Looking a bit deeper into Syntheism and dividuals, it's rather clear that Bard is the epitome of enlightenment gone wrong. He confuses the illusory nature of individuality in relation to universal personhood (i.e. consciousness) with non-existence of individuality per se.

He reminds me of all those “radical neo-advaitins” who proclaim that there is no one there, thus logically, anything goes. And then they (un)ironically behave according to their individual predispositions and preferences with total disregard of how their actions influence the world, explaining away all negative effects as illusions happening to no one thus of no consequence.

Of course, Bard will never openly admit that he is a social Darwinist and he may even honestly believe that that's the case. But as e.g. Putin, too, is unable to admit that he is on a murderous power trip, Bard just tries to justify his pretty elevated social position (which I’m sure he worked very hard to attain) as a result of external natural processes, a genetic win if you will, as if his nurture and choices (which are pliable and thus very much subject to change) were not at play. And that is social Darwinism no matter how I look at it.

In result, then, Bard simply cannot see that, ideally speaking, only a society of fully (self-)realized individuals can establish a viable tribe. Not to mention that no truly enlightened individual would strive to establish a religion (with themselves as the top priest to boot) -- that's a prime example (and litmus test) that the person in question is either deluded or a fraud.

Then again, I'm fairly certain that nature's propensity to reach homeostasis will eventually even out Bard's extremism. How much harm it will cause in the meantime is, however, a different question.