Two large differences with Marxism and volk-Marxism is that rights are attributed to individuals rather than groups, and that emphasis on freedom from government interference rather than the "right" to goodies from the government.

Strangely enough, this fragment of the declaration, out of context, appears to enable a Marxist revolution as easily as any other, and without much of a stretch: if one assumes that the current Governments are acting as merely enablers and administrators of a corporate power that would stand between them and their rights to Life (nationalized healthcare, the right to the minimum amount of resources to survive whether you want to work or not), Liberty (job protection, safety nets, elimination of censorship and surveillance, not being discriminated from jobs because of race, creed, sexual life, or having children), and the pursuit of Happiness (depending on whose definition, it might involve minimizing time spent working, assuming your job doesn't provide you with happiness, and maximizing the time spent with one's family, or doing other stuff one actually likes to do, including non-remunerated but actual, tiring, productive work). I guess we should praise the Founding Fathers for the foersight they put in their work, and having made it as flexible as it is.

That said, it is indeed sad how doctrinal Marxism has shown an absolutely deplorable disregard for the rights and interests of anyone who wasn't a proletarian. Luckily, democratist, egalitarian movements have predated and outlived Marxism, being born of a sensibility that is beyond mere memetic and mimetic propagation.

By the way. what is volk-Marxism, for that matter? A search in google mostly turns out the blog you linked to, Youtube comments, and some right-wing blogs. It does not seem to be a very widespread word... could you allay my suspicions that it isn't a buzzword? (I don't say this in a spirit of mockery, I am genuinely curious).

that's probably a larger component than you'd care to admit

I'd like you to source the priors that allow you to assess such a probability. As a Muslim, and someone who was in close contact with those movements throughout, I do not recall a single source phrasing the conflict in religious terms.

the Islamization of society

What does that entail, exactly, and why is this a bad thing? I'm not assuming it is a good or bad thing, I just want to know why you think it would be.

the effect of the revolution in Egypt has been to make the government much more Islamic fundamentalist.

Typical case of reversed stupidity. As I think I have already mentioned somewhere on this thread, you will observe that once people believe themselves free of the yokes of their oppressors, and their oppressors' agents, the same people will tend to feel attracted to said oppressors' designated enemies (regardless of the details of the nature of said enmity, or its truth beyond rhetorics). In the Wars of Religion, it was Protestantism, in the Cold War, it was the USSR, and in The War on Terror, well, it's the guys with the beards advocating the return to an idealized, pure past, and the rights of the common man against the foreign oppressor, again: they're just wearing a different hat.

the way Europeans (at least everyone to the left of Geert Wilders) responds to riots by Muslim youth is to officially give Islamic organizations more influence

Maybe applying the right-left label here is a mistake: maybe it's a "left wing" thing in Britain, but in France it's more of a "right wing" thing: the French left has a bit of a vendetta against religion in any way shape or form, and thinks the "goodies" of the Goverment (and its funds) shouldn't touch it with a ten-foot pole.