David Matthews 2 is a freelance writer in Alpharetta, Georgia. He is also the host of a weekly audio rant which you can hear at the main page.

Target: Moralism
Part 10 – Eternal Excuses In The War On Sex
– by David Matthews 2

Pastor Martin Niemöller best characterized the pattern of tyranny in his 1946 poem "First They Came…". He showed just how easy it was for people to accept the persecution of others as long as it’s done in small doses.

First they came for the communists,
I did not speak out because I was not a communist.

When they came for the social democrats,
I did not speak out because I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists
I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews
I did not speak out because I was not a Jew;

And when they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

Of course, Niemöller didn’t just speak hypothetically. He learned first hand about this as both an early supporter of Adolph Hitler’s Nazi movement and then as their victim when he later questioned their activities and was sent to the concentration camps. When he finally realized what was happening and he started to speak out about it, it was too late.

When it comes to the social cancer called moralism, it’s all a matter of increments. You don’t wake up one morning and all of a sudden find yourself in the middle of some hellish repressive tyranny. It happens a little bit at a time.

This is especially true when it comes to the moralist’s eternal war on sex and sexuality. Every step is a small one, and all done in the name of "family values".

First came the images. Paintings, sculptures… all very visible, and very public displays that offended the moralists. It was easy to enforce their tyrannical beliefs over these images because they were in places that EVERYONE could see. It’s a little hard to hide Michelangelo’s statue of David. And let’s not forget his naked figures on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. If it was displayed anyplace where the public could view it, it was the target of moralists. After all, how could you demonize the "evils" of sex and sexual expression when there’s a painting of naked people in your church, and statues of naked people in the museum?

Then came the written word. Books, poems, even select verses of the Bible were also easy targets for moralists. It wasn’t hard to do when the written word had to be hand-written. That’s why there are so many verses of the Christian Bible… because before the invention of the printing press, they all had to be hand-written! Then when the printing press was invented, moralists HAD to move to ban any publication that offended them because no matter how many books could be burned, the publisher could come up with more of them. So of course they had to pull out the excuse that "children might READ these things".

Then came photos and movies. Long before Hugh Hefner came up with Playboy Magazine, there were French postcards. The very FIRST movie was called "The Kiss", and featured a couple kissing. Of course even THAT was considered too "scandalous" for the moralists to tolerate. Some of the first movies featured naked people. Obviously moralists had to move fast to suppress THESE new mediums as well.

Then they went after public places. Pool halls, bars, dance halls, cabarets, burlesque shows… did you know that some of the best comedians performed alongside strippers? Going to a burlesque show used to be a sign of class. Then the moralists moved in… and forced the variety shows out. It’s a lot easier for them to shut down the burlesque shows when all they had left were the strippers.

Moralists didn’t even wait for racy material when radio and TV were invented. They moved to immediately regulate those inventions in 1934. Of course in the 1930’s they used the excuse of "fighting Nazi propaganda" and later "fighting communism", but it wasn’t long before they were pistol-whipping Americans with their infamous "family values" banner.

In ALL of these instances, moralists came up with excuses to impose their will through government. Paintings, sculptures, books, magazines, photos, movies, TV shows, albums, radio broadcasts, comic books, they were ALL suppressed and regulated for the sake of "the children" or for the sake of "the family" or for the sake of "public decency".

Of course the ONLY people who were considered to be knowledgeable enough to know what consisted "public decency" were the moralists themselves. They created the problem, manufactured the social crisis, urged the government to take action, and then proclaimed themselves to be the ONLY people who could "properly" determine what is and is not "appropriate".

Sound familiar? Sure. It’s a game that con-artists play all the time. It’s called a "confidence trick." You create a crisis and then offer to "solve" it. It’s done with car repair shops, exterminators, health inspectors, and most recently with credit card companies. Only in this case the price being extracted is more than just some money… it’s your privacy and your freedom.

But now come the various ways being used to get around those regulations… and not only are the moralist STILL demanding that they have regulatory power over these new ways, but you’ll notice that the excuses haven’t changed.

When moralists threw fits over arcade centers because of the violence of games like "Mortal Kombat," home video games picked up the slack. Now moralists are targeting the home video games. Even when the video companies came up with their own ratings system, made it easy-to-understand, and gave descriptions of the content, the moralists still DEMANDED that the "offending" games be banned. Why? Because children might play these games and be "traumatized" because of it.

When cable TV came out, moralists moved to regulate it like they would for regular broadcast TV, using the same arguments they used for broadcast TV. "Children might see it," they cried out. When the judicial system prohibited it, the moralists tried again, still using those same arguments. "Children might see it." When the cable providers caved in and agreed to a content-based ratings system, the moralists still demanded for those same broadcast regulations. Why? Because "children might see it."

When the Internet became publicly available, moralists moved to take control over it like they did for TV and radio. Again they used the excuse that children might see objectionable things. When the courts blocked that effort, the moralists tried again… using the same excuse. "Children might see it."

Now we have digital radio, which is subscription-based like cable and satellite television. It’s also offering uncensored content, free from moralist-controlled regulations. Again, the moralists are DEMANDING that the government regulate digital radio just like they did for regular broadcast radio. Why? Because "children might hear it."

Cellphones now offer greater ability for adults to see and hear things besides just providing audio communications. They provide web-surfing abilities, being able to take pictures, store songs, even view video clips. And again, the moralists are DEMANDING that the government regulate these things. Why? Because "children might see it" or they might "hear it."

Portable players like Sony’s PSP game console and Apple’s iPod now offer the ability to store and run pictures, music, and video. And now moralists are gearing up to DEMAND government regulation over these mediums as well. Why? Because "children might see it" or they might "hear it."

Are you noticing a pattern here? I hope so.

Let’s get brutally honest here… moralists will ALWAYS come up with an excuse for their demands to regulate and control the lives of others. They hide behind the banner of "protecting children" because they know from past experiences that it works. Even when their efforts are blocked by the courts, they will try again, using that same excuse of "protecting children", because they know that at some point, some judge will go along with the con. And they have all the time in the world to carry out their hoax because they’re using the government as their personal weapon.

Moralists have absolutely no faith in parents or in parental responsibility. If they truly believed in these things, then their regulatory efforts would end with ratings systems and the means for parents to do their jobs as parents. But almost immediately as these means are put into place, and before people get used to these means, the moralists then cry out that these are not enough. They "NEED" personal control over these mediums to "ensure" that the "right messages" are being sent. It’s all just part of the hoax. Content ratings are good only when the providers are reluctant to put them in place… but once they are established, the moralists are quick to contend that those are useless.

George Carlin proclaimed in "You Are All Diseased" that moralistic parents who go on these crusades about "the children" have an unhealthy child fetish. Well the truth of the matter is that these moralistic parents don’t have a child fetish… they have a POWER fetish. They crave power. They crave the power to control and dominate the lives of others. That’s what moralism is really all about. It’s about the unquenchable desire to wield power and control over others. "The children" are just easy props for their con games. They’re just the means to a very selfish end.

And if you think that this doesn’t affect you because you don’t watch, read, or listen to objectionable material, then think again! The exceptions to free speech and free expression and free association that the moralists have carved out in the name of "protecting children" opens the door to even MORE repression.

If the government can regulate content based on violence or sexuality, then why not regulate political speech? It’s already being done now under new "campaign reform" programs. Why not regulate commercial speech? What’s to stop the government from prohibiting someone from saying that you don’t need to pay for proscription medicine for a certain ailment? There are those who are already trying to make that happen.

So with apologies to the late Pastor Niemöller…

First the moralists came for the paintings…
And I said nothing because I didn’t own them.

Then they came for the sculptures…
And I said nothing because I didn’t care for art.

Then they came for the books and magazines…
And I said nothing because I didn’t read them.

Then they came for the burlesque shows…
And I said nothing because I didn’t visit those places.

Then they came for talk radio and racy TV shows…
And I said nothing because I didn’t like those programs.

Then they came for the rap albums and music videos…
And I said nothing because I didn’t care for them.

Then they came for the Internet…
And I said nothing because I didn’t visit "those" web sites.

Then they came for the rest of the things that they found objectionable…
And I still said nothing because I didn’t like those things either.

And then they came for the things that I DID like…
And by then there was nobody left to speak for me.