Brock Lorber

More About: Media: Television

Stop Me Before I Swear Again!

About me

I have been interested in national politics since I was five years old. My main concerns are the role of the federal government in our daily lives and the role of America in the world. My main ambition as a journalist is to cut through the public relations and find the truth in what politicians are saying and doing.

The above is a quote from MSNBC's Chris Matthews. It explains exactly why he hosts a cable show called "Hardball" where he gets to ask the tough questions of the political class. What is unclear from Matthew's bio is how many politicos he has admonished for injecting a "god damn gun" into voluntary human actions.

You can't blame Matthews if the answer is one (which, I suspect it is). He's built his passion into a career; one that subsists on the sole purpose of government: to create conflict. Unlike a ring announcer at a prize fight, Matthews gets to jump in the middle of the fray – get his fists a little bloody, if you will – knowing that the size and surety of his paycheck is proportional to the conflict he can stir.

Matthews knows his paycheck would be awfully small if the conflict disappeared. If he once exposed the conflict as manufactured, if he once revealed that the truth in what politicians are saying is, "I am willing to use force – lethal force if necessary – to subjugate you," his gig would be over.

With every show, every interview, every guest, every word, Chris Matthews promotes violence. Not just random violence, but the most despicable, institutionalized violence that is responsible for the deaths of over 200 million people in the 20th century, not including deaths during wars. And then, when the threats of violence turn to actual violence, Matthews can capitalize again, feigning shock and horror at the crass actions he egged on and helped to legitimize.

Chris Matthews tasted blood when he was told of William Kostric, carrying a weapon for the world to see at a New Hampshire political rally. By god, a prole had fallen into his trap, the conflict he promoted, and Matthews was going to make an example of him. But then, a curious thing happened.

Kostric was not only crass enough to display his weapon, but to talk openly and calmly about it. And, Matthews realized, Kostric was crass enough to go one step further and talk about, on national TV, the gun that is always in the room, the omnipresent gun that is government force. In Chris Matthew's role as a modern-day Cicero, polite society uses government force, competes for government force, schemes for government force, but never, ever talks about government force.

The greatest fear of a Chris Matthews, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, or any of their ilk, is an open conversation about the violence of government or the conflicts they invent. They don't care a whit about the politics of an armed person; they only care that the armed person is employed by and actively promoting government control. As long as there's a ring of power to vie for, they retain their employment and book-selling ability.

One man, standing peacefully with a visible weapon saying, "I am capable of my own defense, thank you very much," harms the delusion of government as needed protector. That same man standing near the president of the biggest and most violent government the world has ever seen becomes contagious, and threatens to shatter the illusions of conflict carefully crafted by the government's biggest cheerleaders.

2 Comments in Response to

Comment by Nathan Barton
Entered on:

Matthews' behavior on his show was gross and disgusting, whatever excuse he uses.  While Brock may explain Matthews' behavior, explanation does not excuse it in the least.  But it is more than just Matthews' abuse of a guest on his show - it is that Matthews is an apologist for government and cannot see the hypocrisy of his position vis-a-vis arms.  In this he is considerably different from Beck, if not necessarily from other talking heads.

 As for "Oyate's" comments about the use of the term "weapons" - yes, that IS nit-picking.  A weapon is no more the tool of a soldier only, than a dental pick or floss is the tool of a dentist only.  For a weapon (whether you call it a weapon or an "arm" or whatever) is nothing more than a class of tools.  To distinguish between a "weapon" in the hands of a soldier from a "firearm" in the hands of a civilian is to demonstrate the same sort of fear of firearms that permeates our society and political class.

Comment by Found Zero
Entered on:

I don't know if this is nit-picking but soldiers carry "weapons". I was taught to refer to rifles, firearms, sidearms and such but not "weapons".

Maybe it's a mentality you grow up with. A firearm is pretty much like a rake in that if you mis-store it, it could bonk you hard on the knoggin. Know how if you leave a rake tong-side up you can step on it and get a crack in the crown? But like any tool, any rake, shovel or axe (and indeed, any hoe) just extends your capability.

Try hunting rabbits with a rake. Try hunting deer with a hoe. The results render our intentions moot my good men! But try same with a trusty rifle and that's not a weapon, that's a very light and portable refrigerator that goes BOOM.

To close, I iterate: soldiers carry "weapons". All of the names for same from "firearm" to "Bessie" are preferable to be above "weapon" which has a loathsome ring, a dank and fowl ring to it.

Join us on our Social Networks:


Share this page with your friends on your favorite social network: