"The extremists are afraid of books and pens. The power of education frightens them. They are afraid of women. The power of the voice of women frightens them." - Malala fighting Taliban.
this post was submitted on 29 Sep 2025
252 points (97.7% liked)
Mind Dump
56 readers
1 users here now
Mind Dump
Blunt
Brain Damaged by Donald Trump
founded 5 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
What foreign invader are Christian Nationalists fighting against though? I despise fundamentalist violent movements categorically but it is worth noting that in most contexts including predominantly Christian ones, Christian Nationalism is the occupier and cannot claim to be resistance fighters even if you wildly stretch the definitions.
US Christian Nationalism extremism is far more fruitful to compare to something like the South African Apartheid than an extremist fundamentalist resistance group.
Comparing US Christian Nationalism to the Taliban just isn't that instructive, one is a nebulous but structurally empowered violence wearing the clothes of religion to justify stochastic and authoritarian violence against minorities, the other is a specific resistance force with specific political, territorial and military aims wearing the clothes of religion to justify violence. Both encourage senseless violence, but there is a difference here in the basics of their construction.
Whatever though, I agree in spirit I just think it is worth bringing up because it is easy to slip into modes of thinking like that and directly compare things that are two very different things.
Non-white Immigrants.
The Boers were obsessed with segregation because it enabled a small number of white plutocrats expansive control over the real estate of the southern end of the continent. Their biggest threats tended to come from the borders, where local peoples could align with foreign neighbors and form dissident groups. Angola, Zimbabwe, and The Republic of the Congo all ousted their colonial governments with the aid of like-minded Africans from outside their respective countries.
One of the upshots of anti-colonialism during its 70s/80s peak was the Pan-African movement - an effort by the various African states to form an EU-style unity government to secure Africa by and for its native people. This unity movement ultimately failed, as the Christian/Muslim divide and the various tribal beefs were exploited by European intelligence services to turn neighbors against one another.
And now we're seeing a rival of white nationalism across the continent, thanks to support from white nationalists in the US, Latin America, Eastern Europe, and Israel. US Christian Nationalism and South African apartheid are joined at the hip, in that regard.
I think there's one factor that ties the two together that people regularly overlook. Both modern US Christian Nationalism and Afghani Taliban conservatism are grounded in a reactionary response to local drug epidemics. In fact, both are being driven by the opium trade. And - even more notably - an opium trade that originated in Afghanistan before flowing into East Asia and the Americas.
Religious fundamentalism as a response to the social destabilization of drug abuse is a tale far longer than this entangled conflict. You find it in Hinduvista India and Russian Orthodoxy and in the post-pothead California mega-churches and the coked up cartel states of the Panama region.
In that sense, there's a long cycle of human behavior - from liberal tolerance of opening trade to economic decay fueled by cheap pharmaceuticals to reactionary border closing to economic stifling to liberal re-opening in pursuit of growth.
Alright, ok I hadn't seen someone argue this to me straight out like that before, I think that is a reasonable basis for comparison especially given the role the US and other European imperial powers have played in driving drug wars in a multidimensional way.
The Taliban didn't start as a resistance movement fighting invaders. It was a faction from the Afghan civil war, and fought against other Afghan factions like the Northern Alliance.
So it is an extremist religious faction that fought for influence against more moderate groups. And the 'religious' foundations and messaging makes it a relevant comparison to make. Especially since the playbook used by American Christian nationalists shares many similarities with that of other extremist religious groups, including Islamic groups like the Taliban
Yeah, but again this brings a conversation about this at least in a US context back to a discussion about the US Civil War where people were actually factionalized into fighting each other in big groups with guns. This is not an environment US Christian Nationalism has been in for a very long time, if ever (both sides of the US Civil War were arguably Christian Nationalist I would think..), and I think it makes it a much different conversation than somewhere like Afghanistan where there is a long geopolitical history of empires invading, leveraging local power struggles, and occupying by imposing force on local populations.
shrugs again though, I agree with the spirit of what is being said here, Christian Nationalism is terrifying, I am just trying to underline that one of the things about it that is so terrifying is that extremist Christian Nationalism needs no actual realistic foreign threat or occupier to justify its violence, it just makes it up whole cloth and its followers eat it right up no critical questions asked.
It seems like your familiarity with the Taliban is based around their actions post US imperialist action. They were originally formed to combat the spread of corruption in Afghanistan, and were based on Pashtun nationalism and religious fundamentalism. They did significantly more than just carry out military action.
I'm not saying there are no differences, but I do think it is worthwhile to examine the similarities. And only looking at what the Taliban did in response to invasion ignores a large portion of their history, and largely misses the beliefs and goals of the founders.
dupe
Hi, this is my posting. In my posting here on Lemmy, included a link to Malala's speech and quoted part of it. did you read the entire thing?
Do you not realize how far away Swat Valley Pakistan is from Mecca / Quran origins that the Taliban follows?
Do you consider the Taliban an invasive behavior to use the Quran on people in Pakistan?
How far do you think California USA is from the origins of The Bible?
Do you consider Christians an invasive behavior to use the Bible on people in North America?
Fixed book of year 635. The Quran was originated in the year 635... using it literally in Pakistan in the year 2009 is why Malala started blogging on the WWW. It is a very out of date book to rule a society with.
Fixed book that is 1,950 years ago. The Bible was originated some 2000 years ago... using it literally in North America in the year 2025 is a really out of date way to run the society.
Do you think "Jesus" or "The Bible" is named in the USA Constitution or Deceleration of Independence?
Did you know that Thomas Jefferson did not like the British King James Bible and took a knife and cut/paste his own Bible and published it in year 1820? A USA Founding Father version of The Bible? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible
Shall I continue?
They are fighting domestic peoples, native Americans, Mexicans and Navajo and other people who were here before The Bible ever was.
Most of all, Christians in North America are fighting against nonfiction. Science.
No argument there! I agree, that t-shirt that says "The Original Homeland Security" and has a picture of some hunky Native Americans standing shoulder to shoulder about sums it up, again my point is that in this context extremist Christian Nationalism was the colonizing force not a resistance force born out of the context of colonizing forces.
Extreme fiction addicts.
Fox News is fiction
Bible is science fiction, magical angels are the "colonizing forces" from outer-space
Donald Trump is a great source of fiction storytelling.
I suggest you also peer over to Russia and study if the Kremlin produces fiction or nonfiction. I can recommend this book: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_Is_True_and_Everything_Is_Possible "Nothing Is True and Everything Is Possible: The Surreal Heart of the New Russia is a 2014 book by Peter Pomerantsev. It focuses on the political developments in Russia in the early 21st century and the culture of Russian media."
Reminder: Putin was recently invited to Alaska to meet with Trump to discuss fiction storytelling strategies for leading nations.