“Security and aggression are terms of partisan interpretation.”

The Relation of the State to the Invididual (1890)
Context: Aggression is simply another name for government. Aggression, invasion, government, are interconvertible terms. The essence of government is control, or the attempt to control. He who attempts to control another is a governor, an aggressor, an invader; and the nature of such invasion is not changed, whether it is made by one man upon another man, after the manner of the ordinary criminal, or by one man upon all other men, after the manner of an absolute monarch, or by all other men upon one man, after the manner of a modern democracy.

Counterterrorism and Cybersecurity: Total Information Awareness (2nd Edition), 2015

On the refugee crisis, quoted on Ekathimerini, FYROM ‘paying for EU mistakes' in refugee crisis, says Ivanov http://www.ekathimerini.com/206888/article/ekathimerini/news/fyrom-paying-for-eu-mistakes-in-refugee-crisis-says-ivanov, March 11, 2016.
Context: In the refugee crisis there is the humanitarian aspect and the security aspect. In terms of humanity, Germany acted very well. But in terms of security, your country has completely failed. But no one has the courage to say what still lies ahead. Between Sudan and Egypt alone, 20 million migrants are waiting to come to Europe. The refugee flow won't end, because everyone knows everything via Twitter and Facebook.

Nicolas Maduro
Quoted in US attempting to engineer coup d’etat in Venezuela: Russia, PressTV https://www.presstv.com/Detail/2019/01/26/586867/Nebenzya-Russia-Pompeo-Security-Council-Venezuela (26 January 2019)

Source: Nietzsche and Philosophy (1962), p. 7

Source: Emotional amoral egoism (2008), p.203

Kaspersky: Apple '10 years behind Microsoft in terms of security' http://www.zdnet.com/blog/security/kaspersky-apple-10-years-behind-microsoft-in-terms-of-security/11706 in ZDNet (25 April 2012)

The Relation of the State to the Invididual (1890)
Context: Anarchism, in dealing with this subject, has found it necessary, first of all, to define its terms. Popular conceptions of the terminology of politics are incompatible with the rigorous exactness required in scientific investigation. To be sure, a departure from the popular use of language is accompanied by the risk of misconception by the multitude, who persistently ignore the new definitions; but, on the other hand, conformity thereto is attended by the still more deplorable alternative of confusion in the eyes of the competent, who would be justified in attributing inexactness of thought where there is inexactness of expression. Take the term "State," for instance, with which we are especially concerned today. It is a word that is on every lip. But how many of those who use it have any idea of what they mean by it? And, of the few who have, how various are their conceptions! We designate by the term "State" institutions that embody absolutism in its extreme form and institutions that temper it with more or less liberality. We apply the word alike to institutions that do nothing but aggress and to institutions that, besides aggressing, to some extent protect and defend. But which is the State's essential function, aggression or defence, few seem to know or care. Some champions of the State evidently consider aggression its principle, although they disguise it alike from themselves and from the people under the term "administration," which they wish to extend in every possible direction. Others, on the contrary, consider defence its principle, and wish to limit it accordingly to the performance of police duties. Still others seem to think that it exists for both aggression and defence, combined in varying proportions according to the momentary interests, or maybe only whims, of those happening to control it.

A Plaine Discovery of the Whole Revelation of St. John (1593), The First and Introductory Treatise