But there are other and more important forces back of the inculcation of patriotism. In most countries the state with all its power is vigilant lest patriotism be allowed to become otiose. And it has means at its disposal that range from the selection and repression of news to the active use of all sorts of influences which sway the mind of the public. And these influences do not go unemployed. There are those in the state who have a special interest in arousing a strong sentiment of patriotism. Conspicuous among such are the professional soldiers. They, of course, want a solidified population. Their training has emphasized their appreciation of the value of obedience and uniformity. These virtues are essentials in the discipline of an army, and in terms of military logic they seem to be essentials in the organization of a country. J. M. Robertson has a division of a book which he has devoted to a discussion of the regimentation of militarism.[34] But the guardianship of the patriotic fire within the state is not turned over entirely into soldierly hands. Other interests, whose nature and motives in contrast with the straightforward purposes of the country’s guardians are such as to make it difficult to describe them in the dispassionate spirit of scientific and philosophic discourse, are ready with their assistance. And, of course, the ordinary civilian temper is not averse to the rigorous regimentation of patriotic loyalty. Hegel[35] thought that it was both right and necessary that the state should control public opinion. He considered that the people had no opinions of very great worth. “... The people, in so far as this term signifies a special part of the citizens, does not know what it wills. To know what we will, and further what the absolute will, namely, reason, wills, is the fruit of deep knowledge and insight, and is therefore not the property of the people.”[36] Public opinion without the guidance of the state was unorganized and dangerous. “The many as individuals, whom we are prone to call the people, are indeed a collective whole, but merely as a multitude or formless mass, whose movement and action would be elemental, void of reason, violent, and terrible.”[36] Therefore it was necessary for the proper source of authority to organize public opinion. And, of course, this work of organization and direction was to be the task of the officials of the state. “The highest state officials have necessarily deeper and more comprehensive insight into the workings and needs of the state, and also greater skill and wider practical experience.”[37] There are others who do not hold Hegel’s philosophical system that yet agree with him in upholding the high sovereignty and controlling supervision of the state.