Only an imperialist with global ambitions would claim the entire planet as his homeland.

>includes other countries too, which is what many people don't accept

You seem to be the one who cant accept that there are other countries that are not for you. Nationalists understand this quite well actually

>nationalism isn't about loving one's country rather than not loving other people ones

Wanting your nation to be sovereign and free of foreign influence is not the same thing as hating other countries like you insinuate. Was Gandhi evil because he was a nationalist? Was Nelsen Mandela? Was Crazy Horse?

This doesn't make sense to me. Would a desire to paint my own house rather than my neighbor's be a form of extremism, or are you thinking about it on some other way than this?

> more accurately what the perfectly natural love everyone of us feels for his/hers own country becomes once filtered and distorted by propaganda with the purpose of making people do nasty things under the belief they're necessary for a bigger good

I accept that this is possible and has historical precedent, but I challenge you to produce any convincing evidence this is always the case.

> Try this test with some of the less extreme nationalists you know: show them a photo of planet Earth taken from space and tell them "this is my homeland. I love it and you should too", then watch their reaction. Some of them may agree, but most won't. The point is that planet Earth does indeed contain their entire homeland, but includes other countries too, which is what many people don't accept.

Have you literally done this, and literally observed that most people don't love planet Earth? I would pay money to see a performance like that in real life, it sounds utterly bizarre and fantastical.

> This plain stupid test demonstrates how nationalism isn't about loving one's country rather than not loving other people ones.

Even if you actually have conducted this test, saying this demonstrates your point is a stretch. I can easily think of a reason I would have a negative reaction to such a "test", my strong dislike for globalism advocates with their poorly thought out reasons for demanding I behave in a certain way - if I got an intuitive feel that this is what your game was, you would likely get an intuitive feel that I was displeased, but be careful what you attribute that feeling to. I would actually consider this a reasonably good example of a poorly thought out idea that I find annoying.

Synopsis: there's a distinction between hypernationalism and nationalism; nationalism has become normalised for a long time, so any "nationalism" that sticks out tends to actually be "hypernationalism", which is destructive and dangerous.

Turkey is an established state. Nationalism in Turkey is a social movement for increased conformity (resulting in a rise of Islam, slowly converting it from merely a widespread religion into a state religion, and cultural homogeneity, rejecting e.g. Greek shared history and ethnic minorities). It has also fueled rhetoric strongly suggesting expansionism (though currently restricted to depopulating Northern Syria to create a "security buffer" and relocating a different, more trusted, ethnic group there).

Kurdish nationalism for decades was a struggle against Turkish nationalism (as well as Iraq, Syria and Iran), fighting for cultural and ethnic recognition of the Kurdish minority in Turkey. The stated goal was to create a separate Kurdish nation state to define and protect a shared Kurdish identity.

More recently, Kurdish politics have moved away from the idea of a nation state. Rojava, although predominantly Kurdish, was explicitly created as an autonomous territory rather than a state and as multi-ethnic, multi-religious and with all central power devolved to the lowest level (i.e. all power is granted directly and explicitly by households forming neighborhoods forming communities). They explicitly aimed to find common ground with Syria, aspiring to become a mere autonomous territory in Syria, rather than a separate state. They eschewed both nationalism (i.e. creating a homogeneous identity) and full statehood (i.e. full political sovereignty and independence).

In reverse order, these are an example of the absence of nationalism, nationalism to create a new nation state (empowering a minority in an existing state) and hypernationalism (refining an existing nation state through increased homogeneity and militaristic expansionism).

It is imperialist.

Usually a person who says something like what you've said is an unwashed Western imperialist, a person who believes that they and people like them know what is right for others. It is an anti-mature view; it is a view that presents people as incapable of growth and requiring the tender care of a select few.

It is also extremely right-wing. It is quite interesting to me how so many people who believe themselves to be left wing advocate policies that a generation ago were plainly understood to be right-wing. But it's no wonder right wing reactionaries are winning out. You'd almost think it was part of a conspiracy.

I know a number of extreme right wing people, some of them relatives to actual fascist militants during WWII, not kids playing as such because it makes them look cool, and I assure you we have nothing in common except sharing the same charcoal at barbecues:)

My views about a single homeland have nothing to do with forcing others to share my culture but rather consider the earth as a close system where if we piss towards East soon or later it will rain from West, and the other way around.