Stockholm Syndrome, according to Wikipedia,
"is a condition that causes
hostages to develop a psychological alliance with their captors as a survival strategy during captivity.
[1] These
feelings, resulting from a bond formed between captor and captives during intimate time spent together, are generally considered irrational in light of the danger or risk endured by the victims. Generally speaking, Stockholm syndrome consists of "strong emotional ties that develop between two persons where one person intermittently harasses, beats, threatens, abuses, or intimidates the other."
[2]
Further ahead, under the heading of "As a coping mechanism", the current version of that article adds:
"From a psychoanalytic lens, it can be argued that Stockholm syndrome arises strictly as a result of survival instincts. Strentz states, “the victim’s need to survive is stronger than his impulse to hate the person who has created the dilemma.” A positive emotional bond between captor and captive is a “defense mechanism of the ego under stress”.
[4] These sentimental feelings are not strictly for show however. Since captives often fear that their affection will be perceived as fake, they eventually begin to believe that their positive sentiments are genuine."
The article also describes a complementary affliction,
Lima Syndrome:
The telltale signs are so clear as to make a direct statement seem unnecessary, but there seem to be many people who have not fully made the connection, so here it is:
Much of the supposed demographic "success" of Christianity and Islaam (and to a lesser degree other doctrines as well) comes from what is in reality a deliberate triggering of Stockhold Syndrome in large scale, made all the more effective due to numbers and the routine application of undue expectations from a very tender age, far too often literally from the cradle or even before birth, or even conception.
Many, many millions (perhaps well over a billion even) of people do not "believe" in their nominal doctrines nearly so much as they have duly accepted that their only choices are to decide whether their conflicts will be internal or external. It is all too common for infants to learn that there will not be peace in the family unless they go through the motions and fulfill some measure of the expectations of parents, family and friends who seem to sincerely believe that we all owe them some measure of agreement on those matters, despite them being utterly personal in nature.
Even the apologism of such doctrines is all too often rooted on fairly direct appeals to Stockholm Syndrome, while attempts to defend their legitimacy often rely on emphasizing examples of the complementary Lima Syndrome, among other reasons because this is a generational pattern where the oppressors are all too often utterly sincere and largely unconscious of the very possibility of doing better than repeating the pattern.
When whole societies engage in shameless proselitism as a matter of course, the damage is deep and lasting.
Perhaps ironically, a significant if arguably minor aspect of that damage is done to the very reputation of religion itself, as well as to its reputation.
These days there are many hundreds of millions of people who actually perceive religion as something to actively avoid, perhaps because what they have learned to understand by that name is the intense application of Stockholm and Lima Syndromes as opposed to any constructive activity.
