The  civilist  party  says  :  "  As  the  first  and  last
factors  of  civilization  are  the  moral  and  intellectual
capacities  of  its  units,  our  first  efforts  must  centre
upon  their  protection  and  development.  They  will,
obviously,  have  best  chance  of  survival  if  we  can
eliminate  as  far  as  possible  the  chances  of  physical
collision,  just  as  they  have  been  eliminated  in  the
religious  field  and  in  the  field  of  internal  politics
among  Western  nations,  and  the  destructiveness  of
such  if  we  should  yield  to  our  unseeing  passions."

The  militarist  party  says  :  "  '  Men  are  savage,
bloodthirsty  creatures  who,  when  their  blood  is
up,  will  fight  for  nothing,  for  a  word,  for  a  sign.'1
We  should  therefore  disparage  the  development  of
all  counteracting  intellectual  and  moral  forces  and
take  every  precaution  to  see  that  the  capacity  for
damage  when  in  a  condition  of  blind  excitement
is  ...  as  great  as  possible.  All  else  is  chimera  and
useless  theorizing."

No  injustice  is  done  to  militarist  advocacy.  Its
whole  attitude  is  literally  and  exactly  what  I
have  indicated.  All  attempts  to  secure  our  safety
by  other  than  military  means  are  not  merely  re-
garded with  indifference:  they  are  more  generally
treated  either  with  a  truly  ferocious  contempt  or
with  definite  condemnation.
This  apparently  on  two  grounds:  first,  that  nothing
that   we   can   do  will  affect   the   conduct   of  other

1  Spectator.
xliv     INTRODUCTORY  SUMMARY  OF  ARGUMENT

nations  ;  secondly,  that,  in  the  development  of  those
moral  forces  which  do  undoubtedly  give  us  security,
government  action — which  political  effort  has  in
view — can  play  no  part.
Both  assumptions  are,  of  course,  groundless.
