Is centralization ever a good thing?

Conservatives can legitimately criticize white nationalists for their attempts to centralize large diverse nations, but not for pointing out the importance of ethnocentrism. Open-border cultural Marxists are also mistaken centralizers and haters of real kin-centered and ethnocentric human nature.

The other last hold out of conservatives (and libertarians) against the importance of group-selection or ethnocentrism comes in defining individualism or individual selection as more important than group selection. But as the great sociobiologist E.O. Wilson put it : "within groups selfish individuals beat altruistic individuals, but groups of altruists beat groups of selfish individuals."

Large countries are now virtually made up of ethnostates, whether they are allowed to be called that or not. Countries the size of the U. S., Russia, China, and continental Europe are made up of many ethnic groups usually located in virtual ethnostates.

All the forms of centralizing haven't prevented ethnopluralism from developing because group selection has always been the best means of successful survival and reproduction, which ends ends up forming ethnostates. The main thing centralizing is good for is protecting an ethnopluralism of ethnostates from marauding empires.

The constitutional separation of powers and states in the U.S. could be legally, not radically, adapted to an ethnopluralism of ethnostates against all centralization, accept for a federally protective defense against empires and globalism. This may happen anyway, by one means or another, because it is natural human behavior---better to do it consciously and rationally, not violently.