1505. The mentality of states is the last thing to be finished in the great process of transformation from "animal" to "human being". Every state or nation represents a group of nationally related but otherwise different individuals. The state's combined mentality, morality and degree of humaneness can thus consist only of the "common consciousness" of the individuals in this group, who from a mental point of view have very different attitudes. Such a "common consciousness" is in turn the same as that which we here in Livets Bog also call "flock consciousness" or "national character". Through its individuals every nationality expresses its own particular "flock consciousness" or "national character". Indeed, in the case of older nations or states, this "national character" is still so strong that it still leaves its mark on the animal bodies of the individuals, actually enabling their nationality to be read on their faces. The face of a one-hundred-per-cent "Dane" will thus be characterised by the "Danish national character", while a one-hundred-per-cent "Swede" will be characterised to a corresponding degree by the "Swedish" national character, and a "Norwegian" by the "Norwegian" national character, despite the fact that they all belong to the same race.
      Just as individuals represent very different steps in evolution, each with its corresponding, very different moral or humane attitude, so too do nations or states represent very different "national characters" or "flock consciousness". Some nations have a highly developed "national character", while others represent only a rather primitive "common consciousness" or "national character". But this does not of course mean that there are no eminent or highly developed individuals in these primitive nations, just as one can of course also find primitive or less developed beings in nations with a very highly developed "national character". The nature or moral step of the "national character" or "flock consciousness" comprises the mental balance point between the intellectual and unintellectual individuals of the state or nation. As those that are truly intellectual as a rule constitute only a very small fraction of the total number of individuals in a state, while those that are unintellectual and primitive constitute the rest, thus constituting the majority who, by using their right to vote, contribute to electing the government of the state and its outward attitude to the surrounding world or other nations, it is evident that the "flock consciousness" or the state's "national character" outwardly as well as inwardly can be characterised only by primitivity or unintellectuality to the extent that the state's unintellectual individuals are in the majority, and by intellectuality and culture to the extent that its intellectual individuals are in the majority. The fact that one is aware of this in this democratic form of government, which is of course the way forwards, is seen in the colossal amount of energy being spent on building schools and institutes of higher education through which education and information are made available to the general public. And thanks to this insight, the "flock consciousness" of the future will be significantly higher both intellectually and culturally than it is today, where it is still largely the primitive majority that sits on the throne of government. This should not be taken to mean that the members of governments, ministers and presidents are primitive and uncultivated beings; on the contrary, but they are bound by the "flock consciousness" that has elected them. Actually they constitute a compromise between the intellectual and the unintellectual. And since those that are unintellectual, by virtue of their majority, are the strongest force to be reckoned with behind the members of government, these members of government can reduce the power of primitivity and its right to decide in affairs of state only to the extent that they are able to use their intellectuality to influence and convince the unintellectual power group in favour of intellectuality. The unintellectual power group thus becomes to a dominating extent the flock's public image. And thus it is that the flock consciousness as a rule seems more primitive and unintellectual than its individual intellectuals.