Usually, when one is reading a text, especially one written for persuasion, the first question to ask is, "what is the author trying to say?" Reasonable people can disagree about what that is, so to suggest that we're not doing society favors by applying critical reasoning is wrong at best, disingenuous at worst.
You wouldn't accuse someone of reading The Raven as not being literally about a bird as failing civilization.
Moldbug believes that some ethnic groups are genetically predisposed to being better slaves. If you think he came to that conclusion after a dispassionate evaluation of all available evidence, I have a bridge to sell you.
"Foreigners have a different culture that I don't like, so I'm going to keep all of them out" seems like a pretty racist statement to me. You have to do some serious mental gymnastics to not make it so. For example, substitute "Jews" for "foreigners," and it's clearly an anti-Semitic statement.
Assuming that writer isn't doing it just to obfuscate, holy hell they need an editor. More words does not make something better, but I can see how it would impress a certain segment.
Rather than just dropping a link, what's your takeaway from this article? What did you synthesize from it?
You're aware of the downsides of tribalism, but seriously lack self-awareness like most people who complain about tribalism. Especially if you think you've already made adjustments for it.
You wouldn't accuse someone of reading The Raven as not being literally about a bird as failing civilization.