「布哇の王様」など

承前*1

Jared Lee Loughnerに影響を与えたとされる白人至上主義雑誌American RenaissanceChristian Science MonitorのPatrik Jonsson “American Renaissance: Was Jared Lee Loughner tied to anti-immigrant group?”*2は彼の犯行とAmerican Renaissanceとの、さらにはメジャーな政治運動との直接的な関係に懐疑的なコメントを引用している。例えば、


Mark Pitcavage, director of investigative research at the Anti-Defamation League, is skeptical about any hard connection between Loughner and American Renaissance.

"The fans of American Renaissance tend to be older and they tend to be intellectuals or pseudo-intellectuals," says Mr. Pitcavage. "Based on the limited nature of [Loughner's] internet footprint suggesting his thoughts and beliefs, there's nothing to lead one to think he would lean that way. It's perplexing to us that there is a notion of a substantial connection."

ただ、カリフォルニア州立大学のCenter for the Study of Hate and Extremism所長であるBrian Levin氏は、「憎悪の政治」が自らのもやもやした「怒り」を正当化してくれる理屈を求める人たちと共鳴してしまい、結果として、その人たちは「自分の怒りを合理化する疑似政治哲学」を「創造」してしまうという。両者を結びつけるのは「政府に対する深まりつつある不信」である。
さて、American Renaissanceの発行母胎であるNew Century Foundationという「自称シンク・タンク」について;

The New Century Foundation was founded by Yale University graduate Jared Taylor, the author of several books on race and policy who has has written that diversity is "dangerous" because it is "one of the most divisive forces on the planet."

Mr. Taylor has become a well-known and oftentimes mainstream commentator on race and immigration issues, having appeared on networks like CNN as well as hard-right radio shows. The ADL describes his bailiwick as "intellectualized white supremacy."

Invited by a college conservative group to speak at Clemson in 2007, Taylor said, “It is a mistake to assume it is wrong to prefer the company of people similar to oneself. ... It is universal, and I think there’s every reason to believe there are innate biological reasons. … In [the] United States, this kind of preference … is recognized and encouraged and institutionalized so long as the people who are expressing this preference are not white.”

Christian Science Monitorの記事のタイトルに”anti-immigrant group”とある。アリゾナといえば昨年移民への締め付けを強化する州法を成立させたが*3、Gabrielle Giffordsはこの州法に反対していた。
それから、Jared Lee Loughnerは神を信じないと公言していたようだ。この点では、「茶会」系の人たちの多くとは相容れないだろう。
さて、

Peter Walker “Gabrielle Giffords shooting: Gunman linked to grammar 'judge'” http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/10/gabrielle-giffords-shooting-grammar-extremist*4


Jared Lee Loughnerにより直接的に影響を与えたと言われているDavid Wynn Miller (自称に従えばJudge David-Wynn: Miller )*5というおじさんの話。
何故Judge David-Wynn: Miller と綴るのかというと、”by inserting colons or hyphens into your name you can escape taxable status by becoming a "prepositional phrase".”ということだ。このようにして税金を逃れようとした人もいるらしいが、その理屈がよくわからない。英文法に詳しい方のご教示を待つ。
David Weigel “David-Wynn: Miller”*6によると、ミラー先生は「布哇の王様」を自称しているという。また、2012年に世界は滅亡するともいう。
『ガーディアン』の記事に戻る。曰く、


Former friends of Loughner have noted his apparent obsession with grammar but only as one part of a wider pattern of erratic and confrontational behaviour. This included the stated belief that his former college was illegal under the US constitution, the space shuttle missions were faked, and the September 11 attacks were staged by the government, and the claim that the world we see does not actually exist.
911陰謀論も出てきている。これは上述した神を信じない発言とともに、共和党支持者の多くにとっては受け容れ難いだろう。同時に、日本にもJared Lee Loughnerの知的お仲間がけっこういることに気づくだろう。所謂〈小沢信者〉と被っていたりして。

以前は米国の本流的右派たる共和党は所謂極右*7とは一線を画していた筈なのに、「茶会」以降一気にそれを隔てる壁が低くなってしまった気がする*8。日本でも特に安倍政権以降、自民党と熱湯浴との境界が曖昧化しているということはあるけれど。

ROBERT WRIGHT “First Comes Fear” http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/11/before-hatred-comes-fear/


問題なのは、政治的レトリックが暴力的であるどうかよりも、意見を異にする者たちに「ダークな陰謀屋」というレーベルを貼り付けてしまう傾向なのだと指摘。これも他山の石とすべきであろう。

PAUL KRUGMAN “A Tale of Two Moralities” http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/14/opinion/14krugman.html


米国政治における根本的な対立軸についての叙述を切り取っておく;


One side of American politics considers the modern welfare state — a private-enterprise economy, but one in which society’s winners are taxed to pay for a social safety net — morally superior to the capitalism red in tooth and claw we had before the New Deal. It’s only right, this side believes, for the affluent to help the less fortunate.

The other side believes that people have a right to keep what they earn, and that taxing them to support others, no matter how needy, amounts to theft. That’s what lies behind the modern right’s fondness for violent rhetoric: many activists on the right really do see taxes and regulation as tyrannical impositions on their liberty.

There’s no middle ground between these views. One side saw health reform, with its subsidized extension of coverage to the uninsured, as fulfilling a moral imperative: wealthy nations, it believed, have an obligation to provide all their citizens with essential care. The other side saw the same reform as a moral outrage, an assault on the right of Americans to spend their money as they choose.