The ISIS caliphate continues distributing digital media to raise both awareness and an aura of legitimacy based on the theological-political praxis of revolutionary Islam.
This video is important because, as a document of history, it carries both the authoritarian credence of an especially violent and tremendously misogynist strain of theology with the revolutionary zeal of twentieth century emancipatory struggle. Almost a century ago, it was Lenin who revealed before the world the parameters of the secret treaties arranged by Messrs Sykes and Picot, a step which was intended to undermine the notion of a war to spread democracy. Here, ISIS is invoking the Leninist notion of undermining the Anglo-French border arrangements in a similar fashion.
However, the underlying question is whether the ISIS movement should be granted the status of a revolutionary nationalist struggle, akin to Stalin's National Question, or if it should be construed as a kind of national chauvinist movement, akin to the Bolshevik rebuke of Zionism and the Bundist movement. The key to this question is not to be found in their political documents but in their financial statements, namely, who is underwriting the ISIS movement?
In this regard, the answer is clear. ISIS is merely a cancerous growth out of the Carter-Reagan policy of funding the jihad movement in opposition to the USSR. Furthermore, consider the declared enemies of ISIS, everyone from America to Israel to Hezbollah. But, notably absent from this list is the Saudi regime. The ISIS movement, in promoting a notion of Wahhabi-Qutbist Islam, is trying to curry favor with the Saudis. They are both Sunni and they are fundamentally in opposition to the Shia strain that rules Iran. In this regard, America is merely facing down a creature of its own making, and a horrifically reactionary monstrosity at that.
So who thought last month that America, Iran, and Hezbollah were going to be playing on the same team any time soon?