I though this might be an interesting article until encountering the phrase “Nationalism is a cancer.”
But as I was interested to see if this would kick off another liberal echo — chamber thread on Medium I skipped to the comments hoping to find others had picked you up on the obvious ignorance of that statement. They had, and you had a pretty good try at wriggling off the hook by claiming you were referring to the colloquial sense of the term nationalism.
What you mean is the false meaning those who hijacked the word liberal and attached it to an illiberal, intolerant, cultual Marxist political position, and who as a pulely political ploy have conflated nationalism with Naziism.
Yes Hitler was in a way a nationalist (he was actually a globalist, he envisaged a world dominated by his kind of authoritarianism,) but he was also a socialist. [To trendy lefties who try to deny this I usually say, “he ‘identidied’ as a socialist, so if we believe in equality we must accept him as a socialist, can’t have one rule for transgenders and another for fascist dictators :-) ]
Other socialists of note were Uncle Joe Stalin (an estimated20 million Russians died under his rule,) Chairman Mao Tse Tung, (estimated between 60 and 100 million dead,) Pol Pot, Erich Honeker, need I go on. All could be described as nationalists, but even the best definitions of nationalism are vague.
One of the most famous nationalists of the 20th century was Mohandas K Gandhi, who doesn’t quite fit the description of a cancer, another is The Dalai Lama, who has always preached a message of peace and tolerance but has devoted his life to campaigning to free Tibet from the oppressive communist (aka socialist) government of China. I don’t think many people would describe him as a cancer either.