problems. We shouldlearn from these realities. What to dowith them, though, cannot be a final solution, which tends to transform itselfin history into another way for domination. The anarcho-primitivist critique builds its own object of critique Civilization from the standpoint of an overall crisis.[73] A total, coherent object of consensus gentium can only exist from astandpoint of metaphysical culture. Thiscultural discourse can and does produce violence.[74]Civilizationis a way to nominate our present that so unclearly defines what we mean thatone can argue with Bookchin[75]and Sheppard[76] forexample that the solution to social and political domination rest on peoplebeing more, not less, civilized. Thisdenominates a belief in hidden or potential behavior that humans have not yetengaged fully in the present. It is arecurrent discourse of resistance traditions of the West, to claim civilizationa both a process and an outcome. Itreinstates a creed in human knowledge as governing the world, as civilizingor humanizing. Anarchists such asBookchin[77] havealso believed in knowledge as primary for an anarchist movement to flourishwhen he wrote for example: In short, we need criteria for determining what isrational, in a logic of development whose internal consistency gives us thebasis for ethical behavior and an ethical direction toward which society shouldadvance. This will to a higher order ofjustice is not very different from what is desired by many primitivists such asZerzan. Bookchin, as much as NoamChomsky[78],equates Reason with Liberty and Progress, likening themselves to a particularEnlightenment tradition. Thus theyreproduce the creed, however they might speak to the contrary many times, inliberation that comes from knowledge, primarily. In this respect, they might critiqueprimitivism as much as they want, but the claim that human interiority willgovern existence however a controversial claim for a primitivist or ananarchist to make abounds in the discursive practice of the Final Revolution,in which primitivists and many anarchists alike participate. Allof these will call me postmodern now, because I regard texts as action. I just want this to be a conversation withanarchisms, in the plural. Power iseverywhere, yes, but not equally distributed, and not equally productive ofeffects either. Such that anarchists mayclaim to be social, but still rely on pillars of Western individualism like thecreed and practice of knowledge being at the origin of every human action. By this referent, we should wait untilfurther knowledge, The Program, or the full rejection of programs as well inorder to act. If postmodernism is therejection of all coherence, as Zerzan contends, then I am not a postmodernist,since my thought is coherent in explaining the inactions and unaccomplishedends of dominant political resistance discourse. I also do not accept capitalismsfragmentation a concept used to describe postmodernism - if that meanssocial and political alienation. Surely,this fragmentation has been interpreted by many as full irresponsibility andpolitical impossibility. Manyprimitivists and anarchists, drawing on ideas such as fragmentation, haveemphasized the interpretation of postmodernism another catch-all term asone singular tradition of thought, disregarding all that the thoughts ofvarious thinkers might point to, as points of possibility for difference,liberation, or struggle. Even internaldifferences within so-called postmodernism or post-structuralism have beenglossed over. That is because anarchism still begets to get rid of itsarrogance,