If the brave man dies gladly for the hearthstone, far more gladly should he die for the State." But only when the State seeks the good of the governed, for said Pythagoras on another occasion: "Organized society exists for the happiness and welfare of its members; and where it fails to secure these it stands ipso facto condemned." But to-day should the State be at war with another, and any citizen or section of citizens believe their own country wrong and the opposing nation wronged, they dare not say so, or if they do they run great risk of being punished for treason.

Men and women though no longer bought and sold in the market place are subjected to subtler forms of serfdom.
In most European countries they are obliged to fight whether they will or not, and irrespective of their private convictions about the dispute; even though, as is the case in some European countries, they may be citizens from compulsion rather than choice, they are not free to abstain from active participation in the quarrel.

Chinese rebellions are said to "live on loot", i.e., on the forcible confiscation of private property, but is that worse than winning battles on the forcible deprivation of personal liberty?
This is nationalism gone mad! It fosters the desire for territory grabbing and illustrates a fundamental difference between the Orient and the Occident.

With us government is based on the consent of the governed in a way that the Westerner can hardly understand, for his passion to expand is chronic.

Small nations which are over-populated want territory for their surplus population; great nations desire territory to extend their trade, and when there are several great powers to divide the spoil they distribute it among themselves and call it "spheres of influence", and all in honor of the god Commerce.