I found this odd database by accident that really raised a red flag for some reason: Laetus in Praesens – Happy in the Present. It sounds so nice in translation but there is some really seedy stuff buried it in.
Need for a threat
A number of authors have recognized the need for a viable threat as a means of giving coherence to policies of industrialized countries. For example, as stated by Hermann Goering at the Nuremburg Trials (1946):
Why of course the people don’t want war… But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship… Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.
To be a useful strategic basis for world governance, the singular threat should ideally permit resources to be allocated in a controlled manner to reinforce the integrity of the controlling regime. It should minimize any allocation of resources to efforts to change the social structures and behaviours engendering the threat. Thus in the case of terrorism it is vital to focus on investments in the military industrial complex that enables the creation of new security systems (cf. intelligence resources, Echelon, etc). Token humanitarian investments can be allocated for rebuilding, although the emphasis should be made on rhetorical support for such rebuilding. But investment in any effort to actually remedy the engendering conditions should be minimized behind a screen of stirring public relations and commitments that are in no way associated with any intention to fulfil them. In these respects, the responses of George Bush and Tony Blair to terrorism have been exemplary.