Localism is healthy but not enough

Altruism developed directly out of ethnocentric group-selection because it was successful in survival and reproduction over groups with more selfish members, and this was codified in religion. Group-selection remains part of basic human nature even though it has been hypertrophied to the point of corruption into a universalism not in harmony with human nature. Localism, now being promoted by both conservatives and libertarian liberals is certainly on the right track, but it will be incomplete without the basic altruistic bonding of ethnic preferences in group-selection.

This does not affirm radical tribalism or the imperial dominance of one ethnic group over the others, but ethnocentrism is more in line with real human nature and actually more humane than trying to universalize all differences with an hypertrophied altruism and homogenization that goes against real human nature, in spite of political correctness to the contrary---cultural Marxism doesn't work, as seen in how fast the Soviet Union broke back into ethnostates when the forced universalism was removed.

With group-selection preferences in place for a variety of ethnic groups, localists can more easily affirm love of place, locality, traditions, and then we can pursue a more universal cooperative and creative competition, based on real human nature which prefers a more natural ethnopluralism of regions and states. That is the deepest form of localism.