https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dL8LKjXdYwo
In the unusual event that Hillary sales past all of the investigations:
Lying to Congress, destroying evidence under subpeona
Assasinating anyone who obstructed her way to the top of her crime-syndicate
Selling National secrets to America`s enemies while Secretary of State
Raising hundreds of millions of dollars from hostile governments
Selling favors that jeopardized American National Security
Then: Anyone who supported or colluded with her scheme to create a New World Order at the expense of the rest of us should end up behind bars with her.

If the F.B.I. shirk this responsibility it will project them as being in-synch with the most derelict W.H. in American History. Hillary is in her usual immune-bubble where she is so condescending, so unapologetic, that she makes it difficult for Comey to ignore. Its expected for her; the total Psychopath that she is. But the F.B.I. knows that she`s guilty. She`s laughing in Comey's face; she`s taunting him. In her egocentric world she`s always above the fray, no matter how much she sells her country down the drain. The Benghazi episode with her calling Sean Smith`s mother a liar didn`t help much. Everyone had a glimpse of her immunity to the pain of those who've truly served. When she dismissed Sean Smith`s mother with impunity, she crossed the red-line of most American`s sensitivities. At least those not mesmerized by her elitist "don`t bother me now" attitude toward the grieving parents of a fallen hero.

At the end of the day, anyone who has worked within the administrative branch of Government understands that digital communication and sharing of documents is performed exclusively via your appropriate government-assigned server. To exempt oneself, not as a matter of seeking selective avoidance, but as a matter of routine. We`re not discussing issues pertaining to Health Care. This avoidance of use of a Government Server involved the highest level of National Security. Where trivialization can result in a cynical disregard of the protocol to which a person can be given privilege. Only diehard supporters, indifferent to consequence, cannot process such a reality. We even hold the closest people in our lives accountable. A leader in democratic government should be held as accountable to principles of loyalty and allegiance as we do a spouse. There is no more serious violation of rank and privilege than being disloyal. When one creates an electronic channel of silence and secrecy, thats tantamount to making a statement of intent to avoid detection. We`re not discussing a chance incident, but a selected pattern of conduct. Are we so subservient or lacking of collective agency to willingly surrender our personal and collective rights ? In order to preserve the immunity of our leadership-elite ! If so then we aren`t much more evolved as a society than the North Korea. In fact, if we, as a society are willing to grant such immunity, then our leaders must have conditioned us in obedience that they don`t even need the draconian methods used in overtly tyrannical societies. If the indictment rumour is true, then we should feel relieved that one layer of checks and balances has retained its moral obligation.

Of course you are right.
Unfortunately you wont convince Kevin (for obvious reasons).
But I think your response is supported by a mathematical formula which makes it easier to see which of our politicians have been part of the "gang-up" on the rest of us regular U.S. Citizens who just want a fighting chance.
Since Bush 1 and 2, Paul Ryan, Boehner, and Romney have stated their refusal to attend the R.P. Convention, there can`t be a better certificate of endorsement that Donald Trump`s NOT one of them.
When you think that these same "conscientious objectors" let this Administration sell America down the drain without uttering a sound of protest.
In other words, those who say "anyone but Trump", endured an Administration that flooded us with illegals, allowed our Imperial leader to release thousands of serious felons from incarceration into our neighborhoods, created Sanctuary Cities, riled up the rioters with vitriol that always made the cops look bad, leading to racially-motivated riots and the unnecessary prosecution, intimidation and even execution of cops, making every-day life more-dangerous for all of us.
These same politicians partnered with Mega-Pharmaceuticals, while using government-paid scientists to monger fear, in order to foist an out-of-control vaccine industry on pregnant women, very young infants,and very-old and medical frail populations (previously out of-bounds for obvious medical reasons).
They deregulated Drugs, Food and Agricultural products, partnering with those agencies designated to safeguard us. What ensued was the elimination of those safeguards that protected us against the harmful effects of accelerating the growth of corn and beef via the use of G.M.O. seeds and Growth Hormone, artificial-light, and sleep-deprivation( practices banned in the rest of the world); as well as pesticides, (which sterilizes food and water but eventually poisons us as well); while polluting our air with chem-trails (causing spikes in a variety of cancers such as Carcinoma of the bladder and Mesotheliomas).
These same politicians refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of someone who was voted in by the majority of free citizens who don`t want their lives controlled by the inflated beurocracy of Big Government partnered with Big Industry. In matters of National Defense, these politicians didn`t protest when the Commander in Chief put America into retreat, causing our enemies to become more brazen and threatening, while our allies our quiver in fear, abandoned by a one-time Super-Power, while at the mercy of newly-emerging global terrorist threats that our leaders refuse to identify or confront.
#Trump, aside from passing the litmus test (of being despised by those who abused their privilege of representing us when they could), appeals to anyone, of any race or color (of course they`ll never tell you that), who believes in a merit-driven system, unregulated by unnecessary taxes and side-deals. Because those who are currently in power have legislated thousands of "sweetheart-deals" that make the rich get richer while the middle-class is distracted by an economic system so over-regulated that it simply cannot grow. And then they fudge the figures, boasting a 5% unemployment with 95 million Americans out-of work. Trump has privately demonstrated that one can succeed, without running an economy (or foreign-policy) secretly; or behind closed doors, or in backroom deals, or on private e-mail servers which leave no trace of accountability.
Those who have profited by these methods at our expense will stop at nothing to delegitimize him.
Why would they want to lose their privilege and allow "#America to become Great Again ?".

Remember the Wicked Witch of the East in the "The Wizard of Oz". Using likeability as a measure of outcome, is like using it a predictor of the next world champion in Ultimate Combat.
America now has a lethal form of cancer. There are several treatments. None of them are likeable.
When Trump steps into "the cage" with crooked Hillary, he will tell her what we all know but are too polite to say.
It won`t be nice. But she`ll have to be carried off the first debate-floor.

I have the utmost respect for Mr. Comey, as I did for General Stanley McCrystal, former Head of Combined Nato Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.
He was faced with a similar dilemma to that of James Comey. And he chose to resign, rather than be forced to lose the wars he had been commissioned to win.
Obama developed a pathological disdain for McCrystal`s vision of winning both in Iraq and Afghanistan. Allowing McCrystal to win both of those wars became Obama`s nightmare:
To the point that after the president failed in his bid for the 2012 Olympics in Copenhagen, Obama cancelled his scheduled golf match in Washington and had Air Force One diverted to London.
McCrystal was promptly summoned from a NATO Summit to Air-Force One where he was scolded for 2 hours for divulging the truth about Washington having no intention of winning either war.
The significance of that reality became trivial in comparison to the deflation of the Archetypal Narcissist`s desire to divert the narrative to the surreptitious appearance of ISIS (which was still in its early stages of development).
The better Comey executes, the greater the embarrassment to the W.H. He`s already under tremendous pressure to be an obedient surrogate, just as Justice Roberts became for the successful passage of the "Affordable Care Act" ( where the Chief Justice was bribed or coerced into redefining the Constitution).
To date, no-one in the U.S. Government has been able to prevail over the wishes of our Imperial President.
Comey also knows that even if he recommends an indictment of Clinton, it will be denied by the Attorney Journal.
However, his integrity is so much greater than that of the President or any other personality in government today; that if a failure to indict Hillary leads to his resignation, the public shockwaves will deprive her of the presidency. And that could save the country.

One possible chain of events: The volume of evidence incriminating Hillary of a blatant disregard for the National Security of the U.S. (for which she remains totally unrepentant) has reached a threshold that demands an indictment. Unlike Supreme Court Judge Roberts and Speaker Boehner, James Comey is a man of integrity. Intimidation by the White-House and resistance from the Justice Department leave Comey with no option but to resign, and do so immediately. (Not in 6-months when it will be forgotten, as Obama will certainly request). The wave of public outrage does the necessary damage of disqualifying her for presidency. Although justice wont be served, America will be saved.

My post in fact began as a comment to an article by Darcia Narvaez, Associate Professor of Psychology at the University Of Notre Dame. Her post (published in Psychology Today) addressed the problem of how parents of the "me-generation", whose child-rearing practice allowed their babies to “cry-it–out” for the night (enabling them not be disturbed). Abnormalities were appearing in the patterns of their "doodle-diaries". While Developmental Theorists such as Margaret Mahler, Donald Winnicott and Franz Kohut used direct anecdote as evidence for their developmental theories, we at Primate Behavior Laboratory at the SUNY Health Sciences Center, attempted to provide a more scientific template to support her findings by examining infant-primates nursed by mothers under three sets of foraging conditions: Those infant-cubs randomly assigned to a model of unpredictable foraging not only showed persistent patterns of stress-hormone elevation, but were more aggressive with their siblings, and became less-nurturing to their own infants when they became mothers. The Study was published in the Annals of the New York Academy of Science. The findings were conducted with scientific rigour, and were significant in that infants subjected to erratic foraging or deprivation, later show disruption of neural pathways involved in self-soothing functions.

.

In response to your comment, at first glance the article would appear to fit your cynicism about disconnected academics looking for some topic to show that they can still find something, or anything, to publish. The opposite is true. This article began as a comment to an article by Darcia Narvaez, Associate Professor of Psychology at the University Of Notre Dame, whose post in Psychology Today of how parents of the "me-generation, whose child-rearing practice of allowing their babies to “cry-it–out” for the night (enabling them not be disturbed) was showing up in "doodle-diaries". The post garnished a record number of reads. Since I have an interest in the science of early childhoodhood deprivation, my post attempts to apply theories of Developmental Psychologists, Attachment Theory, with studies currently being conducted at the Primate Behavior Laboratory at the SUNY Health Sciences Center. In a study of infant-primates nursed by mothers those infant-cubs randomly assigned to a model of unpredictable foraging, not only showed persistent patterns of stress-hormone elevation, but were more aggressive with their siblings, and became less-nurturing to their own infants when they became mothers. The Study was published in the Annals of the New York Academy of Science, and provides a scientific template to support the findings that infants subjected to erratic foraging or deprivation later show disruption of neural pathways involved in self-soothing functions, which are also reflected in Hippocampal volume loss and underactivity in Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy Studies.

Darcia Narvaez, an Associate Professor of Psychology at the University Of Notre Dame, recently wrote in Psychology Today how “crying-it –out” could be dangerous for children, even leading to lifetime harm.
In trauma research, foraging patterns are used to study stress responses by replicating different attachment models.
A research team led by Leonard Rosenblum and Jeremy Coplan from the Primate Behavior Laboratory at the SUNY Health Sciences Center, Brooklyn, studied infant primates nursed by mothers randomly assigned to a variety of foraging conditions.
Using this research model, stress hormones were elevated in infants whose foraging pattern was totally unpredictable (Nonhuman Primates Exposed to Unpredictable Early Rearing: Relevance to PTSD, Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 1997).
Good parenting involves a parent correctly identifying and validating a child’s experience. This is sometimes referred to as a mirroring response. When children feel protected, they are more successfully able to learn effective coping strategies, both cognitively (“everything will be all right”) and behaviorally (such as eliciting social support).
Healthy maturation allows one to face negative emotions in relationships by holding onto good internalized objects (such as parents) which have a soothing and containing effect.
When this capacity is lacking because of early neglect or abuse, victims are more likely to continuously re-experience and re-enact their early abuses without any emotional safety buffers.
The Neurobiological underpinning of mood dysregulation appears to be driven by the loss of Hippocampal volume, particularly in the left-brain, during prolonged trauma. This results in the accumulation of cytotoxic levels of glucocorticoids and glutamate.
The Hippocampus and amygdala are structures in the limbic brain that are respectively responsible for the restraint or activation of the Hypothalamic-Pituitary-Adrenal Axis.
Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy and other functional imaging techniques have recently demonstrated that the right Hippocampus mediates unpleasant moods and subjective experiences, which include feeling endangered and becoming hyper-vigilant.
The left Hippocampus, in contrast, mediates a sense of comfort and well-being.
The fact that trauma appears to cause more shrinkage on the left has a compounding result of more unpleasant feelings, as well as excessive emotional arousal.
Their findings support the notion that adverse early rearing experiences have longstanding effects on neurochemicals relevant to emotional regulation.
By manipulating foraging conditions, these researchers created a laboratory model that corresponds to a parent who is unavailable during the critical “rapprochement phase”, described by Margaret Mahler.
Mahler`s benchmark of successful development requires the transition from a symbiotic dependence on the mother to the achievement of a stable individual identity within the world.
Their findings support the notion that adverse early rearing experiences have longstanding effects on neurochemicals relevant to emotional regulation.
By manipulating foraging conditions, these researchers created a laboratory model that corresponds to a parent who is unavailable during the critical “rapprochement phase”, described by Margaret Mahler.
Mahler`s benchmark of successful development requires the transition from a symbiotic dependence on the mother to the achievement of a stable individual identity within the world.
Mahler refers to this process as essential for the successful psychological birth of the child, or separation-individuation The Psychological Birth of the Human Infant, Margaret Mahler, Fred Pine, and Ann Bergman New York, Basic Books, 1975).
In order to simultaneously facilitate the process of the child`s individuation, the parent has to “walk through” each developmental stage with their child in a sharing and empathic way, paying attention to the child’s bonding cues.
Mature object-relationships require the right balance between nurture and graded separation.
In order to accomplish this, the “good parent” remains only as far as the child can tolerate, and is predictably available for emotional “refueling” upon recall by the child.
This process of internalizing and then self-regulating, is what Masterson calls “secure attachment” where adequate ego functioning must develop within the child to constrain the frustrations inherent to separation.
How the infant internalizes his experience of the caretaker is what determines the final outcome of how the infant will experience himself.
Resolution of the rapprochement crisis is considered by Mahler as essential developmental requirement.
It would appear that this process of “early-soothing” (provided by the good caretaker), also ensures the healthy development of those limbic structures in the Hippocampus that are responsible for subsequent “self-soothing” function (described by Winnicott in “The Maturational Process and the Facilitating Environment”).
These early experiences are also “downloaded” to form the templates for a variety of subsequent self-functions, including sense of agency, affect-regulation, and sense of empowerment, which are crucial assets for recall during times of psychological trauma.
Extended caretaker failure to provide empathy may lead to deficits ranging from shyness and introversion to serious disorders of the self.
Successful conclusion of this stage is what enables victims, following a trauma, to summon surrogate caretakers such as friends and family in order to reawaken latent soothing self-objects from childhood.
Kohut notes that victims do better when they have assimilated the positive emotions of their caretakers (Restoration of the Self New York: International Universities Press, 1977).
This includes the caretaker’s gentleness, tone of voice, mood, and empathic responses.
If a victim successfully internalized the parent as a good self-object during childhood, the individual will be far more receptive to being comforted during stress by surrogate caretakers.
Under favorable caretaking (foraging) conditions, developmental psychologists explain that these initial good “self-objects” become internalized, and are easily rekindled via bonding with new significant others (such as spouses, siblings, friends, chaplains, or therapists) who can then function as soothing “transitional objects” during times of crisis.

Renowned British Gastroenterologist endured 10 years of exile, sanction, and boycott following his Lancet Report of 12 cases of Autism-Spectrum Disorder presenting to him with refractory Inflammatory Bowel Disease. Biopsies of these cases showed a striking similarity: They all showed strange Inclusion Bodies in their Pathology samples. They also had all developed symptoms of Autism within days of receiving M.M.R. Despite the avid support of these children`s parents, he lost his licence and his name became a became in the British Medical Establishment. He hadn't realized before then that he had incurred the wrath of the multi-billion dollar M.M.R. Program. He first got to tell the story with the release of the documentary "VAXXED", which is showing in a handful of exclusive Movie-Theaters in New York. What turned-out to be the gamechanger ? Finally, unable to live with the big-lie driving the M.M.R. Industry, two of the original researchers in the original C.D.C. Study published in "Pediatrics" became whistle-blowers. Drs. Thompson and Hooker relate in the documentary how the original data not only confirmed Dr. Wakefield's findings, that they had been ordered by the Director of the C.D.C. herself, Dr. Gerberding, to redact the data, thereby carving-out of the Vaccine Safety Study, the most vulnerable patients, (African-American boys under the age of 5-years), but that she had known all along that the landmark study had been seriously and wilfully altered, to produce the desired results supporting the multi-billion M.M.R. Program, which is now used world wide. While the prevalence of Autism world-wide has increased from 1/10,000 to 1/55, an entire generation of physicians was educated about its mythical safety. While 430 cases of Measles in the U.S. was used to reinforce a Department of Health Mandate of M.M.R., the safer alternative of single-strain Measles-Inoculation was pulled from the shelves and is no-longer available to the public. While a Special Congressional Hearing was called in 2014, not one of the doctors have been subpoenaed to make the confession they eagerly await. While Dr. Gerberding has now left the C.D.C. and is Medical Director of Merck; - the manufacturer. Read more at http://www.naturalnews.com/046630_CDC_whistleblower_public_confession_Dr_William_Thompson.html

In the Early versions of psychiatric classifications, the trauma literature was dominated by combat trauma reported in World War II. Many of the symptoms that we today would call “PTSD” were captured by terms such as “combat neurosis” or “war neurosis.”
In fact, the DSM-II reflected the model proposed by Kardiner and Spiegel in their manuscript “War, Stress, and Neurotic Illness.” The manuscript was later revised and published under the title “The Traumatic Neurosis of War” (New York: Hoeber, 1947)
In the middle of the 1970`s, "Post Traumatic Stress Disorder," otherwise referred to as “PTSD”, was first proposed for inclusion in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Third Edition (DSM-III).
By the time DSM-III was first publicized in 1980, sufficient data was available to justify the PTSD construct and thereby replace the “Traumatic Neurosis” construct of DSM-II.
Since then, the lay community as well as physicians tended to conform to a reductionist terminology, attempting to lump all traumatic conditions into the PTSD construct.
Despite the attempts of experts to widen the enduring effects of trauma beyond the narrow construct of “PTSD” remains as the only construct for persistent, unresolved trauma,” and is categorized in the DSM IV as an “Anxiety Disorder”.
Several factors will influence the outcome of a particular trauma:
When someone is the victim of a serious, usually unexpected, trauma, external rescue-responses need to be rapid and robust. This is very important for psychological damage-control.
In contrast, external rescue resources sometimes fail; a result of negligence, indifference or even collusion by appointed caretakers.
There are social, legal, and political factors that can either deter or facilitate the likelihood of the occurrence of a traumatic event.
There are numerous reports of domestic and political terrorism where clear warning signs were ignored by mandated reporters, judges, and Intelligence Agencies, leading to horrendous violence which was entirely preventable.
Two clear examples of such negligence were the 9/11 attacks and the shooting at Fort Hood.
The most benign responses reported by trauma survivors would fall under the umbrella of "Trauma-Related Symptoms."
In such cases, victims may experience worry, apprehension, and sleep disturbance. But when these victims receive or actively pursue rescue resources, even in the form of simple social bonding and "ventilation," these symptoms (despite appearing quite disruptive), tend to be benign and self-limiting.
When the trauma is of higher intensity and duration and rescue services fail, victims are much more likely to develop the more serious trauma-induced condition of "Acute Stress Disorder", viewed by experts as a harbinger of PTSD.
This explains how victims of life-altering traumatic events may show little recollection of certain details of the traumatic event. Some victims have no recollection of the entire event.
Because of the brain’s inability to successfully "process" or "resolve" a serious psychological trauma, elements of the trauma are left to fester or "ferment".
According to Donald Kalsched from the Carl Jung Institute, if left unchecked this "Trauma-Complex" becomes autonomous and "self-traumatizing". (“The Inner World of Trauma” Brunner-Routledge, 1996)
Neurobiologists, explain this phenomenon as "limbic kindling".
When a trauma is not “put to rest”, stress-circuits in the limbic-brain, Sympathetic Nervous System, and adrenal glands, remain "primed" to be re-activated as "alert-systems" to further trauma-triggers.
Patients with PTSD are constantly vigilant to the perception of threat (“Selective Processing of Threat Cues”, McNally and colleagues, J Abnormal Psych, 1990).
Because of failed synthetic functioning in the Hippocampus, PTSD patients are prone to randomly re-experience the original trauma as if it were occurring in the present; a phenomenon known as "flashbacks".
This trauma-generated failure of synthetic brain-function also leads to the "over-memorization" of fragmented trauma-recollections, images and sensations. In contrast, victims who have coped better with trauma are more able to formulate a coherent, less emotionally- threatening memory of the trauma-narrative (Foa, 1995).
At a biological level, neurotransmitters generated from overwhelming stress exert a toxic effect on the Hippocampus, inhibiting the “processing” function that is required to organize sensory-dominated trauma-recollections into a rational coherent trauma narrative (Sapolsky, Science, 1996).
Put differently, one could say that in PTSD, the "emotional brain" assumes dominance over the "rational brain".
The reason appears to be the failure of the Hippocampus to create abstract verbal representations that inhibit the brain’s access to sensory-perceptual recollections of the traumatic event (Conway & Pearce, Psychological Review, 2000).
Because of fear-sensitization, heightened threat-sensation, and failed verbal-encoding, PTSD victims continue to live their lives within a narrow "Fear Paradigm" (Brewin, 1996).
"Avoidance" refers to a victim’s flight from any thoughts or feelings that could serve as trauma-reminders. The "Avoidance Defense" also shelters the victim from engaging in a world dominated by external trauma-triggers.
Activation of "negative feedback loops" and other "brake-systems" drives avoidance behaviors and serves a defensive function, but comes at a price:
Victims with dominant avoidance symptoms cannot creatively re-engage socially or into the workplace (Goleman, 1995).
"Over-arousal" is the result of persistent over-activation of central stress circuits such as the "sympathetic nervous system"." One this occurs, the individual will continuously scan the environment to identify danger-signals, which subsequently reinforce the perception of danger, hence maintaining the state of "alert."
Persistence of the three above-mentioned domains of symptoms for a month or longer constitute the core elements of PTSD.
Further downstream effects of unremitting stress include a multitude of somatic systems including chronic pain, immune function, and chronic ware-and-tear of the cardiovascular system caused by persistent arousal of the Sympathetic Nervous System (Uno and colleagues, J. Neurosci. 1989).

During the “Cold War,” individuals living under Soviet rule would have to be on constant guard against “thought police.”
Children were indoctrinated in school to inform authorities, even on their parents if they spoke critically or even questioningly against the State, even within the privacy of their home.
An entire society was forbidden to follow a bible-based morality.
In political tyranny, rulers manipulate educational systems, the entertainment industry and media outlets to “dumb down” the masses.
Rulers have always found it easier to impose their agenda on a population never trained in the art of critical thinking.
On a collective level, this is not that different from the narcissist who always wants to surround himself with those who “admire” him.
When powerful dictators re-enact their grandiosity on the world stage, the pathology of their narcissism is evidenced by their inability to realize that a free-thinking society views such behavior with disdain.
A common methodology of winning over groups to the sway of simplistic ideologies is through combining seduction with intimidation.
The concept of the “Stockholm syndrome” began on August 23, 1973, when Jan Olsson began a bank robbery that would forever transform the spectrum of how the world would view the outcome of hostage situations.
It started with the storming of a local Kredit Bank in downtown Stockholm, Sweden, and the shooting of the police officers who had gone in after Olsson.
With this action, a six-day ordeal and hostage situation known as the Norrmalmstorg Robbery began.
Three women and one man were confined to a small room, fighting to survive. Four hostages were taken into the bank’s vault. Dynamite was strapped to them, and they were rigged to traps that would kill the hostages regardless of any rescue attempts.
Yet when these captives were released, they had more sympathy for their captors than the police who had rescued them – and went so far as to publicly decry their own rescue. Two of the hostages became friends with the captors, establishing a fund to help pay for their defense fees accrued through the trial. They continue to support their captors against the police even today.
The psychologist Nils Bejerot named the captives’ attachment towards their abusers the “Stockholm Syndrome” (“The Six-Day War in Stockholm,” Published in the New Scientist, 61, 1974).
While the phenomenon of “emotional bonding” between hostages and their captors had been familiar in psychological circles, the use of the term “Stockholm syndrome” became popularized following the publicity of two more high profile hostage cases: Patricia Hearst and Elizabeth Smart.
Both cases involve the kidnapping of a woman to pursue of ideals of their captors.
In the case of Elizabeth Smart, it is believed that at the young age of fourteen, her instincts for survival resulted in the development of a strong bond between her and her captor, Brian Mitchell.
Three days after her kidnapping, Smart had heard her uncle searching and calling for her, not far from her hidden location, but did not call out for help.
There are many theories about why certain hostages remain obedient and even show resistance to being rescued.
Unlike Hearst, Smart did not speak out against her captor for many years after returning to regular life.
In many cases of Stockholm syndrome, families react with disbelief when hostages remain silent about their relationships with their captors, and defensive about their choices to avoid seeking rescue.
It is now believed that an integral dynamic in the Stockholm syndrome is the unique bond of loyalty established between the hostage and his or her captor (”Love Thine Enemy; Hostages and the Classic Stockholm syndrome,” Graham Dee and colleagues, NY University Press, 1994).
Experts postulate that a unique attachment is established between the victim and captor evolving from the exclusive dependence by the former on the latter.
In exchange for the restricted life granted by the captor, these victims are willing to adopt a false reality in which no harm can come to them. In this apparent act of self-deception, victims of Stockholm syndrome believe that their irrational empathy for their captors and their ideologies will protect them.
The psychological dynamics dominating subservient bonding patterns have been previously conducted among abused children and women, victims of incest, and cult members.
On a more global scale, this pattern of compliance and obedience has been exhibited by large segments of population living under tyranny.
It occurred under Communist dictatorships such as the Soviet Union and Cuba, and is still found in modern dictatorships such as North Korea, Venezuela, and Iran.
In this fashion (through a combination of pervasive threat, isolation, and government-mediated propaganda), a political tyranny has been asserted over the collective consciousness of large populations. Like in the classic form of Stockholm syndrome, groups of “hostages” are inducted into the mythical ideologies of their masters.
When entire communities lose their power of critical thinking, there is nothing to protect them from the exploitations of their ‘anointed’ leaders. Adherents are rewarded by a shared devotion to lofty, quasi-mystical attributions of meaning devised by the idealized leader’s social and political goals.
Within this religious or political model, unquestioning dogma can explain all facets of life. While lacking some of the other attributes of Stockholm syndrome, the replacement of autonomous, critical thinking by the “science” of a “sacred” ideology may, in fact, constitute a newer and softer form of political tyranny (“Psychological Induction into the large-group,” Marc Galanter, Am J Psychiatry,1980).

When I arrived in Brooklyn my mentor at the University of British Columbia had recommended that rather than just "getting a job" (as a newly qualified psychiatrist), that I remain in academia as long as possible. Over the following 20 years I tried to find a balance between community-service, teaching, and clinical research. I was fortunate in that I had the opportunity to work with some of the most brilliant scholars, clinicians, and academicians in the country. As long as the political climate allowed it, I remained at SUNY Health Science Center, which, although not generally as famous as places like Stanford and John Hopkins, was rated among the top ten in the country in Neurosciences. I won the trust of the Dean of the medical School, Dr. Jean Feigenson, to represent the department in creating a new curriculum. The task was to integrate the didactic and clinical rotations in a format most conducive to educating medical students in the various components of Neuroscience, such as Neuropathology, pharmacology, clinical neurology and psychiatry into one expanded construct where everything would fit and could later be easily recalled and applied in the clinical arena.