Is it just me or is Sargon saying it isn't collectivism as long as the group has no greater goals, standards, or whatever else it expects members to cater toward?

Doesn't that sound like a recipe for bitter failure?

Sure he has a 10 minute explanation but that is an issue too

1. The label isnt enough of a party line. Sargon is a 'bake the cake' guy who is more in favor of government intervention than most centrists. Already we see interpretation.

2. How effective can a group be if it doesnt believe in pressuring members to putting a set of objectives, standards, or issues above themselves? Successful groups trying to enact positive change tend to have this focus.

3. Could someone advocate for mass immigration? On the grounds it is better for personal freedom?

4. Could someone advocate for a white ethnostate. On those same grounds

5. Could someone criticize Jews as Jews for their progressive political stances and connect that to their Jewishness?

6. If no for any of the above, arent you placing some kind of standard or set of issues above the individualist ethic?

7. And if it is goals which matter, well you destroyed your own horseshoe argument that the goals are irrelevant. And I dont believe in ideological free passes anyway