Stockholm Syndrome & White Genocide

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
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.

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
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]

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.

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]

Evolutionary explanations
This article may contain original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding inline citations. Statements consisting only of original research may be removed. (July 2012)

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.

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.