There are certain groups that would benefit more from SAFE then others in terms of safety and quality of life, those groups have certain traits such as being viewed as other, outsiders, etc.
For example, I was recently reading an article about a Christians being targeted in some majority Islamic country and thought that these people certainly need access to tools which can help them communicate with people who support them or can help, etc.
So the purpose of this thread is to ID those, and them come up with way to speak to leaders in those communities to inform them of this tool.
In my opinion it would be better to educate them about the true nature of their (and most mainstream) religions as tools of oligarchic control. Realize that christian âleadersâ are nothing more than wolves in sheepâs clothing. I mean, thereâs a reason why they call the congregation, âsheepâ and âthe flockâ. They are not interested in anything that would increase the anonymity or personal power of their regular members. They MAKE THEIR MONEY based off of the ignorance and foolishness of the same people, in fact, they most likely are highly elated by the slaughter of some of their members as it gives them political and emotional capital. I know this sounds callous, but recognize who you are dealing with and talking about. There are many old world âinstitutionsâ that need to go, and maidsafe is diametrically opposed to. Religious orgs are one of them.
Iâm kinda sure that the OP was about identifying groups that are threatened, not about changing people you donât agree with. Itâs also off-topic, because trying to force your ideas on people who didnât ask for it is not usually helpful from a marketing point of view.
Anyway, letâs add Muslims in Islamic State controlled areas to that list, because they are getting killed all the same (without much news coverage, is all the difference.) Christians are not faring well in most parts of China either, but âaverage Chinese citizenâ is already a target group just by virtue of living under an oppressive government.
As for the record, I personally know a small Christian church that is feeding 200+ people (mostly orphans, widows, and the elderly) in utterly poor areas of Africa twice a day since many years ago, and they dig boreholes, install wells, etc. as well.
And my post illuminates the fact that those groups categorically would not embrace something like safe. Iâm a former christian. There is no malice in my comment nor atheistic evangelism. My comment is merely to show that those groups do NOT work in a fashion that would encourage personal freedom and widespread information sharing. They operate on the IGNORANCE of their paritioners, and thus my reply is not off-topic, because this is NOT a group, imo, that will want something like safe. They already hate the internet.
How many Christian churches do you know that are eliminating the causes of that poverty in âutterly poorâ areas? The idea that *poor blacks in Africa need white Christians to save them" is what got Africa into the mess it is in in the first place. Most of the colonial âmisstepsâ of the past were DIRECTLY A RESULT OF ambitions to âspread the gospel to poor, broken âsavagesâ. Thus the Tasmanian aborigines were wiped out, and you know the story. Its kind of like how American âAIDâ to Haiti impoverished a generation of farmers by lowering prices for their crops such that they couldnât compete with the AID, causing them to move to urban areas in Port Auâ Prince. But due to the rapid nature of the influx, they were required to live in hastily constructed shanty houses and towns, which was a direct contributor to the large death toll in the most recent earthquake there. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, or so they sayâŚ
Recognize that the same corrupt, tyrannical govts that the safe network seeks to sidestep got most of their methods FROM RELIGIONS NAMELY CHRISTIANITY in the middle ages. This is no more off-topic than a discussion of âusing safe to help the banking industryâ would be. They are diametrically opposed and thus not targets, imo, for safe.People who are involved in group-think, whether it be statism or religion, are often not amenable to ânewâ methods of doing things and thinking due to the rigid nature of thought required by the institutions from which they receive their daily bread.
In other words, if they are not willing to go on youtube to look up the sordid history of their religion, why do you think they would use the safenetwork? It would only be another useless invention to them because it has not been âvetted by tptbâ (in this case pastors and church leadership).
Again, I do not say this to be anti-religion, merely to indicate that religious groups are not likely to adopt the safe network for the reasons above. I am not anti-spirituality either. Merely stating my opinion in regards to how effective such an outreach would be. Iâve dealt with Christians most of my life, they are mentally rigid, and mired in bureaucratic red-tape that prevents all but the most modest adoption of anything new for fear of their âsheepâ being âlead astrayâ.
Iâm talking about a place where HIV infection rate is in the double digits, an area where âsustainabilityâ canât become a concern until decades from now. Right now itâs about keeping people alive. Think about a 9yo girl whoâs the âmamaâ for her 4 younger siblings, because the parents died of AIDS. Or 100% crop failure because of the draught (I think 3 years ago, it was.)
I could also bring my other friend as an example who, with another friend and their families, are leading an orphanage in the Southern regions of Ethiopia, where kids get considered cursed for reasons like being born twins, chipping a tooth, or missing a ceremony because of the rain; I wonder how youâll pin that on colonialism. Being cursed kinda suck, because youâll end up dead (killed, or âjustâ abandoned.) Some kids are just not wanted and are thrown away (sometimes literally: a little boy came with severe head injuries; got fixed up in Florida, getting better now.)
Like dominoes, almost all issues currently in Africa are the result of colonialism. Millions of people were killed, worked to death, sent to âwork campsâ before the Jews in Europe were, look up the work camps in Namibia by the Germans and the Congo by king Leopold, arbitrarily drawing borders, moving people that didnât need to be moved, elevating one ethnic group above the other with special privileges (which led directly to the civil war in Rwanda which resulted in nearly 1 million dead in the span of 1 month).
Furthermore, Christianity is a âsatanicâ cult; this is going to be news to some and I probably should quit while Iâm behind but fuggedabout it. They use music (Iâm also a musician), the positioning of the altar, the positioning of the Churches (churches are always built facing a certain direction and in certain places) to basically siphon the mental and physical energies of their parishioners. The âAIDâ they give in the form of help is like an investment that pays them BIG DIVIDENDS. It usually comes with heavy guilt-tripping to âjoinâ their church, which is why there evangelism is so successful. Tell me, how do you evangelize a people in this manner that need for nothing? Answer, you do not. Christians NEED to be able to âhelpâ otherwise they would have no foothold in the door, and thus Christians often support apartheid regimes and genocidal practices, all while claiming to âlove god and their fellow manâ.
Look at how many Christians support Israel, despite the fact that they are the greatest abuser of human rights in the world. Look at how many Christians support the Right and supported the Iraq war. Listen to how hateful the likes of Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, et. al are. Look at how much they âsupported the troopsâ during the illegal and hugely destructive wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. I can guarantee you that the dead, maimed, and homeless of those conflicts will not be consoled because of the Christian âaidâ they receive.
Like terrorism, Christian aid is a scam that relies on creating the very same people that they claim to want to help and âbring to jesusâ. Its all a scam/show. Evidence of this fact is borne out by the observation that despite at least 1 century of continual âevangelical aidâ the world is a much worse place, esp. in areas where Chrstians have had direct access and influence. And do not get me started on how diseases like AIDs are manufactured and often spread by âaid workersâ (though not necessarily Christian aid works, but then again, not necessarily NOT by them either). In Africa, there was a news report on how the local villagers got wise to the fact that those who were giving âaidâ for ebola were actually poisoning the wells with formaldehyde. They banded together and KILLED ALL THE AID workers. Thatâs enough. My point is that Christians are the LAST PEOPLE that would support something that would mean freedom and greater access to information like safeâŚnot to mention economic stability. THAT WOULD MEAN AN END TO THE âAID/HELP-GRAVYTRAINâ.
Remember, churches are corporations, and corporations NEVER do anything for the benefit of ANYONE but their shareholders.
HIV is not a natural disease. It was synthesized in a lab in the 1960s to fulfill colonial objectives. AIDs is a hoax in that it is not what youâve been told. There is enough information on the web to confirm this, a good name to start with if you doubt this would be Dr. Peter Duesberg (sp?)
âancient tribalâ traditions? You do not seem to understand that Africa underwent 4 centuries of war since the arrival of the Portuguese in 1415 resulting in the massive upheaval of African cities and life.
The British destroyed over 100 African cities in the 1800s. This is all verifiable information, but you are not taught it in your schools. The Ashanti, Zimbabweans for example (two large empires that spanned multiple modern day countries) literally both spent 1 century apiece fighting European colonial invasions in wars, and theyâre not the only ones. Furthermore, since that time (1415) in an attempt to steal the wealth of African states, the Portuguese and other colonial powers embarked on an effort of divide and conquer, pitting native âtribesâ against one another, like was done in Rwanda, in order to take control. This resulted in the MASSIVE UPHEAVAL of African societies. I say all this to say, there really are very few things about Africa that have not been affected by both European colonialism and its afterefffects.
As soon as the world stops looking at Africans as poor, backwards âtribal peopleâ that need western, white, Christian aid, the sooner they can leave African countries to heal from the devastation caused by them. I can concede that we are now off-topic, as such I too will leave the discussion.
If this continues to be a religious debate, please continue the discussion in the #off-topic category as per the guidelines. (Religious, political, and other âprone to huge argumentsâ topics are only allowed in the #off-topic category.)
Thanks for leaving! It was not cool to hijack the thread. Iâm interested in helping people who are endangered by the state or a majority that disagrees with them.
Some of that could be religion, could be sexual orientation, could be the color of their skin, whatever.
If you do post off topic again here, I will ask for your posts to be removed as they already clutter this topic.
I didnât hijack the thread either, my main point was that your example group would not be amenable to maidsafe due to the nature of their organization. How is that off-topic?
I think safe will be a great tool for exactly what you describe. I also think part of that is having the freedom to educate oneâs self on what others claim is truth about those minority communities.
I can say for a personal fact you are wrong in your judgement. I will use the network for this very purposeâŚ
I can say for a personal fact you are wrong in your judgement. I will use the network for this very purposeâŚReply as linked Topic
Ok, now weâre getting somewhere. Are you a leader in the church? Perhaps I was remiss in my explanation of my objection, so let me put it another way: in the United States all major Christian institutions are 501c3, which means they get tax-exempt status from the govt. So you âpay your titheâ you get a tax write off as a regular member. This alone makes religion attractive; however, it also gives the govt considerable lee-way in controlling what youâre allowed to say from the pulpit. You canât promote specific political candidates for example. So, now hopefully this is a little more clear/relevant: when safe is live and govts take a hard stand against it, guess who has to follow suit or fear losing that tax exempt status?
This is what I meant by ;top-downâ control. Churches will not be in the business of supporting something that removes a significant portion of their funding and one of the main attractions of their religion (tax-exempt status). Now, if this is foolish reasoning, let me know, but to me its not so unreasonable.
I know someone who would probably interested in this in a country where freedoms are massively kept out. Iâm not going into more detail. I think people should make websites for those groups they care about and explain how to use the network. They should then approach leaders and direct them towards their site. They should also get involved in the forums and see to it that the software will be easy to use for tech illiterates. They should also promote the creation of software that helps their cause.
Perhaps when the network is up & running, and tools well developed enough to be useful, with a high degree of certainly about safe & secure use of the tools, we could reach out to some charities that focus on oppressed communities around the world, as they may have good insight into how to best use the tools, and who may benefit from them?
Maybe specific applications could be developed for this purpose, and to overcome specific challenges these people face?
There may well be significant benefits to oppressed political, religious, ethnic, and other groups to be able to share information and organise safely, but itâll be critical to make sure they know how to use the tools safely in their context before getting them on board.
Great concept, and I hope the Safe network can indeed help bring some additional freedoms to all kinds of oppressed people.
Honestly, when the network is up, running and secure, I donât think you will have to do much. Get DIrvine, Nick Lambert and others onto a few interviews with the daily decrypt and the rest will take care of itself. People that need this kind of thing usually are looking for it, and if youâve got a secure, fast, reliable solution thatâs better than Tor you wonât have to do too much marketing imo, theyâll be beating down the door, running their own vaults. In that instance, their only concern would be hardware backdoors and assuring their stuff is free from those kind of vulnerabilities. Tails will probably be run a lot in conjunction with safe (until SfaeOS is developed at least).
