Stockholm Syndrome and White Genocide

Tokyo Sexwale, an exponent of "deracialization."

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.

Colin Liddell
Occidental Observer
15th June, 2013
Share on Google Plus

About C.B.Liddell

This is a short description in the author block about the author. You edit it by entering text in the "Biographical Info" field in the user admin panel.


  1. If the whites resist - we will be called racist and the world will condemn us once again. We must pray for Gods grace and the outside world to give us refugee status. We are not lazy - we will contribute to any country's economy - even if we are not educated. It's not because we suffer from stockholm - its because we know what happened in the past. We cannot stand against them and think that we will win - cause even if we do win it will mean a lot of blood shed and tears - and we don't like that cause thats still losing- that's why we gave away the country in the first place. Our friends were suffering, and it will mean the same thing. We do not hate them, we never have so how can you kill them? Their cultures are so different from ours that the government under apartheid wanted to give them a place where they could live nicely - there were cinemas, shops, universities and the best hospitals in the world in their areas. They were nasty and said that black people should not use their bathrooms and they should carry a pass blah blah blah... but they were well looked after and in 1988, they were earning $127 per month on average - compared to the $140 per month a black man earned in America as a free man.

  2. They received unlimited medical attention for R2. They were taught in their languages, when the government tried to teach them in afrikaans thousands took to the streets, so they did not. Apartheid was a name that has a bad connotation, but ask any person of color if they were safe that time - they will all say yes