This is reprinted here from the EDL website. Beck is also starting to talk about this topic as well. I will get more in depth about the left-islam cooperation. I was working on this topic, but given the direction today is taking i will post this here and i will post  more in detail later.

For now, have a read:

The Prophet and the Proletariat

You’ve probably never heard of Chris Harman. But his ideas on Islamism have proved highly influential.
A long-term editor for the Socialist Worker and International Socialism magazines, and a member of the Central Committee of the Socialist Workers Party, Harman has been credited with creating the ideology that allowed the militant-Left to form an alliance with radical Islamists.

The Left which talked of women’s right and gay rights one day would happily keep silent on these issues the next, as they met with, and marched alongside, Islamist extremists who hated gays and considered women to be inferior.

Those who stood up for human rights even in the face of Islamist aggression were to be described as “racist” and “Islamophobic”. Where did this come from?

Islamists: the New Vanguard of a Socialist Revolution:
Far-Leftism was transformed during the 20th century. Karl Marx, the father of “scientific socialism”, had predicted that war would one day sweep across Europe. The working classes, or the “proletariat”, he predicted, would then realise their “class consciousness” and overthrow their own governments, transforming Europe into a socialist state.

Marx, it turned out, was only partly correct. From 1914 to 1918 Europe was engulfed by the First World War. However, the working classes fought for their countries. British soldiers went to war to fight for the freedom of their families and fellow countrymen.

Marxists were left confused. Although socialists attempted to take over some European cities, no lasting socialist state was established. The question Marxists were asking themselves was what went wrong?

The far-Left eventually came to believe that, because the working class respected its national traditions, it was not “revolutionary” enough to serve as the “vanguard” of a Marxist revolution.

It was decided that the way forward was to (1) find a new “vanguard” to take the traditional place of Marx’s proletariat, and (2) to attack and undermine national culture, making it appear to be not worth defending.

The result was what is sometimes called “Cultural Marxism”. This began to emerge in the 1960s. The far-Left decided that if the “proletariat” would not instigate a revolution for them, then other disenfranchised groups might. Women, ethnic and religious minorities, and gays all became the target of the New Left. However, as it later revealed, minorities were only of importance to the New Left so long as they could be used to make the West look oppressive. Today we see socialist and “anti-racist” groups aligning themselves with anti-Semitic, homophobic, Islamist organisations, because far-Left-wing organizations believe that these are more aggressive, anti-Western, and, as such, more “revolutionary”.

1994; Justification for an Alliance with Islamist Fascists:

Harman died in 2009 — in Cairo. In an obituary for the socialist intellectual, John Molyneux wrote in The Independent that his writings frequently

would prove to be of central strategic importance. Such was The Prophet and the Proletariat (1994), crucial in pioneering an analysis of political Islam even before 9/11, and thus preparing socialists to combat war and islamophobia.
What was Harman’s strategy?

Many on the Left had rightly recognised that Islamism was a type of fascism. The founding Islamist movement, The (Egyptian) Muslim Brotherhood, was actually trained and part-financed by the Nazi Party during the Second World War. Others were also inspired by Nazi ideology, especially its anti-Semitism and “anti-Zionism.”

Some socialists and communists had allied themselves with Islamists in previous decades, with disastrous results. In the Iranian Revolution of 1978 a various groups had fought to overthrow its autocratic leader, the Shah. These included communists, liberal democrats, and Islamists.

As Harman was aware, the Islamist faction succeeded in using violence to take control of the revolution and, eventually, in turning the country into an Islamist state. Having unwittingly played their part, communists, liberal democrats and others were then rounded up and executed.

Nevertheless, although Harman realized that Islamism posed a serious danger, he also saw the possibility of turning it towards Leftism. In his seminal essay “The Prophet and the Proletariat” he says that

the hostility of most Islamist movements to the [old-fashioned] left, women’s rights and secularism has led many socialist and liberals to designate the movements as fascist. But this is a mistake.
Socialists that had experienced the rise of Islamism in their own countries, in the Middle East and North Africa, compared its organizations to European extreme Right-wing parties, and had described it, as Harman says, as “a fascist current”.

The rise of Islamism has meant the brutal and barbaric treatment of innocent civilians. Often these are ordinary Muslims. In Iran today, young women and girls arrested for peacefully protesting against the governing theocracy are raped on the order of the Supreme Leader Ayatolla Khamenei, prior to their execution, so that they will not go to heaven.

Islamists in Algeria murdered about 100,000 of their fellow patriots — mostly fellow Muslims — because they believed that, as moderates, they were not Muslim enough.

All the same, in 1994, Harman argued that it had been a mistake for socialists “to write them [Islamists] off as fascists, with whom we have nothing in common.” The other mistake had been to view Islamism as a “progressive” movement.

Conceiving of Islamism as either fascists, to be shunned, or as progressives, had helped “the Islamists to grow at the expense of the left in much of the Middle East.” As Muslim immigration into the West was now significant, how to handle Islamism was important. Harman didn’t want to see Islamists triumph over the Left, but instead, wanted to use it for the Left’s advantage. He argued for

a different approach that sees Islamism as the product of a deep social crisis which it can do nothing to resolve, and which fights to win some of the young people who support it to a very different, independent, revolutionary socialist perspective.
To put it bluntly, Harman implies that the Left should work with Islamists, and attempt to use them for revolutionary ends. In the process Islamists would be converted to socialism.

Those that the far-Left had once recognised as “fascists” were now to be protected from criticism. Those who exposed the nature of Islamism, honor violence, sharia punishments, etc., were to be smeared as — ironically — “fascists.” And, despite knowing the truth, those that did the smearing would call themselves “anti-fascists.”

1997; A Left-wing Think Tank Discovers “Islamophobia” in Britain:
But how was it that it could find its expression in the heart of British political life?

In, 1994, the year that Harman’s Prophet and the Proletariat was published the Left-wing think tank the Runnymede Trust recommended that the it set up a commission to consider Islamophobia.

Three years later the trust published its report, Islamophobia: its features and dangers. As the Trust itself says, “This was the first time that the subject of Islamophobia had been comprehensively tackled in relation to a British Muslim population.” This was probably because Islam was off the radar of the vast majority of people in the West until the early 2000s, even though most knew at least something of Buddhism and Hindusim, not to mention Christianity and Judaism. Some Muslims undoubtedly experienced the problems outlines in the report, although considering the lack of knowledge of Islam, it seems highly unlikely that “Islamophobia” was the cause.

However, the Runnymede Trust suggested [pdf] that Islam and Muslims were portrayed negatively in the media; that Muslims were discriminated against when it came to public education, health services, employment and government; and that “Islamophobia” was the cause of violent attacks. Sixty recommendations were made, and, the trust says,

Over 3,500 copies of this were distributed to county councils and metropolitan authorities, police forces, government departments, race equality councils, a wide range of Muslim organisations and a number of leading professional associations, universities, unions and think-tanks. There was widespread media interest.
The report soon proved influential. As the Trust states

:

Through the work of the Commission on British Muslims and Islamophobia, Runnymede achieved tangible response from policy makers and the general public. For example, the Government approved the first state funding for specifically Muslim schools in late 1997, and there has been some improvement in media portrayals of Islam.
“Islamophobia” has since become a major concern of government, authorities, and media, as well as other groups, such as interfaith organisations.

The Far-Left Unites With Radical Islamism:
When Mayor “Red” Ken Livingstone’s welcomed Yusuf al-Qaradawi to London in 2004 London, the alliance of the far-Left and Islamists was revealed for everyone to see. Al-Qaradawi had praised suicide bombings in Israel, and advocated wife beating within limits, and the execution of gays. Livingstone was still defending the cleric in 2008, even though 2,500 Muslim intellectuals had denounced him in as a “Theologian of Terror” a letter to the United Nations in 2004!
Other Left-wing politicians were soon openly discussing uniting Islamists with the “progressive” (a euphemism for the Marxist and far-Left). According to journalist Melanie Phillips, in 2005 George Galloway traveled to Bangladesh as part of his parliamentary campaign for Tower Hamlets. Mohammad Basirul Haq Sinha interviewed Galloway at the University of Dhaka, and asked him whether it was possible to unite “Muslim and progressive forces globally”. Galloway reportedly responded that

Not only do I think it’s possible but I think it is vitally necessary and I think it is happening already. It is possible because the progressive movement around the world and the Muslims have the same enemies. Their enemies are the Zionist occupation, American occupation, British occupation of poor countries mainly Muslim countries. […] So on the very grave big issues of the day — issues of war, occupation, justice, opposition to globalization-the Muslims and the progressives are on the same side.
Today, far-Leftists and Islamists sit on the boards of a variety of pressure groups, most especially those that describe themselves as “anti-war”, “anti-fascist”, or “progressive”. Among them are the Respect Coalition, Stop the War Coalition. Islamists and far-Leftists also form the cadre of Unite Against Fascism, a front organization of the Socialist Workers Party. Nevertheless, we should acknowledge that many of the members of these organizations are not aware of the hard core’s support for people and organizations with proven anti-Semitic, racist, sexist, and homophobic track records. Often meetings with extremists take place behind closed doors.

One organization that has been out in the open is the Arab European League, active in Belgium and the Netherlands. In late 2009 the AEL published holocaust denial and anti-Semitic cartoons on its website. (These were commissioned by the organisation’s head, Dyab Abou Jahjah, who claimed his intention was to test free speech.) One of these shows the 15 year old Holocaust victim Anne Frank in bed with Hitler. Another one suggested that the Holocaust had been faked by Jews. This kind of free speech is tested by Nazis every day.

According to Salon, in 2002 AEL members and Moroccans descended on Belgium’s Jewish quarter and smashed the store-fronts of Jewish-owned shops in an anti-Semitic attack. The following year the AEL formed a coalition with the Marxist-Leninist Workers Party of Belgium and ran in the Belgian election under the umbrella name of RESIST.

But, it’s not the kind of organization that a Left-wing British peace group would support, right?

In 2009 Dyab Abou Jahjah, AEL head, spoke about Hezbollah, Hamas, and the “Arab resistance” at a Stop the War Coalition meeting in London [video]. Jahjah spoke of the actions of these terrorist organizations as “victories” against Israel, and told the audience to “use these victories of the resistance to bring that system down, to bring it here.” This, he suggested, would prevent the economy from being raised up, and, ultimately, destroying capitalism, so that a “new system” could be established in its place.

Only last week anti-Semitic abuse was shouted at a student leader as he walked through a crowd of “student” demonstrators holding the red flags of communism, socialism, and the far-Left, including one of the Socialist Workers Party (SWP).

But that’s not all. If you look at the photographs published by the Mail Online, you’ll see one man wearing a red and white keffiyeh (scarf), and two others also wearing keffiyehs — a black and white one, and a green and black one. This is a Left-wing demonstration, but the keffiyeh is a symbol of Palestian and Islamist militancy. It is often associated with the anti-Semitic Islamist and terrorist organization Hamas. These Left-wing demonstrators would probably describe themselves as “anti-fascist”, but Hamas is literally inspired by Nazi ideology.

Conclusion:
The far-Left has gone out of its way not only to align itself with Islamists, but also to hide its fascist intentions, sexism, racism, and homophobia. Why? Because the far-Left believes that the Islamist movement will act as the vanguard of the revolution — a revolution that would mean then end of great British traditions, and the end of freedom.

As I have said, there are many well-meaning young people get involved with far-Left organisations, who simply do not realise the real intentions of the leadership of such groups. Do you think there was any mention of the AEL’s 2002 riots, and the fact that its members attacked Jewish shops, at the London Stop the War Coalition meeting in 2009? I bet not.

Far-Left organisations claim that they are “anti-fascist”, “progressive”, and that they are for democracy, but — as their alliance with Islamist fascism shows — they are anti-democratic. Far-Left organisations use the mask of “anti-fascism”, and the accusation of “Islamophobia”, to hide their alliance with those they know are literally fascists.

However, as the alliance of these two camps becomes more apparent, so their true intentions are increasingly exposed. And just as the working class of the early 20th century saw that the far-Left wanted only to use them to establish their “dictatorship of the proletariat”, so, today, other minorities see that the far-Left only wants to use them for revolutionary ends. It is becoming clear to all that the far-Left is happy to work with Islamist fascists at the expense of the rights of minorities, because they believe that Islamists have the most revolutionary potential.

The EDL stands for democracy and human rights, and against racism, anti-Semitism, sexism, homophobia, neo-fascism, and Islamo-fascism every day of the week. No ifs, no buts.