I think the other part is actually an earnest culture failure rather an enemy action.
Being alive at the time, it really DID seem like things were mostly okay, wee just had to adress a few misalignment and it'd all be dandy, for the most part nothing was too bad for anybody, and so if somebody was violent or depressed or otherwise anti-scocial, it wouldn't take much to get them back on track.
As for everybody else, prisoners dilema was the word. Teach everyone to pick option A and humanity flourishes.
You're watching a high trust society propagandized high trust. Which isn't a bad thing at all, but as soon as the context changes it looks self-destructive.
Look past the "violence never solved anything" I get that that's the focuse because if you did that it'd help the current situations. But the other messages that were common at the time were consistent with the idea of cooperation. Do your part. Work together. We are more than the sum of our parts. Leave no trace. Etc etc.
The cultural Moores of cooperation, self-control, kindness to the less fortunate were all positive moral lessons. The problem is that Enemy actors co-opt the language while using an ethical framework. The rule of their system is, note the groups most willing to cooperate and then working to accumulate reasons for them to "share" with you to your advantage.
"Youre a bad person if you dont give me what I want"
The other part that is missing is the Christian responsibility portion. It's all well and good to say wives be submissive to your husbands, but the other ethical standard of correcting your own behavior first preempts the obvious social loophole of saying "the Bible says put others before yourself, so you should put me before you and give me what I want"
I think the other part is actually an earnest culture failure rather an enemy action.
Being alive at the time, it really DID seem like things were mostly okay, wee just had to adress a few misalignment and it'd all be dandy, for the most part nothing was too bad for anybody, and so if somebody was violent or depressed or otherwise anti-scocial, it wouldn't take much to get them back on track.
As for everybody else, prisoners dilema was the word. Teach everyone to pick option A and humanity flourishes.
You're watching a high trust society propagandized high trust. Which isn't a bad thing at all, but as soon as the context changes it looks self-destructive.
Look past the "violence never solved anything" I get that that's the focuse because if you did that it'd help the current situations. But the other messages that were common at the time were consistent with the idea of cooperation. Do your part. Work together. We are more than the sum of our parts. Leave no trace. Etc etc.
The cultural Moores of cooperation, self-control, kindness to the less fortunate were all positive moral lessons. The problem is that Enemy actors co-opt the language while using an ethical framework. The rule of their system is, note the groups most willing to cooperate and then working to accumulate reasons for them to "share" with you to your advantage.
"Youre a bad person if you dont give me what I want"
The other part that is missing is the Christian responsibility portion. It's all well and good to say wives be submissive to your husbands, but the other ethical standard of correcting your own behavior first preempts the obvious social loophole of saying "the Bible says put others before yourself, so you should put me before you and give me what I want"