I am not anti-individualist. What I believe in is that there is no-self. An important distinction exists between these two positions. You have made this observation before and I always feel as if you are proposing that the concept of anti-individualism is the equivalent of the Buddhist concept of no-self. You bring bafflement upon yourself when you do this.
> . . . but almost always ends with an obnoxious
moralism which depends on a radical individualism
for its validity.
What is obnoxious about it? Or is all moralism obnoxious?
Also, I am not advocating for radical individualism. What I am advocating for is a doctrine of radical no-self which requires the non-stop creation/destruction of a powerful provisional self each and every moment. Nagarjuna's "Mulamadhyamakakarika" is a wonderful text to use as an entry point into this thinking (though all of his work offers riches in my opinion).
Neither from itself nor from another, Nor from both, Nor without a cause, Does anything whatever, anywhere arise.
Brian