ISIS has "progressive potential"

not only that it is a "valid and an authentic expression of their emancipatory, anti-imperialist aspirations.”

Did this come from another group of Islamist men seeking to cheer on their murderous comrades in their proud courageous rampage through villages of non-believers, as they behead men, women and children?

No, it came from the British left, an organisation called Left Unity which has the backing of George Galloway and Ken Livingstone, both well known as firebrands who have sympathised with authoritarians of many colours.  Guido Fawkes has this coverage of the event.

Yes - now just think about the contradictions.

When ISIS governs it would mean:

- Strict orthodox Islamist theocracy, where other faiths and atheism would not only be banned, but their practice would be punishable by death;

- All freedom of speech that was critical of the caliphate or Islam, or deemed to be blasphemous under ISIS's strict reading of the Koran, would be forbidden, and harshly punished;

- Women would be in no positions of authority, and be expected to be submissive breeding stock.  Intended to produce children, raise them and be completely submissive to their fathers, then husbands;

- Much if not most books, magazines, music, films, television, audio programmes, paintings, photographs and other media known in most cultures would be prohibited and destroyed;

- And of course, being gay/lesbian/bisexual etc would be totally forbidden, and any expression of such behaviour would be punishable by death.

By what stretch of the imagination of any, so-called, liberal leftwing campaigner, is this emancipatory, without the sort of Orwellian contortions that are used in Pyongyang to talk of its regime being free and democratic?

Well, the "liberating" potential of ISIS is linked to:

- Destroying nation-state borders established during colonialism (an act that Nazi Germany, militarist Japan and the USSR all achieved, and the EU may be argued to have done in part too);

- Overthrowing dictatorial regimes in Syria and Iraq (not entirely untrue, but it is a bit pot/kettle);

- Rejecting the "western capitalist imperialist" paradigm, by rejecting regimes recognised by other states.

It reminds me of the Scottish socialist academic Malcolm Caldwell, who wrote glowingly of the Khmer Rouge in a similar light.  After all, the Khmer Rouge abolished money, private business, private property, indeed private anything, and overthrew a hated corrupt military dictatorship, whilst considering the US to be evil.

Caldwell travelled to Cambodia to research into the grand achievement of a regime that had already starved and executed hundreds of thousands of people, some for being academics.  He was murdered when he was there in a messy fracas.  One Noam Chomsky at the time was also in denial over the Khmer Rouge murders, accusing the reports of being CIA propaganda. Today, he slithers from justifying all of this at the time like a well oiled snake.

So what can one make of those that would even consider treating ISIS as "progressive"? 

We need only go back to the true heart and soul behind many on the far left of politics - it being a deadly, dark and bloodthirsty belief in the notion that to make an omelette, you have to crack a few eggs.  The ends justify the means, and for too many in the "progressive left" a psychopathological anger justifies to them to turn a blind eye to violence to achieve revolution, including the suppression of anyone in the way of it.

It is a moral relativism that would see the same people protesting angrily against losing their personal freedoms, but which tolerate and even support others losing it, in other countries, because it is "not for them to say" what is right elsewhere, as if it is "colonialism".

It shows how completely bankrupt the hard left is on any personal freedoms, whether it be speech, worship, womens' rights, political and civil freedoms.  

It reflects a kneejerk, almost automatic admiration for any group that rejects basic concepts of individual rights and freedom of expression, and being antithetical to liberal democracy.  Whether it be Islamists, communists or nationalist fascists (as the rise of Putinphilia may be attributed to).

It is also anti-American, anti-capitalist, anti-Western.  Now that is not without elements of good reason, there are many critics of much policy of Western governments, whether it be corporatist economics, concerns over surveillance and limits to free speech, economic policy responses to the financial crisis and so on.

However, anyone who thinks they are progressive, by any definition of that word, by endorsing or turning a blind eye to ISIS, is as wrong and contradictory, as one would be as a Jewish Nazi, or indeed, being a lesbian atheist feminist Islamist.  

Islamism is antithetical to freedom, antithetical to humanity, and should be opposed unreservedly, and those who use violence to impose it are our enemies, and should be treated accordingly.