Title page, see top of Menu.


Among words and concepts treated here are:

UNITS and ENTITIES:  country,  state,  state territory,  realm,  empire,  people,  population,  nation,  nationality

IDEOLOGIES:  nationalism,  nazism,  fascism,  jacobinism,  kemalism,  social darwinism,  statism,  integral nationalism,  totalism,  totalitarianism



= 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 region.
       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 republics.

= 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 fixed boundaries.)
       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 in english.
       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 states").

state territory
= 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 territ)ory.
       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.

a people
= 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 mentioned above.
       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.

= ethnic group of humans = ethnic people. This is the original and genuine meaning of the word "nation".
       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".

= ethnic 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.
       We 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 nation" concept.
       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. They mean 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 "negative" 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 neighbouring peoples.

       The Freethinker's wordbook has two more titles. Its third title is "Anti-nazi wordbook".
       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 derived. 
        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 Encyclopaedia Britannica:
       "Fascism ... 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:
       "Social 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 policies ...".
       "national 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:
       Nazism 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 labelled "nazi".
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 were stressed.
       "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 minorities.
       "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.

Jacobinism 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 nationalism."
       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."
       Kemalism 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.
       Statism (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 been 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 grundbegrepp.

Title page, see top of Menu.