In words of Ortega and Gasset: each man is he and its circumstances, then, the fanatical theory that we limit ourselves to persecute and do not consider they is aniquiliando present circumstance, that she is the one of the mutual dependency, that reuiere the opening to the outside, to the values of others. From the anthropological point of view, " is necessary to surpass the conception; tribal" that it continues dominating throughout the world, obtaining that the fanaticism does not prevail like defender of the identity. As it points Maalouf, the world is too complex to give a universal explanation, but an understanding of the killer identity, of the cause is necessary that can take to that men and women of all condition who consider themselves normal they transform so easily into assassins or they can assume the crime with all naturalness for the sake of an essence that demands that bloodshed. Until we do not get to understand and to deactivate that something no we will not manage either to cancel that homicida impulse. The value of the civic thing must be essential axis of the coexistence, to avoid to be exposed to the moral and physical violence of the fanatics. We are before an ontological problem. Maalouf comments, at the end of its theory of the identity, that always a person gets to question it in low voice, " putting the hand to me in hombro" , and always it is the same question: " It is truth which you say, but at heart what is what you feel more? , Lebanese or French? ". It means this that, what there is in " fondo" , in " more deep of one mismo" is the property? A single property exists: unique, excellent and indivisible, that is the one that truly matters? Perhaps, these words are a reflection of the society or of a part of her who shows that, in the end, is left it in each of us is that " esencia" of the man, " truth profunda" of the people she is certain for always from the birth and it cannot be modified.