Kamal Ghobrial
Two types of individuals commit crimes against humanity and its future:
• The criminal in the name of Liberalism: Who flings open the gates of civilizational centers to the enemies of civilization.
• The criminal in the name of Rationality and Wisdom: Who refuses to pay the price of repelling the “Mongols and Tartars,” preferring appeasement until ruin and vandals overrun the city and its heritage.
History shows no mercy to nations that fail to distinguish between “tolerance” and “negligence,” or between “wisdom” and “cowardice.” At the height of its prosperity, a civilization is often afflicted by the disease of self-complacency. This gives rise to two types of culprits who—consciously or otherwise—commit a heinous crime against the human future.
First: Liberalism When it Loses the Instinct for Survival
The first criminal is the one who adopts “Liberalism” and “Humanism” as slogans but strips them of their protective essence. The crime here lies in opening the doors of civilizational radiation and civic values to parties that do not believe in these values, but rather seek to exploit them as tools for destruction.
• The Suicidal Paradox: Liberalism that does not protect its intellectual and physical borders turns into a “suicide pact.” When platforms of expression are granted to those who wish to abolish expression, and when borders are opened to those whose agenda is to demolish the very civilizational model that hosts them, we are no longer talking about cultural diversity, but about civilizational resignation.
• The Result: This path leads to the erosion of social trust and transforms centers of civilization into arenas for internal conflict, making it easier for every “enemy of civilization” waiting for the moment to pounce.
Second: The “Rationality” of Appeasers… Inviting the Tartars in Silence
The second criminal wears the robe of the wise realist. He views “paying the price of confrontation” as an unbearable burden. This type of criminality manifests in preferring a temporary, humiliating peace over the necessary clash to protect existence.
• The Illusion of Peace through Submission: Historically, as the Mongols and Tartars approached the gates of Islamic and Christian cities, politicians split into two camps: those who realized the price of resistance was high but necessary, and those who claimed “rationality,” preferring appeasement and the payment of tribute.
• The Price of Appeasement: These “pacifists” did not protect their people; they merely offered them a delayed death. Appeasement with forces that adopt nihilistic or extremist expansionist philosophies (like the Tartars of old) only strengthens the aggressor and weakens the morale of the defenders.
Refusing to pay the price of “repulsion” today means paying many times over in blood and dignity tomorrow.
The Shared Crime: Betraying the Future
Both criminals share one trait: myopia (short-sightedness).
1. The Unchecked Liberal: Sacrifices the future for a “claimed idealism” in the present.
2. The Cautious Appeaser: Sacrifices the future for a “false security” in the present.
The future of humanity is not built by those who open gaps in the walls of civilization, nor by those who fear repairing them for fear of the dust of battle. It is built by those who possess Solid Consciousness—the awareness that realizes human values need “fangs” to protect them, and that true wisdom lies in the ability to distinguish between the friend who enriches the experience and the enemy who seeks to uproot it.
Conclusion
Preserving civilization requires a delicate balance: without openness, civilization stagnates and ages; without strength and firmness, it dissipates and vanishes. The real crime is leaving the human fate swinging between a negligent hand that opens the door to destruction and a trembling hand that refuses to close it.
Three Stark Historical Models
1. The Fall of Rome: When “Roman Liberalism” Became a Breach for Enemies
In its final centuries, Rome adopted a policy of “containment” toward Germanic tribes (Goths and others). Instead of repelling invaders, it allowed them to enter and settle within the empire’s borders as citizens or mercenaries, thinking it was “civilizing” them and benefiting from their strength.
• The Crime in the Name of Civilization: Rome opened its doors to cultures that did not believe in Roman Law, but only in the power of the sword.
• The Result: In 410 AD, Alaric—king of the Goths, who had been a soldier in the Roman army and learned their arts of war from within—sacked Rome. It was the moment that proved opening doors to those who do not respect the values of the house is a slow suicide.
2. The Fall of Baghdad (1258 AD): The “Realism” of Vizier Ibn al-Alqami
Before Hulagu reached the walls of Baghdad, the Abbasid court was divided. One faction saw the need for total military readiness; the other (represented by Ibn al-Alqami) called for “rationality,” appeasement, and reducing military spending to satisfy the Mongols and avoid their wrath.
• The Crime in the Name of Wisdom: The Caliph was persuaded to dismiss a large part of the army to save money and “not provoke” the Mongols, relying on diplomacy and polite letters.
• The Result: When the Tartars arrived, they found no significant resistance. Libraries were destroyed, scholars were killed, and the Abbasid Caliphate ended forever because the alleged “wisdom” was, in truth, the stripping of civilization’s armor.
3. The Munich Agreement (1938): The Crime of “Peace in Our Time”
In the modern era, Neville Chamberlain, the British Prime Minister, stands as a model of the criminal in the name of “rationality.” To face Hitler’s ambitions, he chose the policy of “Appeasement,” handing over parts of Czechoslovakia in exchange for hollow promises of peace.
• The Crime in the Name of Peace: Chamberlain and his cohorts refused to pay the price of early confrontation (repelling the New Mongols), thinking that appeasement would satiate the Nazi beast.
• The Result: Appeasement only increased Hitler’s ferocity and contempt for Western democracies, leading to WWII, where humanity paid with tens of millions of lives—a price that could have been minimized had there been firmness at the start.
Historical Lessons
These models tell us clearly:
1. A civilization that sets no conditions for those who enter it loses its identity.
2. A peace that is not backed by a deterrent force is merely a break for the aggressor.
When we project these historical lessons onto our contemporary reality in 2026, we find that these “two crimes” are no longer just political errors; they have transformed into existential crises threatening the stability of modern societies.
Contemporary Manifestations:
1. The Criminal in the Name of “Liberalism”: The Crisis of Identity and Integration
Western societies (especially in Europe) are experiencing a sharp conflict over the concept of “Cultural Sovereignty.” The crime here is not “migration” itself, but the failure to impose the sovereignty of civic values.
• Tolerance with the Intolerant: There is a liberal trend that insists on granting “full rights” to groups that adopt ideologies openly seeking to undermine democracy, women’s rights, and freedom of speech.
• Parallel Societies: Instead of “melting” everyone in the crucible of citizenship, unconditional openness has led to the emergence of “islands” within major cities that do not submit to the law of the state but to extremist norms hostile to the host civilization.
2. The Criminal in the Name of “Rationality”: Appeasing Expansionist Powers and Militias
In the Middle East and Eastern Europe, we find the “Wise Criminal” who refuses to confront radical expansion or new imperial powers (the New Mongols) under the guise of “avoiding wars” or “political realism.”
• Modern Tribute Diplomacy: We see countries and international organizations settling for condemnations and statements while expansionist powers—whether states or trans-border militias—devour the sovereignty of weak nations.
• Refusing the Price of Deterrence: Some think that “coexisting” with extremist organizations or powers that believe in absolute hegemony is a rational choice, when it is actually just a postponement of the “Big Bang.”
The Balance of Survival: “Armed Liberalism” and “Brave Wisdom”
The exit for humanity today is not in rejecting Liberalism or abandoning wisdom, but in redefining them:
1. Liberalism with Claws: Believing that rights are granted only to those who respect the rights of others, and that democracy is not a “blank check” to destroy society.
2. Proactive Wisdom: Realizing that peace is guarded by force, and that “repelling the Mongols” at the borders—no matter how costly—is far cheaper than confronting them in bedrooms, libraries, and factories.
“He who opens the door for the wolf in the name of kindness to animals does not just commit a mistake against himself; he commits a massacre against everyone in the house.”
Now…
Do Western societies today, in all the centers of civilization across Europe, America, and Australia, possess the “political will” to correct these two paths?
Or are we marching toward a “Fall of Baghdad” or a “Fall of Rome” once again?
Would you like me to analyze how specific current events in 2026 align with these historical patterns, or perhaps draft a response to this piece from a different philosophical perspective?
