I believe it’s also the case that tribalism is the norm throughout human history and the authors of the article are of the neoliberal mindset that in-group preference is immoral because it defies egalitarianism.

But I also can’t help but notice that such ‘narcissistic’ in-group preference dominant groups seem to be doing really well for themselves. The Amish and Hasidic populations are doubling about every twenty years.

Collective cohesion and "group narcissism" are not identical. Virtually every successful group has relatively high cohesion. Some of them also have exceptionalist/"narcissist" tendencies, like Nazism, Soviet Communism, Zionism, American Exceptionalism, neoliberalism, et al.

But you can have a successful, cohesive group without being fascist.

> Iraq, Libya, Syria

These three also have something in common...

> Ukraine

It was doomed from the start, with a neighbor we failed to keep in check.

Exhibit A, your honor.

The Iraq, Libya, Syria reference makes me think you are conflating neoconservatism and neoliberalism.

Both neoliberalism and neoconservatism have interest in spreading "liberal democracy". Neolibs alone probably wouldn't invade for it, but they certainly won't resist the neocons doing so.

What is your point? Some sects of Marxist ideology, like Soviet Communism, do the exact same thing.