of the ways by which the whole of reality was considered asonly apparent, not real. Time is a concept Zerzan uses that reproduces theChristian belief in the opposition of the apparent to the real, one of the mainrecreations of secular Christian culture, to which Zerzan belongs but does notreflect upon. Timemust be critiqued, as when Zerzan critiques the introduction of the use ofclocks. Time as managed by clocks madethings possible, including very serious forms of domination like contracts andproduction that are tied to the clock, and maybe not to social necessities andpeoples desires. Ifrevolution can only be redefined against progress[12]as he claims, he does this very well, although in a very reactive way, andtherefore reproductive of the very same power relations he critiques. He goes the other way, in a progressivecounter-manner. The reactive characterof this is to redefine revolution against progress only. Thus it is to forget to redefine it based onsocial and environmental needs that change, as society and nature inexorablydo, from place to place, no matter how universal a struggle might be. Finally, why would it be that to be againstprogress is to look for the liberatory actions needed only in the past (or inthe beyond, the future) and not in the present? Why is there such an all-out negation of the present in John Zerzansprimitivism? The Real of LanguageWesurely can agree with Nietzsche, as cited by Zerzan, that words dilute andbrutalize; words depersonalize; words make the uncommon common. However, Nietzsche could very well have endedhis commentary with the saying: nevertheless, words are necessary, and violencetowards them is necessary to make them say what one wishes. For Zerzan, language is falsehood,it is artificial communication.[13] Therefore why should we believe anything thathe writes? He writes that there are twokinds of human experience: the immediate, non-separate reality, and separate,mediated experience. He recognizes thattime and language are historical and cultural constructions, but does this inorder to claim a higher order of being where all forms of construction fadeaway, all contingencies disappear. It isreality as the natural, which must be actualized for him by the annihilation ofthe unnatural. Language itself would becast aside for one natural universal communication, since all forms of languageare supposedly thought-controlling, domesticating, and leading to a world ofunfreedom.[14] The expectation of a real[15]language has certainly been a tradition within many anarchist circlesworldwide. In Brazil this expectationhas been thrust upon Esperanto, a language created in 1887 and planned as aninternational language to be used for cross-cultural communication. Some anarchist circles in Brazil and othercountries have stated that the use of Esperanto somehow makes people morefree. It is a high expectation to bethrust to language alone. Clearly, thereis here a preoccupation with how power and domination permeate and work throughlanguage. However, the critique is takento a total sphere, creating many more problems than it wishes to solve, sinceit becomes an instrument of domination over cultural difference, withauthoritarian characteristics, for example, in the hope that the whole worldshould learn to speak a language. Iflanguage grants a certain amount of power over things, naming all culturalthings Civilization as is done by primitivists should grant