Beginning our investigation of the processes of reaction with the inroads made by militarism upon civil rights and popular self-government, we seemed to discover that the State policy of which militarism was the instrument was mainly moulded and directed, not by considerations of the welfare of the people but by the interests and pressures of particular groups aiming to secure economic gains. This interest-ocracy within each State of landowners, capitalists, commercial profiteers and financiers, is impelled by its business aims to direct alike the internal and the external policy of its State in ways hostile to democracy upon the one hand, and to internationalism upon the other. Its need to control the home markets makes it protectionist: its need to defend the vested interests of improperty obliges it to control the electorate, to man Parliament with its representatives, to give increasing power both legislative and administrative to a non-elected Cabinet, and to a strong secret upper-class bureaucracy, so as to defeat, direct, or annul in operation, any dangerous assaults made by the people through electoral or other organized pressure. This control of political and legal machinery requires the manipulation of moral and intellectual forces so as to create a public opinion and habits of thought and sentiment favourable to it. Behind these controls, in order to establish confidence and to provide against emergencies, militarism is maintained, for the repression of social-economic disorder at home and for the forcible achievement of those business purposes which underlie a strong foreign policy. The very existence of this militarism, by stimulating the fears, suspicions and hostility of other States, similarly dominated and directed by their group-interests, appears to justify itself by helping to create a dangerous world in which strong martial force is a necessary precaution.