Universalism has caused too much suffering and civil strife

Universalism has been exaggerated at the expense of the local, often leading to civil strife, exploitation, imperialism, and war. Religion was probably the first to promote universalism, and politics followed, which has caused much suffering and the loss of local variety, even though universalism has typically claimed to be the only way for us "all to get along."

The universal is real but it needs to be put in its place, second to localism. We are universal Homo-sapiens and not mutually infertile species because of past colonization and admixture of different ethnic groups, but our geographical differences and local ethnic genetic adaptations from climate, etc., remain strong.

Human nature remains essentially local in that we remain kin-centered, gender defined, age-graded, heterosexual marriage-making, hierarchical, ethnocentric, even xenophobic, among other local things, with group-selection as the primary unit of selection. These local differences are universal and have been with us for thousands of years since hunter-gatherer times.

Universalism has been exploited by those who benefit, at least temporarily, from breaking up local bonds. Religion, politics and globalism in business have done this. Even conservative's have split between followers of the universalism of Leo Strauss (neoconservatives) and the localism of Russell Kirk (paleoconservatives).

Localism, or ethnopluralism, is the natural answer to exaggerated universalism. This can be affirmed by honest anthropology, political philosophy and religion. The natural separation of powers, small states, even ethnostates, remains the rational and instinctive best choice, which can even be accomplished in democratic republics, with a light protecting federalism. It does seem that more scholars, religious leaders, philosophers, politicians are now gradually rising and actively affirming localism, across the world.