Actually, I never mentioned the word "Muslim". The inference is owned by you, but of course that is whom I clearly meant. Muslims. But Muslim extremists only. And what drove you to that inference that I meant Muslims?

And regardless of your reading of history, and your implied solution of "turning the desert into glass", it just doesn't work. And wouldn't even be needed if Western leaders had even the faintest reflection of principle that those who opposed The Axis in WWII had. And still the only Constitutionalist among those was Churchill. But he was enough.

It would never have gotten to the point where those in the extreme Muslim minority are so close to weapons of mass destruction. And willing to turn the whole world into glass.

Anyone who does not realize that nukes are a complete game-changer in ALL of history, and make all the old adages of history irrelevant, is not looking at reality. Within the lifetime of my grandfathers, the machine gun and tank would lead to "the War to End All Wars". And how did that hypothesis work out? It didn't, and led to another World War that only ended when the US, properly, used two nukes on Japan.

Everything since then has been either proxy cold war (Vietnam) "wars" or repeated, brutal mini-wars which are only contained because neither side has nukes, or the rational side does and won't use them.

But thanks to the cowardice of the Western powers, having abandoned all semblance of "Western" principles, my "nightmare scenario" is based on not just ISIS, but Europe continuing to altruistically collapse to Eastern mystics based on the sickeningly puny of excuses: "Political Correctness". If and when, they get the democratic majority, as they have in London, they'll be handed control of nukes in countries like France.

I really have no idea if it will actually reach the point where fanatics can end the world, nobody does, but my reading of reality and history as of today is that The West is practically handing them the power to do it...

In order to discuss this, we must agree on definitions. Selfishness, as Rand defines it, embodies "the values required for human survival-—not the values produced by the desires, the emotions, the “aspirations,” the feelings, the whims or the needs of irrational brutes, who have never outgrown the primordial practice of human sacrifices, have never discovered an industrial society and can conceive of no self-interest but that of grabbing the loot of the moment." (http://aynrandlexicon.org, from The Virtue of Selfishness)

Selfishness, as the world defines it, is precisely the self-interest "of grabbing the loot of the moment."

Rand's definition of selfishness requires acceptance of the premise that "the rational interests of men do not clash—that there is no conflict of interests among men who do not desire the unearned". The problem here is that looters and moochers ... desire the unearned. Acting in their self-interests, but without the moral compass of the non-aggression principle, looters and moochers see no problem whatsoever in trampling others' rights in the pursuit of their own. This is precisely what the rest of the world (outside the Gulch) describes as selfishness. Rand was not wrong in what she said, but she would have been far more effective if she had defined a new term, rather than a new definition for selfishness.

What must be learned are not the principles of self-interest, but the morality behind the non-aggression principle. Two and three year olds do not understand the non-aggression principle (NAP). Most people do not understand that principle until receiving aggression in retaliation for their own violation of the NAP. For most young boys, that comes with a bloody lip or a black eye.

Though they were great warriors, they were willing to learn from those whom they conquered and accept the best into their ranks.

In 1201, during the Battle of the 13 Sides one of the opposing archers shot an arrow through Genghis Khan's neck. After the battle Khan asked the defeated army who'd shot his horse through the neck. The archer came forward and said "I didn't shoot your horse. I shot you." Khan not only let him live, he made him one of his generals. Jebe went on to win major victories at the Battle of the Kalka River and, at Kiev and Rus.

I'd say this is one thing that separates Muslims from everyone else - the unwillingness to learn from and adapt to the outside world.

He was, a Mongol.. They were actually pretty tolerant of the religious views of the conquered people. So, the Mongol Empire contained, Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Daoist, whoa the list goes on as there were still plenty of tribes essentially worshiping nature in Central Asia. The Mongol approach to this was pretty much, hey the religion thing is all yours. That kind of worked at the time, as the various religions could not so much fight amongst themselves as that would have brought the mongols down on their heads. But, when the Mongols got to Baghdad the folks there made some bad choices, and decided to try to wait out a siege. When it was over the mongols killed everyone, everyone there. The rest of the caliphates fell pretty easily after that. Around that same time, the Mongols had spies operating in both London and Japan. They also managed to reopen the silk road and get east west trade running again. This was probably the most important thing the empire managed to accomplish, as it caused a full reboot of the wests economy bringing us the renaissance and all of the good things that followed. As for ISIS, they really do not want to see just how pissed of Europe can be when it finally has reached a last straw moment.

This is my belief as well. Well stated!

I know I'm seeing more and more homeless people on street corners with their hand out selling "Homeless Times" newspapers, and I'm in the 'burbs.

I disagree on this one. While socialism has a collectivist veneer, socialism is both selfish and emotional. For the looter and the moocher alike, socialism permits them justification to feed like parasites to either aggrandize power for themselves (looters) or maintain a minimal subsistence while not producing (moochers).

Exactly. Looters are like locusts.

I believe you are wrong. Self interest is natural, innate. Cavemen were looking out after their own interests millennia ago.

Socialism is unnatural and, must be learned and - enforced. That's why it has always failed. It isn't the natural state of man and, if there is any alternative, man takes it.

"Cutting power to the theaters" now means curtailing access and use of the internet as frivolous and dangerous. It has already begun with the mass surveillance state. More machinery for control is being put into place worldwide.

Socialism is not selfish and is not based on emotionalism. The emotional attachments come from acceptance of false premises of self sacrifice and collectivism as ethical primaries.

Principles of self interest are not natural reactions, they must be learned.

Genghis Kahn was not a Muslim theocrat. Most ignorant Muslim's around the world probably do care about living in a crude sense, despite their other-worldly religious teachings, but not enough to want to learn what it takes.

War is a breakdown in civilization, but crushing a dangerous aggressor is not uncivilized or a "thin veneer" of civilization. It is deliberate action on behalf of civilization.

A statist crackdown in the name of "order" imposed by "law" with no understanding of the cultural causes of the problem or concern for objective law and the rights of the individual would attack all of us either directly or through the general decline in freedom. It would be another ratcheting up of statism that would never be relinquished.

It was one of the most dramatic making a point about 'innocent' people not looking at the consequences of their own premises, but not a call for blowing people up.

Eventually there is revolution, as in the french revolution. It was even predicted in Atlas Shrugged, although it amazes me how much the masses will tolerate before they revolt.

Men's natural, selfish reactions to socialism destroy almost everything, indeed, everything for the masses of them but, not everything. What remains is plenty for the manipulators at the top.

The people in the Politburo lived quite good lifestyles, while the population barely subsisted.

The block captains in Havana lived in the largest, nicest homes on their blocks, while the Palestinos and others lived 3 to 12 per room in the lesser homes. Cuba's governing elite imported whatever they wanted, while their 10 million subjects weren't even allowed to own hard currency or enter the Dollar Stores. I used to have to buy soap, yes, soap, for my Cuban friends.

Socialism demotivates the producers but, as the economy crumbles the difference in living standards simply motives their rulers even more.

BUT, socialism ultimately destroys everything, including the system set up by the looters. I guess they dont expect it to last, but just to serve themselves for awhile. Then they go on to set it up somewhere else.

The overpowering attraction of socialism is indeed emotional. The core of that emotion is envy. Your comment regarding socialism's terrible failures everywhere presumes that improving the condition of citizens (excuse me, subjects) is a goal of socialism. I will argue that socialism worked perfectly well for those looters setting it up.

Your logic makes sense. Maybe the overpowering attraction of socialism is emotional, and thats why it continues to advance even in spite of terrible failures of it everywhere. Its proponents simply chalk up failure to "it just wasnt done right"/

Socialism really distorts the mind.

25 years ago Venezuelans routinely made up 10% of attendees at catalysis conferences I attended as a grad student. Now Venezuelan students of mine have found excuses not to return, even for the summer.

I know the feeling well. A month ago I walked into the Battle Mountain museum to do some research. It was a slow day for the volunteer attendant. We talked about the rich history of mining and ranching and railroading in the area. And then I asked "Why is it more pleasant to contemplate the past than it is the future?" We both fell silent. Damn.

When will the trainload of annoying, useless libtards get blown up, in the tunnel?

That was one of my favorite parts, of "Atlas Shrugged".