alone challenge the entire structure of either. We should have all been taught David Hume’s On the First Principles of government.
Did you know that Gandhi urged the British to surrender to the Nazis? Gandhi’s bizarre solution to the Holocaust: “The Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher’s knife. They have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs.” Can you imagine a worse thing to say to abused individuals, than give in and give up? The same Gandhi who wrote a letter to Hitler hoping he would change, also refused sex with his wife for the last 38 years of marriage, and frequently slept next to naked beautiful women after calling his own wife “a meek cow”. And don’t forget Gandhi’s terrible treatment of his two sons Harilal and Manilal.
Bombing Nazi railroads was the single most effective thing the Allies did, as an Army marches on its stomach. Those opposing corporate/state violence have to be nice about their opposition, but those committing those crimes don’t have to be nice. As Samuel Huntington said, “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion (to which few members of other civilizations [sic] were converted) but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-westerners never do.” The US anti-war movement helped stop the Vietnam War, but it was stopped more by the Vietnamese, and by increasing mutinous threats of US soldiers (a.k.a. frag - see film Sir! No Sir!) against their superiors. Instead of trying to save the planet, note that civilization talks of saving civilization. Civilization is about conquest and war and “overvaluing acquisition of wealth and power and undervaluing relationship.”
Machines don’t give back, but humans do because they know if they didn’t give back to their community and local landbase, they know they would destroy their own future. Soon, we all, not just the indigenous and tribal, will have to choose between life and civilization. Industrial agriculture foolishly depends short-term on petroleum for pesticides and on natural gas for fertilizer (ammonia). We have to learn to see the modern problem everywhere. How many terrific female activists quit because of sexual harassment within the Left? One woman wrote: “the forest defense community is a rape culture.” Historically, no new oil well gushed after the first few days. Gasoline has a shelf-life on only three to six months. That’s not a long timeframe for a Mad Max driving lifestyle. I loved page 874 which is a crazy long list of all the stuff we use that actually comes from oil including saccharine, aspirin, cortisone, perfumes, and lip balm. This is another great book by Derrick about the perils of Civilization, and instead directing us all to the natural world and to caring for all of it. I am reviewing 32 anti-civilization books in a row this year on Goodreads; it’s amazing how many good ones there are, especially by the king of asking uncomfortable questions: Monsieur Derrick.
Did you know that Gandhi urged the British to surrender to the Nazis? Gandhi’s bizarre solution to the Holocaust: “The Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher’s knife. They have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs.” Can you imagine a worse thing to say to abused individuals, than give in and give up? The same Gandhi who wrote a letter to Hitler hoping he would change, also refused sex with his wife for the last 38 years of marriage, and frequently slept next to naked beautiful women after calling his own wife “a meek cow”. And don’t forget Gandhi’s terrible treatment of his two sons Harilal and Manilal.
Bombing Nazi railroads was the single most effective thing the Allies did, as an Army marches on its stomach. Those opposing corporate/state violence have to be nice about their opposition, but those committing those crimes don’t have to be nice. As Samuel Huntington said, “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion (to which few members of other civilizations [sic] were converted) but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-westerners never do.” The US anti-war movement helped stop the Vietnam War, but it was stopped more by the Vietnamese, and by increasing mutinous threats of US soldiers (a.k.a. frag - see film Sir! No Sir!) against their superiors. Instead of trying to save the planet, note that civilization talks of saving civilization. Civilization is about conquest and war and “overvaluing acquisition of wealth and power and undervaluing relationship.”
Machines don’t give back, but humans do because they know if they didn’t give back to their community and local landbase, they know they would destroy their own future. Soon, we all, not just the indigenous and tribal, will have to choose between life and civilization. Industrial agriculture foolishly depends short-term on petroleum for pesticides and on natural gas for fertilizer (ammonia). We have to learn to see the modern problem everywhere. How many terrific female activists quit because of sexual harassment within the Left? One woman wrote: “the forest defense community is a rape culture.” Historically, no new oil well gushed after the first few days. Gasoline has a shelf-life on only three to six months. That’s not a long timeframe for a Mad Max driving lifestyle. I loved page 874 which is a crazy long list of all the stuff we use that actually comes from oil including saccharine, aspirin, cortisone, perfumes, and lip balm. This is another great book by Derrick about the perils of Civilization, and instead directing us all to the natural world and to caring for all of it. I am reviewing 32 anti-civilization books in a row this year on Goodreads; it’s amazing how many good ones there are, especially by the king of asking uncomfortable questions: Monsieur Derrick.
May 31, 2008
Throughout the book I was reminded of Kurt Vonnegut. Both Vonnegut and Jensen use Jewish Holocaust examples to engender fear and illustrate the dangers of complacency. Both use slim facts to support an outrageous plan that feels shockingly plausible. Where Vonnegut uses quirky characters to point out flaws in the dominant paradigm, Jensen is passionate about dams and salmon using that struggle to offer rationale and action for change. While he advocates violence and specifically the use of explosives to blow up dams, he frequently acknowledges his own cowardice to do so.
He advocates a return to the land, without so-called modern conveniences. Throughout the books, I had an underlying question of whether he really advocated this overthrow, or if it was something else in a guise that simply escaped my understanding.
Yet despite the inherent flaws with Jensen’s arguments, his work gets under your skin. Often chastising us for our complacency fueled with consumer comforts, despite incredible environmental degradation, and seemingly insurmountable obstacles, Jensen maintains a strange hold on optimism. This makes his brand of hope feel tangible.
“Over the years I have been criticized because I do not suggest models by which people should live. ‘You’re only interested in tearing things down’ some people say ‘not in providing alternatives.’ I do not provide alternatives because there is no need. The alternatives already exist, and they have existed and worked for thousands and tens of thousands of years.” (page 889) Even more optimistically outrageous, is that he thinks the overthrow of civilization will happen in our lifetimes.
Hi Ho (a Vonnegutism meaning to reflect on what you just read and to point out the simplicity of accepting a complex event)
I included this book in my survey of books available on Sustainability because it offers a philosophic approach to the basic idea of how to get from here to there. Here being a place where we are past peak oil to utopia. Reminiscent of the Monkey Wrench gang, he believes a small group of impassioned (and armed) people can bring down the dams, radio towers, and Wal-Marts. He argues against visualizing change as an effective way to attain change, similarly pacifism can’t work because the dominant powers don’t care, if they did we wouldn’t have this mess that we call civilization.
While Jensen draws parallels between an abuse of power in a family and one of governmental scale, he makes this argument so skillfully that again, I felt inspired. Often this type of comparison feels hollow and forced; something about Jensen’s passion again calls the reader to believe and to act. He uses the tradition of the Cheyenne Dog Soldiers and the picket pin to make this point even more graphic.
“Attached to each dog rope, was a picket-pin, normally used to tether horses. During battle, the pin was driven into the ground as a mark of resolve. Once the pin was driven, the Dog Soldier would remain staked to that piece of ground even to his death. Retreat was no longer an option. The pin could only be removed when everyone was safe or when another Dog Soldier, relived him of his duty.
It is time. I have driven my picket pin. I am staked out, and willing to give in no more.
Where will you drive your own picket stake? Where will you choose to make your stand? Give me a threshold, a specific point at which you will finally stop running, at which you will finally fight back?....What are your gifts and how can you use them in the service of your land base? What can you do? …What are you willing to do?” (page 890)
In the end, I am so grateful for Jensen’s writing. Alternately, very sobering recalling the pacificism of the pre German holocaust. His voice is needed to contrast the paternalistic writing in Natural Capitalism and the ever so hopeful tone of WorldChanging. If there is cataclysmic collapse of civilization I have no doubt Derrick will be sitting near a river looking for tiny fishes swimming against the current, with a big smile on his face.
He advocates a return to the land, without so-called modern conveniences. Throughout the books, I had an underlying question of whether he really advocated this overthrow, or if it was something else in a guise that simply escaped my understanding.
Yet despite the inherent flaws with Jensen’s arguments, his work gets under your skin. Often chastising us for our complacency fueled with consumer comforts, despite incredible environmental degradation, and seemingly insurmountable obstacles, Jensen maintains a strange hold on optimism. This makes his brand of hope feel tangible.
“Over the years I have been criticized because I do not suggest models by which people should live. ‘You’re only interested in tearing things down’ some people say ‘not in providing alternatives.’ I do not provide alternatives because there is no need. The alternatives already exist, and they have existed and worked for thousands and tens of thousands of years.” (page 889) Even more optimistically outrageous, is that he thinks the overthrow of civilization will happen in our lifetimes.
Hi Ho (a Vonnegutism meaning to reflect on what you just read and to point out the simplicity of accepting a complex event)
I included this book in my survey of books available on Sustainability because it offers a philosophic approach to the basic idea of how to get from here to there. Here being a place where we are past peak oil to utopia. Reminiscent of the Monkey Wrench gang, he believes a small group of impassioned (and armed) people can bring down the dams, radio towers, and Wal-Marts. He argues against visualizing change as an effective way to attain change, similarly pacifism can’t work because the dominant powers don’t care, if they did we wouldn’t have this mess that we call civilization.
While Jensen draws parallels between an abuse of power in a family and one of governmental scale, he makes this argument so skillfully that again, I felt inspired. Often this type of comparison feels hollow and forced; something about Jensen’s passion again calls the reader to believe and to act. He uses the tradition of the Cheyenne Dog Soldiers and the picket pin to make this point even more graphic.
“Attached to each dog rope, was a picket-pin, normally used to tether horses. During battle, the pin was driven into the ground as a mark of resolve. Once the pin was driven, the Dog Soldier would remain staked to that piece of ground even to his death. Retreat was no longer an option. The pin could only be removed when everyone was safe or when another Dog Soldier, relived him of his duty.
It is time. I have driven my picket pin. I am staked out, and willing to give in no more.
Where will you drive your own picket stake? Where will you choose to make your stand? Give me a threshold, a specific point at which you will finally stop running, at which you will finally fight back?....What are your gifts and how can you use them in the service of your land base? What can you do? …What are you willing to do?” (page 890)
In the end, I am so grateful for Jensen’s writing. Alternately, very sobering recalling the pacificism of the pre German holocaust. His voice is needed to contrast the paternalistic writing in Natural Capitalism and the ever so hopeful tone of WorldChanging. If there is cataclysmic collapse of civilization I have no doubt Derrick will be sitting near a river looking for tiny fishes swimming against the current, with a big smile on his face.
July 28, 2009
The second part (I have read both) of an angry environmentalists screed. I give it 4 stars because he still has a lot to figure out as far as recommendations and being a bit repetative,and because I am not sure I completely agree with his ideas of how to get to where we need to be, but this is one of the best books I have ever read.
He starts with a list of the basic principles of 'civilization,' which are basically focused on the use of power and violence to keep people in line and tear up the environment. But he really breaks this down well and in ways that are hard to refute. Repeatedly in the book, he compares destruction of the environment (land base) to domestic violence, and this is a metaphor that really works, both by looking at the mindset of the abuser and the abused.
Overall he makes a compelling argument that our civilization (any civilization for that matter) is destroying the land and that thigns like 'cap and trade' ain't gonna do anything to change it.
If you want to have most of your assumptions about most everything challenged, read these two books. But don't pay with a credit card cause this dude is totally under FBI surveillance....
He starts with a list of the basic principles of 'civilization,' which are basically focused on the use of power and violence to keep people in line and tear up the environment. But he really breaks this down well and in ways that are hard to refute. Repeatedly in the book, he compares destruction of the environment (land base) to domestic violence, and this is a metaphor that really works, both by looking at the mindset of the abuser and the abused.
Overall he makes a compelling argument that our civilization (any civilization for that matter) is destroying the land and that thigns like 'cap and trade' ain't gonna do anything to change it.
If you want to have most of your assumptions about most everything challenged, read these two books. But don't pay with a credit card cause this dude is totally under FBI surveillance....
January 3, 2016
Somehow it made sense that as I was finishing up the second volume of these 'fingernails-on-a-chalkboard' tomes of truth (you want to put them down and run away but you can't because he speaks the gdmned truth),on the radio in the background, a representative from the House of Horrors, otherwise known as the U.S. House of "Representatives" 2015, was pontificating about the need for more dams in the western U.S. (Representative Rob Bishop of Utah who somehow ended up as the Chair of the House Natural Resources Committee, speaking of horror but then again, it is almost Halloween). I imagined if Derek was in the room with me, what would happen? Would he go into a seizure? Start screaming? Throw things? Because this is exactly what I wanted to do but I would have scared the dogs.
The only thing you can say after reading these two volumes is "whew" then "sht" because Jensen blows the lid off everyone and everybody, a bit like Abbey did, only without as many ragged edges.
The human primate is an arrogant, selfish, and stupid little monkey and it's getting what it deserves, ok. But it's also taking everything else down with it and Jensen is angry about this. Of course, so am I. So is any sane human.
Maybe these books are really about incredulity. A very important thing to note is these books were written during the Dark Times of the 21st century meaning when Bush Jr and that whole filthy crime family was in power, after conducting a peaceful coup and stealing the election. You have to keep this in mind in reading these books. Every one was writing books then because we were incredulous, in shock, trying to keep from going insane. Or maybe writing the books kept us from the revolution we should have had, the impeachment proceedings Nancy Pelosi SHOULD have put on the dmn table, with a freaking sledgehammer!
I will admit the fact that NOT ONE OF THEM has ever been held accountable for their actions under a court of law (and Bush Jr is even on T.V. now, painting pictures of dogs and stuff) has transformed me into an even deeper state of cynicism such that I am not incredulous about anything anymore as far as this country goes, and definitely not about anything the human species does. Jensen seems incredulous in both volumes but again, we were all incredulous during this time.
Jensen does something I found jarring, disturbing, and ground-breaking--namely he traces the human race's tendency to be violent and abusive to one another over to the human race's violence and abuse of land. The land base is also a victim of our psychopathology. When I think about it, this makes complete sense. What he does not explain, at least explicitly, is that humans are destructive and desperate because we are aware of our own deaths. We are the only species on earth aware of our own deaths and this IS why we behave the way we do. Add in hormones, and where we are in our evolution, and well...I am amazed we haven't blown the entire planet to smithereens yet, but we will. Climate change will equal the equivalent in about 100 years, if the warming continues at its current rate.
So what is Jensen's answer? Take down the current version of "civilization" and you can start by taking down dams- restore the circulatory system of our planet and we will restore ourselves, our psychopathology. Heal the earth, heal yourself. He makes a compelling argument and indeed, since he has published these books, something like 700 dams have been removed nationally. There is some sense of relief--that things are no longer AS bad as they were during the Bush Jr Crime Presidency days. Dams have been removed. More will be...Bush and his lying cadre of hooligans are gone (but NOT FORGOTTEN!).
He hits the "environmentalists" (we really do need to get rid of this word), New Ager's, Positive Thinkers, and pacifists right in the gut. He even takes on Ghandi (do you know why?). I can't stand many of these people who are so self-righteous in their REI outfits, the Land Rover in the driveway, telling us to 'just be positive', 'violence leads to more violence', and oh, is my latte' done yet? This is golden:
"Just last night I and two other non-pacifists wasted two hours sitting at a county fair tabling for a local environmental organization and watching the--how do I say this politely?--supersized passerby's wearing too small Bush/Cheney 2004 T-shirts and carrying chocolate-covered bananas. We received many scowls...we accomplished precisely nothing."
What he points out (by citing another author) is it is apparently ok for violence to come down the hierarchy but not ok to send it up. In other words, we are all very used to getting pepper sprayed during a protest, and we take it, but if we pepper spray "up the chain", we are being "violent". It's ok if THEY do it because then we can feel so noble, precious, and self-righteous as we sit gagging and coughing on the tear gas. Look at us! We're pacifists! No, you're really idiots. He traces the fact that much of this accomplishes nothing as kind of narcissism on the part of the 'pacifist'. You can FEEL like you're "making a difference" even if you're not.
He argues peace movements, pacifism is more a desire by the 'peace lovers' to not really do anything because doing something, REALLY doing something forces us to go out of our comfort zones that include our nice houses, our comfy chairs, the remote for the television, and that party you're going to later, of course, to talk to other peace "activists" about the need to "change the world". Maybe we're all just in fact guilty, lazy talkers and nothing more. Gutless narcissists.
"I don't think most of the people with "Visualize World Peace" bumper stickers on their old Saabs are interested in doing the work to take down civilization. It's too messy."
"If you want freedom, you will have to fight for it and those who are exploiting you are going to have to pay for it. If you want a livable planet, at this point, you will have to fight for it and those who are killing the planet are going to have to pay for it."
"Those in power are responsible for their choices, and I am responsible for mine."
In summary, this is good old-fashioned not politically correct truth and it's refreshing as hll. His writing style is compelling but also funny. He makes himself vulnerable to the reader by talking about his personal trials, health. He loves his mom, dearly. He doesn't really give a sht what you think because it's not about you. It's not about him. It's not about me.
It's about the earth and the one thing I can assure Jensen and those of us that want to upend our current corporate version of civilization, is don't worry. It WILL happen and we won't have to do anything! The earth is in the process of bringing it all down herself. She's taking care of it. After all, as they say, nature always bats last and let me tell ya', she's up.
The only thing you can say after reading these two volumes is "whew" then "sht" because Jensen blows the lid off everyone and everybody, a bit like Abbey did, only without as many ragged edges.
The human primate is an arrogant, selfish, and stupid little monkey and it's getting what it deserves, ok. But it's also taking everything else down with it and Jensen is angry about this. Of course, so am I. So is any sane human.
Maybe these books are really about incredulity. A very important thing to note is these books were written during the Dark Times of the 21st century meaning when Bush Jr and that whole filthy crime family was in power, after conducting a peaceful coup and stealing the election. You have to keep this in mind in reading these books. Every one was writing books then because we were incredulous, in shock, trying to keep from going insane. Or maybe writing the books kept us from the revolution we should have had, the impeachment proceedings Nancy Pelosi SHOULD have put on the dmn table, with a freaking sledgehammer!
I will admit the fact that NOT ONE OF THEM has ever been held accountable for their actions under a court of law (and Bush Jr is even on T.V. now, painting pictures of dogs and stuff) has transformed me into an even deeper state of cynicism such that I am not incredulous about anything anymore as far as this country goes, and definitely not about anything the human species does. Jensen seems incredulous in both volumes but again, we were all incredulous during this time.
Jensen does something I found jarring, disturbing, and ground-breaking--namely he traces the human race's tendency to be violent and abusive to one another over to the human race's violence and abuse of land. The land base is also a victim of our psychopathology. When I think about it, this makes complete sense. What he does not explain, at least explicitly, is that humans are destructive and desperate because we are aware of our own deaths. We are the only species on earth aware of our own deaths and this IS why we behave the way we do. Add in hormones, and where we are in our evolution, and well...I am amazed we haven't blown the entire planet to smithereens yet, but we will. Climate change will equal the equivalent in about 100 years, if the warming continues at its current rate.
So what is Jensen's answer? Take down the current version of "civilization" and you can start by taking down dams- restore the circulatory system of our planet and we will restore ourselves, our psychopathology. Heal the earth, heal yourself. He makes a compelling argument and indeed, since he has published these books, something like 700 dams have been removed nationally. There is some sense of relief--that things are no longer AS bad as they were during the Bush Jr Crime Presidency days. Dams have been removed. More will be...Bush and his lying cadre of hooligans are gone (but NOT FORGOTTEN!).
He hits the "environmentalists" (we really do need to get rid of this word), New Ager's, Positive Thinkers, and pacifists right in the gut. He even takes on Ghandi (do you know why?). I can't stand many of these people who are so self-righteous in their REI outfits, the Land Rover in the driveway, telling us to 'just be positive', 'violence leads to more violence', and oh, is my latte' done yet? This is golden:
"Just last night I and two other non-pacifists wasted two hours sitting at a county fair tabling for a local environmental organization and watching the--how do I say this politely?--supersized passerby's wearing too small Bush/Cheney 2004 T-shirts and carrying chocolate-covered bananas. We received many scowls...we accomplished precisely nothing."
What he points out (by citing another author) is it is apparently ok for violence to come down the hierarchy but not ok to send it up. In other words, we are all very used to getting pepper sprayed during a protest, and we take it, but if we pepper spray "up the chain", we are being "violent". It's ok if THEY do it because then we can feel so noble, precious, and self-righteous as we sit gagging and coughing on the tear gas. Look at us! We're pacifists! No, you're really idiots. He traces the fact that much of this accomplishes nothing as kind of narcissism on the part of the 'pacifist'. You can FEEL like you're "making a difference" even if you're not.
He argues peace movements, pacifism is more a desire by the 'peace lovers' to not really do anything because doing something, REALLY doing something forces us to go out of our comfort zones that include our nice houses, our comfy chairs, the remote for the television, and that party you're going to later, of course, to talk to other peace "activists" about the need to "change the world". Maybe we're all just in fact guilty, lazy talkers and nothing more. Gutless narcissists.
"I don't think most of the people with "Visualize World Peace" bumper stickers on their old Saabs are interested in doing the work to take down civilization. It's too messy."
"If you want freedom, you will have to fight for it and those who are exploiting you are going to have to pay for it. If you want a livable planet, at this point, you will have to fight for it and those who are killing the planet are going to have to pay for it."
"Those in power are responsible for their choices, and I am responsible for mine."
In summary, this is good old-fashioned not politically correct truth and it's refreshing as hll. His writing style is compelling but also funny. He makes himself vulnerable to the reader by talking about his personal trials, health. He loves his mom, dearly. He doesn't really give a sht what you think because it's not about you. It's not about him. It's not about me.
It's about the earth and the one thing I can assure Jensen and those of us that want to upend our current corporate version of civilization, is don't worry. It WILL happen and we won't have to do anything! The earth is in the process of bringing it all down herself. She's taking care of it. After all, as they say, nature always bats last and let me tell ya', she's up.
March 8, 2008
Yep, civilization is going to crash. There is no doubt about it. Jensen believes that by helping things along with direct action, we can cushion the crash: More humans will survive, more species of animals and plants will make it and there will be less overall violence. The direct action he is most interested in is taking out dams, but he also mentions taking out cell phone towers, computer hacking to disrupt corporations, disrupting transportation, putting holes in pipelines and disrupting the flow of electricity.
Jensen loses points for not being vegan. A lot of points, actually. If you are an environmentalist, you have to be vegan. common sense, you know. Jensen's excuse is that plants are sentient too. and so are rocks. uh huh, *smiles indulgently* This is a common response that meat eaters have when they are first confronted with vegetarianism, and IMO one of the more stupid ones. Jensen has turned this response into a religion, tho, and tells us he got permission to eat meat from a tree. It's so cute when humans make up deities who tell them the status quo is okay, there is no reason to change your lifestyle.
But the set of books is good reading. He has gotten me thinking about many things. I am re-arranging my opinions about government and military (including police). And he has definitely changed my mind about pacifism.
Highly recommended.
Jensen loses points for not being vegan. A lot of points, actually. If you are an environmentalist, you have to be vegan. common sense, you know. Jensen's excuse is that plants are sentient too. and so are rocks. uh huh, *smiles indulgently* This is a common response that meat eaters have when they are first confronted with vegetarianism, and IMO one of the more stupid ones. Jensen has turned this response into a religion, tho, and tells us he got permission to eat meat from a tree. It's so cute when humans make up deities who tell them the status quo is okay, there is no reason to change your lifestyle.
But the set of books is good reading. He has gotten me thinking about many things. I am re-arranging my opinions about government and military (including police). And he has definitely changed my mind about pacifism.
Highly recommended.
Read
August 5, 2011The first volume of Endgame detailed the ecological crisis facing us and focused on 20 premises to prove his point. The second volume considers resistance and what can be done to battle a culture that is killing the biosphere. Jensen doesn't really provide specifics, because if he did he'd probably be carted off to jail. Instead, he argues that we each find and use our individual gifts to "dismantle globally, renew locally." As always, I'm not sure I agree with him that we need to take down all of civilization, I do appreciate the hard questions he asks. Like his other works, this is powerfully written.
June 7, 2022
Re-read, 06/2022: Jensen does not offer any easy solutions to the problem of civilization in the second volume of Endgame, but his thoughts on the collapse of civilization, and what might possibly come afterwards, are sobering thoughts that more people should be exposed to.
A great continuation of the ideas explored in the first volume, and a rational presentation of alternatives and possible solutions. The concept of our destructive culture explored here, as well as ways to stop it, are things that everyone on the planet should expose themselves to, whether or not they agree with Jensen's line of thinking.
A great continuation of the ideas explored in the first volume, and a rational presentation of alternatives and possible solutions. The concept of our destructive culture explored here, as well as ways to stop it, are things that everyone on the planet should expose themselves to, whether or not they agree with Jensen's line of thinking.
September 4, 2014
This book does not deliver. Jensen gets you all worked up and ready to resist, and then gives you nowhere to go. How do we resist? A couple of sentences, referencing some good books on the subject written by authors bold enough to go there, would have been sufficient. A Field Guide to Monkeywrenching, for example. I was incredulous that after that many hundreds of pages, Jensen could not come up with a way to actually stop the machinery of civilization.
August 24, 2021
With this book, Derrick Jensen finally breaks his number one rule of writing, which is: "Never bore the reader". After reading the amazing "Culture of Make Believe", I was expecting much more out of "Endgame" (1 & 2). However, there was enough important information scattered throughout this book that I gave it 3 stars instead of 2.
January 5, 2009
Derrick Jenkins is a bit of a pompous ass. He sits at his keyboard and urges others to go and blow up things. I've always had trouble taking advice from folks who don't walk their talk. Still..... He makes some great arguments. A very thought provoking book. Well worth reading (with a largish grain of salt).
May 11, 2011
Derrick Jensen manages to combine logic, facts and a compelling writing style in a way that can call into question even the most revered and unquestioned of our societal values. Definitely worth reading (although you may get put on some sort of government list for buying it - LOL)
April 17, 2023
This book did trigger a lot of thoughts, which is good. But I hated the way it’s written. Author is trying to convince you that there is a room for thought, but in fact he wants to deliver but his (the only right) idea.
I do not appreciate this approach.
I do not appreciate this approach.
February 16, 2008
a language older than words, part quatre.
February 23, 2010
Derrick Jensen has some good ideas, and writes well, but he is too in love with the sound of his own voice...
December 3, 2011
"How is it conceivable that all our lauded technological progress - our very Civilization - is like the axe in the hand of the pathological criminal?" - Albert Einstein (quote on page 663)
March 25, 2025
See my review for Endgame Volume One, which is applicable for Volume Two: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
I especially appreciated in this volume comparing the culture of civilization to psychopathology. I was already persuaded before reading this, though. Other points that stood out were military strategy and tactics, hacker philosophy, chokepoints, bottlenecks, and leverage.
Some of the websites and books referenced include: howthingswork.com, loompanics.com, bombshock.com, totse.com, roguesci.org, Home Workshop Explosives by Uncle Fester, Introduction to the Technology of Explosives by Cooper and Kurowski, and The Chemistry of Powder and Explosives by Tenney L Davis.
I disagree with Jensen regarding the Pleistocene overkill hypothesis. It seems apparent to me that large megafauna disappeared wherever humans have been introduced into new habitats, at various times and not only at the retreat of the last glacial maximum. Further, these megafauna survived previous climate changes when humans were not present. Finally, accepting the hypothesis is in no way racist or precludes the possibility that primitive peoples formed a new homeostasis afterward.
As in the first volume and other works, I find the (eco)feminism unnecessary, distracting, and shackling. In this volume, Jensen even briefly promoted LGBTQ. His latest stance seems to be opposed to trans for a variety of reasons, to include the disembodied gendered souls that it presupposes and idealizes. I wonder if Jenkins also recognizes how the LGBTQ movement has sought and gained political power, particularly in the West, for the purpose of attacking and dismantling heteronormativity and substitution for queernormativity. For these reasons I have come to oppose the entire LGBTQ movement.
I especially appreciated in this volume comparing the culture of civilization to psychopathology. I was already persuaded before reading this, though. Other points that stood out were military strategy and tactics, hacker philosophy, chokepoints, bottlenecks, and leverage.
Some of the websites and books referenced include: howthingswork.com, loompanics.com, bombshock.com, totse.com, roguesci.org, Home Workshop Explosives by Uncle Fester, Introduction to the Technology of Explosives by Cooper and Kurowski, and The Chemistry of Powder and Explosives by Tenney L Davis.
I disagree with Jensen regarding the Pleistocene overkill hypothesis. It seems apparent to me that large megafauna disappeared wherever humans have been introduced into new habitats, at various times and not only at the retreat of the last glacial maximum. Further, these megafauna survived previous climate changes when humans were not present. Finally, accepting the hypothesis is in no way racist or precludes the possibility that primitive peoples formed a new homeostasis afterward.
As in the first volume and other works, I find the (eco)feminism unnecessary, distracting, and shackling. In this volume, Jensen even briefly promoted LGBTQ. His latest stance seems to be opposed to trans for a variety of reasons, to include the disembodied gendered souls that it presupposes and idealizes. I wonder if Jenkins also recognizes how the LGBTQ movement has sought and gained political power, particularly in the West, for the purpose of attacking and dismantling heteronormativity and substitution for queernormativity. For these reasons I have come to oppose the entire LGBTQ movement.
October 28, 2025
What an intelligent and caring human and author. he said such a good example for caring about the environment and living things and he also is interesting and very resourceful. Just an amazing person who cares for the future
October 4, 2024
Silly and immoral
January 3, 2025
One of the most important and powerful books about fighting back against the self-destructive omnicidal trajectory of capitalism.
November 27, 2015
I don't know what I could say that could add to the reviews already listed. I keep buying these books because they are, by now, a component of the base that defines me. I already know what I believe and think at this point in my life. I'm almost 48 and I read a lot in my teens, twenties, and early thirties. I don't normally buy a lot of non fiction anymore although I now feel ready to again. These books, Endgame Vol 1 and 2, I always re-purchase to give or loan to people when I am trying to explain how I feel and what I think. It is just simpler. I am not an acolyte. There are several authors like this, either whose thinking and knowledge has shaped mine, added to mine, or seems to sum up how I feel, that I feel are important enough to recommend to people in my world. I have now accepted that writing a book is not what I will do, not any book like this anyway, needless to say! This author seems to be able to get a masterful overview of the situation while being able to tie in the most tiny and intricate details of life. I am too far in the trenches to be able to have that kind of aerial viewpoint and cannot imagine the work it takes to write anything. I love all of his books that I've read although the latest books he's written I haven't read. I read these books years ago.
April 5, 2023
Quotes that made me think:
"We cannot get large-scale abusers to stop exploiting others by pleading, soothing, gently leading, getting people to persuade them, or using any other non confrontational method. It won’t work." (p. 570)
"If you plan on living someplace forever, then your decisions will generally be in line with what the land wants." (p. 579)
"We kill [human beings and non-human beings] as surely by inaction as by action." (p. 650)
"Defensive rights always trump offensive rights. My right to freedom always trumps your right to exploit me, and if you do try to exploit me, I have the right to stop you, even at some expense to you." (p. 682)
"The Jews who participated in the Warsaw Ghetto uprising... had a higher rate of survival than those who did not fight back. Never forget that." (p. 705)
"The essence of military strategy [is] get there first with the most." (p.755)
"Because we don’t know the future, whenever possible we should choose options we’ll be happy with no matter what the future brings." (p. 848)
"We cannot get large-scale abusers to stop exploiting others by pleading, soothing, gently leading, getting people to persuade them, or using any other non confrontational method. It won’t work." (p. 570)
"If you plan on living someplace forever, then your decisions will generally be in line with what the land wants." (p. 579)
"We kill [human beings and non-human beings] as surely by inaction as by action." (p. 650)
"Defensive rights always trump offensive rights. My right to freedom always trumps your right to exploit me, and if you do try to exploit me, I have the right to stop you, even at some expense to you." (p. 682)
"The Jews who participated in the Warsaw Ghetto uprising... had a higher rate of survival than those who did not fight back. Never forget that." (p. 705)
"The essence of military strategy [is] get there first with the most." (p.755)
"Because we don’t know the future, whenever possible we should choose options we’ll be happy with no matter what the future brings." (p. 848)
July 27, 2011
I actually read part 2 of this pair before reading part 1 and they probably should be read in the right order, but hey, v1 was out of stock. This book, like part 1, is a devastating attack on civilization as we know it. Jensen's major theme draws an analogy between the relationship between our society and nature, and that of an abuser and his victim. No stranger to abuse himself, and that's graphically clear from the writing, Jensen argues powerfully against passive resistance and pacifism. His logic, tho frightening in parts, is mostly inescapable. Our society has chained up mother Earth in the basement like some Austrian psycho and is molesting our planet over and over again and won't stop until the planet rises up and kills its oppressor, or we subdue and eventually kill our planet. It's a vivid, violent metaphor that resonates long after you have finished the books.
Anyone who cares about the planet should read these books.
Anyone who cares about the planet should read these books.
October 28, 2007
This book is blowing my mind. Derrick Jensen pulls no punches; he argues forcefully and convincingly that civilization needs to be dismantled as soon as possible because "civilization" is killing the planet. I'm glad that he writes that the process of writing this book is scaring him--it's scaring me too, but at the same time I can't help but agree with him. The logical conclusions that he draws, however, are that we should proceed to use any means necessary, ANY means, to save species and our own lives. Reading this book carries with it a huge mandate to take action. Not for the faint-hearted. This book should speak to and scare the pants off of any hard-core environmentalist.
August 12, 2014
Repetitive. I basically agree with Jensen, even with his acceptance of violence. There are going to be multiple paths for achieving the goal of bringing down civilization, surely that will be one of them. (Ultimately I think the best weapon will be it's own bulk and abuse; it will bring itself down more than any of us will do so). There are some great points in this book. I don't even mind his persistent gloominess; it's understandable and appropriate, though admittedly hard to take for a book this long. And that's the thing. It was just too long, with too many dead horses being beaten. I prefer more concise writing.
March 29, 2015
Did Endgame need to be a 2-volume, 881-page monster? No--Derrick could probably use a firmer editor. The first part of volume 2 is especially repetitive. But it gets better, and it's still worthwhile. (Though if you're new to deep ecological critiques of capitalism, this is probably not the best place to start, haha.)
There are a few core aspects of his analysis that I disagree with; for example, I am not sure that the analogy between individual abusers and society as a whole is as ironclad as he suggests. But he is relentless in exposing the out-of-control violence underpinning our so-called civilization, both against humans and nonhumans, and his call to action is undeniable.
There are a few core aspects of his analysis that I disagree with; for example, I am not sure that the analogy between individual abusers and society as a whole is as ironclad as he suggests. But he is relentless in exposing the out-of-control violence underpinning our so-called civilization, both against humans and nonhumans, and his call to action is undeniable.
April 26, 2007
The author (i've met him!) is extremely honest. No bullshit. Unapologetic. And an open heart. Civilization has to come down if we're going to save our landbase, and pacifism is a dead scene. He compares civilization to an abusive relationship, and by the time I'm done reading the book, I see no difference between the two. We are being F****d and we are F****d, and this book tries to put it in perspective, suggesting all kinds of ACTION to take. Book one is the problem, book 2 is solutions.
January 8, 2015
This is a dangerous book. Jensen wants an end to civilization, and he encourages violent means to accomplish that end. His arguments, which appear interspersed between rants, anecdotes, tantrums, and recalled conversations, follow from his conviction that civilization - basically, all of us - are destroying (really, raping) the world and therefore should ourselves be ravaged or destroyed. A better organized treatise might have been helpful, but that might also take away the despair, frustration, passion, and rage this author indulges on nearly every page.
Bleak, scary, dangerous.
Bleak, scary, dangerous.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 56 reviews