Western Human Rights Activism Causes 3rd World Insurgencies?

From Mencius' posting of Dec. 6th, '07 on
://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/
"Insurgency simply does not work without political protection.
[possible counter-examples: Afghans relative to soviets, Karens vs. Burmese, Chechens vs. soviets , Refugee bands vs. Congolese, Slovenians and Croatians vs. Yugoslavia, etc.]
If this analysis is correct, these Third World insurgent wars exist only because of Western human-rights activism. So why don't Western human-rights activists recognize this? Why don't they notice that they are creating violence and destruction, rather than suppressing it?
A simple explanation of this phenomenon is that Western human-rights activists are in fact political activists, seeking power by the only means that are available to them.[ ...alert from JB: a stunning transition follows over the next two sentences...] It is not that opposing the Pentagon is a necessary method of their human-rights activism. It is that their human-rights activism is a necessary method of their opposing the Pentagon." [ or any civilized force tending to limit a leftward move towards more freedom-for-aggression?]" We saw exactly how much Western human-rights activists cared about their swarthy mascots in the '70s, when they finally managed to force South Vietnam[ presumably this means the ban on further aid ] to surrender to the North. As tens of thousands of Vietnamese were shot, hundreds of thousands imprisoned without trial, and millions fled on boats, these watchdogs of humanity uttered not even a meow. I'm sure most of the "peace" protesters of the '60s sincerely believed that they loved their little brown brothers, but the real political motor of their movement was their hatred of their American enemies, and their desire to achieve power..."
And such power is achieved by progressively eliminating freedom-from-aggression, crippling more and more the institutions which protect this freedom, while insisting that human rights consist of freedom-for-aggression: and differentially so, as between racial and ethnic groups. The current stage involves trying to bring third-world insurgencies to the civilized countries themselves, and of course, to America in particular. This is also the meaning of valuing openness to diversity, since the diverse are those who might, through 'human-rights activism', be more easily than others, triggered into insurgency here. This sort of 'human rights' power-greed needs cannon fodder from abroad, in order to ride a 'revolution' into power. The new enthusiasm on the left for Iraqi refugees is part of this. Many such 'human rights activists' would be chiefs, but few would be Indians on the warpath, so far as this means one could be killed, imprisoned , injured or operate in a menial capacity. Oddly enough the main protection of civilization by now, is the disdain by scholars for menial work, and their general squeamishness. The left needs foreign recruits, of the kind for which one would need to value openness to diversity, and not just any old way. When your power-greed demands especially hostile diversity you can try this:

"The number of Green Cards obtained by people born in Muslim countries was 74 percent higher in 2006 than in 2000. Over the same period Mexicans stayed basically the same. The total number of Green Cards awarded rose by 51 percent."
quoting Edwin S. Rubenstein on:http://www.vdare.com/rubenstein/071213_nd.htm

Persons Obtaining Green Cards
by Country of Birth, 2000-2006
	All Countries	Mexico	Muslim Countries (a)
2000	841,002	173,493	54,458
2001	1,058,902	205,560	61,767
2002	1,059,356	218,822	60,898
2003	703,542	115,585	41,042
2004	957,883	175,411	58,987
2005	1,122,373	161,445	81,068
2006	1,266,264	173,753	94,474
% incr., 2000-06:	50.6%	0.1%	73.5%
a. Afganistan, Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia,
Somalia, Turkey, UAE, Yemen.
Source: Dept. of Homeland Security, "2006 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics,"
September 2007. Table 3.