Zerzan boughtinto a relatively successful discursive mode, and imitated it to hisadvantage. This mode is that of a goingaround in circles, deriving one formulation from another he had alreadymade. This gives his texts a semblanceof coherence, stopping short of it though, for the attentive reader. Hisimitation of Jensen brought him to the critique of Civilization.Zerzan,to say the least, uses Civilization as an all-encompassing, catch-all term forall that he thinks is disposable, false, or dominating. By doing this, also to say the least, hefails to specify practices with relation to their cultural field. Therefore, when he says that Nietzsche sawthe training of memory, especially the memory of obligations, as the beginningof civilized morality, he forgets better he denies naming this moralityfor its proper category, Christian morality, and thus is violent to Nietzscheand to non-Christian cultures. Again, itcould not be otherwise, since he is not preoccupied with cultural difference.FeralFaun, a primitivist author, describes Civilization as everything that comesbetween us and the direct, participatory experience of the wild world.[36] For him, Civilization impedes a life filledwith intense pleasure and wild adventure. In order to affirm this, one has todisregard that capitalism does not impede this totally. It even encourages these very images, showinghow many people regard themselves as living exactly by these standards (such asTV hosts of tourism, adventure, or other shows). Movies push these buttons all the time. Primitivists will argue here that these arethe false versions of pleasure and adventure. By this they fail to recognize that the sense of pleasure and adventure,however different let us say, from a hunt of a wild boar, is also there withincapitalism. Therefore, primitivistimages of wild life are not much of a different discourse from capitalistculture: sometimes not different at all. Their claim to truth about wild life remains vague because most peoplein the world will not have the same images of a life filled with pleasure andadventure that primitivists have. Inlarge part, we need to ask how much of the wish for these things was instigatedby capitalism itself, for the same people that argue for primitivism have forthe most part very pleasurable, at least privileged, lives.David Watson,a primitivist author turned critical of it, wrote:opposition to civilizationstotality, by the way, self-righteous high-decibel neo-situationistfulminations against the entirety of daily life under capitalism forget that anenormous part of life is spent nurturing children, engaging in acts of mutualaid, trying to be understood or to understand what others are saying, cooperatingin common projects and sometimes even subversive activities, etc.a fewexamples of what I have elsewhere described as living both within and againstmass society.Thenegative use of the term civilization is a reactive response to its traditionaluse as an index of all that was considered by European elites as positive, atleast since the end of the 18th century.[37] It originally used to refer to the positiveaspects of European life, and was constructed as an opposition to barbarism orsavagery, which were supposedly negative and inferior. What primitivism does is to use thisdiscourse, constructed by European colonialism, and invert it. This inversion, in Nietzsches account, isan aspect of slave morality.[38] It is simple reactionary