Agreed. However there are two and possibly more ways to interpret that.
That fear begets violence and that presupposes control by the state, can be seen in accordance of the type of fear concerned.
The first one is " real fear" , that is commensurate with perceptive on levels of primal cognition. The associative fear is casual inter social.
The third waa used by F.Roosevelt’s ’ there is nothing to fear but fear.
This saying attributed to him was overtly implying an executive power to instill this knowledge of the basis of fear .
The middle ground is based on this insight to serve as a premise to dissolve the primal fear, which is caused by misrepresenting fear as an illogical and baseless emotion.
Now in today’s climate, fear is used not in an effort for individual sublimation of primal fear, but as a secondary entrance into social consciousness.
That difference points to power motives as tools with which social construction of reality can be shifted.
Not that this is or may not be the case at most politically staged platform presentations, but the overall degree of the difference does not always need as much a wide gap between them for most administrations.
The widening presents a power push by the singular power agent down to the individually lower power holders , by way of gross usage of propaganda.
No one has come out to say that the defense of the individual should be stripped , but they do say, that the outside menace (Russia) wants to deprive the internal security of the U.S.
Just using the example of basic projective and introjective tools to have people believe anything.
Pres Johnston used the Gulf of Tunkin incident to rouse the rebels -the protesters against the war, to demean their understanding of what was really going on, and Secretary of Defense in his memoirs , out of guilt admitted that the warnqas a mistake, but I am afraid, that he was fearing an investigation anyway, so the so called confession was made on account of his Individual fear of exposure , making him into a man without a conscience.
So when You mix, or collide the internal dissent and it’s control, that fear can be expressed in terms of some big elephant roaring to tear every thing apart.
Trump and Putin may have talked this scenario over, as a counter-balance to deal cards favorable to international unity, except not in terms of social welfare, but on terms of proto-communist systems run by the super rich national socialists. So called.
Vwey clever and perhaps the failure of communist socialism laid on the particular dissatisfaction with the social contract itself, the average person is happier in perceptions then in understanding true worth.
But true value is set on indexes based on very large populations and true value could not support elitist considerations.