I always found that strange. These American labels. Left, right, moderate. I understand that Americans find them as points of debates on policy or at least that is how it was seen in the past, and sometimes by insertion it is seen today. But as Tucker in this speech points out, that is not what America is if it ever was. You said in a sane country, Tucker would be considered a moderate. Maybe. But that implies there is such a label. Something I find American more than universal. I never before being exposed to American culture and politics, consider someone lefty or rightly or moderate. They were either moral or immoral. Sane or insane. One was either moral or one was not moral. One was not moderately moral. One was either sane or insane, one was not moderately sane. It was not a multiple choice thing. There was a cohearance about what it meant to be sane or insane. Only in America did I see this multiple check list policy issues that supposed to make someone lefty usually meaning democrat, or righty usually meaning republican. Or liberal and conservative. And someone who was "moderate" not fully on board with one check list or the other, he was perhaps independent, politically or moderate in whatsoever terms it was.

Very strange to an outsider like me. But as Tucker in this speech its a very peculiar anglo sphere thing, or liberal thing, where presumption, wrong one I might add, is that everyone wants the same outcome and only thing they disagree with is on policy issues, but everyone is reasonable and can be persuaded by facts, evidence and reason. Ha! what a mirage. Only people who grew up in Anglo sphere and in liberal minded system could possibly think this was a something that was realistic and was going to work. But it should not be surprising, since liberalism is anti human, utopian ideology that denies human nature in favor of its liberated man ideal. To an outsider like myself it was always strange. As I've learned more, its only foolish now.

Liberals imagined a system where everyone has the same outcome, while at the same time being maximum liberated from any moral obligation, any tradition and any particular religion, except off course liberalism. For about 150 years or so, this somehow worked because many Americans were Christians in terms of morality and basic values. This was known as American Civil Religion. But as I often quote:

“Liberalism has failed, not because it fell short, but because it was true to itself. It has failed because it has succeeded. As liberalism has become more fully itself, as its inner logic has become more evident and its self contradictions manifest, it has generated pathologies that are at once deformations of its claims, yet realizations of liberal ideology.

A political philosophy that was launched to foster greater equity, defend a pluralist tapestry of different cultures and beliefs, protect human dignity, and of course expand liberty in practice generates titanic inequality, enforces uniformity and homogeneity, fosters material and spiritual degradation, and undermines freedom.”

― Patrick Deneen, Why Liberalism Failed (2018)

Reminds me of what someone said. Liberalism delivered what it promised, but it was the opposite of what most expected.

And so today we see what liberalism was always protecting. As *Michael Joseph Sandel put it:

If we attempt to banish moral and religious discourse from politics and debates about law and rights, the danger is we’ll have a kind a vacant public square or a naked public square.

And the yearning for larger meanings in politics will find undesirable expression. Fundamentalists will rush in where liberals fear to tread. They will try to clothe the naked public square with the narrowest and most intolerant moralism.”

And that is exactly what we see. A replacement for Christian values under protection of liberalism. A new theology. A new religion. And that is what Tucker talks about. He calls it evil, not by name but by function. Good speech he gave.