will have perceived irony here, sincethe words just used to explain it, such as history, progression, time and sign,are some of the things Zerzan wishes to abolish in total for primitivism toflourish. However, the only things hehas been able to co-opt, maybe misdirect, are serious discussions on anarchismand its different legacies. The variousforms of media, when discussing anarchism, have tended to rely onlong-established prejudices and misconceptions, taking one branch of self-namedanarchism for anarchism as a whole. Thesame piece in The New York Times cameto define what they called the anarchist movement as a small and obscurenetwork of intellectuals, labor organizers and political idealists who share adarkly apocalyptic view of Western civilization. Primitivismhas a discursive force for it being a rejection of desires, and for this verysame reason, as Nietzsche has shown in the case of Christianity, it establishesitself as a strong desire. It expressesdesires that are understood as shameful for dominant Western society today,that is why it makes those who cling to it feel a real independence oftaste. To those that despise thesetastes of Nature for example primitivism reinforces their sensations ofmoral superiority. This is one reason forprimitivisms appeal to the media in general, which breeds on polemic and discordof taste. Another reason this is done isthat primitivism establishes itself as oppositional, even though it has noparty or political organization besides journals and collectives. It also wishes to be a sectarianrepresentative of the total society, and in this way it reproduces partisanideology. There is no need to state here how partisan ideologies are manurefor media attention. One other point wecan make with relation to Zerzan and his relative success as a mediaspokesperson is what he has in common with the Unabomber: they both write metanarratives. Society for them is a System, a wholething. Their idea of a System ofSociety cannot be proved nor refuted, and from this it gathers its discursivepower in a culture that prizes metanarratives. Withmedia attention surviving on the spectacular, as even Zerzan agrees, it shouldnot surprise us that his call for an end to almost everything we know as sociallife, gathers so much attention. Anything that appears as total rejection is something to which the generalpopulace, through forms of dominant culture, readily understands: it is anormalized, naturalized discourse. Zerzan reduces postmodern critiques of forms of opposition asexcluding resistance. In fact, thinkersas Nietzsche and Foucault if one permits me to call them here postmodern torespond to Zerzan have stressed that political and cultural oppositions arecommon things. However, they have alsoshowed how every resistance can carry new forms of domination. It is not that you cannot have a truepolitical or cultural opposition; you can and should oppose in practice-everything that oppresses you. Thosethinkers remind us that some forms of social discourse and action might seem tobe a total liberation when in fact many times it is exactly for this reasonthat they blind its practitioners to their internal dynamics of power andexclude possible alternatives of even better discourses and actions of freedom.Zerzanasserts that the reigning culture (...) recognizes neither origins norestrangement,[5] but Icontend that precisely because dominant culture is so enamored