Zealots and Dreamers

I know you haven't been asked too but I'm going to talk about Fanatic's and Idealists a bit.  I'm sure you good folks are aware that there is no difference between the term fanatic and zealot nor dreamer and idealist.  Where difference exists is between the two principles.

To put this as simply as possible fanatic's don't have all their marbles in one pocket.  They are missing one or more link's in their reasoning and logic chain.  Let me restate this in a more plain way: fanatics fail to link their understanding of what ought to be with their learning about what exists as fact.

The most personable and elegant speaking fanatics are more than likely anarchists.  No, I am not talking about degenerate individuals who have no clue as to what anarchy is all about and only use the term to mask their hardened vicious impulses; such noodnicks have no more claim to the being anarchists than torturers of the Middle Ages have a right to call either themselves or their acts christian.

Any one who espouses that what is best is having no visible law, that each man or woman should be a law unto him or herself, to me is a zealot, an unscrupulous fanatic.

I further offer as long as there is one among us who is a dreamer, an idealist who strives to make his vision, his dream, come true while acknowledging the human race has flaws and that none of us are perfect, which is realistic, and such a dreamer works to make his vision a part of what is, then I say such a person is an idealist who in the end run will benefit all mankind.

But, when a person becomes so inebriated with his cause that he encourages us to shatter our society because our system is flawed, rotten in part, and hopelessly too idealistic in nature than I say such an individual and his followers are fanatics who have either forgotten or have never realized that the future of mankind is to grow out of the present not regress from it.  SYOTB