Fanaticism is at its very strongest when it has political or, better still, religious motivation.
A good cause need not be tarnished by its most fanatical expressions. But it is rarely helped by them.
A fanatic commits to an ideal to whatever end. A fanatic throws everything aside to pursue their idea. Take something which it would be good to be committed to, like basic human rights. You might campaign for such a thing. You might spend every day of your life pursuing such a thing. But once you become fanatical about it, anything can happen.
Immigration is the major issue everywhere, and even the countries where it isn't the number one issue, it ends up becoming one.
There are nutters across every political and religious spectrum; it goes without saying.
It's unwise to say nation-states wanting to retain their national identity in Europe should be dissuaded or stopped from doing so. Nationalism can go wrong, sure - but everything can go wrong.
ISIS may seem un-Islamic to President Obama, but to anybody who has read Islam's core texts, it might appear to be a fairly straightforward attempt to create a state based on Mohammed's instructions as laid down in the Koran, in hadith, and in Mohammed's own example.
Rather than being a 'perversion' of Islam, it is truer to say that the version of Islam espoused by ISIS, while undoubtedly the worst possible interpretation of Islam, and for Muslims and non-Muslims everywhere obviously the most destructive version of Islam, is nevertheless a plausible interpretation of Islam.
Gay men don't have much in common with lesbians.
Fanatics end by subverting their own argument. For instance, animal rights activists have some point, and many people feel sympathy with them. But animal rights fanatics do not have a point. They are the sort of people who threaten human beings in their effort to 'defend' animals.
Londoners say, 'We're so proud of our diversity and tolerance,' but what if that diversity ends up making us intolerant?
You can't get much more egregiously wrong and wicked than the views expressed by al-Muhajiroun.
Neoconservatism is not what people think it is. It is not a party or a group. Many people popularly seen as neocons - Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld - are no such thing. Most neoconservatives reject the term. And those who accept it generally don't know each other and certainly don't act as the cabal that conspiracy-lovers imagine.
I speak at various events, including student societies, several times a week.
Audiences I speak to are often openly hostile, and I know my arguments might fall on deaf ears with 99% of the audience.
In Israel, you see strong borders as the best way to ensure peace, while in Europe, people see it as a cause of war.
For historic reasons - principally the political Right's opposition to gay rights - most gay spokespeople continue to think that the political Right is the sole locale from which anti-gay sentiment can come.
