Understanding Demonization when Used as a Political Tool

(Post forwarded from Need to Know News by Edward Griffin)

Are Trump’s political opponents beside themselves figuring out ways to undermine his popularity


The news this week is primarily about Donald Trump’s actions during his first week in office. There is little need for commentary except to say that (1) so far, he is following through on several of his most noteworthy campaign promises, and (2) his political opponents are beside themselves trying to figure out ways to undermine his popularity.

It is an axiom of political warfare that it is not wise to assassinate popular opponents except as a last resort. Instead, it is better to demonize them in the public mind so that, when violence finally is used, the public will think it was justified.

There is no better example than what happened to the Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas, in 1993. Because the leader of this religious group was known to have weapons that were not registered, the federal government and National Guard laid siege to their compound and killed its leader, David Koresh, along with 82 of his congregation, including women and children.

The public was not outraged by this, because the media had published an endless barrage of ‘reports’ of sexual abuse of children in the compound – reports that, in later months were shown to be without foundation. But the public didn’t know that at the time, and most people thought it was a shame about those children being killed in the attack, but it was merely collateral damage from a justified law-enforcement operation against very evil people.

If you want to understand what is going on from the left in America today, just think of the Branch Davidians. If the elites can sufficiently demonize Donald Trump and his supporters as racists or something equally repugnant, then violence against him personally or against his supporters – perhaps even violence against the system itself – will be viewed as justified.

The only way to prevent that tactic from succeeding is to make the public aware of the tactic itself. That’s where you come in. Send this to your friends and, while you’re at it, invite them to subscribe to Need to Know News. They will thank you for it.

G. Edward Griffin
2017 January 27

Guns, Drugs and Violence

Should we Ban the Guns?

Mass shootings are always tragic; especially where the victims are children, as in the recent Sandy Hook incident. How awful to be a parent who has lost a child that way. It is so senseless. That there has been a huge outcry against guns is quite understandable.

Unwarranted gun violence is not a new issue. In April 1999, another tragic school shooting occurred at Columbine High School, which prompted me to address the gun control issue then. My views on the subject have not changed.

There is talk about banning guns outright. If that means shutting down all gun and ammunition factories and disarming the military, the police and security guards, I would welcome such a move of the authorities setting a good example, but I don’t think that’s what our illustrious leaders have in mind. They aim to limit the rights of civilians to arm themselves and that is a dangerous idea.

More recently, guns have been banned in Australia, with a disastrous crime wave following in its wake, as shown in this video: Click on the picture to see the video.

Stats after gun control in Australia

What Lies Behind The Violence?

Aside from easy access to guns, there are many other underlying issues that contribute to such unwarranted violence; declining morals, violence seen on TV and in movies and lack of parental control. But what is not widely known is that a common denominator in many school shootings has been that the children committing the violence were on mind-altering drugs.

drugs & guns

The fact that these random acts of violence are drug-related is noted by renowned natural healer, Dr. Richard Schultze To quote Dr. Schulze, “In EVERY case of mass shootings in the last few decades, the killers were later found out to be taking LEGAL, medical doctor prescribed, pharmaceutical, mind-altering, prescription drugs.”

Many of our children need help. The kind of help they need depends on the individual circumstances. Trying to understand them would be a good place to start. Let’s spend time with them, talk with them, guide them, set a good example. Pumping chemicals into them is not going to do it. That’s betrayal, not help. Let’s get our kids off drugs.

But the real question is “Should We Ban Guns?”

Some years ago, I saw a bumper sticker that read, “If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.” That is not quite accurate. Yes, criminals will still be able to get their hands on guns, but the cops and our government will also still have them; and we should beware of such a situation.


The recent spate of shootings, no doubt, has made many of us consider gun control as a possible solution to the violence that is so rampant in the United States. However, any attempts at gun control are fought tooth and nail by the National Rifle Association (NRA).

Obviously, some control is needed—not having any controls is like driving a car blindfolded, with similar disastrous results. The other side of the coin is that our freedom is threatened when the individual’s right to bear arms is curtailed and this might land us into far deeper trouble.

It’s the old conflict of freedom versus safety and comfort. As usual, the optimum solution lies somewhere between the two extremes. It is possible to have some controls in place without running the risk of being done in by “Big Brother.”

The reality is that guns are tools of death. That’s their purpose. The better the gun, the better it enables its user to kill others. We could envisage a society with no guns at all. Perhaps such a society would make us feel much safer, but unfortunately not everyone has our best interests at heart and to abandon all weapons would leave us exposed to the whims of bullies, who would not hesitate to take unfair advantage of their superior strength. The result would be slavery. With the liabilities of “homo sapiens,” taking away guns altogether would not be a good solution.

Over a decade ago I read the following information in a publication called the Odessa Fact Sheet, that is no longer in circulation, but the information is still relevant today.

What Happens After Gun Control?

Al Fuller says, “Limited Gun Control measures are usually the first steps toward taking all firearms out of the hands of all civilians. Did you know:

  • Turkey established gun control in 1911. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
  • The Soviet Union established gun control in 1929. From 1929 to 1953, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
  • China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
  • Germany established gun control in 1938. From 1939 to 1945, over 10 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, mentally ill people, political dissidents, and other “misfits,” unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
  • Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, over 1 million “educated people,” unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
  • Guatamala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
  • Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were slaughtered like cattle.”


Tragic as gun violence is, we must ask ourselves whether we are willing to let fear dominate us enough to sacrifice our freedoms.

Guns are dangerous, but they can also protect us from those who would harm us. The fact is that gun control does not work. If it did, Chicago and Washington DC, two cities with some of the nation’s strictest gun control laws, would be the safest cities to live in. In reality, the violent crime rates in these two cities are among the nation’s highest. It stands to reason: if law-abiding citizens are prevented from arming themselves, criminals, who don’t care about the law and who always can find ways to get guns, will have fewer worries about meeting armed resistance.

You think it couldn’t happen here? Don’t kid yourself! It is happening in Britain.


Do you still want Gun Control in the U.S? Contact your elected representatives to voice your concern.

 Quote for the Week

The Second Amendment is in place in case we ignore the others.
What part of “shall not be infringed” do you not understand?
The United States Constitution
© 1791 All Rights Reserved