I"m not much better versed than you, and could well be less versed, but I've always thought that the Stockholm Syndrome was not instilling loyalty through threat, but sympathy, which assumes that no matter how twisted, there is something to sympathize with, and also that the sympathy is generated from the victim, not a conscious attempt from the threatener. Generating loyalty through a breakdown of self through the use of threat sounds more like brainwashing. By my analysis we are talking about the same process for the same goals, just a different term.
There is, however, a difference in intent. The hostage takers in Stockholm did not intend to convert people, they intended to take hostages. They tried to justify themselves and were convincing. I am not aware of the details enough to be convinced that this was a warping of the hostage's psyches or a rationalization on the part of the powers that be, refusing to admit the possibility that the hostage takers had a sympathetic position.
I constantly hear how American women are being broken down by the assumption of unattainable goals - of beauty, of success as both a mother and a career (though success is defined through salary, and women are assumed to be worth less, so even those who succeed are denied success), they are far better at explaining it than I. Men have the same, except that it's first a job (so they are constantly in fear of arbitrary layoffs) and salary (which is never enough, never what they deserve or need). Since the attacks are generated through gender roles the damage manifests itself through gender and sexuality and is then attacked that way through the same propaganda (All women are paranoid and unworthy and all men are lazy and rapists)
In my opinion the goal is not loyalty, but docility. People are being stripped of the self-worth to stand up for themselves and stripped of the hope of gaining strength by allying with others.