movementand lifestyle forms of resistance has dominated within white middle- andupper-class people, the acts of resistance against corporate and state powerhave brought a falsely divulged notion that anarchism is against everything,that it is for wholesale chaos, a notion deeply embedded in dominant society. Primitivismas proposed by John Zerzan can be explained as the rejection of everything but Nature.Michael Albert, an American anarchist and proponent of Parecon,[2]sums up the principles of Zerzans primitivism and reasons why it has attractedso much attention: Terminating just short ofthis species suicide, Zerzans agenda, or hope, seems to me to be that weshould end divisions of labor, reject technology, discard institutions, silencelanguage, eliminate numbers, reject time, and perhaps dispenseconsciousness--though not reproduction--returning to prehistoric relations. Andthe mainstream media says Zerzan is an exemplar of anarchism. No wonder.[3] The perspectives brought to bear on primitivism in this article payhomage to the traditions of resistance within anarchism, particularly to thelast two centuries of its history. Icontest primitivism here through the lens of a thinker, Friedrich Nietzsche,who Zerzan likes very much but that he, like the Nazis, has been using out ofcontext and without reference to the vastness of his work, selecting smallphrases that fit his dogma. The funny thing is that this is being done with oneof the most anti-dogmatic thinkers that we know of. This is no surprise, though, for as evenNietzsche recognized, truth has to be violently obtained. I will also contest Zerzan based on MichelFoucault, who he outrightly rejects, and anarchist authors such as MikhailBakunin, with whom he has a contradictory relationship, agreeing to theprinciple of the rejection of authoritarianism, but disagreeing on most otherissues, such as the relationship to specialized knowledge, to nature andfreedom. Author David Watson has written on how Zerzan became more radical withtime. We should note that radicalism hasno one single definition; because it is a political term it is doomed to bepolitically situated and contested. Watson means that Zerzan and other authors such as John Moore havedefined primitivism in ways that create a false total coherence for thatcurrent of thought. In an essay where hedistanced himself from primitivism a laZerzan and John Moore titled Swamp Fever, Watson wrote; Phrases likeFrom the perspective of anarcho-primitivism and according toanarcho-primitivists abound. Moore also marginalizes crucial, definitivedifferences between ostensible members of this apocryphal school. Primitivism has championed ingathering attention as media representative of anarchism, particularly afterTed Kaczynsky - the Unabomber - was publicly supported in his actions by JohnZerzan in a piece that appeared in TheNew York Times.[4] Zerzan likes media attention because, as manyWestern metaphysicians like himself, he believes that when Truth appears, thereis nothing to keep it from progressively taking over. If Truth appears through destruction, so beit. If people are killed in the process,what a shame! The objective of history,though, is higher than these occasional misfires (any semblance to discoursesof the American government on collateral damage is not occasional here). Zerzan expresses in many of his writings theconviction that history is a progression towards primitivism. So any time primitivism is being discussed isfor him a sign towards this future. Those who already know primitivism