Let me point to another disorganization. That is when the State does not punish the ‘clerk’ for denouncing its realism. This occurred in France during the Dreyfus affair. The order of things demanded that the ‘clerks’ should demand abstract justice, as they did; but perhaps it also demanded that the State, weakened in strength by their idealism, should throw them into prison. When the ‘clerk’ performs the layman’s task, the result is anarchy; but there is also anarchy when the layman acts and speaks as a ‘clerk’, when those whose duty is to defend the nation display their cult for the abolition of frontiers, universal love, or other spiritual things.[178] When I see philosophers concerning themselves with the safety of the State and Ministers striving to bring about love among mankind, I think of what Dante says: ‘You turn to religion him who was born to wear the sword, you make a King of one who was born to preach. Thus all your steps are out of the true way.’ However, this second disorganization of orders has been denounced by others, and it is not my function to combat it. Note F (Page 37) _Think how willingly the ecclesiastics now accept military service._ I think this willingness is worthy of the historian’s attention. Obviously, it implies some sincere attachment to their country in those who display this willingness, although their law is to be dead to all worldly attachments. Moreover, it appears that in the last war most of the ministers of Jesus Christ able to bear arms were glad to defend their country, whatever that country was, and whatever notion they may have had of the justice of its cause. Here is a most suggestive fact: Certain Belgian monastic orders (and others as well, I am told) established abroad at the declaration of war, and authorized by the government to remain abroad, insisted upon returning to the capital to perform their military duties. True, the behaviour of these monks may be explained, not on grounds of patriotism, but from the fear that they would be severely criticized by their fellow-citizens if they acted otherwise; for the modern ‘clerks’ have ceased to understand that the sign of an attitude truly in harmony with their function is that it should be unpopular with the laymen.