Narcissism is UGLY.
There is physical narcissism of those who are totally into how they look. This is promoted by celebrity culture, especially as controlled by vain homos.
There is talent narcissism of those who think they are so great because of high intelligence and ability. Ability and intelligence are good things, but they don't mean goodness of heart and character or soundness of mind. A person can be talented and smart and a total louse, like Mark Zuckerberg and Carlos Slim.
Libertarianism is the pathological narcissism of talent and success. The prog version of talent narcissism is the conceit of the 'creative class'. The fancy hipster urban elites deserve all the privileges because they are sooooooo 'creative'. The 'creative class' notion is also associated with vain homos, as spelled out by social critic Florida.
There is ideological narcissism of those love to self-hug themselves and pat themselves on the back for their goody-goodness. Ideological narcissism is appealing to most because ANYONE can partake of it. Physical narcissism only applies to those who really look good even though uglies do pretend to be hotter than they really are. And Talent narcissism is limited to those with real talent, and such people are relatively rare -- the kind who make it in Silicon Valley or some business venture. Most libertarians suck at most things and vicariously live through the talent narcissism of others with their Ayn-Randian worship of any rich or successful person.
But anyone can become an ideological narcissist, which explains something like antifa that is mostly made up of bottomfeeders of society. Even in elite colleges, most graduates will not become very successful, esp if they majored in something like humanities or social sciences. So, they are going to feel inferior to those with claims to physical narcissism or talent narcissism(in Wall Street, high-tech, or some business venture). So, what is left for these types to feel better than others? Ideological narcissism, a kind of secular-spiritual narcissism.
Emmanuel Macron is the favorite of physical narcissists, talent narcissists, and ideological narcissists. He is all about the look, the style over substance. Those with talent but without looks want to be associated with whatever is fashionable. Those with looks but no brains or knowledge want to be associated with whatever is officially approved, and of course 'nationalism' is condemned as a 'far right' vice. Can't have that. As for ideological narcissists, they want to feel superior about something, and PC tells them that white people are so much goody-gooder for white-knighting 'diversity'.
In the end, it's not about tribalism vs universalism.
A meaningful tribal-universalism is possible, and it's the best way. We need to take cue from the Jews whose religion is a tribal-universalism. Jews believe in the universal God, the one Truth for all. However, they have a special tribal Covenant with the universal God. So, even though God is God over all mankind, Jews have their special relation and destiny in relation to God. It's like Eskimos and Africans share the same Sun but in their own special way in different parts of the world. There is no need to make the Sun shine the same all over. The earth is round and revolving, not flat and constant. So different peoples and places get the Sun differently.
Tribalism is too limiting, but universalism is too confusing and generic. So, the Goldilocks middle is tribal-universalism.
And this should apply to secular realm as well. The notion of universal human rights is good and useful. There are certain basic ideas and values that are applicable to all mankind. And it'd be good for all peoples to adopt them. However, each people must shape and mold them according to their own history, experiences, demographics, heritage, culture, sacraments, taboos, and etc. So, these universal values will play out differently in Turkey, Iran, Uganda, Japan, Mexico, Kenya, India, Israel, etc. Also, different nations have different icons and narratives to buttress these universal values. Due to slavery and racial problems, human rights issues in the US have been represented by Lincoln and MLK, the Civil War and Civil Rights. Other nations and peoples have different experiences and different icons and different lessons they drew from history.
Same goes for free markets. It is a useful universal idea, but that doesn't mean the whole world should be part of one single market. Different nations need to have their own policies to make free markets work on the national level. And the main purpose of a nation is to serve the people of the nation than to make the nation useful to the globalist empire.
Same goes for democracy or system of republican government. When used properly, it works better than most other political systems. But that doesn't mean we should have world government of single democracy for all. Each nation needs its own national form of democracy where nationals vote for national interest.
The problem is globalists have taken control of too many key nations. And these globalists' main loyalty is not to any nation but to other globalist elites around the world. So, their main priority is to make all nations submit to the agenda of globalist elites than to have national elites represent, defend, and serve the interests of the nation.
Nationalism is the best kind of tribal-universalism. It acknowledges that other peoples should have nations of their own and their own national sovereignty. All peoples deserve their own nations as a universal human right. This mutual understanding among nations and peoples is the best recipe for peace. Also, it is on the national level/scale that universal human rights are best implemented. A nation can effectively ensure the humane functions of its national system for its own people. But a nation cannot save the world. And national identity and interests will be undermined with mass immigration-invasion.
Sweden used to practice more effective implementation of universal human rights when it was a homogeneous nation. Swedes embraced Diversity in the name of universalism, but it only led to rising tribalism and fracturing in Sweden. The result is less universalism for all those in Sweden and more contentious tribalism or cuck behavior among whites that is just downright sickening and humiliating.
Nationalism is also humble in admitting that a nation can only do so much. It is a form of hubris to play the role of savior of the world or all humanity. It's like a man claiming to be able to eat an entire horse. Hubris leads to both national degradation and imperialism, and we are seeing both in the Americanism of the 21st century. The notion that US is a limitless magnet of immigrants(the poor huddled masses) is turning entire parts of the US into the Third World. There is less unity and more enmity. America used to feel more universal when it was less diverse.
Also, the US elites now neglect the problems of Already Americans as they are too busy shopping for 'New Americans' as either cheap labor or virtue-signal-voodoo-dolls, or virdoo dolls.
And the megalomania of US as the 'indispensable' and 'exceptional' nation, the superhero savior of the world, has led to endless wars that has only destroyed countless lives. It has also compromised its allies and vassals as accomplices in these globalist war crimes by either going along or remaining silent in deference to the US. What is EU but a partner-in-crime of all the US foulness(in the name of 'humanitarian intervention') in the Middle East?