weaker nation is brought under the dominion of the stronger without the citizens of either being aware of the process by which this has been accomplished. This is the type of imperialism which America is most fitted and inclined to develop. In South America political pressure does accompany economic penetration, but in Europe American power increases under a policy of political isolation. The isolationism of America, which has become a firmly established foreign policy since the war, is prompted partly by the sense of power which America feels as the richest nation of the world, and partly by a political infantilism which tempts us both to pharisaism and to fear when dealing with the supposedly more astute political bargainers of Europe. The relation of America to the rest of the world is a perfect example of the moral peril in the new intricacies of modern civilization. The citizen of the state is as ignorant of the actual character of his nation’s relation to other nations as of other peoples’ reactions to the real policy of his own government. Probably not one American in a thousand is able to comprehend a single reason why Europe should fear or hate America and not more than one in a hundred is actually aware of the existence of such hatreds and fears. There is therefore an unconscious hypocrisy in the moral pretensions of the citizens of every nation, a more or less conscious hypocrisy in the attitudes of the governments which do not share but yet exploit the political ignorance of the people, and an inevitable reaction of cynicism on the part of those who know the real facts and suffer from the moral limitations of the nation’s policy. Group relations, particularly those which are intricate, are thus persistently unethical because part of the modern world is too ignorant to make them ethical and the other part is so worldly-wise that it has lost confidence in the possibility of ethical relations. Frequently hypocrisy and cynicism are united in the same person who knows how to discount the moral pretensions of other groups but lacks the perspective from which he might arrive at a critical evaluation of the real character of his own group. This curious combination of insincerity and cynicism is obvious in the relation of both economic and national groups, but it is particularly noticeable in international difficulties. In the struggle between economic groups there is a growing inclination to make no moral pretensions on either side. Sometimes the group in power makes them but in that case its insincerity is usually conscious rather than ignorant. In international affairs the same patriots who ignorantly persecute every person who seeks to qualify national loyalty or to make a dispassionate appraisal of national policies frequently sink into moral despair and disillusionment when history unfolds the inevitable consequences of the anarchy of conflicting national lusts.