共軛斯德哥爾摩綜合症

斯德哥爾摩綜合症乃是說，強盜虐待人質許久，到最後其對人質稍有好處，人質便感恩戴德，反為其開脫、讚美甚至愛上強盜。從心理學上看，人質被長期扣押，自己的心理狀態已經絕望；死都是隨時隨地的事情，活著已經滿足，益處定為奢望。因此強盜一點“好處”，就會令他想入非非、喜出望外？ 日常生活中，極端刻薄猥瑣貪婪之人，某天突然“慷慨”地把家裏無用垃圾物什拿來送人，常也能讓人感動乃至流涕，以為天大恩惠。北朝和老mao時代，受盡淩辱而對金、mao 死心塌地者，不計其數。

 

斯德哥爾摩綜合症之發病地，多在強權國家、布爾國家。因為那裏的左派已經通過暴力取得了勝利，獲得了全麵的強力控製權。那裏的患者（被控製者）不僅經常讚美施虐者，為惡人辯護，甚至反過來仇恨同情且欲行拯救者。

 

因此，作為心智正常之人， 雖然我們曾在前30年經受苦難，也失去了相當多的自由；後來恢複Gao考、“落實”政策、糾正冤\案之類的事情，好比有人奪去我們萬萬， 歸還一百本是為了延續，也為提高奴役效率。故我們對此完全不必感恩戴德， 更不應該反過來認賊作父、視友為敵。

 

那麽與斯德哥爾摩綜合症 “共軛 （conjugate） ” 的孿生病症是什麽呢？

 

那就是當一個人做“好人”時間長了以後，當大家好日子過久了以後，就會認為“好事”乃是天經地義，好日子不足為奇。做好事之人稍有怠慢、閃失（甚至根本就沒有大過犯的情況下）就會引起巨大憤怒。夫婦之間，朋友之間，同事之間， 國家之間常常如此。 心理學上：你逆來順受，天天做好事之人，我們已經習慣了，你居然可以出格不遜？ 幫忙十次， 一次不到就得罪；教會某教友，替某“慕道友”無償接送孩子上下學數年，最後實在吃不消而放棄，反落下“某教友原來好人，後來不好了”之口實。所謂寸布恩,丈布仇，言者如斯。

 

在已經實現製度平等、製度尊重的國度，不僅不知足感恩，反而人為製造傾斜平等，變態尊重。照顧男人上女廁所之變態意願，同情癮君子吸大麻的感受，迎合非法移民之需求，屈就蠻橫宗教，憐憫罪犯。。。。。欲成就錦上添“花”、美中加“美”。 說白了，這一切都是好日子過得太久、太舒服了。用最通俗的話來講， 就是：吃飽撐的沒事幹， 實在不如洗黑炭！ 假若西方國家依然處在溫飽階段，或者戰爭階段， 不太可能發生這些無病呻吟之荒誕劇。左派表麵是做“好事”，事實上是鼓勵懶惰、鼓勵作惡，鼓勵違法，是惟恐天下不亂。

 

歐洲、美國左派，好日子過久了，不知道真正的痛苦和磨難在哪裏！於是就雞蛋裏麵找骨頭。在文明國家尋找“不文明”；他們揮動開山斧，充當急先鋒 在自由國度反為自由之敵開疆拓土，侵蝕自由！在文明國度反為文明之敵往來衝突擊打文明！ 往輕說是矯情、無病呻吟；往中說是不識抬舉、有福沒祿；往重說，就是邪惡驅動愚昧對敵真理和公義。

 

美國從自己成為大國以來，相對來說一直很有擔當。見義勇為、慷慨助人少有怨言。當其它追隨國家都富裕起來後，本應和美國一樣多行公義，廣施憐憫。然而事實是，川普總統因為美國的長期付出，希望其他大國對美國“公平”一點。話音一出馬上捅了馬蜂窩。西方盟國、東方厲害國，都不幹了！

 

我們東方一直都是對美順差，早已習慣多時了；不讓我們占便宜，就是與我們為敵！ 我們歐洲一直接受美國保護，習以為常許久了！讓我們對美國公平一點？ 那美國就不再是我們的盟友！任性是我特權，忍讓是你本分。

 

《菜根譚》說：過儉則吝，過謙則卑，個人與國家同為一理。好日子過久了需要吃一點苦頭才能明白事理；做好人若“謙讓”過度，你以及你的美意常會被輕賤鄙視。主耶穌說： 不要把聖物給狗，也不要把你們的珍珠丟在豬前，恐怕牠踐踏了珍珠，轉過來咬你們 【新約聖經：太七6】 。屬靈意義是：勿讓福音受羞辱；屬世意義為：文明要與向往文明之人分享，自由要與珍惜自由之人分享，愛要與懂愛之人分享。智慧言語說與謙卑人聽，花贈愛花人。

 

斯德哥爾摩綜合症是在專橫之地，受虐之人反為施虐者辯護，維持專橫； “共軛”斯德哥爾摩綜合症多發生在發達國家自由富足之地、左派人群之中。享福之人不僅不惜福，反自我摧殘、輕賤、自己毀滅富足、親手卑賤地出讓、斷送幸福和自由。
 

奈何斯德哥爾摩綜合症患者害怕惡人反“熱心”為惡人辯護，欲得“寬容”美名？ “共軛”斯德哥爾摩綜合症患者明知善人寬容，於是就“勇敢”探尋他們瑕疵，欲得“公義”及“不畏強暴”之名聲？

 

“富貴不能淫，貧賤不能移，威武不能屈，此之謂大丈夫 ”。即便我們做不了孟子言下之大丈夫， 受虐不抗爭而沉默、享福不感恩而無言；拒絕反過來助紂為虐扶持惡人，拒絕反過來擊打義人，踐行做人之起碼底線並不困難。

 

 

[topmax]

Whatever

[HCC]

@nightrider

I think what is more imperative for you is to get your facts straight.

Recognize that the world is not all trying to "fleece" the U.S., and stop falling prey to the wild and nutty conspiracy theories that are laughable to a normal person capable of independent thinking. Mr. Trump is not widely regarded as a person of substantial intelligence or wisdom. There is a good reason for that. Your rush to his ideology's aid will likely result in regret one day.

[HCC]

@nightrider


Your second paragraph is equally misplaced.

Europeans paid for their own defense. Yes -- the U.S. paid the largest share for NATO -- at 22%. No -- that does not mean Europeans aren't paying their bills. Europeans pay for 78% of NATO budget (including Canada, which pays 6.3%) -- 3.5 times more than the US.


Your claim of Europe "...charging much higher tariffs on our exports than we theirs" is simply not the case. See below:

"WTO statistics show that the EU’s average trade-weighted tariff was 3 per cent in 2015, the latest year for which this figure was available. Canada’s average trade-weighted tariff was 3.1 per cent, compared with 2.4 per cent for the US."

See https://www.ft.com/content/2edf26f8-6b28-11e8-b6eb-4acfcfb08c11

That is hardly "much higher."



Didn't I tell you to be wary of the words of Mr. Trump?

[HCC]

@nightrider


Nope.

Firstly, your claim of "China had promised to allow over 50% controlling holding of financial institutions" is flat out wrong.

What "financial institution" are you talking about? Bank? Insurance company? Brokerage firm? China promised different things for different entities. For non-life insurance, it is 51%. For life-insurance, it is 50%. For asset management companies, it is 49% (3 years after entry to WTO). For brokerages, it is 1/3. Not to mention, China already agreed to relax the ownership limits since last year.

Do you even know what you are talking about?

Which promise did China not comply? Did you know that one could file a complaint against it in the WTO and ask for a panel to be established to rule on the complaint? How many complaints were filed against China for this "50% controlling holding of financial institutions"?



Secondly, the former WTO Director-General Pascal Lamy gave China an "A+" for its performance since its entry to the WTO.

(See http://www.businessinsider.com/us-trade-disputes-dont-stop-the-wto-from-giving-china-an-a-2011-10)

Mr. Lamy also blasted the U.S. for not complying with rules.

(See https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-wto/wto-should-prepare-for-life-without-u-s-ex-chief-lamy-says-idUSKCN1G326S)


The above also does not change the fact that the U.S. is the one who is the most sued in WTO -- more so than any other country or region, period.


Don't let words from one side of trade muddy your judgment.

[nightrider]

@HCC:

It is you who needs to fact check. China has reneged on many commitments made to gain accession to WTO. For example, it had promised to allow over 50% controlling holding of financial institutions; it had promised to refrain from requiring technology transfer as a condition of market access; it had promised to open the telecommunications market to foreign producers.

As for the European allies, they have been relying on the generous defense expenditure of the US paid for dearly by us the taxpayers and saving their military budget to sustain their socialist welfare states and feed their lazy and slouches. They have been charging much higher tariffs on our exports than we theirs.

Yes, we, including the previous presidents, have tolerated us being fleeced. That does not mean we have been happy about it. It is now time to right the wrongs and to reckon the debt.

[nightrider]

Good article!

[HCC]

>>>然而事實是，川普總統因為美國的長期付出，希望其他大國對美國“公平”一點。話音一出馬上捅了馬蜂窩。西方盟國、東方厲害國，都不幹了！

完全不是事實。

川普胡言亂語一通是他的事，版主不查查就照本宣科那就是你的責任了。其他大國何來“不公平”了？所有國家依照WTO規則進行貿易，規則也是美國同意的。運作多年，隻有川普突然一拍腦袋，覺得吃虧了。買東西賣東西都是美國人外國人同意才行，那來甚麽“不公平”？要說不公平－－在WTO裏貿易不公被告最多次的，就是美國（被告145次，無國能及）。

要說順差，嗬嗬，隻見外國人賺美金，不見美國人轉身再去印美金？

真以為美國前任總統們，美聯儲主席們，高盛出身的財政經濟部長們，全世界最多諾貝爾經濟獎得主們都是苯蛋？

不如一個破產６次兼被告詐欺賠了兩千五百萬的地產商？

川普信口開河是出了名的，奉勸不要輕信此人的囈語為佳。

[xiaoge]

言之有理

[覓音]

好文！

[TakeMyTime]

說得不錯，很有道理。