John C. Wright, and The Unified Field Theory of Madness

If you haven't read Wright's thesis on the insanity of the modern Left, you are missing out. Wright fills in the spaces left by the comments others, like myself, have made. There are books on the subject, notably those by Sowell, Bloom, Johnson, Benda and Hayek, which capture this too, and there also is the psychoanalytical approach by Rossiter and Vitz.

But Wright seems to stand out by the assertion that there does exist evil, that it is couched in addiction to self-righteousness which is not only not deserved but is self-applied, as are addictions in general. Most addictions are only self-destructive, and destructive to local relationships; but not Leftism. That addiction must grow by destroying all that hampers its need for constant fullfillment: the constant reassurance of personal righteousness. Any threat to personal self-righteousness is a threat to the very essence of the Leftist; if the threat were accepted as truth, the Lefist would be destroyed, and presumably melt into a puddle of goo or just non-existence: it is a threat to their very existence.

A fine and useful summary occured in the comments:

John C. Wright said:
"Mr Corrigan, my theory is that the modern Left is the modern Left because and only because it seeks immunity to shame. I propose that this is the central feature of their entire worldview, the one seed from which all the many diseased branches and their filthy fruits must grow."

Shame presumes the existence of Good and Evil. There can be no shame without a unified moral theory, rather than the application of personal moral opinions to the Other, and never the self. For the Left, Nietzsche permanently destroyed the very idea of Good and Evil, leaving only the self behind.

Since the Unified Field Theory of Madness is a consequence of both mental/emotional challenges and shamelessness in an amoral universe, it is apparent that Atheism is a necessary foundation - rather a void of foundational principles - for the husbandry of Leftism. Although the connection between Atheism and Leftism is almost inexorable, there are some, Christopher Hitchens for example, who turned hard right; but Hitchens was self-righteous to the max and was "immune to shame" in the terms which Wright lays out. That concept applies at the Atheist level, first and foremost.

The paradox of being righteous while denying Right and Wrong is a conclusive sign of irrationality and the madness to which Wright refers.

There is an interesting circularity involved: The demand for immunity from shame produces Atheism; Atheism eliminates shame and thus enables Leftism which demands immunity from shame.