Generic Traumatic Effects on Polities
Following imposition of a traumatic event that creates individual and systemic trauma etiology, targeted members will ALWAYS and EITHER proceed into one of three general categories:
Try to disappear,psychologically speaking. Cliche — “head in the sand” — and “denial” most often describe this element of systemic traumatic influence. Its purpose: neutralize by inducing immobility of decision making into this component, for example one third of the overall targeted constituency. While being psycho-pulverized, this group both advocates for and hides behind diplomacy-based problem solving and legal solutions which otherwise are rendered moot by a dearth of enforcement provisions. Is akin to rationalizing a live-in alcoholic/drug addict’s increasingly toxically induced bizarre behavior till after thirty-five years or so of the onslaught, taking what was before unacceptability to the now new norm. Inevitably and within that newness, you are made responsible for it as well; and I’m sorry to say also opined by others and the traumatized self to have wanted it all along — classically coping through individual victim and patho-system hindsight’s perceptual reconfiguration of the pre traumatized entity.
Another portion, say again for example a second third, will respond by fighting, which is in this use to mean also caring profoundly to the extent of risking one’s life for family, neighbors, community and nation as a whole.
Aggressively support, align with, defend, help the perpetrators — Stockholm Syndrome. Along and in conjunction with the constituency hiding out in number one, this component undermines the efforts of those (in number two) who otherwise would strive to resist the invasion.