Talk:Neo-Luddism

I "fixed" this entry, removing a bunch of propaganda from right wing sources. Frankly, this article shouldn't even exist, because there is simply no self-identified "neo-luddite" movement. This entry is an attempt by right wingers to establish that such a mythical movement exists. The stuff about Teresa Heniz Kerry funding this so-called movement is the dead giveaway that this entry has no factual basis.

How do people go about removing article from Wikipedia that have no factual basis? This "neo-luddite" movement is a right wing fantasy.

Chuck Munson. (Infoshop.org).

These "left" and "right wing" designations are corporate fantasies designed to control you. In actual fact, outside of the machine language of computers, reality doesn't reduce to many either-or dilemmas. There is certainly such a phenomenon as neo-Luddism, and it isn't just purported left wing types who engage in it, not by a long shot. The so-called "right wing" is very much anti-technology (eg stem cell research, cloning, and many aspects of transhumanism); Republican Christian groups, usually pigeonholed as "right wing", have been some of the most vehement espousers of new Luddism, much of it connected to 'mark of the Beast' prophecies in the Revelations of St. John; it's really only the specific concretes where differences lie between the two supposed polar opposites, but the abstract principle is actually the same: Government should have the right to restrict or ban technology, based on a phantom "what if" nightmare scenario. If you're "left wing", the nightmare is GM crops and global warming, if you're "right wing" it's human chimeras and RFID tracking. Claiming this primitive, fear-based, anti-technology emotionalism is in any way connected to political orientation, especially the ridiculous "left/right" paradigm (which means virtually nothing in terms of policymaking) is absurd.

On the contrary, the very fact that the opposing ends of the spectrum focus on separate anti-technology issues demonstrates that there are two separate movements with similar goals.Mlorrey 16:40, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Or it might demonstrate that the spectrum you have been led to believe exists is actually nothing more than a false meme. Let Occam's razor decide.

Here is Wikipedia's deletion policy. The term "neo-luddite" is in common usage, and I doubt you will find much community consensus for deletion. While few would identify themselves as "neo-luddites", there certainly is a diverse movement advocating everything from a critical analysis of modern technologies to the elimination of such technologies. ElBenevolente 22:48, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I concur that this article is still POV-heavy; the list of "prominent neo-luddites" is particularly suspicious for the reasons cited by Munson above. Specifically, I removed Gretel Ehlrich from the list after reviewing a number of interviews (i.e. Library Journal 129:18 [84] 15 Nov 2004) with Ehlrich as well as biographical overviews of her life and writings (see Contemporary Authors and Dictionary of Literary Biography) which showed no evidence of the positions, beliefs or activities described by the article. Lukethelibrarian 21:36, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I concur that Gretel Ehrlich doesn't belong there, someone modified the earlier reference to Paul R Ehrlich, who is a noted neo-malthusian/neo-luddite. I have done extensive research on the movement and am working on this article. I do not have time to complete it at once. However, Munson is a member of one group involved in the network, so his opinions here amount to non-NPOV revisionism and disinformation. Mlorrey 20:00, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

On Fukuyama

"Fukuyama is famously wrong for predicting the end of history with the fall of the U.S.S.R". Yet the The End of History says "Fukuyama's thesis is often misinterpreted and misunderstood. For example, it is frequently claimed that Fukuyama believes that history ended in 1989 (with the fall of the Berlin Wall)."

Fukuyama says, "What we may be witnessing in not just the end of the Cold War, or the passing of a particular period of post-war history, but the end of history as such: that is, the end point of mankind's ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government." (quoted from "The End of History?", 1989) What is clear to most is that liberal democracy is not the end-state of human ideological evolution, despite its continuing attempts to retain the idea of the social-welfare semi-free market nation-state through hook, crook, or force of arms. Fukuyama is famously wrong because the promise of transhuman advancement and the future technological singularity indicate a future stage of punctuated equilibrium in human affairs, the results of which are impossible to predict. See Ray Kurzweil's books for further elucidation on these ideas. It is for this reason that Fukuyama now calls transhumanism, "the world's most dangerous idea", if only because it will further demonstrate how wrong he was. Transhumanism is dangerous to his future royalty stream... Mlorrey 16:43, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Specific POV concerns

It seems to me that this topic is covered more thoroughly and with better NPOV in Primitivism. Could this topic be redirected there?

Neo-primitivism advocates a return to a hunter-gatherer or pre-historical agricultural level of existence (without admitting that 90%+ of the human race would need to die for such an inefficient lifestyle to be sustainable). Neo-Luddites generally are stasists, in that they don't want technology to advance beyond a mid-20th century Rockwellian vision of America, or they want to turn things back to a form of neo-feudalism along socialist lines, or somewhere in between, such as a 19th century frontier American lifestyle. It generally depends on the individual and the group one is speaking of. Mlorrey

My specific reasons for adding the NPOV dispute tag are the following.

NOTE: I added the dispute notice to this talk page first. I am more concerned about vandals interfering in the documentation process.Mlorrey 05:50, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Understood. However, I am concerned about the end-users of the article, which in its current state contains far too many unsupported allegations. Lukethelibrarian 12:53, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The article fails to provide evidence to support/document:

• ...under "Network Structure"...
  • "significant ties and support between dedicated neo-luddite groups" -- no evidence of ties between any of the groups listed

Not yet.

I would suggest that you consider providing documentation & references to support the allegations you already have made in this article before adding additional material. Lukethelibrarian 12:53, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • "providing shelter outside the US to terrorist fugitives" [The Anarchist Organization]

This allegation is from personal experience with that group, so until I am able to document it, I will change it to 'alleged'. Mlorrey 16:45, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • "providing... anonymous website hosting and encrypted email communications for various ad hoc sabotage groups or campaigns" [the associated link does not support this claim -- it appears to include links to 3rd party tools and educational material, no indication of providing named services]

It is not a 3rd party site, TAO.ca treats those sites as subsidiary sites providing products and services to its members.Mlorrey 05:34, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Let's take email. On this page they provide links to SSH instructions, PGP/GPG, anonymous remailers, and other free 3rd party services. "Linking to" a third party or "educating about" a procedure is far different than "providing" a service. Please provide specific links to back up your allegation that TAO is "providing... anonymous website hosting and encrypted email communications" for anyone, let alone "ad hoc sabotage groups or campaigns." Lukethelibrarian 12:53, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

security.resist.ca is a subsidiary organization website that, last I checked, was having its site hosted on tao.ca servers. That resist.ca provides third party links is irrelevant. This: https://webmail.tao.ca/src/login.php is tao.ca's secure encrypted email server, while this: http://oat.tao.ca/manual is a manual for groups to establish their own autonomous secure telecomms. This: http://ssh.oat.tao.ca/ is an encrypted chatroom that requires a key, called an OAT, to access. This link: http://oat.tao.ca/book/view/9 clearly describes that they network with other groups, and in point 10 of their revision of the Black Panther Party's principles, their opposition to genetic engineering and other technologies as 'pollution'.Mlorrey 15:09, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • Alleged funding sources for Ruckus Society, and relevance of that funding allegation to the remainder of the article

Already referenced. Relevance is that the neo-luddite movement has significant funding channelled to it from wealthy individuals. I will have more names to name in the future on this.Mlorrey 05:34, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The links you provided fall short of the original sources of the data. I think this might be the link you were looking for. However, this also fails to support your tie-in with Heinz -- Heinz's grants to Tides ran from 1994 to 1998, and Tides' funding of Ruckus runs from 1999-2003. Lukethelibrarian 12:53, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • Alleged operations of IWW and activities of "Project Underground" (moles.org link is dead, but whois indicates it is registered to Project Underground in Berkeley CA)

And what is the address? A bookshop. An IWW related bookshop. At least it was last time I checked. Mlorrey 05:34, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The fact that a web domain is registered to the address of a bookshop does not support the following allegations: "help clandestinely move fugitives and contraband around the country, as a manpower transportation and logistics system to support insurgency attack operations at any location in the US." Lukethelibrarian 12:53, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • Alleged "entryism" campaign of WWP; alleged relationship between WWP and other named groups

Entryist campaign is well documented both in the US and Britain.Mlorrey 05:34, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Then please provide some specific references, citations, links, or support in your article. Lukethelibrarian 12:53, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• ...under "Use of Ad Hoc Fronts"...
  • alleged coordination/adoption of a uniform strategy employing decentralized ad-hoc fronts. Occam's Razor: without evidence of coordination, incidents should be considered separate.

• ...under "Violence"...
  • allegation that 2 specific incidents and 2 categorical groupings of incidents are "successful neo-luddite attacks".

Offhand, the burning of the Deer Valley ski lodge was confessed to by a self-admitted member of a neo-luddite cell, as was the NYC apartment building. Mlorrey 05:34, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Then please provide specific dates, names, links, documents, references, or citations to support. Lukethelibrarian 12:53, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• ...under "Politics: Stem cells"...
  • relevance of Bush policy to article, relationship between "neo-luddite movement" and Bush actions

As Bush policy was written by Kass and Fukuyama, self-declared 'bio-luddites', the relevance is clear.Mlorrey 05:34, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It would be if you would better establish the relationship between Kass, Fukuyama and the rest of the "network" or "movement" that you are alleging. So far, that's not present in the article. Lukethelibrarian 12:53, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • relevance of EU GMO policy to article, relationship between "neo-luddite movement" and EU government actions.

Clear lobbying actions of neo-luddites, like Prince Charles, Jeremy Rifkin, among others, in lobbying for limits on GMO. These will be documented.Mlorrey 05:34, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• ...under "Prominent neo-luddites"...
  • relationship of Paul R. Ehrlich, Fritjof Capra and Donella Meadows to the activities or organizations described in the article

Primarily propaganda oriented relationship, although Meadows' Institute has some operational links to the active movement.Mlorrey 05:34, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please provide some specific references, citations, links, or support in your article.

• • relationship of Mike Roselle, Kirkpatrick Sale, Howie Wolk, Bill Joy, or Bill McKibben to activities or organizations described in the article

All exist and will be documented.

• • relevance of Fukuyama's predictions on fall of USSR to content of article.

Goes to his credibility as a social scientist.Mlorrey 05:34, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

His credibility as a social scientist has nothing to do with the relationships you are alleging with other persons, groups, or activities. Lukethelibrarian 12:53, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The article includes the following POV language unsupported by evidence:

• ...under "Network Structure"...
  • "Ruckus Society operates several boot camps for... neo-luddite saboteurs"

I have already provided several references which document this as a fact.

You have provided references that document that the Ruckus Society operates boot camps to train activists. You have not established that those activits merit the label neo-luddite saboteurs.

• • Comparison between infoshop.org and Sinn Fein

This was a comparison of tactics/strategy and not policy. Sinn Fein is a legitimate political party that acts as a PR front for the IRA. This is documented and proven, yet they have always maintained public claims to not have control of any kind over. Infoshop.org's various cells and committees and sites operate in a similar fashion to arms-length neo-luddite operations groups. Should I instead compare them as Al jazeera relates to al Quaeda?Mlorrey 05:34, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you should avoid comparisons to groups with dissimilar policies, and simply provide more thorough documentation of the tactics/strategy you allege. Lukethelibrarian 12:53, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • "In this [antecedent unclear], WWP is using luddism to push its goal..."

WWP's entryist campaign and its goals are well documented in many other sites, which I will provide links to.Mlorrey 05:34, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• ...under "Violence"...
  • "widespread embarrassment and half-hearted disavowal by mainstream members of the movement"

Many movement members are against violence, but tend to express their disapproval in the same sort of rationalizing way that anti-abortion protesters who cherish life disapprove of but excuse the actions of those who kill abortionists.Mlorrey 05:34, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please provide some specific references, citations, links, or support in your article. Also, please avoid weasel terms: "Many movement members..." Lukethelibrarian 12:53, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• ...under "Right-wing Neo-Luddism"...
  • "no transhumanist has ever attacked or sabotaged anyone or anything, while luddites do so as a matter of right."

There is a complete lack of any documented evidence that transhumanists, who tend to be openness fetishists to varying degrees, have ever attacked, sabotaged, or otherwise initiated agression against any luddite individual, organization, asset, or demonstration. You can't prove a negative other than by lack of evidence. Mlorrey 05:34, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"ever attacked, sabotaged, or otherwise initiated aggression against any luddite individual, organization, asset, or demonstration" (above) is different than "ever attacked or sabotaged anyone or anything" (article). You may not be able to prove a negative other than by lack of evidence, however, you should back up your claim that "luddites do so as a matter of right." Lukethelibrarian 12:53, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The article uses the following excessively vague and/or "weasel terms":

• ...under "Network Structure"...
  • ..."to what many consider to be a rather extreme degree"
• ...under "Violence"...
  • "destruction of genetically modified organisms in a number of locations"

Well documented vandalism and destruction of GMO plants and animals at farms and labs across the US, Canada, and Europe since the late 1990's.Mlorrey 05:34, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Then please cite them specifically: names, dates, places, citations, references. Lukethelibrarian 12:53, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • "attacks on prominent researchers and technology executives beyond the highly publicized serial bombings of the Unabomber."

All valid and documented elsewhere, which i will link to later.Mlorrey 05:34, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• ...under "Politics: GMO"...
  • "A number of countries..."

Documented fact, the Precautionary Principle is a part of the EU constitution, for instance.Mlorrey 05:34, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please provide some citations and references to back up that relationship. Lukethelibrarian 12:53, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• ...under "Right-wing Neo-Luddism"...
  • "...members of the right wing acting in opposition to technology are primarily at the level of..."

As stated, other than anti-abortion terrorists, there is a complete dearth of violence oriented right-wing luddites. They all seem to prefer to work through political channels at this point. If this changes I will be sure to note it.Mlorrey 05:34, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your statement above is far better than the "weasel terms" in the article -- please consider replacing the article's text with the text you have added above.

Please review WP:NPOV and add your comments here. Thanks. Lukethelibrarian 21:37, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate your concerns over this. As previously stated several times, I am gradually putting up references to everything, but don't have a lot of time every day to put into this, so I would appreciate some forebearance in finishing the documentation. The allegations are very serious, however I highly doubt you would demand similar documentation of every action committed by other terrorist organizations, like, say, the IRA, etc.. I intend to cover all sides of the issue, which is why I'm also including the right-wing luddism as well. I think it is important that this movement be documented as extensively as possible and I am welcoming other contributors in this effort (I have already enlisted support from others who have investigated this movement), but I object to being held to a higher standard than is accepted with those documenting other subversive/secretive insurgency/guerilla/terrorist organizations which normally require a sophisticated intelligence service to find out extensive information about. I also appreciate those who have restored edits in the past that have been erased by some I suspect of either sympathy for or involvement in the neo-luddite movement. They have a vested interest in keeping their organization and activities secret from the general public in order to invent the false public perception of a 'grass roots' uprising. I guarantee you that everything here will be either documented or removed/edited by myself. Part of the problem is that these groups have been sanitizing themselves lately, eliminating a lot of material that used to exist on the web.Mlorrey 05:12, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"The allegations are very serious, however I highly doubt you would demand similar documentation of every action committed by other terrorist organizations, like, say, the IRA, etc." Actually, I would. I just haven't worked on that article. Part of the problem here is that this article is categorized under "Social Philosophy" but you are alleging an organized movement. As a social philosophy, can you explain to me the difference between "neo-luddism" and anarcho-primitivism? If what you are describing is a political movement instead of a social philosophy, then this article should be re-categorized. Lukethelibrarian 12:53, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think the trouble is that the author is conflating a few issues some of which fall under the anarcho-primitivism and others that don't. Francis Fukuyama is not into anarcho-primitivism or anything near it. He is simply concerned with over stepping the bounds of technology. These bounds are constantly changing taboos of society and it is generally considered that the scientist is playing with God or forces not meant to be meddled with by pitiful humans. In modern times these issues are Life (GMO and other biotech) and Intelligence (Fukuyamas worrying about Ritalin and other neuro-pharmaceuticals) as such Neo-luddisms teaches the same message as Shelleys Frankenstein. The section of what Mlorrey is talking about that doesn't fall under anarcho-primitivism is more conservative than radical in that it doesn't have a problem with the way things are at the moment. In the entry there should really be some way of distinguishing between the groups that want to put on the brakes (Neo-luddites) and those that want to go put it in reverse anarcho-conservatives.--Agent101 00:04, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Prominent Neo-Luddites"

I removed this section because it was unsourced POV. No evidence or citations were given to indicate that these individuals consider themselves neo-Luddites. George W. Bush has been called a fascist by many; would it therefore be appropriate to include him on a List of fascists? Of course not. "Neo-luddite" is just a political epithet, and it is highly POV to use the encyclopedic voice to refer to an individual or group as such unless they self-identify. Now, if you want to make a list of "individuals accused of being neo-Luddites", and provide actual sources (preferably somewhat mainstream), then that's fine. Firebug 03:31, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Firebug lacks standing to do so as he is currently engaged in a fraudulent action against me. Wiki protocol precludes him from reverting any of my edits until the dispute is resolved.Mlorrey 18:24, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)