Valuing Openness to Populations in Proportion as They Do Not Spontaneously Cooperate Beyond the Level of Extended Family- Indicates What Objectives?

That is, what goals should be suspected when such values are urged on hitherto successful societies, specifically regarding success in cooperating on the largest scales found in the world?
In this regard, does it not also cause intense chagrin for many, that their favored groups are wretchedly lacking in the ability to spontaneously cooperate on any larger scales? What would an egalitarian do?
Added from: Sunday, August 3, 2008

What Sort Would Want Hugely More Of Those Who Don't Spontaneously Cooperate Without Despotic Compulsion
The power-greedy have the most powerful incentives to bring in as many as can be got away with of that kind, who do not spontaneously cooperate beyond the level of extended family, unless despotic measures are used to ensure that everyone contributes more or less fairly. The good and desirable societies are those where the power-greedy have not yet succeeded in substituting power for spontaneous cooperation. Most of the world would move and free-ride on the populations which can trust each other to work fairly together in larger organizations than extended family ones. Since ruinous free-riding can mushroom through mass immigration, crushing the freedom of those societies, and the power-greedy excitedly glimpse this chance at winning greater power, the explanation is likely to be genetic in large part. As the benefit of the cooperation is lost, and indeed would go sharply negative with enough free-riding accumulated through immigration, this means it can be invaded by non-cooperators and that group strategy would die. Unless that is, it is a parasite manipulation, which gets its carriers to treat other carriers as more closely related than they are, while not tending to do that for non-carriers, and even pushing for them to be shunned.