Stockholm Syndrome is the psychological phenomenon which occurs where captives come to sympathize with their captors. Something like this is happening to white people who have not managed to escape from South Africa. It might help explain why so many English & Americans collude with The Establishment as it works to destroy Western Civilization. Opportunism is clearly a major factor.
From
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2013/06/stockholm-syndrome-and-white-genocide/#more-19620
Stockholm Syndrome And White Genocide Usually it is viewed as an individual psychological condition, affecting
those individuals who are kidnapped or held hostage, such as the hostages in
the 1973 botched robbery in Stockholm that gave the phenomenon its name, but
there is no reason why it can’t be extended to much larger groups if they
appear to demonstrate the behavior specified by the condition. The phenomenon is thought to be more common among women than men, for
obvious reasons, but it is unclear whether it has a racial aspect, although
this seems likely. To date the most famous examples —
Patty Hearst,
Jaycee Lee Dugard, etc. — have typically been young White women. There is a certain rationale to Stockholm Syndrome. If a person is
captured or abused in some way, and if he or she is essentially powerless to
prevent this, then, the act of bonding with the captor or abuser will help
to make an unbearable situation more psychologically bearable. It may also
encourage the captor or abuser to be more sympathetic to the captive or
abusee. The Stockholm Syndrome also has its opposite, called the
#Lima syndrome,
in which the captors over-empathize with the captives. The most famous case
involved the mainly Japanese hostages at the Japanese embassy in Lima, Peru,
which was taken over in 1997 by the Tupac Amaru Revolutionary Movement.
Under an impulse of sympathy the captors soon started to release most of the
hostages, including the most valuable ones. If we view South Africa’s Whites as de facto hostages or captives
of the Black majority, to whom they foolishly gave away all their political
power in the early 1990s, then it is clear that South Africa is not
undergoing a Lima situation. Genocidal attacks on Whites continue, while the
President and his political cronies continue to chant “Kill
the Boer” at public gatherings. Racist employment and
redistributionist policies continue to proliferate; even where Whites try to
peacefully form their own communities, or just naturally cluster together,
they are
threatened. Recently, the ludicrously-named Tokyo Sexwale, the Human Settlements
Minister, who is in the process of dumping his White wife of 20 years for a
younger Indian model, stated that predominantly White suburbs should be “deracialized”
by granting Blacks special loans to buy property there. Every day it becomes clearer that White South Africans are living under
an increasingly abusive system that aims ultimately at their extinction as a
unique people and organic community. So, how are they reacting? Are they
organizing? Are they developing solidarity? Are they fighting back? On the available evidence, and with a few small exceptions, the answers
are no, no, and no. What makes this more remarkable is that we are talking here not about a
historically slavish demographic, but about some of the toughest White
people on the planet. There is no doubt that if South African Whites had the
will they could seize control of the country tomorrow. So, what has happened
to the proud Boers and even to the Anglophone Whites, who were always
lukewarm supporters of Apartheid but who clearly don’t want to suffer the
indignities that the Marxist-racist state has in store for them? The only explanation is that Whites in South Africans are undergoing a
collective Stockholm Syndrome, identifying with their abusers, sympathizing
with their oppressors, in an attempt to make an unbearable situation
slightly more bearable. (It might well be worth exploring in what strain of
South Africa’s diverse European population this collective Stockholm
Syndrome first appeared, as it may well have roots stretching back to
earlier times and different places. In this context, the experience of South
Africa’s Jews would be of particular interest.) But whether Jew or non-Jew, in modern day South Africa, all Whites are
viewed the same by Blacks, and their shared experience is one of gradually
increasing humiliation. The other day the Minister of International
Relations and Cooperation, Ms. Maite Nkoana-Mashabane
expressed deep concern over ethnically motivated killings in South
Africa. Of course, she was not talking about Whites, who are being butchered
and mutilated in their thousands, despite living lives dominated by security
precautions. She was instead referring to a few Somalis who had been lynched
by mobs of South African Blacks with their usual brutality. Such humiliations are a direct threat to the ego of every White South
African. Against such an attack there are a number of possible responses:
(1) a silent resolve to resist and fight back, (2) a decision to flee, (3)
pure and simple denial, and (4) an urge to identify with the powers that be,
and to latch on to any crumbs of comfort. In the case of Nkoana-Mashabane’s
statement these crumbs are not even being dispensed to Whites, but to
another race regarded by the majority as outsiders. This urge to identify and latch on to crumbs of comfort is how the
“useful idiots” in the White community, who are still allowed some
prominence in the media, greet such statements. But, as if to slap them in
the face again, Nkoana-Mashabane made sure her statement included a
reference to Apartheid and pan-African unity: We recall the support and solidarity accorded to us during our
fight against apartheid by African people, including Somalis, and wish
to express our sincere gratitude. As South Africa, we value our close
relations with our neighbours and the rest of the African Continent. As I said above, there is a certain rationale to the Stockholm Syndrome.
In our micro-political prehistoric past, when individuals were captured,
enslaved or subdued, it was almost always by groups of similar racial and
even ethnic backgrounds. Under such circumstances, showing a certain amount
of empathy to the powerful would, given time, elicit a degree of sympathy or
forbearance in return, leading ultimately to a more normalized relationship.
But hoping for something similar in South Africa is an obvious absurdity as
Black Africans show little tendency towards anything even resembling a Lima
Syndrome as demonstrated by their brutality even towards other Africans. As long as Whites are White they will be hated. Only by breeding into the
greater population — by which is largely meant White women breeding with
African males like the soon-to-be ex-Mrs. Sexwale — and by becoming a tiny
unrecognizable strain in the Black races of South Africa will the hatred of
Whites stop. If White South Africans are to survive they will have to break the spell
of the collective Stockholm Syndrome they have been living under for the
last twenty years and find some way to resist.
Stockholm
Syndrome ex Wiki
Stockholm Syndrome can be seen as a form of traumatic bonding, which
does not necessarily require a hostage scenario, but which describes “strong
emotional ties that develop between two persons where one person intermittently
harasses, beats, threatens, abuses, or intimidates the other.”[4]
One commonly used hypothesis to explain the effect of Stockholm syndrome is
based on Freudian theory. It suggests that the bonding is the individual’s
response to trauma in becoming a victim. Identifying with the aggressor is one
way that the ego defends itself. When a victim believes the same values as the
aggressor, they cease to be a threat.[5]
Battered-person syndrome is an example of activating the capture–bonding
psychological mechanism, as are
military basic training and fraternity bonding by
hazing.[6][7][8] Stockholm syndrome is sometimes erroneously referred to as Helsinki
syndrome. Evolutionary
explanations In the view of evolutionary psychology, “the mind is a set of
information-processing machines that were designed by natural selection to solve
adaptive problems faced by our hunter–gatherer ancestors.”[14] One of the “adaptive problems faced by our hunter–gatherer ancestors,”
particularly females, was being abducted by another band. Life in the human
“environment of evolutionary adaptiveness” (EEA)
is thought by researchers such as
Azar Gat
to be similar to that of the few remaining hunter-gatherer societies. “Deadly
violence is also regularly activated in competition over women. . . . Abduction
of women, rape, . . . are widespread direct causes of reproductive conflict. . .
.”[15]
I.e., being captured[16]
and having their dependent children killed might have been fairly common.[17]
Women who resisted capture in such situations risked being killed.[18] Azar Gat
argues that war and abductions (capture) were typical of human pre-history.[15]
When selection is intense and persistent, adaptive traits (such as
capture–bonding) become universal to the population or species. (See
Selection.) Partial activation of the capture–bonding psychological trait may lie behind
battered-wife syndrome, military basic training, fraternity
hazing, and
sex practices such as
sadism/masochism or bondage/discipline.[citation
needed] Being captured by neighboring tribes was a
relatively common event for women in human history, if anything like the recent
history of the few remaining primitive tribes. In some of those tribes (Yanomamo,
for instance) practically everyone in the tribe is descended from a captive
within the last three generations. Perhaps as high as one in ten of females were
abducted and incorporated into the tribe that captured them.
by
Colin Liddell
#Stockholm Syndrome is the psychological phenomenon whereby captives bond
with their captors even to the point of sympathizing with and defending
them. It is thought to have its roots in our hunter-gatherer past, where the
experience of being forcibly co-opted into a new band of hunter-gatherers
was a not uncommon occurrence.
QUOTE
Stockholm syndrome, or capture–bonding, is a
psychological phenomenon in which
hostages
express empathy
and sympathy
and have positive feelings toward their captors or abusers, sometimes to the
point of defending them, and sometimes the feeling of love for the captor shows.
These feelings are generally considered irrational in light of the danger or
risk endured by the victims, who essentially mistake a lack of
abuse from their
captors for an act of kindness.[1][2]
The
FBI's Hostage Barricade Database System shows that roughly 27% of victims
show evidence of Stockholm syndrome.[3]History
Stockholm syndrome is named after the
Norrmalmstorg robbery of
Kreditbanken at
Norrmalmstorg in
Stockholm,
Sweden, in which several bank employees were held hostage in a bank vault from
August 23 to August 28, 1973. During this situation, the victims became
emotionally attached to their captors, rejected assistance from government
officials at one point and even defended them after they were freed from their
six-day ordeal.[11]
The term “Stockholm syndrome” was coined by the
criminologist and
psychiatrist
Nils
Bejerot, using the term in a news broadcast.[12]
It was originally defined by psychiatrist
Frank Ochberg to aid the management of hostage situations.[13]
This article
may contain
original research. (July 2012)
In economics
In June 2012, at the 9th International Conference Developments in Economic
Theory and Policy, in Bilbao, by the Department of Applied Economics V of the
University of the Basque Country (Spain) and the Cambridge Centre for Economic
and Public Policy, Department of Land Economy of the University of Cambridge
(United Kingdom), the concept of Stockholm syndrome was introduced in economics
referring to governments that have been “kidnapped” by financial capital because
of their need to refinance public debt. They are coerced into accepting high
interest rates and conditions that compromise their sovereignty.[citation
needed][19]Lima syndrome
An inverse of Stockholm syndrome called
Lima syndrome has been
proposed, in which abductors develop sympathy for their hostages. It was named
after
an abduction at the Japanese Embassy in
Lima,
Peru, in 1996,
when members of a militant movement took hostage hundreds of people attending a
party at the official residence of Japan’s ambassador. Within a few hours, the
abductors had set free most of the hostages, including the most valuable ones,
owing to sympathy.[20][21]
UNQUOTE
A good one not to have.