Among words and concepts treated here are:
UNITS and ENTITIES:
state, state territory, realm, empire,
IDEOLOGIES: nationalism, nazism,
fascism, jacobinism, kemalism, social
darwinism, statism, integral nationalism,
UNITS and ENTITIES:
= a coherent natural geographical area = natural
geographical region above sea level.
The word and concept of COUNTRY shall only denote:
1. a natural geographical
area, or in some cases
2. the coherent settlement
area of an ethnic people or an ethnic minority group, e. g. Kurdistan;
3. an area which may in
some respects constitute a cultural geographical unit or concept, e. g.
the former mining district of Mid-Scandinavia (= Bergslagen); the
Black Country in the Midlands of Britain; or the Corn Belt of
central North America.
The word COUNTRY may never
refer to political geography, in
which case we must use other words. Such words may be: realm,
empire, state territory, republic, state, or power.
Countries may be of very different
natural geographical size. A country may be comparably "large", or it
may be comparably "small".'
A large country may contain several or
even many smaller countries within it. Many small countries may compose
one large country taken together, but only when this large country too
is a natural geographical
As an example, we may consider England
as one large (natural geographical and ethnical) country. It covers
about half the area of the natural country of (the island of) Britain.
But England is also composed of many small countries. In this
case, they often have names which are identical with names of counties, e. g. Norfolk, Sussex and
Yorkshire. But the Fens and the Lake District are also natural countries, however
not counties. Other countries
within England have their established names from rivers, e. g.
Severnside, Merseyside, Humberside, Teesside and Tyneside.
So, countries may also overlap.
On the other hand, Norway, Sweden,
Finland and France are NOT countries. They are names
of states, and of state territories, realms, and of monarchies and
= the apparatus of power and government
which rules and controls a specific
territory. As a rule, such a territory has fixed political geographical boundaries.
(However, even in our age there are exceptions to the criterion of
But, very often the word "state" does
not suit well with more or less real federations. When we talk about
the whole of the (political) United States, which is a union of 50 states, we cannot call
the USA "a state". Instead, we can use words like POWER or EMPIRE, or
we can use its name: the USA / the US / the United States. For example,
the USA is the most important power
of the NATO alliance. We may meet with the same difficulty concerning
some other more or less real or nominal unions of states, e. g.
Australia, Malaysia, India.
Of course, we must never use the name "America" or the
adjective "american" as a synoym of the USA or when referring to the
USA only. As we should all know, the USA is only a minor part of America. See:
"America" and "American" in Wordbook
The term "federal state" for member states of a federation
should be avoided. People with other first languages than english will
often misunderstand this term as meaning "federation of many states" (e.
g. is the scandinavian word "føderalstat" = "federation of
= territory on land and at sea under rule of one state
power and government.
English, as well as some other european
languages, lacks any word for the scandinavian "rike" or "rige", the
german "Reich" and the dutch "rijk", which all mean the same as a
territory that is subject to one state power and government.
The word "nation" may never
be used in this sense.
The scandinavian "rige / rike" may be
translated by the word "realm". However, "realm" is usually
reserved only for territories of monarchies, as this english word
is related to the latin "rex" = a king. Cassell's dutch-english
dictionary translates "rijk" as: empire, kingdom ,realm.
But in the present world there are few
monarchies left. Most states have republican constitutions, - and,
incredibly as it may seem, the english world language has so far not
adopted any word and convenient term for the territory of a republic
(!!!) - (except the anglo-french falsification
of the ethnic term "nation").
One solution would be to use the word
"realm" also for territories of non-monarchies,and to emphasize its
relation to the word "regime"; the territory of a regime = the
territory of a government.
Another way would be to shorten the
somewhat cumbersome expression "state territory" into e. g. "statory"
or "statery". The meanings of the endings -ory and -ery in english
would support both alternatives. "Statory" = the spatial area for
a state; "Statery" = the area of activity of a state. Perhaps we should
prefer the ending -ory, cf. stat(e
In english we have the
scandinavian-german-dutch word "rike" etc. in the word bishopric, which
may mean "diocese", that is, the territory under jurisdiction of a
bishop (but also the office of bishop).
There is no such word as "kingric" in
english. But could a new word like "stateric" also be possible?
The Freethinker's Wordbook now recommends
the word "realm" as a first synonym to state territory.
= territory of a
state, until now used almost exclusively for monarchies, but couldn' t we extend its meaning to all
state territories? Cf. above: state territory. There are now so few
monarchies left. And the word is already known in english to denote a
territorial unit and concept.
= a not
very small state territory, "medium size" or large. It
may be geographically joined or connected like Germany or the Ottoman
Empire, or geographically disjointed like the British Empire.
We can use the word EMPIRE for any
state territory, union territory, confederation territory, or
trans-ocean colonial empire if its size is not too small.
It should no longer be inappropriate to use
the word "realm" for the state territory of a republic. Cf. above
under "state territory". We now recommend to widen the concept of "realm". The word "republic" in itself refers to a
political system, and usually not
to the territory under control of a republican regime.
Even states with (more or less
formally) republican constitutions may have their territories named
empires, even if they have no emperors as heads of state. Remember the
concept of the "Soviet Empire". So, an empire of today need no longer
have a monarch (king or emperor) as formal head of state.
The USA is no doubt an empire. And so
are China, Russia, Brazil of today, as well. We shall be permitted to
use the word EMPIRE also for less large state territories, e g. the
territories of Iran, Pakistan and Ethiopia (which former had emperors)
and Nigeria, Congo or Argentina (which had no emperors). Sometimes we
can also use the word EMPIRE for relatively big and not so very
homogenous state territories in Europe, e. g. Spain, France, Sweden,
Germany, Poland, or about Yugoslavia before the 1990s.
= ethnic group of humans with
largely similar or resemblant genuine
or traditional language or
"dialect" (either habitual, preferred or desired), and with many
traditions, customs, attitudes and/or behaviours in common. In some
cases in some parts of the world, similar religious ideas are also
criteria of belonging to a distinct people.
A people distinguishes itself from
other ethnic groups (= peoples), in one or more of the respects
The concept of "a people" in itself has
absolutely nothing to do with
state territories and their boundaries. A person may belong to the
ethnic french people even if she or he lives in Switzerland or Brazil.
Many who were born within the territory of the state of France are not
french, even if they were given citizenship of that state. And
still more persons who live within that territory without having been
born there, are not french.
There are several or many peoples on
the territories of practically all states in the world.
To use phrases like "the british
people" or "the english people" to mean "everybody who lives in
Britain" or "everybody who lives in England" is nothing less than a nazi
crime and should be considered as such a crime.
- Such verbal abuse is to express contempt of all peoples and
persons living in Britain, or in England, who are not british, or
english, and do not reckon themselves as such. It is to pretend that
those peoples and persons do not exist! - even that they have no right to exist!
( As we should all know, there are also
many british persons who live in England and elsewhere who are not
english, but. e. g. scottish, welsh, etc. )
Likewise, it is a nazi crime to use the phrases
"the russian people", "the whole russian people", or "the swedish
people" in similar meaning of "everybody who lives in Russia",
"everybody who lives in Sweden", etc.
= inhabitants, those who live
within a certain geographical area, for instance in a state territory,
a province, a commune, a region, an island, etc. This should be mentioned by
name or otherwise defined in the context, so there is
no doubt which area is concerned.
(All) those who live within the state
boundaries of Norway are = the population of Norway = the inhabitants
of Norway. This can never
mean the same as "the norwegian people", which should only mean those
who are ethnic norwegians or who conceive themselves as such, but with no regard
to where in the world those norwegians can be found.
group of humans = ethnic
people. This is the original and genuine meaning of the word
We have this word from the latin
language. In latin, "natio" means: a
tribe, or: group of humans who are of same descent or origin,
often born within the same region. The verb "nasci", from which "natio"
was derived, means "to be born".
The true concept of NATION shall mean a
genuine ethnic group of people. It can never be a synonym of any state,
state territory, realm, republic or empire.
The word "nation" ought to be used much less frequently than it
is being used and, above all, abused in the corrupted political
language of today.
In England and France, the
meaning of the word "nation" was falsified in the 1500s-1700s, for the
purpose to create ethnically
totalitarian states, where only the state-carrying and strongest
nation = ethnic people was to have any cultural human rights.
Later, the false meaning of the word was also adopted into other
languages, in addition to english and french.
The common wordbooks'
juxtaposition of concepts: "nation or sovereign state" is false.
In Wordbook in english you can
find many words and expressions to replace the false concepts of
"nation" and "national" and "international".
identity, affiliation and/or characterstics.
Nationality means to belong to an ethnic
group of humans, and should mean nothing else. Belonging depends on
genuinely linguistic or other cultural criteria. Cf. above: people.
Nationality is never
the same as citizenship of a state or
being the subject of a state. Those two concepts must be strictly
distinguished and separated from each other. One must never mix them
up and never use
them as synonyms.
It is a criminal falsification and a crime against fundamental human rights
when authorities of any state in the world abuse the title
"nationality" for "citizenship" in the personal passports which they
compel their subjects to accept and to use.
Nationalism: A little about
origins and distinctions
Nationalism as such has always existed.
But it never was a major factor in european and world history before
the end of the 1700s and after 1800. In the 1700s one began to merge
nationalism with state and to create state nationalism.
cannot here recapitulate the long story of how the latin word "natio"
with its genealogical and ethnic meaning (that is = descent or ethnic
tribe), has been used differently in various languages, countries and
states before the second half of the 1700s. - The new and false
definition of "nation" which merged "nation" with state and government
and with soil and territory, originated in England and France. It was
codified by Diderot in "la Grande Encyclopédie", volume 11,
published in 1765, from which
it was copied into other encyclopaedias and spread to the rest of
western Europe, to Scandinavia, and to the Americas, - however not much
to central and eastern Europe, - but instead later to Asia and Africa.
Diderot's definition of "nation"
(modelled from one less known of 1690) says: "a numerous population
inhabiting a large, clearly defined territory which is subject to the
same government". This is the "civic
The word "nationalisme" in french was first
used by abbé Baruel in 1798.
Nationalism expanded into mass
movements of all social classes from the 1890s and the first decade of
the 1900s, when patriotism was idealized, and nationalism transcended
social boundaries and altered its relations to the state. Then,
national socialism and fascism became even more totalitarian mass
movements. Leftist socialists too, at least social democrats, began
slowly to adopt nationalist ideas.
"Nationalism", "nationalist" and
"nationalistic" are words that we may
perhaps both use and understand fairly correctly. But the basic
concepts of "nation" and "national" have become too confused, misused and corrupted.
very different things in different parts of Europe and
the world, and scholars deeply disagree on definitions and usage. It is
often better to avoid those words.
However, Friedrich Meinecke coined the
distinction in german language between "Kulturnation"
and "Staatsnation" in 1908.
The distinction between "ethnic nation" and "civic nation" (see Diderot's civic
definition above) sounds well and may be useful to clear away some of
the confusion. - But alas, the world population is now so brainwashed
that people who never paid special attention to this matter, cannot
even understand the distinction any more!
Even if it may seem very "subjective",
the not uncommon scholarly distinction between "positive" and
nationalisms fills a descriptive need and purpose. "Positive" nationalism is the
justifiable strivings to defend and promote a weak, oppressed,
discriminated, threatened, and/or neglected language and/or cultural
identity. - "Negative"
nationalism is when a numerous and powerful ethnic or civic
nation or the dominant people of a minor state suppresses minorities,
imposes its own language and culture, usually promotes some attitudes
of self-exaltation, and often propagates contempt and hatred against
The Freethinker's wordbook has
two more titles. Its third title is "Anti-nazi
Many readers may react emotionally against ways in which the words "nazi" and
"nazism" are being used in this work. Many readers may feel that
those words do not suit quite well with the subject as expressed in the
second title, which is "Wordbook against totalitarian state
nationalism". Indeed, many people of today have been taught, that is to
say: manipulated to believe,
that the term "nazism" can only be used
about persecution of jews or non-europeans or about racist ideas.
Even when naming and classifying the
purpose of this wordbook and grammar, at once we get into trouble
because of that present-day newspeak manipulation of political
language. Even to think of such a book is impossible without meeting
with some of all those cases when we lack a usable and undisputable
terminology, as soon as we wish to express ourselves critically about
state nationalistic totalism and/or totalitarianism.
We cannot every time use such l-
o- n- g, but more descriptive names as the one you just read above:
"state nationalistic totallism and/or totalitarianism".
Those who will often find the word
"nazism" too inadequate and disturbing in the contexts of this book,
would be welcome to suggest another, new
and better, easy-to-use, well distinguishable and understandable
word, a word from which adjectives and new nouns can also be
But what's wrong with saying
"fascism" and "fascist"?
Nazism, and Jacobinism
- Kemalism - Statism.
In effect, the word fascism ought to be a better short
synonym of totalitarian or
totalistic state nationalism, but unfortunately the word
"fascism" was so misused by marxists of the second half of the 1900s,
that still today it seems, or feels rather unusable. The vociferous
extreme leftists of the 1960s, 1970s and early 1980s destroyed the
contents of meaning of the word "fascism". This was a significant loss
to our political language, and time seems not yet ripe to reintroduce
the concept of "fascism" in its original sense.
For this reason, this work had to
choose "nazism" to be the
primary short synonym of totalitarian
or totalistic state nationalism.
Let us have a look at some scholarly
definitions and descriptions of "fascism" and "nazism". Here it
should be sufficient to quote some sentences from the articles on
"fascism", "social darwinism" and "national socialism" in the
... rejected individual liberty and the equality of men and races .....
fascism extolled the supreme sovereignty of the nation as an
absolute. ... It demanded .... complete coordination of all
intellectual and political thought and activities. The italian
slogan 'to believe, to obey, to combat' was fascism's antithesis to
'liberty, equality, fraternity' ... fascism insisted that the strong
will always prevail over the weak." - The last-mentioned
idea is also fundamental dogma of:
darwinism ... the weak were diminished and their cultures
delimited, while the strong grew in power and in cultural influence
over the weak ... Cultural minorities and ... the poor were the 'unfit'
and should not be aided ... social darwinism was used as a
philosophical rationalization for imperialist, colonialist, and racist
socialism or nazism
... shared many elements with italian fascism ... deep understanding of
mass psychology and propaganda ... attempted to reconcile conservative,
nationalist ideology with socially radical doctrine ... stressed ...
the subordination of the individual to the state ... right of the
strong to rule the weak ... kept up a perpetual outpouring of
propaganda ... All opponents of the regime were declared enemies of the
state and of the people ... Justice was subordinated to the alleged
needs and interests of the 'people' ... ". (In fact, all
characteristics mentioned above also apply to features of the long rule
by social democrats in Sweden.)
In the Freethinker's wordbook and other
papers from the same author(s) and source, we define the word "nazism" as follows:
is the conviction that a certain
people is superior to or more right than other peoples, and that it
therefore should have precedence and privileges over other peoples.
Acts and policies determined by such an opinion may consequently be
We may also formulate it this
way: Nazism means totalitarian
state nationalistic dictatorship of opinion, where opposition to
the state nationalistic monopoly of thought and opinion is in reality
forbidden. (This applies to large segments of so-called democratic
societies, to much of sports, like the Olympic Games, etc. etc.)
Nazism is to deny and to oppose and
combat equivalence of ethnicities and languages in practical life. (Many people
subscribe to principles of equivalence in words and phrases, but act
against equivalence in practice.)
Nazism is also to claim or passively to
accept the principle of "might makes right" ("Macht macht Recht").
It is not very easy to explain the
distinction between "totalitarian"
and "totalistic". The
latter word is not listed in Collins English Dictionary, and in the
Encyclopaedia Britannica it only occurs in an article on the author
Ludwig Nordström, who combined socialism and worship of technology
with patriotism and swedish nationalism. His philosophy and ideal,
which he named "totalism", was that of an anti-individualistic,
industrial and technological society in which group and communal values
"Totalitarian" and "totalitarianism"
means a dictatorial system which regulates all of human society. It
refers not only to totalitarian states, but also
totalitarian religious communities, totalitarian beliefs, ideologies,
and suppression of different opinions and of ethnic and cultural
"Totalistic" and "totalism" refers to a
system or society which, even if parliamentary and formally pluralistic
and "democratic", in reality suppresses differing and divergent
opinions, behaviours, cultures, languages, etc. It promotes
standardization, brainwashing, ethnocide and uniformity through virtual monopolies in media,
education, cultural institutions, and so on.
But in norwegian language, totalism is
the anti-alcoholic practice of teetotallers, who never drink anything
with alcohol in it. This uncertainty about what an important word
should mean is just one more of all those examples of how we lack
adequate expressions for even talking about alternatives to the state
totalistic and totalitarian world with its inhibiting newspeak.
State nationalism is not only
a totalistic idea. It is more than that. State nationalism is also an
overtly and avowedly totalitarian
religious belief system.
is since the years of revolution in France in the 1790s the name of all
standardizing and uniformizing regimes of France. This new system was
introduced by the group or party of the so-called jacobins (named from
their meetings in a former jacobin monastery), who ruled in Paris and
parts of France from 1792 to 1794 (years of "the Reign of Terror").
The jacobins obliterated the historic
provinces and replaced them with 83 départements of roughly
equal size, with new invented names, and with exactly the same
institutions. The jacobins proclaimed the french republic to be "one
and indivisible", and launched campaigns to root out all regional
languages and dialects, and regional and local customs, - this at a
time when only a small percentage of the population of the territory of
France could speak or even understand french! To jacobins of Paris, a
citizen of the republic of France who did not speak french of the Paris
region (and upper classes) was a suspect, believed to be an enemy of
the revolutionary state, and was liable to be persecuted.
Since those years, the centralism and
attempted uniformity of France, and its imitations in other states who
aim at uniformity of their populations, is often called jacobinism. -
Peter Alter who is a reseacher of nationalism writes: "There is every
justification for designing 'jacobin' nationalism ... as a specific
type, the early forerunner of integral
The "nationalisme intégral"
(meaning "complete and omnipresent nationalism") propagated by Charles
Maurras and his followers in the "Action française" of the first
decades of the 1900s, is generally reckoned as a precursor of fascism.
Friedrich Schlegel (1772-1829)
commented upon the jacobins and their idea of nation, saying: "The
concept of nation requires that all its members should form as it were only one individual."
is the anatolian turkish extreme case of jacobinism and fascism, copied
indirectly from France via greek state jacobinism, which like that of
Turkey frankly denies the existence of any other peoples than greeks in
Greece. - (The equally evil jacobinism of Greece - of both fascist and
"democratic" regimes - has escaped attention, while its disciple and
"archenemy" Turkey is ill reputed for genocide and ethnocide against
armenians and kurds.)
Mustafa Kemal Atatürk (= "father
of the turks"), who is still the fundamental cult object of the
state-nation, launched his program in 1923, after he had revoked the
special status for minorities. His party's "six arrows", that is
principles, are called: republicanism, nationalism, populism, statism,
secularism and revolution.
(one of the six principles of kemalism) is another word from the french
language. In the original language it is étatisme. However, french
and english encyclopaedias of today define its meaning insufficiently.
La Grande Larousse says: "Système politique dans lequel l'
État intervient directement dans la vie économique." -
This meaning of statism limited to economic life is also found in the
kemalist program for Turkey, where the other five pillars cover the
rest of nationalistic totalitarianism, etc.
Collins English Dictionary says that
statism is "the theory or practice of concentrating power in the state,
resulting in a weak position for the individual or community with
respect to the government". The Brockhaus encyclopaedia defines
"Etatismus" first in its economic ense, but then adds: "In diesem Sinne
um 1880 in Frankreich entstanden, erstreckt sich der Begriff
darüberhinaus heute auch auf die Tendenz, die individuelle
Rechtsphäre zugunsten des staatlichen Machtbereichs einzuengen."
The Brockhaus Deutsches Wörterbuch
has three definitions of "Etatismus", one of which is: "ausschliesslich
am Staatsinteresse orientierte Denkweise".
The form "étatisme" may be used
as a foreign word in english, and also in a non-economic sense, like
the following: "... the étatisme
of western monarchies during the 1500s and 1600s when the powers of
growing dynastic states really began to penetrate the lives and
consciences of the peoples ..." (written by Boyd C. Shafer in
"Nationalism, Essays in honor of Louis L. Snyder"). Peter Alter uses it
the same way: "Occasionally, étatisme,
- the establishment, for instance, of an 'official language' or a
standard education system with prescribed curricula and aims,
bureaucratization, centralization and the imposition on life of
regulated uniformity - promoted outbreaks of nationalism."
But there are problems in scandinavian
languages (danish, norwegian and swedish) with the words "statism" and
"étatisme" or their derivatives. Already established words with
other meanings make it difficult to use those words in
scandinavian. Even in english we meet difficulties with derivatives
form the noun "statism", because the already established words "static"
and "statistic" mean something quite different.
This is still another example of
the confusion which
makes it so difficult to talk abouth these problems. It is indeed
symptomatic that nobody has been able to solve the problem, or not even
able to think of solving
it, because: Statism is totalistic.
And statism prefers political language to degenerate into brainwashing newspeak.
About statism, see also in
scandinavian: Definitioner o
Title page, see top of Menu.