weve been ledastray. The very Zerzanian critiques of Reason, Linear Time and Progress, byproducing a reactive account of human life and what is the correct way tolive, reproduces the very same actions in the world that it critiques. Civilization is a huge target say manyprimitivists. That is all it really is,nothing much. Organic anarchy is themyth many want to put in place of Civilization by destruction. This includes the destruction of all forms ofculture, leaving the Noble Savage alone in his natural state. What makes this belief in a Savage livingdespite of culture is, clearly, a cultural notion that culture does not existwith less civilized societies, in this discourse. In Anthropology, this notion has for long nowbeen debased, since there is no conclusion as to when nature ceases and culturebegins in human action.[54] Perhaps we will never be able to be certainabout this split, or the lack of it, since all of our scientific exploration ofhuman behavior is intended with cultural and political consequences: no humanscience is a neutral science, is always partially determined by social,cultural, political and historical context, and thus irremediably problematicin its claims. Zerzan is partially rightin saying: neutral universal principles came to the fore to justifyincreased coercion. However, even neutrality is not a object with anintentionality of its own: in itself it does not produce an automatic effect ofdomination. Cultural, political,historical contexts are important in defining the effects of knowledge, not onecultural assertion to neutrality o otherwise can speak for itself. But this is to speak about the relativeunpredictability of the effects of social actions, something which Zerzan isnot very fond of. He likes fullpredictability, like a metaphysician. Anthropology in particular, or the discourseon cultural difference, cannot escape its impossible objectivity and inevitableunpredictability.[55] Freedom and state of nature are synonymsfor primitivists and this is their culturally established language forthings. They are not wrong, in the moralsense. They are not right either, sincefreedom and nature differ with culture, they have never been, and probablynever will be, defined or practiced in the same manner universally. This does not mean, though, that we do notneed to discuss the nature of freedom or of nature itself. Since they are never totally and finallyestablished (Mikhail Bakunin for example believed freedom was an ongoingprocess), we will always have things to do, to struggle for, and that is formany a blessing of life, not a curse of it, or of some Civilization.Zerzanpreaches the immortality of freedom and of truth. This is one of the main foundations ofChristianity, the effect of which is a cult around him. The cult to his self, his soul, is theeffect of his demonizing of culture: Salvation of the soul in plain words:the world revolves around me.[56]Agriculture and technologyZerzanwrote: agriculture is the triumph of estrangement and the definite dividebetween culture and nature and humans from each other, it is that dualitythat cripples the soul of our being.[57] For him, agriculture is at the origin ofculture as he understands it, as the domestication of animals and plants, whichprogressed to a domestication of humans. As I have argued above, following contemporary anthropologicalknowledge, the