themselves; in almost every case the object, in reality, hasbeen the supposed or the real materialadvantage of the ruling dynasty and caste. No autocratie dynasty hasever ruled without attachingagreat and influential caste to its interests. And this caste has "always contrived, either by force or by suggestive persuasion, to drive certain parts of the population to insane pugnacity". Neither have arguments been wanting to persuade the mob that they were doing wise and noble deeds in killing their neigbours and in robbing them as much as possible.
In some cases a favorite religion had to be spread. The Arabs used this as a pretext for looting to their heart's content, when Mohamed led them against the Unbelievers. They had Koran-texts which sanctified or appeared to sanctify all sorts of warlike actions. The Turks had no pretext at all, except, sometimes, the spread of Islam. But this only served to give free play to their predilection for the pastime of throatcutting and for being, in a general way, objectionable. The Spaniards were great fighters; they had been fighting the Arabs for ages to get them out of their country and they had ended in becoming religious f anatics. This, the poverty of their land and a surplus of splendid energy led them to colonising enormous countries in South-America. But it also prompted them to terrible acts of atrocity in the Netherlands, which may only be excused by the sincerity of their
religious fanaticism; they did not, however, devastate