I am not here, for the purpose of controversy, putting an imaginary conclusion into Mr. Blatchford's mouth. It is the conclusion that he actually does draw. The article from which I have quoted was intended to demonstrate the futility of books like this. It was by way of reply to an early edition of this one. In common with the other critics, he must have known that this is not a plea for the impossibility of war (I have always urged with emphasis that our ignorance on this matter makes war not only possible, but extremely likely), but for its futility. And the demonstration of its futility is, I am now told, in itself futile! I have expanded the arguments of this and others of my critics thus: The war lords and diplomats are still wedded to the old false theories; _therefore_ we shall leave those theories undisturbed, and generally deprecate discussion of them. Nations do not realize the facts; _therefore_ we should attach no importance to the work of making them known. These facts profoundly affect the well-being of European peoples; _therefore_ we shall not systematically encourage the efficient study of them. If they were generally known, the practical outcome would be that most of our difficulties herein would disappear; _therefore_ anyone who attempts to make them known is an amiable sentimentalist, a theorist, and so on, and so on. "Things do not matter so much as people's opinions about things"[119]; _therefore_ no effort shall be directed to a modification of opinion. The only way for these truths to affect policy, to become operative in the conduct of nations, is to make them operative in the minds of men; _therefore_ discussion of them is futile. Our troubles arise from the wrong ideas of nations; _therefore_ ideas do not count--they are "theories." General conception and insight in this matter is vague and ill-defined, so that action is always in danger of being decided by sheer passion and irrationalism; _therefore_ we shall do nothing to render insight clear and well-defined. The empire of sheer impulse, of the non-rational, is strongest when associated with ignorance (_e.g._, Mohammedan fanaticism, Chinese Boxerism), and only yields to the general progress of ideas (_e.g._, sounder religious notions sweeping away the hate and horrors of religious persecution); _therefore_ the best way to maintain peace is to pay no attention to the progress of political ideas.