be its main camp, actually itsdominion, over which it would dominate. This way, Zerzans primitivism is nottotally different from the Civilization it argues against. It also wishes to dominate. Zerzan is against culture, against human andsocial creation, and deciding that this commonality somehow inevitably infectsthem with harmful aspects.[84] Even though there exist needs of breaking upwith cultural values for many, one can only do this by means of a new culture.The culture that primitivism is setting forth is the one of self-indulgence,and it cannot do any different, since it does not discuss any collectiveendeavor besides a call for destruction. It is therefore highly asocial, therefore untenable, unrealizable, sincehumans are social, as most of anarchist history recognizes. Also for this reason, it will unfortunatelycontinue to rouse attention, but for my part, this is the first and last time Iwill act to respond to it, probably.AfterNature, Culture could soon be the next thing to be highly valued in Westernsocieties liberation discourses. ThisZerzans primitivism has shown: by its negation of all culture, it will arouse,like it has here, the defense against destruction of cultures much underwayunder capitalism. The struggle forNature though, has dominated Western liberatory discourses. This domination has appeared gentle becausediscoursed as love and respect for Nature, which supposedly representscommunion with real life more than any other thing.ForNietzsche, for example, moments of high communion with life are rare, if everthey reach full expression. Real lifecannot be one of fullness and wholeness for all as Zerzan argues. Hiscontention cannot be proven totally wrong or right, however, because he waswitty enough to ascribe fullness and wholeness to human interiority, aboutwhich not much can be ascertained. Whathe wants is to have dominion, and by his persecution, to have pleasure in thethought that, after all, as I have done here for example, he will be commentedupon and through this be engraved, however painfully, in history, which hesurreptitiously critiques. It is aretarded action, but still nevertheless effective, for gaining power. The power he will gain is undesirable, he mayascertain. However, not as intention,but as effect of his actions, power however limited is what Zerzan, andprimitivism, strives for.Zerzanbashes all shamans and prophets of all cultures, but he executes practicallythe same office he critiques and became one himself. What he does not want is for others to havemany things to say about him. Nietzsche(1878) wrote:In plain nature. We like to be in plain nature very much, becauseit has no opinion about us.Lastof all, I wish to thank John Zerzan and all primitivists for incitingopposition within anarchism, since this way anarchism might grow strongeritself. If primitivism and anarchismhave anything in common, it is that they wish to show up as confrontations todominance, in its broadest possible sense. JohnZerzan and primitivism in his manner need to be radically shifted to think fromreal life instead of from Utopia, since today his ideas spring more fromresentment and bad conscience than from active engagement with the problems social, cultural and environmental of the world today. ReferencesAlbert, Michael. Anarchism = Zerzan? Avaliable at <http://www.insurgentdesire.org.uk/albert.htm>Accessed on 02/18/2008.____________. Moving Forward:Program for a Participatory Economy. SanFrancisco, CA: AK Press, 2000.