Clarifications

Due to some recent confusion by several of my friends, I thought I should clarify my use of a couple terms:

Civilization:
As defined by Derrick Jensen, civilization, which is characterized by the development of cities, is any settlement of humans requiring the importation of resources. Anthropologist Stanley Diamond adds: “Civilization originates in conquest abroad and repression at home.” That's what civilizations do--conquer and repress. They couldn't exist, otherwise, because they're fundamentally unsustainable. Being opposed to civilization, for me, means only that I'm opposed to societies that can't survive without exploitation; it doesn't mean, necessarily, that I'm opposed to all of civilization's constructs (i.e. art, technology....)

Anarchist
There are all kinds of anarchists out there--anarcho communists, situationist anarchists, anarcho feminists, anarcho primitivists, anarcho syndicalists, etc. The only common thread they all have is that they don't believe in artificial hierarchy and artificial laws (nature's rules are enough). Anarchists are NOT wild-eyed, impractical dreamers trying to create Utopia. Anarchist communities aren't perfect. Contrary to popular belief, however, they are efficient and they are sustainable and they are, or have been I should say, widely practiced by human beings--especially during our early history (Don't take my word for it, though. Do the research). When I call myself an Anarchist, I'm not advocating violence and mayhem; I'm advocating democracy and revolution. In other words, I'm neither for or against violence, but I am for bringing down civilization by whatever responsible and well thought-out means possible. Moreover, I don't believe the system (Civilization) is capable of reform--not to the degree that real democracy and freedom are achievable.