The Stockholm Syndrome in America

In discussions with other Christians in regard to the new political environment in America, we have been frustrated in not being able to convey what is happening in America. You see, non Christian America is not Christian America and no amount of trying to mix them together will solve the problem. Even the Tea Party will not solve the problem except temporarily when folk’s pockets are pinched and their own personal freedoms are seriously curtailed. Nevertheless, they may buy us a breather in 2012. We shall see.

The right wing, Christian, conservative politiciansrealize that the immoral vote, the liberal vote, and the secular independent vote are a sizable voting block not counting the illegal aliens. The conservative Christian politicians must create some kind of coalition that has some numbers to it, and so they cater to the various libertarian and neutral rightwing groups, and they end up with strange bedfellows. They may all cry “constitution, constitution,” but they do not realize that most of America could care less about the constitution unless it either hurts or benefits them, and many could care less about God. So, unless there is compromise, what we have here is a moral minority versus an immoral majority. Conservative Christianity and Christendom in America are not the same, and no attempt to merge them will avoid the inevitable. Now, even the conservative politicians see this much better than many Christians do, and they realize that they must also appease, compromise, and appeal somewhat to both sides of the electorate in order to get elected. How do Christians get their man elected under these circumstances? The answer is simple - they don’t!

Wikipedia gives an interesting article on the Stockholm syndrome as it pertains to individuals, who have been held captive by terrorists and turn around and agree with them, sympathize with them, and even join them. I wish to go a step farther and examine that syndrome in the light of groups, parties, and even countries. Because most folks cannot understand this syndrome, most folks cannot understand what is happening to America even after it has already happened to the European countries.

We often hear the comments that Radical Muslims have hijacked the Muslim religion, or the radical liberals have hijacked the Democratic Party.What is happening is that the Radical Muslims have integrated the Stockholm Syndrome into the Muslim religion and taken it hostage through fear. The liberal and radical media have integrated the Stockholm Syndrome into American politics. What has now happened in America is that she is being taken hostage by all the radical liberals, communists, socialists, global warmers, tree huggers, through oppression, fear mongering, and a promise of false security.

In says: Stockholm syndrome is a psychological response sometimes seen in an abducted hostage, in which the hostage shows signs of loyalty to the hostage-taker, regardless of the danger (or at least risk) in which the hostage has been placed. The syndrome is named after the Norrmalmstorg robbery of Kreditbanken at Norrmalmstorg, Stockholm, Sweden, in which the bank robbers held bank employees hostage from August 23 to August 28 in 1973. In this case, the victims became emotionally attached to their victimizers, and even defended their captors after they were freed from their six-day ordeal. The term Stockholm Syndrome was coined by the criminologist and psychiatristNils Bejerot, who assisted the police during the robbery, and referred to the syndrome in a news broadcast.

Loyalty to a more powerful abuser — in spite of the danger that this loyalty puts the victim in — is common among victims of domestic abuse, battered partners and child abuse (dependent children). In many instances the victims choose to remain loyal to their abuser, and choose not to leave him or her, even when they are offered a safe placement in foster homes or safe houses. This unhealthy type of mental phenomenon is also known as Trauma-Bonding or Bonding-to-the-Perpetrator. This syndrome was described by psychoanalysts of the object relations theory school (seeFairbairn) as the phenomenon of psychological identification with the more powerful abuser. A variant of Stockholm Syndrome includes cases of abusive parents and abusive siblings in which the victim, even after entering adulthood, still justifies the family abuse.

Psychoanalytic explanations: According to the psychoanalytic view of the syndrome, the tendency might well be the result of employing the strategy evolved by newborn babies to form an emotional attachment to the nearest powerful adult in order to maximize the probability that this adult will enable — at the very least — the survival of the child, if not also prove to be a good parental figure. This syndrome is considered a prime example for the defense mechanism of identification.

Sociological explanation: Based on the capital theory by Pierre Bourdieu, five forms of capital from the economic to the symbolic are constantly fought over in the society. Social actions amount to capital which can be used for power in various fields of social interaction. This power depends on violently preventing others from accessing capital and it is the opposite to a non-violent social action, where the capitals are used to increase the capital possessed by others.

In the Marxist class theory, capital is essential for self-realization. It has been proposed that traditions maintain the class society and forms of capitalist violence. In a hostage situation, these traditions are by-passed in a way which may allow an unforeseen action from a lower class person to gain capital. This may lead to the need of assuring that the powerfully felt struggle for social equality of the abductor succeeds. This need may be accompanied by a sense of security, which exists between a loyal person and the abductor. . . .

All the elements of Wikipedia’s article, in regard to terrorized individuals, are present in the psychological terrorism of America.

1. . . . an abducted hostage . . . shows signs of loyalty to the hostage-taker, regardless of the danger (or at least risk) in which the hostage has been placed.

2. In many instances the victims choose to remain loyal to their abuser, and choose not to leave him or her, even when they are offered a safe placement in foster homes or safe houses. . . psychological identification with the more powerful abuser

3. . . . the tendency might well be the result of employing the strategy evolved by newborn babies to form an emotional attachment to the nearest powerful adult in order to maximize the probability that this adult will enable — at the very least — the survival of the child . . .

4. As personal interests are in conflict with the traditional culture, this lapse of tradition provides to the victims an independent forum where they interpret the actions of the abductor outside traditional norms and relate to the abductor in a compassionate way.

5. This may lead to the need of assuring that the powerfully felt struggle for social equality of the abductor succeeds. This need may be accompanied by a sense of security, which exists between a loyal person and the abductor.

Now, do you understand why loyal and traditional Americans and even Christians (a good portion of the electorate) compromise their birth right for a mess of pottage. They are being forced to obey and agree with their oppressor abusers and to drop their traditional values and Christian principles? They are trading their God given security and safety to the One World, Global, and Socialist terrorists and have succumbed to the Stockholm Syndrome.

– by Herb Evans