TumbleDweeeb

SIGNS THE DEVIL HOLDS: Volume III (1930-1950)
A Documentary History of American Moral Panic
By: Emmitt Owens
(Index #10312025 – 11032025)

—

   Between 1930 and 1950, Americans identified at least twenty distinct signs of Satan’s work on Earth: marijuana, comic books (intensified), Superman, juvenile delinquency, swing music, zoot suits, pinup girls, bikinis, television, rock and roll’s precursors, rhythm and blues, bebop jazz, McCarthyism and the Second Red Scare, homosexuality (increasingly targeted), juvenile crime waves, hot rods, drive-in theaters, “going steady,” psychoanalysis, and fluoridated water.
   This isn’t speculation. It’s documented in congressional hearings (actual Senate subcommittees), psychiatrists’ testimonies, medical journals, religious sermons, the Comics Code Authority, FBI surveillance records, anti-communist witch hunts, and actual criminal prosecutions. Real laws were passed. Real people were blacklisted. Real careers were destroyed. Real books were burned. Real lives were ruined.
   This period marked a critical shift: the federal government actively participated in moral panics through congressional hearings, loyalty oaths, FBI surveillance, and systematic persecution of suspected communists and homosexuals. The panics became institutional, bureaucratic, and devastatingly effective.

Here’s what happened.

—

1. Marijuana (1930-1950): “Reefer Madness”
   The marijuana panic of the 1930s through 1950s stands as one of the most successful—and most damaging—moral panics in American history. It resulted in laws that remain on the books today, destroyed countless lives, and was built almost entirely on lies, racism, and fabricated hysteria.

The Campaign Begins
   Before 1930, marijuana (also called cannabis, hemp, or “marihuana”) was legal and relatively unrestricted in the United States. Hemp had been grown in America since colonial times—George Washington and Thomas Jefferson grew it. Cannabis was used in various medicines and was available at pharmacies.
   But in 1930, Harry J. Anslinger became the first commissioner of the newly created Federal Bureau of Narcotics. He needed to justify his agency’s existence and budget. He found his cause in marijuana.
   Anslinger launched a nationwide propaganda campaign depicting marijuana as a violence-inducing drug that turned users into homicidal maniacs. His campaign was explicitly racist, targeting Mexican immigrants and Black Americans.

The Racist Foundation
   Anslinger’s anti-marijuana campaign was inseparable from racism against Mexicans and African Americans:
   Anti-Mexican rhetoric: During the Great Depression, as Mexican immigration increased, marijuana became associated with Mexican laborers. The term “marihuana” itself was used instead of “cannabis” specifically to associate the drug with Mexicans. Anslinger claimed: “There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos, and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz, and swing, result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and any others.”
   Anti-Black rhetoric: Anslinger explicitly connected marijuana to jazz music and Black culture: “Colored students at the Univ. of Minn. partying with female students, smoking [marijuana] and getting their sympathy with stories of racial persecution. Result: pregnancy.” He stated: “Reefer makes darkies think they’re as good as white men.”
   These weren’t private opinions—this was official testimony given to Congress and published in official Bureau of Narcotics documents.

The Propaganda Campaign
   Anslinger’s Federal Bureau of Narcotics produced and distributed propaganda claiming marijuana:
– Caused users to commit murder, rape, and other violent crimes
– Induced insanity and “temporary insanity” used as legal defense
– Led directly to heroin addiction (the “gateway drug” theory)
– Caused brain damage and permanent mental deterioration
– Made users homicidal maniacs with superhuman strength
– Destroyed the moral fiber of American youth
– Led to miscegenation (interracial relationships)
– Was part of a communist plot to weaken America
   The Bureau circulated stories to newspapers across the country with headlines like:
– “Marijuana: Assassin of Youth”
– “Marijuana Makes Fiends of Boys in 30 Days”
– “Hasheesh Goads Users to Blood-Lust”

Reefer Madness
   In 1936, the propaganda reached its peak with the film Reefer Madness (originally titled Tell Your Children). The movie depicted marijuana as causing instant addiction, leading teenagers into a downward spiral of jazz music, wild parties, manslaughter, suicide, insanity, attempted rape, and death.
   The film’s plot: high school students are lured by drug dealers into trying marijuana. Almost immediately, they become addicted. The drug causes one boy to go insane and murder his friend. Another boy is framed for the murder while under the influence. A girl commits manslaughter while high, then kills herself. Another boy becomes permanently insane and is committed to an asylum.
   The film declared: “The motion picture you are about to witness may startle you. It would not have been possible, otherwise, to sufficiently emphasize the frightful toll of the new drug menace which is destroying the youth of America in alarmingly increasing numbers. Marihuana is that drug—a violent narcotic—an unspeakable scourge—The Real Public Enemy Number One!”
   None of this was true. But it was effective propaganda.

The Medical Lies
   Anslinger claimed medical and scientific backing for his assertions. But when the American Medical Association (AMA) opposed marijuana prohibition, arguing there was no evidence marijuana caused violence or led to addiction, Anslinger dismissed their testimony as uninformed.
   Dr. William C. Woodward, legislative counsel for the AMA, testified to Congress in 1937: “The American Medical Association knows of no evidence that marihuana is a dangerous drug… We cannot say with any certainty that the use of the drug is causally related to crimes of violence… The newspapers have called attention to it so prominently that there must be some grounds for their statements. It may be that there is, but no one has brought forward any scientific data indicating as such… Yet newspapers have given it an immense amount of publicity.”

Congress ignored him.
   The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937
   On August 2, 1937, Congress passed the Marihuana Tax Act, effectively criminalizing marijuana nationwide. The Act didn’t technically ban marijuana—it imposed impossible regulatory requirements and prohibitive taxes that made legal marijuana commerce virtually impossible.
   The hearings were perfunctory. The bill passed with minimal debate. Few congressmen had any knowledge of marijuana. The testimony relied heavily on Anslinger’s fabricated horror stories and racist propaganda.
   The AMA and hemp industry objections were ignored. The law passed.

The Real Motives
   Why the sudden campaign against a plant that had been legal and relatively unused for centuries? Several factors:

Racism: Anslinger’s campaign explicitly targeted Mexican immigrants and Black Americans. Marijuana prohibition was a tool for racial control. Police could arrest Black jazz musicians and Mexican laborers for possession, breaking up communities and cultural gatherings.

Bureau funding: Anslinger needed to justify his agency’s budget and power. Alcohol prohibition had just ended. The Bureau of Narcotics needed a new enemy.

Industry competition: Some historians argue that newspaper mogul William Randolph Hearst (who owned vast timber holdings for paper production) and DuPont chemical company (which had just patented synthetic fibers) wanted to eliminate hemp as industrial competition. Hemp made excellent paper and textiles.

Moral panic utility: As with previous panics, marijuana prohibition allowed authorities to target undesirable groups (racial minorities, jazz musicians, political radicals) under the guise of public health and safety.

The Gateway Drug Myth
   Anslinger pioneered the “gateway drug” theory—that marijuana use inevitably led to harder drugs like heroin. This claim had no scientific basis, but it became entrenched in American drug policy.
   The logic was circular: marijuana users sometimes tried other drugs, therefore marijuana caused them to try other drugs. The much simpler explanation—that people interested in trying drugs might try multiple drugs—was ignored.
   The gateway drug theory persists today, despite being repeatedly disproven by scientific research.

The Consequences
   The marijuana prohibition had devastating and lasting consequences:

Mass incarceration: Millions of Americans have been arrested for marijuana possession since 1937. These arrests disproportionately targeted Black Americans and Latinos, despite usage rates being similar across racial groups.

Lives ruined: A marijuana conviction could mean prison, loss of employment, loss of housing, loss of student loans, loss of professional licenses, and a permanent criminal record.

Medical research blocked: For decades, legitimate medical research on cannabis was nearly impossible due to federal restrictions.

Propaganda accepted as fact: Anslinger’s lies became accepted truth. Multiple generations of Americans believed marijuana caused insanity, violence, and addiction.

Law enforcement tool: Marijuana laws gave police enormous power to stop, search, arrest, and harass targeted populations.

International spread: The U.S. pressured other countries to adopt similar prohibition policies through international treaties.

The Science
   Here’s what science actually showed:
– Marijuana does not cause violence. Studies consistently show that marijuana use is associated with decreased aggression, not increased violence.
– Marijuana does not cause insanity or brain damage. While it can exacerbate existing mental health conditions in some users, it does not cause permanent mental deterioration.
– Marijuana is not a gateway drug. Most marijuana users never progress to other drugs.
– Marijuana is not highly addictive. While psychological dependence can develop, physical addiction is rare and mild compared to alcohol, tobacco, or opioids.
– Marijuana has legitimate medical applications for pain, nausea, seizures, and other conditions.
   None of this mattered. The lies were more politically useful than the truth.

The Legacy
   The marijuana panic succeeded where other panics failed: it created laws that lasted for generations and destroyed millions of lives.
   As of 2025, marijuana remains a Schedule I controlled substance under federal law—the same category as heroin. This classification means the federal government considers marijuana to have “no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse.”
   This is demonstrably false. Multiple states have legalized medical and recreational marijuana. Millions of Americans use it regularly. The sky has not fallen.
   But the laws remain. Federal prohibition continues. People are still arrested. Lives are still ruined. The panic that Harry Anslinger manufactured in the 1930s continues to have consequences ninety years later.
   The marijuana panic wasn’t about protecting public health. It was about racism, bureaucratic power, and social control. And it worked.

—

2. Comic Books (1940-1950): “Seduction of the Innocent”
   If the moral panic about comic books in the 1920s and 1930s was about class and vulgarity, the panic of the 1940s and 1950s was about juvenile delinquency, violence, homosexuality, and the corruption of American youth. This panic led to book burnings, Senate hearings, the destruction of an entire industry segment, and self-censorship that lasted for decades.

The Rise of Comic Books
   By the 1940s, comic books had exploded in popularity. Superman debuted in 1938, Batman in 1939. Superhero comics dominated the market during World War II. By 1943, comic book circulation reached 25 million copies per month.
   But superhero comics were just part of the market. Crime comics, horror comics, romance comics, and western comics proliferated. Some crime and horror comics featured graphic violence, sexual suggestiveness, and dark subject matter.
   And this made adults very, very nervous.

The Panic Builds
   By the late 1940s, concerns about juvenile delinquency had reached crisis proportions. Teen crime rates had increased during World War II, when fathers were at war and mothers were working in factories. Society needed an explanation for why good American children were becoming criminals.
   Comics became the scapegoat.
   Religious groups, educators, parent-teacher associations, and civic organizations began condemning comics as corrupting influences. The arguments were familiar:
– Comics glamorized crime and violence
– Comics provided instruction manuals for criminal behavior
– Comics depicted authority figures as incompetent or corrupt
– Comics contained sexual content inappropriate for children
– Comics promoted disrespect for parents, teachers, and law enforcement
– Comics caused reading comprehension problems
– Comics caused eyestrain and other physical ailments
– Comics were addictive and prevented children from reading “proper” literature
   But the panic reached new heights with the emergence of one particular psychiatrist: Dr. Fredric Wertham.

Dr. Fredric Wertham
   Dr. Fredric Wertham was a German-American psychiatrist who became the leading voice in the anti-comics crusade. In 1954, he published Seduction of the Innocent, a book claiming that comic books were a leading cause of juvenile delinquency.

Wertham’s claims included:

Violence: Crime and horror comics taught children how to commit crimes and desensitized them to violence. He provided case studies of juvenile offenders who read comics, claiming causation.

Sexual content: Superhero comics were filled with sexual imagery and perversion. He analyzed Wonder Woman as lesbian propaganda (a strong, independent woman who lived on an island with only women). He claimed Batman and Robin represented a homosexual fantasy (two men living together, with Robin as a young ward—”a wish dream of two homosexuals living together”).

Racism: Comics perpetuated racial stereotypes and promoted violence against minorities.

Anti-authority: Comics undermined respect for parents, teachers, police, and government.

Reading problems: Comics prevented children from developing proper reading skills and literary appreciation.

   Wertham’s methodology was scientifically bankrupt. He cherry-picked examples, ignored contrary evidence, fabricated quotes, and saw sexual perversion in the most innocent imagery. Later researchers who examined his papers found that he had misrepresented case studies, fabricated data, and deliberately distorted his findings to support his predetermined conclusions.
   But at the time, he was taken seriously. He was a credentialed psychiatrist testifying under oath. The media treated his claims as scientific fact.

The Senate Hearings
   In April and June 1954, the Senate Subcommittee on Juvenile Delinquency held hearings on comic books. Senator Estes Kefauver led the investigation.
   Wertham testified extensively, presenting his claims as scientific research. He brought comic books as evidence, reading passages out of context and displaying graphic images to shocked senators.
   Comic book publishers testified in their own defense. William Gaines, publisher of EC Comics (which produced horror and crime comics), tried to argue that comics reflected reality and that suppressing them was censorship. But when questioned about a cover showing a man holding a woman’s severed head, Gaines fumbled his response badly.
   The hearings were a public relations disaster for the comics industry.

The Public Response
   Across America, communities organized comic book burnings. Schools, churches, and civic organizations held events where children were encouraged to bring their comics to be burned publicly.
   In Spencer, West Virginia, 1,100 students burned two tons of comics.
   In Binghamton, New York, children gathered 2,000 comics for burning while being taught that comics were harmful.
   In Manchester, New Hampshire, a Catholic youth organization burned thousands of comics.
   The burnings were sometimes organized by the Boy Scouts. Children were taught that destroying the books was a civic duty, a way to protect themselves and their friends from corruption.
   Stores stopped selling comics. Schools banned them. Parents confiscated their children’s collections. Publishers faced enormous pressure to change.

The Comics Code Authority
   Rather than face potential government regulation (or outright bans), the comic book industry chose self-censorship. In September 1954, the Comics Magazine Association of America established the Comics Code Authority (CCA).
   The Comics Code was draconian:

Crime: Crimes could not be presented in detail or in a way that might inspire imitation. Criminals had to always be punished. Law enforcement had to be shown respect. Judges and government officials could not be depicted as corrupt or inefficient.

Sex: Illicit sex relations were forbidden. Sexual abnormalities were unacceptable. Seduction and rape could not be shown. Females had to be drawn realistically without exaggeration of physical qualities. Passion or romantic interest could not be treated in a way to stimulate lower emotions.

Horror: No comic magazine shall use the words “horror” or “terror” in its title. Scenes dealing with walking dead, torture, vampires, ghouls, cannibalism, and werewolfism were prohibited. Excessive bloodshed and gruesome illustrations were forbidden.

Language: Profanity, obscenity, smut, vulgarity, or words or symbols with undesirable meanings were forbidden.

Religion: Ridicule or attack on any religious or racial group was never permissible.

General standards: All characters had to be shown upholding good moral standards. Respect for parents, the moral code, and lawful behavior had to be emphasized. Divorce should not be treated humorously or represented as glamorous. Cruelty and violent punishment were forbidden.

   The Code was enforced by the CCA, which reviewed and approved comics before publication. Comics without the CCA seal of approval were not distributed by most wholesalers or sold by most retailers.
   The Code destroyed entire genres. Horror comics disappeared. Crime comics were neutered. Even superhero comics were affected—stories became bland, violence was sanitized, and anything remotely controversial was eliminated.
   EC Comics, which published some of the most sophisticated comics of the era, went out of business. They tried publishing without the seal, but distribution dried up. Only their humor magazine Mad survived—by converting to magazine format and avoiding the Code entirely.

What the Panic Really Was
   The comics panic wasn’t really about protecting children. It was about:

Juvenile delinquency scapegoating: Post-war society was anxious about teen crime and rebellious youth culture. Blaming comics was easier than addressing systemic issues like poverty, inadequate schools, or the trauma of growing up during and after the war.

Class anxiety: Comics were still seen as low-brow entertainment for working-class kids. The panic was partly about enforcing cultural hierarchy—comics weren’t “real” literature.

Sexual anxiety: The panic about “sexual content” in comics was really about the sexual awakening of teenagers. The barely-dressed superheroines and muscular heroes were proxies for natural adolescent sexuality that adults found threatening.

Homosexual panic: The 1950s saw intense persecution of homosexuals. Wertham’s claims that Batman and Robin represented a gay relationship tapped into broader fears about homosexuality “recruiting” children.

Censorship: The comics panic gave authorities and moral crusaders a way to suppress content they found objectionable without direct government censorship. The industry censored itself under threat.

Authority: Comics that showed children outsmarting adults, or that depicted corrupt authority figures, threatened the social order that adults were trying to maintain.

The Science Was Wrong
   Just like with marijuana, the science didn’t support the claims:
– No credible research has ever shown that reading comics causes juvenile delinquency. Millions of children read comics; a tiny fraction became delinquents. The correlation Wertham claimed was meaningless.
– Comics don’t prevent reading skills. Many literacy experts argue that comics can actually help develop reading skills, visual literacy, and narrative comprehension.
– The sexual and violent content in 1950s comics was tame compared to what came later—and to what was already available in books and films.
– Wertham’s methodology was fraudulent. Later researchers found he had fabricated quotes, misrepresented case studies, and deliberately distorted evidence.
   But the panic wasn’t about facts. It was about control.

The Legacy
   The Comics Code remained in effect until 2011, when it was finally abandoned. For nearly 60 years, American comics were censored according to standards created during a moral panic.
The Code:
– Destroyed horror and crime comics as genres
– Forced comics to be bland and unchallenging
– Prevented comics from dealing with serious social issues
– Stifled artistic and narrative innovation
– Reinforced racial and gender stereotypes
– Made comics seem childish and juvenile
   It wasn’t until the 1970s and 1980s that comics began to recover, with underground comix, independent publishers, and eventually mainstream publishers pushing back against the Code.
   Today, graphic novels are recognized as legitimate literature. Comics are taught in universities. Maus won the Pulitzer Prize. Comic book movies dominate the box office.
   But the damage lasted for decades. An entire art form was censored and stunted because adults in the 1950s couldn’t handle teenagers reading about crime and horror.
   The panic ended. The censorship it created lasted for generations.

—

3. Superman (1938-1950): “Subverting American Values”
   Before Superman was celebrated as an American icon, he was suspected of being un-American, promoting Jewish propaganda, encouraging juvenile delinquency, and subverting traditional values. The first superhero faced accusations that would seem absurd today—but were taken seriously at the time.

The Debut
   Superman debuted in Action Comics #1 in June 1938, created by two Jewish teenagers from Cleveland: Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster. The character was an instant sensation.
   Superman was an alien refugee sent to Earth by his parents to escape his doomed planet. Raised by Kansas farmers, he grew up to fight for “truth, justice, and the American way.” He was immensely powerful but used his power to protect the weak and fight injustice.
   But not everyone saw Superman as a hero.

The Nazi Response
   In 1940, Nazi Germany’s SS newspaper Das Schwarze Korps published an article attacking Superman as Jewish propaganda:
   The article claimed that Superman creator Jerry Siegel was “physically and intellectually circumcised” (referring to his Jewish heritage) and that Superman was designed to poison the minds of Aryan youth with Jewish values.
   The Nazis correctly identified that Superman’s creators were Jewish, but interpreted the character as part of a Jewish conspiracy to corrupt German culture. Superman’s story—a refugee who becomes a powerful protector—was seen as Jewish wish fulfillment.
   Ironically, Superman’s alien refugee status and his fight against injustice were influenced by Siegel and Shuster’s Jewish heritage and awareness of European antisemitism. Superman was, in a sense, a response to the kind of hatred the Nazis represented.
   But the Nazi critique foreshadowed domestic concerns that would emerge in America.

The Nietzsche Connection
   Critics noted that “Superman” was the English translation of Friedrich Nietzsche’s concept of “Übermensch” (literally “overman” or “overhuman”). Nietzsche’s concept had been appropriated by Nazi ideology to justify notions of Aryan superiority.
   Some American critics worried that Superman promoted a similar philosophy—that might makes right, that superior beings were above normal morality, that strength was virtue.
   This was a fundamental misunderstanding of the character. Superman used his power to protect the weak, not to dominate them. He was bound by a strong moral code. He was the opposite of Nietzsche’s Übermensch or the Nazi interpretation.
   But the name association created unease. Was Superman promoting fascist ideology to American children?

Juvenile Delinquency Concerns
   As comic books became targets in the juvenile delinquency panic, Superman didn’t escape scrutiny. Critics argued:

Violence glorification: Superman solved problems with physical force. He routinely destroyed property, fought criminals with superhuman strength, and showed children that violence was the answer.

Vigilante justice: Superman operated outside the law. He wasn’t a police officer or government agent. He took the law into his own hands. This taught children to disrespect legal authority.

Impossible standards: Superman’s perfection—his strength, morality, and success—created impossible standards that would make normal children feel inadequate or inferior.

Reality escape: Children who read Superman were escaping into fantasy instead of dealing with real-world problems. They’d grow up unable to face reality.

Class warfare: Early Superman stories showed him fighting corrupt businessmen, crooked landlords, and wealthy villains. This promoted anti-capitalist sentiment and class resentment.

   Dr. Fredric Wertham specifically targeted Superman in Seduction of the Innocent: “Superman is psychologically very unwholesome. There is something deeply paradoxical and deeply sinister about Superman’s dual identity… Superman (with the big S on his uniform) we should, I suppose, be thankful that it is not an S.S. instead of a comic-book S.”
   Wertham claimed that Superman promoted violence, fascist ideology, and contempt for ordinary people.

Gender and Authority
   Superman also faced criticism for gender and authority themes:

Lois Lane’s treatment: Lois Lane was a professional woman reporter who was constantly being tricked, rescued, and condescended to by Superman. Critics argued this taught boys to see women as weak and incompetent, and taught girls to be helpless.

Authority subversion: Superman answered to no one. He operated outside government control. He was more powerful than the military, more effective than the police, and took orders from nobody. This was seen as promoting disrespect for authority.

Immigrant metaphor: Some critics noted that Superman was an alien immigrant who could pass as American (Clark Kent). In an era of intense xenophobia and anti-immigrant sentiment, this was suspect.

The Paradox
   The criticism of Superman contained an inherent contradiction:
   Conservatives thought Superman promoted violence, vigilantism, and disrespect for authority.
   But the military and government actively used Superman in propaganda during World War II. Superman appeared on recruiting posters, war bond advertisements, and military materials.
   Superman was simultaneously too dangerous for children and perfect for military recruitment. He was both a threat to American values and the embodiment of American values.

The Reality
   Superman’s core message was actually deeply traditional and conservative:
– Use power responsibly
– Protect the weak and innocent
– Respect human life
– Stand up to bullies and tyrants
– Do the right thing even when it’s difficult
– Maintain a strong moral code
– Value truth and justice
   The character promoted exactly the values that critics claimed American children needed. But because Superman was popular, mass-market entertainment in comic book form, he had to be attacked.
   The panic about Superman was really about:

Cultural gatekeeping: Comics were “low” culture. They couldn’t possibly promote proper values, regardless of content.

Jewish creation: Anti-Semitic undertones shaped some criticism. A Jewish-created character couldn’t be properly American.

Youth culture: Adults were threatened by young people having their own popular media that adults didn’t control or understand.

Change: Superman represented new forms of entertainment and new ways of storytelling. This change was inherently threatening to those invested in traditional forms.

The Legacy
   Superman survived the panic and became an American icon. By the 1950s and 1960s, he was fully embraced as representing American values. The refugee alien became the ultimate patriot.
   The character has been repeatedly reinvented over nine decades. The core concept—an immigrant who becomes a protector, who uses great power responsibly, who stands for justice—has endured.
   But the panic revealed something important: even the most wholesome content will be attacked if it’s in a format or medium that threatens established cultural hierarchies.
   Superman didn’t corrupt American youth. He became a symbol of hope for generations. The critics were wrong.
   But that never stopped them from criticizing.

—

4. Swing Music and Jitterbug Dancing (1935-1945): “Sex Set to Music”

   If jazz was the devil’s music in the 1920s, swing music and jitterbug dancing were Satan’s dance party in the 1930s and 1940s. The moral panic over swing combined racial anxiety, sexual anxiety, and fear of youth culture into a cocktail of hysteria that accused big band music of destroying American morals.

The Swing Era
   Swing music emerged in the mid-1930s, evolving from jazz. Big bands led by Benny Goodman, Duke Ellington, Count Basie, Glenn Miller, and others created a sound that was sophisticated, danceable, and wildly popular.
   By 1935, swing dominated American popular music. The Benny Goodman Orchestra’s 1938 Carnegie Hall concert is often cited as the moment swing became legitimate “art” rather than just popular entertainment.
   But legitimacy with critics didn’t prevent moral panic among conservatives.

The Dance: The Jitterbug
   Swing music created a new dance: the jitterbug (also called the Lindy Hop). The dance featured athletic movements, acrobatic flips, partners breaking apart and coming together, and high energy that often led to physical contact and movements that seemed sexually suggestive.
   Young people packed dance halls and ballrooms. The jitterbug became a sensation. And moral guardians were horrified.

The Moral Panic
   Critics condemned swing music and jitterbug dancing as:

Sexual corruption: The dance involved close physical contact, separated partners, athletic movements, and rhythmic motion that was “obviously” sexual in nature. When women’s skirts flew up during flips and spins, it was seen as deliberate exhibition.

Racial mixing: Swing music came from Black musical traditions. Black and white musicians sometimes played together in integrated bands. Dance halls were sometimes racially integrated. This violated segregation norms and anti-miscegenation attitudes.

Loss of control: The energetic, improvisational nature of jitterbug dancing was seen as loss of bodily control—a moral and spiritual danger. Proper dancing required restraint and formality.

Youth rebellion: Swing music was youth culture. Young people embraced it in defiance of their parents’ preferences. This generational divide represented a breakdown of parental authority.

Juvenile delinquency: Dance halls where swing music was played were associated with truancy, drinking, smoking, and sexual activity.

Health dangers: Doctors warned that jitterbug dancing could cause physical injury, exhaustion, and heart problems. The athletic movements were too strenuous for young bodies.

Mental degeneration: The repetitive rhythms and loud volume of swing music were claimed to cause mental instability, especially in young people whose brains hadn’t fully developed.

Primitive reversion: Swing music’s African American origins meant it was “primitive” and “savage.” Dancing to it was racial regression, bringing white youth down to “the level of the jungle.”

The Racial Component
   The panic about swing was inseparable from racial attitudes. Swing’s Black origins were constantly invoked as evidence of its corrupting influence:
   A Denver Catholic Register article from 1938 stated: “Jitterbug rhythms in jazz music are identified with devil dances of primitive savage people. The same is true of much of the ‘swing’ and ‘jive’ so popular with this generation. The hysteria and moral degeneration which are a necessary part of savage devil dances are not lacking in some of the present-day dance places.”
   The New York Journal American described jitterbug as “negroid dancing” and “savage” behavior inappropriate for white youth.
   When white teenagers enthusiastically adopted Black music and dance, it was seen as racial contamination. The fear was that white youth would be influenced by Black culture, leading to acceptance of racial equality and (most horrifying to segregationists) interracial relationships.

The Nazi Response
   Nazi Germany specifically targeted swing music as part of “degenerate” culture. The Nazis banned American jazz and swing music as products of “Jewish-Negro” culture designed to corrupt Aryan youth.
   German youth who listened to swing music in secret were called “Swing Kids” (Swing Jugend). The Nazi regime persecuted them, with some members being sent to concentration camps.
   The Nazis understood what American racists understood: swing music represented cultural integration and challenged racial hierarchies.
   The Defense: “It’s Just Dancing”

Defenders of swing argued:
– The dance was athletic and required skill, coordination, and practice
– Dancing was healthier than sitting idle
– Swing music was sophisticated and musically complex
– Dance halls provided supervised social activity for young people
– The sexual overtones were in the eyes of the beholder—the dancers weren’t thinking about sex, they were thinking about the music and the moves
– Racial integration in music was a positive development

   But these defenses struggled against the panic. How do you defend something when critics see deviance in every movement?

The War Changes Everything
   When the United States entered World War II in 1941, swing music suddenly became patriotic. Big bands toured military bases. Swing music was used in propaganda. USO shows featured swing dancers entertaining troops.
   The music that had been condemned as corrupting American youth was now celebrated as boosting military morale and representing American culture.
   The hypocrisy was stunning but unremarked upon. Swing was useful to the war effort, so the panic subsided. After the war, swing gradually gave way to bebop, rhythm and blues, and eventually rock and roll—which would spark its own moral panic.

What It Really Was
   The swing panic was about:

Racial integration: White youth embracing Black culture threatened segregation and racial hierarchy.

Youth autonomy: Young people having their own culture, independent of parental approval, represented a loss of control.

Sexual expression: The dance allowed physical expression and contact between young men and women outside of traditional, formal courtship.

Social change: The 1930s and 1940s saw enormous social upheaval—Depression, war, women working, racial integration. Swing became a symbol of these threatening changes.

Class mixing: Dance halls brought together young people across class lines. Working-class and middle-class youth danced together. This violated class boundaries.

The Legacy
   Swing music became recognized as one of America’s great musical forms. The Lindy Hop and jitterbug are now taught as classic American dances. The era is romanticized as a time of elegance and sophistication.
   But at the time, swing was accused of corrupting youth, promoting racial mixing, and destroying American morals. The same music now played at weddings and nostalgic events was once the devil’s music.
   The pattern would repeat with rock and roll, disco, hip-hop, and electronic dance music. Each generation’s music would be condemned by the previous generation as corrupting and dangerous.
   Swing music didn’t destroy America. It helped define America. The critics were wrong, again.

—

5. Zoot Suits (1940-1943): “Unpatriotic Fashion”
   In June 1943, white U.S. servicemen roamed the streets of Los Angeles attacking Mexican American youth, stripping them of their distinctive clothing, and beating them. The violence continued for days. Police arrested the victims, not the attackers. The newspapers blamed the victims for wearing the wrong clothes.
   This was the Zoot Suit Riots—a moral panic about fashion that became racial violence with official sanction.

The Zoot Suit
   The zoot suit was a men’s suit characterized by:
– High-waisted, baggy pants tapered at the ankles
– Long coat with wide lapels and padded shoulders
– Wide-brimmed hat
– Pocket watch chain
– Often brightly colored or with patterns
   The style emerged from African American culture in the late 1930s and spread to Mexican American and Filipino American communities. Young men wore zoot suits to jazz clubs and dance halls. The suits were stylish, bold, and expensive.
   And during wartime, they became controversial.

The Wartime Context
   In 1942, the U.S. War Production Board issued regulations limiting the amount of fabric that could be used in civilian clothing. The restrictions were designed to conserve fabric for military uniforms and other war materials.
   Zoot suits, with their excessive fabric, violated these restrictions. They were technically illegal to manufacture—though the law was rarely enforced against manufacturers or sellers, only worn by young men of color who wore them.
   But the real issue wasn’t fabric rationing. It was who was wearing the suits and what they represented.

The Racial Dimension
   Zoot suits were worn primarily by Mexican American youth (called “pachucos”), African American youth, and Filipino American youth. These were already marginalized communities facing intense discrimination.
   The suits became symbols of:

Non-conformity: Zoot suiters rejected mainstream white fashion and culture. They created their own style and identity.

Resistance: In a time of enforced patriotism and conformity, wearing a zoot suit was defiance. It said: we’re not following your rules.

Cultural pride: For Mexican American youth especially, the zoot suit represented ethnic identity and cultural pride. It was a way of being visible and distinctive in a society that wanted them to be invisible or assimilated.

Leisure during wartime: Young men who wore zoot suits were not in military uniform. This suggested they weren’t serving in the war—even though many Mexican Americans were serving (and facing discrimination in the military). The suits became associated with draft dodgers and lack of patriotism.

The Moral Panic
   Newspapers, particularly the Los Angeles Times and the Hearst papers, ran inflammatory articles depicting zoot suiters as criminals, gang members, and threats to public safety:
– Zoot suiters were described as “pachuco gangsters”
– They were blamed for a crime wave (which was largely fabricated)
– They were depicted as cowards who avoided military service
– They were characterized as un-American and unpatriotic
– The suits themselves were called “unpatriotic” for wasting fabric
   The panic built on existing prejudices against Mexican Americans, who were already stereotyped as criminal, lazy, and foreign (despite many being U.S. citizens or long-term residents).
   A 1942 report by the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department characterized Mexican Americans as inherently criminal due to their “biological predisposition” toward violence inherited from their “Indian ancestors.”

The Sleepy Lagoon Case
   In August 1942, a young Mexican American man named José Díaz was found dead near the Sleepy Lagoon reservoir in Los Angeles. Though the cause of death was uncertain (he may have been hit by a car while drunk), police arrested 22 Mexican American youth and charged them with murder.
   The trial was a travesty. The defendants were not allowed to change clothes or get haircuts during the trial—the prosecution argued their appearance showed their criminal nature. The judge was openly biased. The press coverage was inflammatory.
   In January 1943, twelve defendants were convicted of murder, five of assault. The convictions were based on virtually no evidence.
   The case inflamed anti-Mexican sentiment and portrayed zoot suit-wearing youth as dangerous criminals.

The Zoot Suit Riots
   On June 3, 1943, violence erupted in Los Angeles. White sailors and Marines stationed in the city began attacking Mexican American youth, specifically targeting those wearing zoot suits.
   The servicemen would roam the streets in groups, looking for zoot suiters. When they found them, they would:
– Strip them of their clothing
– Beat them
– Cut or tear their suits
– Cut their hair
– Leave them naked or in their underwear in the street
   The violence continued for several days. Hundreds of Mexican American youth were attacked. The violence spread beyond Los Angeles to other cities.

Police response: They arrested the Mexican American victims, not the white attackers. Over 600 Mexican American youth were arrested during the riots.

Press coverage: The Los Angeles Times and other papers blamed the zoot suiters, characterizing the violence as justifiable response to pachuco criminality.

Military response: The military command eventually declared downtown Los Angeles off-limits to military personnel—not to stop the violence, but because of concern about bad publicity.

City response: The Los Angeles City Council passed a resolution making it a crime to wear a zoot suit within city limits.

The Aftermath
   The Zoot Suit Riots ended after about a week, when military authorities confined servicemen to base and the press attention became embarrassing.
   The Sleepy Lagoon convictions were overturned in 1944 by an appeals court, which found that the defendants had been denied their constitutional rights to due process.
   But the message had been sent: Mexican American youth who asserted their own identity and refused to conform could be violently attacked with impunity. The state would not protect them—it would punish them.

What It Really Was
   The Zoot Suit Riots and the broader panic were about:

Racial control: Attacking Mexican American youth for their clothing was a way of enforcing racial hierarchy and punishing visible non-conformity.

Wartime xenophobia: During war, any perceived disloyalty or lack of patriotism was met with violence. Mexican Americans were automatically suspect.

Youth culture: The zoot suit represented youth autonomy and the creation of culture outside adult control. This was threatening.

Economic anxiety: Mexican American youth having money to buy expensive suits violated expectations that they should be poor and subservient.

Cultural expression: The suits were a form of cultural identity. Attacking them was attacking Mexican American culture itself.

Scapegoating: Blaming zoot suiters for wartime anxieties and crime (real or imagined) deflected attention from systemic problems.

   The panic wasn’t about fabric rationing or patriotism. It was about racism, enforced conformity, and state-sanctioned violence against marginalized youth.

The Legacy
   The Zoot Suit Riots are now recognized as one of the worst incidents of racial violence in Los Angeles history. They’re taught as an example of systemic racism, media complicity in violence, and the dangers of moral panics.
   The zoot suit has been reclaimed as a symbol of resistance and cultural pride. In Chicano culture, the pachuco and the zoot suit represent defiance against assimilation and discrimination.
   But at the time, wearing the wrong clothes could get you beaten by mobs, arrested by police, and condemned by newspapers—all while the attackers faced no consequences.
   Fashion became a crime. Style became evidence of criminality. And the state sided with the mob.

—

6. Pinup Girls (1940s): “Corrupting Military Morals”
   During World War II, images of attractive women in bathing suits or revealing clothing—”pinup girls”—were beloved by American servicemen. They appeared on posters, playing cards, bomber nose art, and in magazines. Soldiers carried photos in their lockers and wallets.
   And moral authorities were horrified.

The Pinup Phenomenon
   Pinup art emerged in the late 1930s but exploded during World War II. The most famous pinup artists were Alberto Vargas (the “Vargas Girls”) and George Petty (the “Petty Girls”). Their illustrations appeared in Esquire magazine and were reproduced by the millions for military distribution.
   The images were risqué by 1940s standards but innocent compared to later decades. Women were shown in bathing suits, lingerie, or revealing clothing—but rarely nude. The poses were suggestive but not explicit. The overall tone was playful and flirtatious.
   Servicemen loved them. Pinup images boosted morale, provided a connection to home and civilian life, and represented what they were fighting for—American beauty, innocence, and the promise of return.
   Betty Grable’s iconic 1943 pinup photo, showing her in a white bathing suit looking over her shoulder, became the most popular pinup of the war. An estimated 5 million copies were distributed. The image was painted on bombers, submarines, and tanks.
   Rita Hayworth’s kneeling pose in a negligee from 1941 was so popular that it was even attached to an atomic bomb tested at Bikini Atoll.

The Moral Opposition
   Religious leaders, women’s groups, and moral reformers condemned pinup images as:

Pornography: The images were seen as pornographic and obscene. They reduced women to sexual objects and promoted lust.

Corrupting influence: Pinups would corrupt the morals of servicemen, making them unable to form proper relationships with wholesome women when they returned home.

Disrespectful to women: The images degraded all women by presenting them as sexual objects rather than as mothers, sisters, and wives.

Military distraction: Instead of focusing on their duty and the war effort, servicemen were being distracted by sexual images.

Marriage threat: Married servicemen with pinups were being disloyal to their wives. The images encouraged infidelity.

Undermining home front: The pinup girls represented loose morals and sexual permissiveness that would infect society when the war ended.

The Esquire Case
   In 1943, Postmaster General Frank C. Walker revoked Esquire magazine’s second-class mailing permit, effectively banning it from the mail. The reason: the magazine’s Vargas Girls pinups and mildly risqué fiction were “morally improper.”
   The Post Office declared that the magazine’s content was “nonmailable” under the Comstock Act (an 1873 law banning “obscene, lewd, or lascivious” material from the mail).
   Esquire fought the ban in court. The case went to the Supreme Court, which ruled in 1946 in favor of the magazine. Justice William O. Douglas wrote that the Post Office had no authority to act as a moral censor determining what Americans could read.
   But the battle revealed the intensity of opposition to pinup images. Government officials had tried to ban one of America’s most popular magazines because it published drawings of women in bathing suits—during a war when those same images were being distributed to troops by the military.

The Hypocrisy
   The moral panic about pinups contained enormous hypocrisy:

Military distribution: Even as moral authorities condemned pinups, the U.S. military was actively distributing them to troops. The military understood that morale was important and that servicemen wanted the images.

Bomber nose art: The military allowed—even encouraged—pinup-style artwork on bombers and other military equipment. Famous aircraft like “Memphis Belle” featured pinup art prominently.

Official use: The government itself used pinup-style imagery in recruiting posters and war bond advertisements. The famous “Rosie the Riveter” was a pinup image repurposed for propaganda.

Double standard: Male sexuality was simultaneously encouraged (pinups boost morale!) and condemned (pinups corrupt morals!).

The Gender Dimension
   The pinup panic was deeply gendered:

Women’s bodies: The core issue was that women’s bodies were being displayed for male pleasure. This violated norms about women being modest, chaste, and sexually unavailable except within marriage.

Male desire: The images acknowledged that men had sexual desires—which was acceptable—but provided images to fulfill those desires outside of marriage—which was not acceptable.

Women’s agency: Many of the models (like Betty Grable and Rita Hayworth) were successful actresses who posed voluntarily and profited from their images. But critics saw them as victims or temptresses, not as women making choices about their own careers.

War work: Many women were doing traditionally male work during the war—factory work, military service, professional jobs. The pinup girl was seen by some as reducing women back to decorative sexual objects just when women were proving they could do anything.

What They Actually Were
   Pinup images were:
– Morale boosters for lonely, frightened servicemen far from home
– Connection to civilian life and what they were fighting to return to
– Relatively innocent by later standards—most showed less skin than modern advertising
– Consensual images created by women who chose to pose and benefited financially
– Part of popular culture that servicemen enjoyed
– Harmless fantasy that didn’t prevent servicemen from having normal relationships
   The images weren’t pornographic by any reasonable definition. They weren’t corrupting morals. They weren’t destroying marriages.
   But they showed women’s bodies in ways that challenged norms about feminine modesty. And they acknowledged male sexuality. This made them threatening.

The Legacy
   Pinup art is now considered a classic American art form. Vintage pinups are collectible. The style has been endlessly reproduced and referenced. Modern “pinup” style is fashionable and mainstream.
   Betty Grable’s pinup photo is in the Smithsonian. Rita Hayworth’s image is iconic. The Vargas Girls are celebrated as mid-century American art.
   But during the war, these images were condemned as obscene and immoral. The Postmaster General tried to ban the magazine that published them. Religious leaders called them pornography.
   The panic revealed the impossible contradictions in attitudes toward sexuality, women’s bodies, and male desire. The images were simultaneously essential to military morale and morally corrupting. Women’s bodies could be used for propaganda but not for entertainment.
   Pinup girls didn’t corrupt anyone. They became American icons.

—

7. The Bikini (1946): “Explosive Fashion”
   On July 5, 1946, French designer Louis Réard introduced a two-piece swimsuit that showed the wearer’s navel. He called it the “bikini,” named after Bikini Atoll, where the United States had conducted atomic bomb tests four days earlier.
   The name was chosen deliberately: Réard predicted the swimsuit would have an “explosive” impact on fashion.
   He was right. The bikini created an international moral panic that lasted for decades.

The Debut
   Réard couldn’t find a professional model willing to wear the bikini—it was too scandalous. He hired Micheline Bernardini, a nude dancer from the Casino de Paris.
   When Bernardini appeared in the bikini, the reaction was instantaneous: shock, outrage, and enormous publicity. The bikini was front-page news around the world.
   Réard received 50,000 letters about the design, mostly from men requesting photos of models wearing the bikini—and from women expressing outrage.

The Moral Opposition
   The bikini was condemned by:

Religious authorities: The Vatican declared the bikini “sinful.” Catholic and Protestant leaders called it immoral and indecent. Wearing a bikini was a sin.

Governments: Multiple countries banned the bikini from public beaches:
– Spain, Italy, and Portugal banned it
– Many municipalities in the United States banned it from public beaches
– France initially tried to ban it from some beaches
– Australia restricted it on public beaches

Fashion authorities: Many fashion designers condemned the bikini as vulgar and in poor taste. The Modern Girl magazine stated, “It is hardly necessary to waste words over the so-called bikini since it is inconceivable that any girl with tact and decency would ever wear such a thing.”

Medical authorities: Some doctors claimed the bikini was unhealthy—that exposing the navel would lead to kidney problems, that the lack of support would damage breasts, that the exposure to sun would cause skin damage.

Moral authorities: Conservative groups argued that the bikini promoted sexual promiscuity, encouraged voyeurism, degraded women, and was an affront to public decency.

The Arguments
   Critics claimed the bikini:

Promoted immorality: Showing that much skin would encourage sexual thoughts and behavior. Women in bikinis were tempting men into sin.

Degraded women: The bikini reduced women to sexual objects, displayed for male pleasure. It was inherently degrading.

Corrupted youth: Young women who saw bikinis would be influenced to wear them, leading to sexual precocity and promiscuity.

Violated modesty: Christian values required women to be modest. The bikini was the opposite of modesty—it deliberately revealed what should be hidden.

Destroyed femininity: Proper women were modest, chaste, and covered. The bikini destroyed femininity by making women into sex objects.

Public indecency: Wearing a bikini in public was equivalent to public nudity. It should be illegal.

French degeneracy: The bikini came from France, which was stereotyped as sexually permissive and morally degenerate. Adopting French fashion was adopting French immorality.

The Cultural Context
   The bikini panic must be understood in its postwar context:

Return to traditional gender roles: During World War II, women had worked in factories, served in the military, and taken on traditionally male roles. After the war, there was enormous pressure for women to return to traditional roles as wives and mothers.
   The bikini represented women’s sexual agency and display of their bodies—the opposite of the domestic, modest housewife ideal.

Conservative reaction: The late 1940s and 1950s saw a conservative reaction to wartime social changes. Traditional morality, family values, and rigid gender roles were emphasized. The bikini violated all of these norms.

Youth culture: Younger women were more likely to wear bikinis. This represented generational conflict and youth rebellion against parental authority.

Sexual anxiety: The bikini openly acknowledged women’s sexuality and desirability. This created anxiety about sexual expression outside of marriage.

The Slow Acceptance
   Despite the panic, the bikini gradually gained acceptance:

Europe first: European beaches, especially in France and Italy, saw bikini adoption by the early 1950s. The American ban created a perception that Europe was more sophisticated and less prudish.

Hollywood resistance: American actresses largely avoided the bikini in the 1940s and early 1950s. Even in beach scenes in films, actresses wore one-piece suits or more modest two-pieces that covered the navel.

The breakthrough: In 1960, Brian Hyland’s song “Itsy Bitsy Teenie Weenie Yellow Polka Dot Bikini” became a hit, helping to normalize the bikini for American audiences.

Bond film: Ursula Andress emerging from the ocean in a white bikini in Dr. No (1962) created an iconic image that helped legitimize the bikini in mainstream culture.

Beach culture: By the mid-1960s, the bikini had become common on American beaches, though some public pools and beaches still banned them.

It took nearly 20 years for the bikini to become socially acceptable in the United States.

What It Really Was
   The bikini panic was about:

Control of women’s bodies: Who decides what women wear? Women themselves, or male authorities (religious leaders, lawmakers, husbands, fathers)?

Female sexuality: The bikini acknowledged that women had bodies and that those bodies could be attractive. This threatened norms about women being modest and sexually passive.

Changing gender roles: The bikini represented women’s increasing autonomy and agency. This threatened traditional patriarchal structures.

Generational conflict: Young women’s willingness to wear bikinis represented rejection of parental values and older generation’s moral standards.

Public vs. private: The bikini raised questions about what was appropriate in public spaces. Could women display their bodies in public, or should physical display be restricted to private contexts?

   The panic wasn’t really about the amount of skin showing—one-piece swimsuits of the era often showed as much or more skin than many modern bikinis. It was about the specific revelation of the navel and midriff, and what that represented symbolically: women choosing to display their bodies in ways that defied traditional modesty norms.

The Legacy
   The bikini is now ubiquitous. It’s worn on beaches worldwide. It appears in fashion magazines, advertisements, and films. Bikini competitions are mainstream entertainment. The garment that was banned on beaches and condemned by the Vatican is now completely normal.
   The bikini evolved into more revealing styles—string bikinis, thong bikinis, Brazilian bikinis—that would have been unimaginable to the critics who condemned the original design.
   But the panic lasted for decades. Women were arrested for wearing bikinis on beaches. Governments banned them. Religious authorities condemned them as sinful. Fashion authorities ridiculed women who wore them.
   The bikini didn’t destroy morality or femininity. It became a symbol of women’s freedom to choose what they wear.
   The explosion at Bikini Atoll was nuclear. The fashion explosion was cultural. Both had lasting impact.
   But only one actually hurt anyone.

—

8. McCarthyism and the Second Red Scare (1947-1957): “Communist Infiltration”
   If the First Red Scare of 1919-1920 was about anarchists and bombs, the Second Red Scare of 1947-1957 was about communists and loyalty. It was more systematic, more bureaucratic, more destructive, and more successful at silencing dissent than any previous moral panic in American history.
   Thousands of careers were destroyed. Hundreds were imprisoned. Tens of thousands were investigated. And Senator Joseph McCarthy became the symbol of a panic that bore his name: McCarthyism.

The Context
   After World War II, the Soviet Union emerged as America’s primary rival. The Cold War had begun. Communist governments controlled Eastern Europe, and in 1949, China fell to communism. In 1950, North Korea invaded South Korea, leading to war.
   Americans were genuinely concerned about communism’s global spread. But those legitimate concerns were weaponized into a witch hunt that destroyed innocent people and created a climate of fear that lasted for years.

The Loyalty Program
   In March 1947, President Harry Truman issued Executive Order 9835, establishing the Federal Employee Loyalty Program. The order required loyalty investigations of all federal employees and job applicants.
   The criteria for being flagged as a loyalty risk were vague and sweeping:
– Membership in, affiliation with, or “sympathetic association” with any organization deemed “totalitarian, fascist, communist, or subversive”
– Intentional, unauthorized disclosure of classified information
– Performing duties in a manner “serving the interests of another government”
– Any behavior indicating disloyalty to the United States
   The program investigated over 3 million federal employees. Approximately 2,700 were fired or denied employment. Another 12,000 resigned rather than face investigation.

The investigations relied on:
– Anonymous accusations (accusers’ identities were kept secret)
– Guilt by association (attending the wrong meetings, knowing the wrong people)
– FBI files containing rumors, gossip, and unverified claims
– No right to confront accusers or see all evidence

People were fired for:
– Having attended a meeting of a liberal organization years earlier
– Having a friend or family member who was suspected of communist sympathies
– Having subscribed to left-wing publications
– Having supported left-wing causes like racial integration or labor unions

   The accusations didn’t have to be true. Suspicion was enough. And once accused, clearing your name was nearly impossible.

The Hollywood Blacklist
   In 1947, the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) held hearings investigating communist infiltration of the film industry. The committee called dozens of writers, directors, and actors to testify.
   Witnesses were asked: “Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?”
   Ten witnesses—later known as the Hollywood Ten—refused to answer, citing their First Amendment rights. They were found in contempt of Congress and imprisoned. They were also blacklisted—unable to find work in Hollywood.
   The blacklist expanded. Over 300 actors, writers, directors, and other film industry professionals were blacklisted. Some never worked in Hollywood again. Some worked under pseudonyms. Some moved abroad.
   The blacklist wasn’t official—there was no formal list. Instead, studios simply refused to hire anyone suspected of communist sympathies. Being named in testimony or refusing to testify was enough to end your career.

The Senator
   Joseph McCarthy, Republican Senator from Wisconsin, had an unremarkable first three years in the Senate. He needed an issue to secure re-election. In February 1950, he found it.
   In a speech in Wheeling, West Virginia, McCarthy held up a piece of paper and claimed: “I have here in my hand a list of 205—a list of names that were made known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party and who nevertheless are still working and shaping policy in the State Department.”
   The claim was a lie. McCarthy had no such list. But the speech made headlines. McCarthy had discovered that anti-communist accusations were politically powerful—and that the specifics didn’t matter.

For the next four years, McCarthy made increasingly wild accusations:
– The State Department was riddled with communists
– The U.S. Army was infiltrated by communists
– Democrats were “soft on communism”
– The Truman administration harbored traitors
– The Roosevelt administration had been controlled by communists

   McCarthy provided no evidence for these claims. When challenged, he would make new accusations. The strategy was simple: keep making accusations, keep generating headlines, and never provide proof that could be disproven.

The Panic Spreads
   McCarthy’s tactics encouraged others. Across America, anti-communist witch hunts proliferated:

State governments: Many states passed their own loyalty oath laws, requiring teachers, state employees, and sometimes even lawyers to sign oaths affirming they weren’t communists.

Universities: Professors were fired for suspected communist sympathies. Academic freedom was curtailed. Students were expelled for left-wing activism.

Labor unions: Unions were required to sign anti-communist affidavits. Union leaders suspected of communist ties were removed.

Private companies: Businesses fired employees suspected of communist sympathies. Some companies required loyalty oaths.

Schools: Teachers were fired for suspected communism. School districts banned books considered sympathetic to communism.

Libraries: Libraries removed books by suspected communists from their shelves. Some held book burnings.

   The accusations often had nothing to do with actual communist party membership. Supporting civil rights, opposing racial segregation, supporting labor unions, criticizing American foreign policy, or holding any left-wing views could lead to accusations of communism.

The Rosenberg Case
   In 1951, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were convicted of conspiracy to commit espionage for passing atomic secrets to the Soviet Union. In 1953, they were executed—the only American civilians executed for espionage during the Cold War.

The case became a cause célèbre. Supporters argued:
– The evidence was weak
– Ethel’s involvement was minimal
– The death penalty was excessive
– The trial was tainted by anti-communist hysteria and anti-Semitism (the Rosenbergs were Jewish)

   Opponents argued the Rosenbergs were traitors who deserved execution.
   Decades later, declassified Soviet documents revealed that Julius was indeed a Soviet spy, though his espionage was probably less significant than claimed. Ethel’s involvement remains controversial—she may have had minimal involvement but was prosecuted to pressure Julius to confess.
   But at the time, the case became a symbol of the Red Scare. The executions demonstrated how far the government would go to fight communism.

The Fall of McCarthy
   McCarthy’s downfall came in 1954, when he made accusations against the U.S. Army. The Army-McCarthy hearings were televised, allowing millions of Americans to watch McCarthy’s tactics firsthand.
   The moment of reckoning came when Joseph Welch, the Army’s attorney, confronted McCarthy about his baseless accusations against a young lawyer in Welch’s firm. Welch’s response became famous: “Until this moment, Senator, I think I never really gauged your cruelty or your recklessness… Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?”
   The audience applauded. Public opinion turned against McCarthy. In December 1954, the Senate censured him. His political power evaporated. He died in 1957, at age 48, from alcohol-related causes.

The Consequences
   The Second Red Scare had devastating consequences:

Careers destroyed: Thousands of people lost their jobs, were blacklisted, or had their careers ruined based on accusations that were often false or based on legal activities like attending meetings or expressing opinions.

Lives ruined: Some victims committed suicide. Families were torn apart. Reputations were permanently destroyed.

Chilling effect: The panic created a climate where expressing left-wing views, criticizing government policy, or advocating for social change was dangerous. Dissent was silenced.

Cultural impact: Hollywood, universities, labor unions, and other institutions censored themselves to avoid accusations. Art, scholarship, and political discourse were narrowed.

Legal legacy: Loyalty oaths, investigations without due process, and blacklisting established precedents that would be used in future panics.

International embarrassment: America’s claim to be fighting for freedom while persecuting people for their beliefs was hypocritical. Soviet propaganda used McCarthyism to discredit American democracy.

Actual spies: While McCarthy and others were destroying innocent people’s lives with false accusations, actual Soviet spies operated with relative impunity. The panic made it harder to conduct legitimate counterintelligence because every accusation was suspect.

What It Really Was
   McCarthyism was about:

Political power: Accusing opponents of communism was an effective political tactic. It was hard to defend against and could destroy careers.

Enforcing conformity: The panic silenced dissent and enforced ideological conformity. Anyone who challenged the status quo could be labeled a communist.

Racial and labor suppression: Many targets of anti-communist investigations were civil rights activists and labor organizers. The panic was used to suppress movements for racial equality and workers’ rights.

Control: The government used loyalty investigations and blacklists to control employees, silence critics, and maintain power.

Scapegoating: Blaming communists for America’s problems was easier than addressing real issues like poverty, racial discrimination, or foreign policy failures.

   The panic wasn’t really about protecting America from communist infiltration. It was about political power, social control, and silencing dissent.

The Parallels
   McCarthyism followed the pattern of the Palmer Raids:
1. A real but limited threat (some Soviet spies did exist)
2. Expanded into a massive, imaginary conspiracy (communists everywhere!)
3. Used to justify widespread violations of civil liberties (blacklists, loyalty oaths, investigations)
4. Targeting already-marginalized groups (liberals, racial minorities, labor activists)
5. Creating a climate of fear that silenced dissent
6. Eventually collapsing when the accused finally stood up to the accusers

   But McCarthyism was more successful and lasted longer than the Palmer Raids. The damage was more systematic and more lasting.

The Legacy
   The term “McCarthyism” now means: making unfounded accusations, using guilt by association, conducting investigations with no regard for due process, and destroying people’s lives through innuendo and fear.
   It’s universally condemned as a dark period in American history. The blacklist was officially wrong. McCarthy was officially bad.
   But the tactics haven’t disappeared. Accusing opponents of being unpatriotic, disloyal, or sympathetic to enemies remains an effective political strategy. Guilt by association continues. Moral panics continue.
   McCarthyism ended in the late 1950s. But the playbook remains.

—

9. Homosexuality (1930-1950): “Sexual Perversion”
   Between 1930 and 1950, homosexuality transformed from a relatively private matter ignored by authorities into an obsessive focus of moral panic, medical intervention, and systematic persecution. The decades saw homosexuality criminalized more aggressively, medicalized as a mental illness, and targeted in government purges.
   By 1950, being homosexual could cost you your job, your freedom, your family, and potentially your life.

The Legal Context
   Sodomy laws existed in most states throughout this period, but enforcement varied. In the 1930s and early 1940s, many homosexual men and women lived relatively open lives in urban areas, particularly in artistic and entertainment communities.
   But as the 1940s progressed, enforcement intensified. Police began systematic raids on bars, bathhouses, and other gathering places. Arrests increased dramatically. Newspapers published names of those arrested, destroying lives through public exposure.
   By 1950, every state had laws criminalizing homosexual acts. Penalties ranged from fines to years in prison. Some states also banned “lewd conduct,” “crimes against nature,” and other vague offenses that could be used to arrest homosexual men for almost any behavior.

The Medical Model
   In the 1930s, the medical profession began treating homosexuality as a mental illness that could be “cured.”
   Sigmund Freud had argued that homosexuality was a developmental disorder caused by improper psychosexual development. American psychiatrists expanded this theory, claiming homosexuality resulted from:
– Overbearing mothers and absent fathers
– Childhood trauma or abuse
– Arrested development
– Hormonal imbalances
– Moral weakness

Treatments included:
– Psychoanalysis
– Aversion therapy (electroshock paired with homosexual imagery)
– Hormone treatments
– Lobotomies
– Castration
– Institutionalization

   None of these “treatments” worked. Homosexuality is not a mental illness and cannot be “cured.” But thousands of people were subjected to these interventions, often involuntarily.
   The American Psychiatric Association officially listed homosexuality as a mental disorder until 1973.

The Moral Panic Intensifies
   By the late 1940s, homosexuality had become a national panic. The concerns included:

Communist infiltration: In the early Cold War, homosexuals were seen as security risks. The theory was that homosexuals could be blackmailed by communist agents who threatened to expose their sexuality. Therefore, homosexuals shouldn’t have government jobs or security clearances.
   This theory ignored that blackmail only worked because homosexuality was criminalized and stigmatized. The solution to preventing blackmail would have been decriminalization—but that wasn’t considered.

Pedophilia conflation: Homosexuality was routinely conflated with pedophilia. Homosexual men were characterized as predators who recruited children. This justified discrimination in teaching and any profession involving children.

Moral degeneracy: Homosexuality was seen as evidence of moral collapse. If society tolerated homosexuality, it would lead to complete moral breakdown.

Disease spread: Homosexuality was blamed for spreading venereal diseases.

Gender confusion: Male homosexuality violated masculine ideals. Female homosexuality violated feminine ideals. Both were seen as threats to proper gender roles.

Sin: Religious authorities condemned homosexuality as a grave sin deserving eternal damnation. Some denominations advocated death penalty for homosexuality (citing Leviticus).

The Lavender Scare
   In February 1950, Deputy Undersecretary of State John Peurifoy testified to Congress that 91 State Department employees had been fired as security risks. Most, he revealed, were homosexuals.
   This testimony triggered the “Lavender Scare”—a purge of homosexual employees from federal government. The panic ran parallel to McCarthyism’s Red Scare, and the two often overlapped.
   From 1947 to 1961, the federal government fired approximately 5,000 employees for being homosexual or suspected of homosexuality. This number doesn’t include those who resigned under pressure or were denied employment.
   The military similarly purged homosexual service members. Discharges were often “undesirable” or “dishonorable,” which affected veterans’ benefits and future employment.
   State and local governments followed suit. Police departments, fire departments, schools, and other public employers fired homosexual employees.

The Investigations
   Government investigations of suspected homosexuals were invasive and humiliating:
– Employees were interrogated about their sex lives
– They were asked to name other homosexuals
– Investigators staked out gay bars and followed suspects
– Anonymous tips were investigated
– Arrest records (even for charges that were dropped) were used as evidence
– Any behavior seen as “effeminate” in men or “masculine” in women was suspicious

   The standard was incredibly low. You didn’t have to be proven homosexual—suspicion was enough. And once fired, future employment was nearly impossible. Many employers wouldn’t hire anyone fired from government jobs.

Dr. Alfred Kinsey
   In 1948, Dr. Alfred Kinsey published Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, followed in 1953 by Sexual Behavior in the Human Female. The reports, based on thousands of interviews, revealed that:

– 37% of men had had at least one homosexual experience to orgasm after adolescence
– 10% of men were exclusively homosexual for at least three years between ages 16-55
– 4% of men were exclusively homosexual their entire lives
– 13% of women had had at least one homosexual experience to orgasm

   The reports showed that homosexual behavior was far more common than anyone had acknowledged. This information could have reduced stigma by showing that homosexuality was a normal variation of human sexuality.
   Instead, it intensified the panic. If homosexuality was this common, the threat was even greater than imagined. Society needed to crack down harder.
   Kinsey himself was attacked. His research was called immoral. He was accused of promoting sexual degeneracy. His funding was threatened. Some called him a communist.

The Entertainment Industry
   The Production Code prohibited any depiction of homosexuality in Hollywood films. The code stated: “Sex perversion or any inference to it is forbidden.”

This meant:
– No homosexual characters could appear in films
– No storylines involving homosexuality
– No sympathetic portrayal of homosexual people
– Even coded or subtle references were forbidden

   When films were made in Europe that included homosexual characters or themes, they were banned in the United States or heavily edited.
   The code remained in effect until 1968. For decades, homosexuality was literally invisible in American cinema.

What It Really Was
   The panic about homosexuality was about:

Gender enforcement: Homosexuality violated rigid gender roles. Men were supposed to be masculine, attracted to women, and procreative. Women were supposed to be feminine, attracted to men, and maternal. Homosexuality challenged these roles.

Social control: Persecution of homosexuals enforced conformity and gave authorities power to investigate private lives.

Scapegoating: Blaming homosexuals for moral decline, communist infiltration, and social problems deflected from real issues.

Religious enforcement: Many religious traditions condemned homosexuality. Criminalizing it enforced religious law through secular power.

Fear of difference: Homosexuals represented otherness and difference in an era that demanded conformity.

   The panic wasn’t about protecting children or national security. It was about enforcing rigid norms and punishing those who deviated.

The Consequences
   The persecution of homosexuals in this era had lasting effects:
– Thousands lost their jobs and careers
– Families were destroyed
– People were forced into sham marriages to appear “normal”
– Mental health suffered—depression, anxiety, suicide rates were high
– Medical “treatments” caused psychological and physical harm
– A entire community was criminalized and driven underground
– Fear and shame prevented honest discussion of sexuality

   Many victims never recovered. Some committed suicide. Others lived their entire lives in fear and hiding.

The Legacy
   The systematic persecution of homosexuals from the 1930s-1950s created trauma that lasted for generations. Many who lived through this era never fully recovered. Many never came out. Many took their secrets to their graves.

   It took decades of activism to reverse these policies:
– Sodomy laws gradually repealed (though some remained until 2003’s Lawrence v. Texas)
– The APA removed homosexuality from the DSM in 1973
– Employment discrimination slowly decreased
– Social acceptance gradually increased

   But the damage was profound and lasting. An entire generation of LGBT people were taught they were sick, sinful, and criminal. Many internalized this message.
   The persecution of homosexuals wasn’t an aberration. It was systematic, institutional, and supported by medical authorities, religious leaders, legal systems, and the federal government.
   It was a moral panic that destroyed thousands of lives and took decades to overcome.

—

10. Juvenile Delinquency (1940s-1950s): “The Youth Crisis”
   By the mid-1940s, America faced what newspapers called a “juvenile delinquency crisis.” Teen crime rates had increased during World War II. But the panic far exceeded the actual problem, and the solutions proposed—and often implemented—were draconian.
   The juvenile delinquency panic connected to almost every other moral panic of the era: comic books caused delinquency, rock and roll caused delinquency, going steady caused delinquency, drive-in movies caused delinquency, hot rods caused delinquency, and insufficient parental discipline caused delinquency.

The Context
   Several factors contributed to increased teen crime during World War II:
– Fathers were away at war, leaving families without male authority figures
– Mothers were working in factories, leaving children unsupervised
– Schools were understaffed as teachers joined the military
– Economic boom meant teens had money and independence
– Rapid urbanization and population movement disrupted communities
   These were temporary wartime conditions. But they created genuine concerns about teen behavior.
   However, the panic that developed went far beyond addressing these temporary conditions. It became a full-scale moral crisis about the corruption of American youth.

The Statistics
   Teen crime rates did increase during the war years. But the numbers need context:
– Most “delinquency” was minor offenses—truancy, curfew violations, petty theft
– Serious violent crime by juveniles remained relatively rare
– The increase was partly due to increased enforcement and reporting
– When fathers returned from war and mothers returned to the home, rates began declining
   But statistics didn’t matter. The panic had taken hold.

The Panic
   Newspapers and magazines ran endless articles about the “juvenile delinquency crisis”:
– “Teen Terror Gangs”
– “Hooliganism in High Schools”
– “Our Youth Are Out of Control”
– “What’s Wrong with America’s Teenagers?”

The concerns included:

Gang violence: Teen gangs were portrayed as violent criminals terrorizing neighborhoods. The reality was usually far less dramatic—most “gangs” were just friend groups, and violence was relatively rare.

Sexual promiscuity: Teens were engaging in petting, going steady, and premarital sex. This represented moral collapse.

Disrespect for authority: Teens talked back to parents and teachers, refused to follow rules, and showed no respect for elders.

Drug and alcohol use: Teen drinking and (increasingly) marijuana use represented addiction and moral degeneracy.

Crime: Everything from truancy and vandalism to theft and assault was blamed on permissive parenting and corrupting influences.

The Causes (According to Panic)
The juvenile delinquency panic blamed:

Comic books: As discussed earlier, comics were seen as instruction manuals for crime. Senate hearings investigated the comic book industry.

Movies: Films featuring rebellious teens or criminal protagonists were blamed for inspiring imitation. Films like The Wild One (1953) and Rebel Without a Cause (1955) were condemned as glorifying delinquency.

Rock and roll: The music was characterized as promoting violence, sexual promiscuity, and disrespect for authority.

Working mothers: If mothers worked outside the home, children were unsupervised and became delinquent. The solution was to force mothers back into the home.

Permissive parenting: Parents weren’t strict enough. Children needed more discipline, more corporal punishment, more authority.

Schools: Schools weren’t teaching respect, discipline, and moral values. They were too focused on academics and not enough on character.

Loss of religion: Declining church attendance and religious practice meant children weren’t learning proper morals.

Integration: In some areas, particularly the South, racial integration of schools was blamed for increasing delinquency. White children were being “corrupted” by Black students.

Broken homes: Divorce, single parenthood, and family instability caused delinquency.

The Solutions
Proposed and implemented solutions included:

Stricter laws: Many jurisdictions lowered the age at which children could be tried as adults. Juvenile offenders faced harsher penalties.

Curfews: Cities imposed curfews prohibiting teens from being out after certain hours.

School discipline: Schools implemented stricter discipline policies, including corporal punishment.

Parental responsibility: Some jurisdictions passed laws holding parents criminally responsible for their children’s behavior.

Censorship: Comic books were censored. Movies were restricted. Rock and roll faced attempted bans.

Youth programs: Organizations like the YMCA, Boy Scouts, and church youth groups were promoted as ways to keep teens supervised and out of trouble.

Military discipline: Some advocated for mandatory military service or military-style discipline in schools.

Institutionalization: Delinquent youth were sent to reform schools, industrial schools, or juvenile detention facilities.

The Race Dimension
   The juvenile delinquency panic had a strong racial component:

Zoot Suit Riots: As discussed earlier, Mexican American youth were violently attacked and blamed for crime waves.

Segregation justification: In the South, the panic was used to argue against racial integration. White parents didn’t want their children “corrupted” by Black students.

Stereotyping: Black and Latino youth were disproportionately labeled as delinquent, arrested, and institutionalized.

Cultural attack: Black music (rhythm and blues, early rock and roll) and Black cultural styles were blamed for corrupting white youth.

   The panic wasn’t just about teen behavior—it was about maintaining racial hierarchies and preventing cultural integration.

The Films
   Hollywood both responded to and fueled the juvenile delinquency panic:

The Wild One (1953): Marlon Brando played the leader of a motorcycle gang that terrorizes a small town. The film was banned in Britain until 1968 and faced censorship in many U.S. locations.

Blackboard Jungle (1955): Depicted violent, disrespectful high school students terrorizing teachers. The film’s use of rock and roll music (Bill Haley’s “Rock Around the Clock”) linked the music to delinquency.

Rebel Without a Cause (1955): James Dean played a troubled teen struggling with parental neglect and societal expectations. The film became iconic, but critics argued it glamorized rebellious behavior.

   These films were both warnings about juvenile delinquency and celebrations of teenage rebellion. They helped create the image of the rebellious teen that would define youth culture for decades.

The Reality
Most “juvenile delinquency” was:
– Minor offenses (truancy, vandalism, curfew violations)
– Normal teenage rebellion that had always existed
– Temporary adjustment to wartime disruption
– Normal experimentation with identity and independence
   Serious juvenile crime was relatively rare. Teen violence was less common than the panic suggested. Most teens were not delinquents—they were normal adolescents navigating the challenges of growing up.
   But the panic wasn’t about actual teen behavior. It was about adult anxiety.

What It Really Was
   The juvenile delinquency panic was about:

Loss of control: Parents felt they had lost control over their children. The panic was a way of reasserting authority.

Social change: The 1940s and 1950s saw enormous social change—women working, racial integration, youth culture, new music, new media. Teens represented this change, which threatened those invested in traditional structures.

Generation gap: For the first time, teens had their own culture distinct from adult culture. This independence was threatening.

Projection: Adults projected their anxieties about social change onto teenagers. If society was becoming more permissive, violent, or immoral, it must be because teens were being corrupted.

Scapegoating: Blaming teens for social problems was easier than addressing systemic issues like poverty, inadequate schools, racial discrimination, or the trauma of war.

   The panic wasn’t really about protecting teens or reducing crime. It was about adult anxiety and social control.

The Legacy
   The juvenile delinquency panic of the 1940s-1950s established patterns that continue today:
– Blaming youth culture and media for teen behavior
– Calling for stricter laws and harsher punishment
– Treating teens as threats rather than as developing young people
– Using teen behavior as a proxy for concerns about social change
– Disproportionately targeting minority youth
   Each generation has its moral panic about “kids today.” The juvenile delinquency panic of the 1940s-1950s wasn’t the first and wasn’t the last.
   But it established that teens themselves could be moral panic targets—not just what they read or listened to, but their very existence as an independent social group.

—

The Forgotten Conspiracies: Unpopular Panics of 1930-1950
   Not every moral panic gained national attention or left lasting scars. Some conspiracies and panics were localized, short-lived, or simply too absurd to gain traction. But they reveal the same patterns of fear, scapegoating, and resistance to change. Here are the moral panics that history mostly forgot:

1. Sliced Bread (1943): “A Wasteful Luxury”
   On January 18, 1943, the U.S. government banned the sale of sliced bread.
   You read that correctly. Sliced bread—”the best thing since,” well, itself—was illegal for three months during World War II.
   The Official Reason: Claude R. Wickard, head of the War Foods Administration, claimed that banning pre-sliced bread would:
– Save wax paper (used to wrap sliced bread)
– Reduce the need for steel in slicing machines
– Lower bread prices by eliminating slicing costs
– Conserve wheat (people allegedly ate more when bread was pre-sliced)
   The Real Reason: The ban made no sense and saved virtually nothing. Housewives had to slice bread at home—using the same amount of bread, creating more waste from uneven slicing, and requiring knives that also needed steel to manufacture.
   The Public Response: Outrage. Women wrote furious letters to newspapers and government officials. One woman wrote to the New York Times: “I should like to let you know how important sliced bread is to the morale and saneness of a household. My husband and four children are all in a rush during and after breakfast. Without ready-sliced bread I must do the slicing for toast—two pieces for each one—that’s ten. For their lunches I must cut by hand at least twenty slices, for two sandwiches apiece. Someone is sure to suffer if I must stand while I slice before I have had my cup of coffee.”
   The ban was quietly rescinded on March 8, 1943, after just 56 days. Officials never mentioned it again.
   What It Really Was: The sliced bread ban was bureaucratic overreach disguised as wartime necessity. It revealed how authorities will regulate even the most mundane aspects of daily life when given the opportunity—and how quickly absurd regulations are abandoned when people refuse to comply.
   The conspiracy theory? Some believed the ban was designed to punish Continental Baking Company, which had pioneered sliced bread and dominated the market. Others thought it was a test to see how much control the government could exert over daily life.
   The reality? It was probably just incompetent policymaking by officials who didn’t understand how people actually lived.

2. Daylight Saving Time (1942-1945): “War Time Is Communist Time”
   When the U.S. implemented year-round Daylight Saving Time in 1942 (called “War Time”), some Americans believed it was a communist plot to destroy American agriculture and Christian worship.
   The Conspiracy: Critics claimed:
– Changing the clocks interfered with God’s natural order
– Farmers couldn’t adjust their schedules (ignoring that farmers don’t follow clocks—they follow sunrise)
– It was a socialist scheme to control American daily life
– Church attendance would drop because people would be confused about service times
– Children would have to walk to school in the dark, leading to accidents and kidnappings
– The extra evening sunlight would lead to increased drinking and moral degeneracy
   The Reality: Daylight Saving Time had been proposed by Benjamin Franklin in 1784 and was used by various countries during World War I. It saved energy by reducing the need for artificial lighting in the evening. The communist connection was entirely fabricated.
   The Religious Opposition: Some religious leaders opposed DST because:
– God set the sun and moon in their courses; humans shouldn’t interfere
– The “eighth day” warnings in Revelation allegedly prohibited changing time
– It interfered with morning prayers and devotions
– It was “playing God” with time itself
   The Aftermath: War Time ended in 1945. The U.S. adopted permanent DST in 1966. The conspiracy theorists moved on to other concerns. Churches adjusted their service times. Farmers continued farming. The world kept turning.
   But the panic revealed how even practical, sensible policies can be portrayed as sinister conspiracies when people are predisposed to fear government control.

3. The Library Book Conspiracy (1930s-1940s): “Communist Infiltration Through Reading”
   During the 1930s and 1940s, some conservatives became convinced that public libraries were being infiltrated by communists who were using book selection to indoctrinate American children and families.
   The Conspiracy:
– Librarians were secretly communists selecting pro-Soviet books
– Libraries were removing patriotic American books and replacing them with socialist propaganda
– Children’s books were designed to undermine respect for parents and authority
– Public libraries themselves were a communist idea (public ownership of resources)
– Library cards were tracking systems to identify who read what books
– The Dewey Decimal System was designed by socialists to hide books Americans should read
   The Evidence:
– Some libraries carried books by Karl Marx and other socialist writers (because libraries carry diverse viewpoints)
– Some librarians were members of progressive organizations (because educated people often held progressive views)
– Some children’s books featured themes of sharing and cooperation (because these are normal childhood lessons)
   The Response:
– Some communities demanded lists of “communist” books to be removed
– Librarians faced investigations and loyalty oaths
– Some libraries removed controversial books to avoid conflict
– Library associations defended intellectual freedom
– The American Library Association created the Library Bill of Rights in 1939, defending the right to access diverse viewpoints
   What It Really Was: The library conspiracy panic was about controlling access to information. If people read diverse viewpoints, they might question authority. Better to label books and librarians as communist threats.
   The panic mostly faded after World War II, though it returned during McCarthyism. Libraries remained relatively open, though some books were quietly removed from shelves during the Red Scare.

4. Nylon Stockings (1940-1945): “Nylon for Parachutes, Not Prostitutes”
   When nylon was restricted for wartime production in 1942 (needed for parachutes and military equipment), a black market in nylon stockings emerged. Some moralists claimed this was evidence of widespread moral corruption.
   The Panic:
– Women who wore nylon stockings during the war were unpatriotic
– Black market nylon was coming from Japan (usually false)
– Women were trading sexual favors for nylon stockings
– Prostitutes were hoarding nylon to attract customers
– The nylon shortage was a plot to force women to show their bare legs (immodest)
– Some claimed nylon itself was immoral because it was synthetic (not “natural” like silk)
   The Reality:
– Nylon stockings were a normal part of women’s fashion
– Women drew stocking seams on their bare legs with eyebrow pencil when nylon wasn’t available
– The black market existed because demand exceeded supply—basic economics
– Most women waited until the war ended rather than participate in black markets
   The Moral Dimension:
Some religious leaders claimed the nylon shortage was God’s judgment on women’s vanity. Others argued that women should embrace bare legs as a patriotic sacrifice (ignoring that workplace dress codes often required stockings).
   Women’s magazines tried to help by publishing tips for painting leg makeup and drawing seam lines. This was condemned by some as promoting immodesty.
   The End: When the war ended, nylon production resumed. DuPont couldn’t produce stockings fast enough. The “Nylon Riots” of 1945-1946 saw thousands of women lining up at stores, sometimes with conflicts breaking out over limited supplies.
   The moral panic evaporated. Nylon stockings became mundane. Nobody mentioned the conspiracy theories again.

5. Aluminum Cookware (1930s-1940s): “Poisoning American Families”
   In the 1930s and 1940s, a conspiracy theory emerged claiming that aluminum cookware was poisoning American families and causing cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, and other ailments.
   The Conspiracy:
– Aluminum manufacturers knew the cookware was toxic but concealed the evidence
– The government was complicit in allowing poison cookware to be sold
– Doctors who defended aluminum were paid off by manufacturers
– Aluminum was a “modern” material that violated natural law
– Only cast iron and copper cookware were safe
– The entire modern kitchen was a plot to poison housewives
   The Origin:
The panic started when some researchers found that aluminum could be toxic in large quantities. This was misinterpreted and exaggerated by health faddists, alternative medicine advocates, and cookware manufacturers who sold competing products.
   The Reality:
– Aluminum cookware is safe for normal use
– The amount of aluminum that leaches into food is minimal
– The human body naturally processes small amounts of aluminum
– No scientific evidence supported the cancer or Alzheimer’s claims
– Cast iron actually leaches more material into food than aluminum (though iron is generally beneficial)
   The Sales Pitch:
Door-to-door salespeople used the aluminum conspiracy to sell expensive stainless steel and copper cookware. They’d perform “demonstrations” showing how aluminum “reacted” with certain foods (actually normal chemical reactions that were harmless).
   Some salespeople claimed aluminum caused “aluminum poisoning” that mimicked dozens of different diseases. Conveniently, only their cookware could save American families.
   The Aftermath:
The conspiracy theory mostly faded by the 1950s as scientific understanding improved. However, it experienced revivals in the 1970s (environmental movement) and 1990s (alternative medicine advocates).
   Aluminum cookware remains widely used and safe. The early Alzheimer’s claims have been thoroughly debunked. But the conspiracy theory created a successful business model for fear-based cookware sales that continues today.

6. Milk Pasteurization (1930s-1940s): “Killing Living Food”
   When pasteurization became standard in the 1930s, some people claimed it was a conspiracy to:
– Weaken Americans’ immune systems
– Destroy the “vital essence” of natural milk
– Benefit large dairy corporations at the expense of small farms
– Feminize men by destroying masculine nutrients
– Create dependency on processed foods
   The Opposition:
– Raw milk advocates claimed pasteurization killed beneficial bacteria
– Some claimed Louis Pasteur admitted on his deathbed that germ theory was wrong (he didn’t)
– Religious groups argued God made milk perfect and humans shouldn’t alter it
– Some claimed pasteurization was a eugenics plot to weaken certain populations
   The Reality:
Pasteurization dramatically reduced deaths from tuberculosis, brucellosis, diphtheria, and other diseases spread through contaminated milk. Before pasteurization, milk-borne diseases killed thousands of children annually.
   The opposition to pasteurization came from:
– Small dairy farmers who couldn’t afford pasteurization equipment
– Health faddists promoting “natural” foods
– Conspiracy theorists suspicious of any government regulation
– People who simply preferred the taste of raw milk
   The Outcome:
Pasteurization became mandatory in most jurisdictions. Milk-borne disease deaths dropped dramatically. Raw milk remained legal in some areas but with restrictions.
   The conspiracy theory never fully died. Raw milk advocacy continues today, using many of the same arguments from the 1930s-1940s.

7. Margarine (1930s-1950s): “Fake Butter Is Communist Food”
   Margarine faced intense opposition from the dairy industry and conspiracy theorists who claimed it was:
– A socialist plot to destroy American dairy farmers
– Nutritionally deficient “fake food”
– Made from industrial waste and harmful chemicals
– Part of a plan to make Americans dependent on artificial foods
– Feminizing men (because it wasn’t “real” butter)
   The Legal Battle:
– Multiple states banned margarine outright
– Some states required margarine to be dyed pink (to make it unappetizing)
– Federal taxes were imposed on margarine to protect butter
– Restaurants and institutions were banned from serving margarine in some areas
– Some states made it illegal to color margarine yellow (it had to be sold white, with a yellow dye packet included)
   The Propaganda:
The dairy industry ran campaigns claiming:
– Margarine caused cancer
– Margarine wasn’t food, it was industrial grease
– Only butter contained essential nutrients
– Margarine was what communists ate in Soviet Russia
– Real Americans ate butter
   The Reality:
Margarine was developed in France in 1869 as a butter substitute. During World War II, butter was rationed and margarine consumption increased dramatically. After the war, Americans had grown accustomed to margarine and many preferred it (or preferred the lower price).
   The anti-margarine laws gradually fell away in the 1950s-1970s as the dairy industry accepted that margarine wasn’t disappearing. By the 1980s, margarine outsold butter.
   The conspiracy theory faded, though some food advocates continue to argue about which is healthier (the answer is complicated and depends on the specific products).

8. Fluoridated Water (1945-1950s): “Communist Plot and Mind Control”
   When Grand Rapids, Michigan became the first city to fluoridate its water supply in 1945, a conspiracy theory emerged that persists today:
   The Conspiracy:
– Fluoride was a communist plot to poison Americans’ minds and make them compliant
– The Soviet Union was behind water fluoridation to weaken America
– Fluoride caused cancer, communism, stupidity, and compliance
– Dentists promoting fluoridation were paid by communist agents
– Fluoride was industrial waste being dumped in water under the guise of public health
   The Evidence Cited:
– Fluoride compounds were used in Nazi concentration camps (ignoring that the context and dosage were completely different)
– The Soviet Union allegedly studied fluoride for mind control (no credible evidence)
– Fluoride is toxic in large doses (true, but water fluoridation uses safe trace amounts)
– Some scientists opposed fluoridation (true, but the vast majority supported it)
   The Religious Opposition:
Some religious groups opposed fluoridation as:
– Interfering with God’s natural water
– “Playing God” with human health
– A violation of free will (forced medication)
– A sign of the end times
   The Reality:
Water fluoridation dramatically reduced tooth decay, especially in children. The concentration used (about 1 part per million) is far below toxic levels and has been extensively studied.
   The opposition came from:
– Conspiracy theorists who saw communist plots everywhere
– Libertarians who opposed mandatory public health measures
– People with general distrust of government
– Some scientists with legitimate concerns about methodology (though consensus supported fluoridation)
– Industrial competitors who promoted alternative dental products
   The Outcome:
Despite opposition, water fluoridation spread across the United States. By 1951, it was reaching millions of people. The CDC named it one of the ten great public health achievements of the 20th century.
   But the conspiracy theory never died. Anti-fluoridation activists remain active today, using many of the same arguments from the 1940s (though usually dropping the communist angle).
   The Cultural Impact:
The fluoride conspiracy became so well-known that it was satirized in the 1964 film Dr. Strangelove, where General Jack D. Ripper launches nuclear war because he believes fluoridation is a communist plot to “sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.”
   The joke endured because the conspiracy theory was both widespread and absurd.

9. The Salk Polio Vaccine (1954-1955): “Government Experiment”
   When Jonas Salk announced his polio vaccine in 1955, some people claimed it was:
– An untested government experiment
– A plot to deliberately infect children with polio
– Made from aborted fetuses (not true)
– Part of a eugenics program
– A way to inject tracking devices (decades before microchips existed)
   The Tragedy:
Some people’s fears were accidentally validated when the “Cutter Incident” occurred: one manufacturer (Cutter Laboratories) produced defective vaccine that contained live polio virus. This caused 40,000 cases of polio, 200 paralyzed children, and 10 deaths.
   The incident was a genuine manufacturing failure, not a conspiracy. It led to improved safety regulations and vaccine oversight. But it fueled conspiracy theories for years.
   The Reality:
The Salk vaccine was extensively tested on over 1.8 million children (the “Polio Pioneers”) before mass distribution. It was one of the most carefully studied medical interventions in history.
   Polio had killed or paralyzed thousands of children annually. Parents lived in terror during “polio season” each summer. The vaccine was a miracle that nearly eliminated the disease in the United States within a few years.
   But some people refused vaccination for their children, citing conspiracy theories. These children remained vulnerable to polio, and some contracted the disease.
   The Pattern:
Vaccine conspiracy theories have a long history, going back to the smallpox vaccine in the 1700s. Each new vaccine faces similar claims:
– It’s untested and dangerous
– It’s a plot to harm or control people
– It contains harmful or secret ingredients
– Natural immunity is better
– The disease isn’t really dangerous
   These arguments recycled through the decades, from smallpox to polio to MMR to COVID-19. The specifics change, but the pattern remains constant.

10. The “White Negro” Panic (1940s): “Jazz Corrupts White Youth”
   While not exactly a conspiracy, the “White Negro” panic described the fear that white youth who adopted Black music, slang, and culture were undergoing racial transformation.
   The Concept:
Writer Norman Mailer’s 1957 essay “The White Negro” described white hipsters who adopted Black culture, but the phenomenon and panic about it dated to the 1940s.
   The fear was that:
– White teenagers listening to jazz and later rhythm and blues were becoming “Black” in sensibility
– This cultural adoption would lead to race mixing and miscegenation
– White youth were rejecting their racial identity
– Black culture was so powerful it could “convert” white people
– This was evidence of racial equality (which racists found threatening)
   The Moral Panic:
Segregationists and racists claimed:
– Jazz music was transforming white youth into “negros”
– White teenagers were adopting Black slang, dress, and behavior
– This cultural adoption would lead to interracial relationships
– White racial purity was being destroyed from within
– Black culture was inherently infectious and corrupting
   The Reality:
White youth were simply enjoying music and adopting aspects of a culture they found exciting. Cultural exchange and adoption have always occurred. The panic was really about:
– Fear of racial integration
– Anxiety about youth autonomy
– White supremacist ideology being challenged
– The power of Black cultural creation
   The Irony:
The panic acknowledged what racists couldn’t officially admit: Black culture was more innovative, exciting, and appealing to young people than mainstream white culture. The “infection” metaphor revealed that they knew Black culture was winning the cultural competition.
   This pattern would repeat with rock and roll, hip-hop, and every subsequent form of Black music that white youth embraced.

Why These Conspiracies Failed
   Unlike marijuana prohibition or McCarthyism, these conspiracy theories and panics largely failed to create lasting damage because:

1. Too Absurd: Sliced bread bans and nylon conspiracies were so obviously ridiculous that most people ignored them.

2. Practical Benefits: Pasteurization, vaccines, and fluoridation provided obvious public health benefits that outweighed conspiracy fears.

3. Economic Forces: Margarine, nylon, and aluminum were economically advantageous. Market forces overwhelmed moral panic.

4. Limited Organization: These panics lacked powerful institutional backing. No senators championed the anti-sliced-bread cause.

5. Too Specific: Unlike broad panics about communism or juvenile delinquency, these focused on specific products that people could simply ignore.

   But they reveal the same patterns: fear of change, distrust of modern technology, conspiracy thinking, and attempts to control behavior through moral panic.
   Every era has its absurd panics that history forgets. Future generations will look back at our panics and wonder how we believed such nonsense.
   The pattern never changes. Only the products do.

—

“You’ll Go to Hell If You…” — The Complete List (1930-1950)

   Based on documented moral panics, religious sermons, medical warnings, congressional hearings, legal prosecutions, and cultural condemnations from 1930 to 1950, here is what Americans were told would damn their souls, destroy society, or deliver them to Satan:

Marijuana & Drugs
   You’ll go to hell if you…
– Smoke marijuana (it causes “temporary insanity” and turns you into a homicidal maniac)
– Possess marijuana (you’re a criminal and dope fiend)
– Grow hemp (even though Washington and Jefferson did)
– Defend marijuana use (you’re promoting violence and depravity)
– Associate with marijuana users (guilt by association)
– Listen to jazz or swing while smoking marijuana (double corruption)
– Suggest marijuana might have medical uses (you’re spreading propaganda)
– Question Harry Anslinger’s claims about marijuana (you’re soft on crime)
– Are Mexican or Black and possess marijuana (automatic presumption of guilt)
– Sell or distribute marijuana (you’re corrupting American youth)

Comic Books & Entertainment
   You’ll go to hell if you…
– Read crime comics (they teach criminal behavior)
– Read horror comics (they cause mental illness)
– Read any comic book instead of “proper” literature (you’ll become illiterate)
– Let your children read comics (you’re failing as a parent)
– Draw or write comics (you’re corrupting youth for profit)
– Defend comic books as literature (they’re trash that corrupts)
– Collect comic books (you’re obsessed with low-brow culture)
– Own EC Comics (especially *Tales from the Crypt*, *Vault of Horror*)
– Sell comic books without the Comics Code seal (you’re a corrupting influence)
– Suggest Batman and Robin aren’t a homosexual fantasy (according to Dr. Wertham)
– Think Wonder Woman is empowering rather than lesbian propaganda (according to critics)
– Argue that comics help develop reading skills (you’re making excuses)
– Buy Superman comics (he promotes vigilante justice and disrespect for authority)
– Think Superman is patriotic rather than fascist (critics saw “SS” instead of “S”)

Music & Dance
   You’ll go to hell if you…
– Listen to swing music (it’s “negro music” that corrupts white youth)
– Dance the jitterbug (it’s sexually suggestive and racially mixing)
– Go to swing clubs or dance halls (they’re breeding grounds of immorality)
– Play swing music professionally (especially if you’re in a racially integrated band)
– Allow your children to listen to swing (they’ll develop “jazz face”)
– Dance with athletic or acrobatic movements (loss of bodily control is spiritual danger)
– Let your skirt fly up while jitterbug dancing (immodest exhibition)
– Attend racially integrated dance halls (racial mixing leads to miscegenation)
– Play swing music on the radio (respectable people might hear it)
– Defend swing music as sophisticated art (it’s primitive jungle music)
– Listen to bebop jazz (it’s even worse than swing—deliberately chaotic)
– Attend jam sessions (they promote drug use and immorality)
– Support Black musicians and composers (you’re promoting racial equality)

Fashion & Appearance
   You’ll go to hell if you…
– Wear a zoot suit (it’s unpatriotic, wasteful, and marks you as a criminal)
– Are Mexican American and wear stylish clothes (automatic suspicion)
– Wear a zoot suit on Sunday (especially offensive to God and country)
– Defend zoot suiters from mob violence (you’re sympathizing with criminals)
– Wear a bikini (it’s sinful and indecent)
– Show your navel in public (extremely immodest)
– Wear a two-piece swimsuit that reveals your midriff (the Vatican said so)
– Go to a beach where bikinis are allowed (you’re exposing yourself to sin)
– Pose for pinup photos (you’re a corrupting influence on servicemen)
– Own or display pinup images (if you’re married, it’s infidelity; if unmarried, it’s lust)
– Paint on leg makeup to simulate stockings (vanity during wartime)
– Participate in black market nylon stocking trade (unpatriotic and possibly prostitution)
– Wear “immodest” clothing that shows legs above the knee (still controversial)
– Dress like Rosie the Riveter (too masculine for women)

Homosexuality & Gender
   You’ll go to hell if you…
– Are homosexual (it’s a sin, crime, and mental illness)
– Engage in homosexual acts (criminal in all 50 states)
– Associate with known homosexuals (guilt by association)
– Defend homosexual rights (you’re probably homosexual yourself)
– Refuse to name homosexuals you know (during government investigations)
– Work in government while homosexual (security risk due to blackmail potential)
– Teach school while homosexual (assumed pedophile)
– Serve in the military while homosexual (subject to dishonorable discharge)
– Dress or behave in ways seen as gender non-conforming (suspicious)
– Have a “bachelor” or “spinster” lifestyle past a certain age (assumed homosexual)
– Live with a same-sex roommate for “too long” (suspicious arrangement)
– Work in certain professions seen as “homosexual” (hairdressing, interior design, theater)
– Oppose persecution of homosexuals (you’re soft on perverts)
– Suggest homosexuality isn’t a mental illness (contradicting psychiatric consensus)
– Refuse “treatment” for homosexuality (rejecting help)
– Read or distribute homosexual literature (promoting perversion)

Communism & Politics
   You’ll go to hell if you…
– Are a member of the Communist Party (automatic disloyalty)
– Were ever a member, even briefly in your youth (permanent stain)
– Attended meetings of leftist organizations (guilt by association)
– Know communists and don’t report them (complicity)
– Refuse to name names during investigations (you must be hiding something)
– Defend accused communists (you’re probably one yourself)
– Oppose McCarthy or HUAC (you’re soft on communism)
– Support civil rights for Black Americans (probably communist infiltration)
– Support labor unions (communist front organizations)
– Teach or write about Marx (promoting enemy ideology)
– Criticize American foreign policy (giving aid and comfort to enemies)
– Support “suspicious” causes like peace movements (communist fronts)
– Subscribe to left-wing publications (evidence of communist sympathies)
– Have friends or family members who are suspected communists (guilt by association)
– Refuse to sign loyalty oaths (what are you hiding?)
– Defend academic freedom or free speech for communists (enabling enemies)
– Question the loyalty program or blacklists (undermining security)
– Oppose Korean War (supporting communist North Korea)
– Suggest coexistence with Soviet Union is possible (appeasement)

Juvenile Delinquency & Youth Culture
   You’ll go to hell if you…
– Are a teenager who dresses differently than your parents’ generation (rebellion)
– Join a teen “gang” (even if it’s just a friend group)
– Go to drive-in movies without adult supervision (immorality in cars)
– “Park” in cars with someone of the opposite sex (sexual activity)
– Go steady instead of dating multiple people (premature commitment and intimacy)
– Wear jeans and t-shirts (slovenly and disrespectful)
– Listen to rhythm and blues music (Black music corrupts white youth)
– Read comic books instead of proper literature (becoming delinquent)
– Talk back to parents or teachers (disrespect for authority)
– Smoke cigarettes as a teenager (gateway to drugs and crime)
– Stay out past curfew (what are you doing out there?)
– Drop out of school (guaranteed criminal future)
– Get a hot rod or customize your car (leads to racing and crime)
– Watch movies like *The Wild One* or *Rebel Without a Cause* (glamorizing delinquency)
– Wear leather jackets and motorcycle boots (looks like a criminal)
– Use teen slang (disrespectful and rebellious)

Race & Integration
   You’ll go to hell if you…
– Support racial integration (God ordained separation of races)
– Attend integrated schools (Black students will corrupt white students)
– Marry someone of a different race (miscegenation—illegal in many states)
– Date someone of a different race (leads to miscegenation)
– Listen to Black music as a white person (cultural contamination)
– Socialize in racially mixed groups (inappropriate mixing)
– Support civil rights legislation (communist-inspired)
– Oppose lynching (defending criminals)
– Teach racial equality (contradicting God’s plan)
– Live in integrated neighborhoods (property values will drop)
– Attend Black churches or cultural events as a white person (race traitor)
– Allow Black people in “white” spaces (restaurants, pools, parks)
– Use Black slang or adopt Black cultural styles (racial contamination)
– Support Black artists and musicians (promoting racial mixing)

Women & Gender Roles
   You’ll go to hell if you…
– Work outside the home as a married woman (neglecting children and husband)
– Choose career over marriage and children (rejecting natural role)
– Use birth control (preventing God’s plan)
– Get divorced (marriage is permanent)
– Have premarital sex (losing virtue and purity)
– Live independently without a husband (suspicious and sad)
– Wear pants in public (too masculine)
– Cut hair very short (unfeminine)
– Refuse to wear makeup (not making effort for husband)
– Wear too much makeup (looking like a prostitute)
– Smoke cigarettes as a woman (unladylike)
– Drink alcohol as a woman (immoral)
– Have opinions about politics (women’s sphere is the home)
– Want to work after marriage (selfish and unfeminine)
– Pursue higher education beyond teaching or nursing (unwomanly ambition)
– Earn more than your husband (emasculating him)

Medical & Health
   You’ll go to hell if you…
– Refuse the polio vaccine (child endangerment)—wait, no…
– Accept the polio vaccine (untested government experiment)—wait, which is it?
– Trust psychoanalysis (Freud was obsessed with sex)
– Undergo therapy or counseling (weakness of character)
– Take medications for mental illness (moral failing, not medical)
– Allow your children to be vaccinated (government experimentation)
– Drink fluoridated water (communist plot for mind control)
– Use aluminum cookware (poisoning your family)
– Buy margarine instead of butter (fake food and communist-sympathizing)
– Drink unpasteurized milk (risking disease)—wait, no…
– Drink pasteurized milk (destroying living nutrients)—which is right?
– Seek treatment for homosexuality (admitting perversion)
– Refuse treatment for homosexuality (refusing help)
– Believe mental illness is medical rather than moral (denying personal responsibility)

Modern Life & Technology
   You’ll go to hell if you…
– Watch television (rotting your brain with moving pictures)
– Let children watch TV unsupervised (exposure to inappropriate content)
– Own sliced bread during the 1943 ban (unpatriotic)
– Waste resources during wartime (unpatriotic)
– Adjust clocks for Daylight Saving Time (interfering with God’s natural order)
– Question wartime rationing (unpatriotic)
– Shop on the black market (unpatriotic and criminal)
– Hoard rationed goods (selfish and unpatriotic)
– Use new synthetic materials (unnatural)
– Trust modern processed foods (abandoning traditional ways)
– Use labor-saving devices (making women lazy)
– Live in suburbs instead of traditional neighborhoods (abandoning community)
– Rely on packaged foods instead of cooking from scratch (lazy housekeeping)

Wartime Behavior
   You’ll go to hell if you…
– Criticize the war effort (unpatriotic and possibly treasonous)
– Oppose Japanese internment (soft on enemies)
– Question dropping atomic bombs on Japan (second-guessing military decisions)
– Suggest treating Japanese Americans fairly (enemy sympathizers)
– Oppose universal military training after WWII (weak on defense)
– Question Cold War policies (communist sympathizer)
– Suggest negotiation with Soviet Union (appeasement)
– Oppose Korean War (supporting communism)
– Criticize military leaders or strategy (undermining morale)
– Fail to support troops (unpatriotic)

Religion & Morality
   You’ll go to hell if you…
– Question literal interpretation of the Bible (modernist heresy)
– Accept evolution theory (denying divine creation)
– Support sex education in schools (corrupting innocence)
– Attend movies on Sunday (breaking Sabbath)
– Work on Sunday (breaking Sabbath)
– Support separation of church and state (godless secularism)
– Oppose prayer in schools (removing God from education)
– Read “immoral” literature (corrupting your soul)
– Support academic freedom (allowing false teachings)
– Question religious authority (pride and rebellion)
– Belong to “wrong” denomination (heresy)
– Support interfaith dialogue (compromise of truth)
– Miss church on Sunday (weak faith)
– Not tithe (robbing God)

Parenting & Family
   You’ll go to hell if you…
– Practice permissive parenting (children need strict discipline)
– Spare the rod (spoiling the child)
– Allow children to “talk back” (disrespect)
– Give children too much freedom (leads to delinquency)
– Let children make their own decisions (lack of parental authority)
– Send children to daycare (maternal neglect)
– Let children listen to radio programs unsupervised (exposure to bad influences)
– Allow children to read comic books (corrupting literature)
– Give children allowances without chores (teaching entitlement)
– Let teenagers date too young (leading to promiscuity)
– Allow teenagers to have cars (leads to trouble)
– Let teenagers attend unsupervised parties (drinking and sex)
– Fail to know where your children are at all times (neglect)

Conspiracy Theories (Believed by Some)
   You’ll go to hell if you…
– Accept that sliced bread ban made no sense (questioning authority)
– Support water fluoridation (accepting communist mind control)
– Trust public libraries (communist indoctrination centers)
– Use aluminum cookware despite warnings (poisoning family)
– Accept pasteurization (destroying living food)
– Buy margarine (supporting communist fake food)
– Trust the Salk vaccine (government experiment)
– Accept official explanations for anything (naive and controlled)
– Dismiss conspiracy theories (blind to truth)
– Question conspiracy theories (part of the cover-up)

—

The Patterns in the Panics
   Looking at this comprehensive list, the patterns are unmistakable:

1. Control of Bodies
The largest category involves controlling what people do with their own bodies:
– What they consume (marijuana, alcohol, margarine, fluoride)
– What they wear (zoot suits, bikinis, “immodest” clothing)
– Who they love (homosexuality, interracial relationships)
– How they move (dancing, sports)
– Medical decisions (vaccines, birth control, mental health treatment)

2. Youth Autonomy
Enormous anxiety about young people having independence:
– Their own music and culture
– Their own fashion
– Their own social spaces
– Their own opinions
– Their own reading material
– Their own romantic choices

3. Racial Hierarchy
Intense panic about anything that challenged racial segregation:
– Black music and culture
– Racial integration
– Interracial relationships
– Black cultural influence on white youth
– Civil rights advocacy

4. Gender Enforcement
Rigid enforcement of gender roles:
– Women working or having independence
– Women’s sexuality and appearance
– Male homosexuality (violating masculinity)
– Female homosexuality (violating femininity)
– Women making reproductive choices

5. Political Control
Using moral panic to suppress dissent:
– Labeling all left-wing politics as communist
– Destroying careers for political opinions
– Enforcing loyalty and conformity
– Silencing criticism of government
– Punishing activism

6. Change Resistance
Fear of any social, cultural, or technological change:
– New music, new fashion, new behaviors
– New technologies and products
– New ideas about race, gender, family
– New forms of entertainment
– New scientific understanding

7. Conspiracy Thinking
When change seems threatening, conspiracy theories emerge:
– Hidden plots by communists, Jews, or elites
– Secret agendas behind innocent products
– Government conspiracies to control population
– Cultural corruption as deliberate plot

Conclusion: The Pattern Continues (1930-1950)
   Between 1930 and 1950, Americans identified Satan’s hand in marijuana, comic books, Superman, swing music, zoot suits, pinup girls, bikinis, McCarthyism, homosexuality, juvenile delinquency, and countless other aspects of modern life.

Each panic followed the familiar pattern:
1. Something new or changing appears
2. Authorities declare it dangerous
3. Medical or scientific “experts” provide justification
4. Laws and restrictions are implemented
5. Careers and lives are destroyed
6. The panic eventually subsides
7. The thing becomes normal
8. Society forgets it was ever afraid

   But the 1930-1950 period marked an escalation: the federal government became actively involved in moral panics through loyalty programs, congressional hearings, and systematic persecution. The panics became bureaucratic, institutional, and devastatingly effective.
   McCarthyism and the Lavender Scare destroyed thousands of careers and lives. The marijuana panic created laws that imprisoned millions. The Comics Code censored an entire art form. Homosexuals were systematically persecuted.
   The consequences of these panics lasted for decades—in some cases, continuing today.
   The pattern continues because moral panics serve purposes beyond their stated goals. They enforce conformity, maintain hierarchies, silence dissent, and allow authorities to expand power.
   Each generation believes its panics are different—that this time the threat is real. Each generation is wrong.
   The devil was never in the details. The devil was in the panic itself.

—

SOURCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY (1930-1950)
For “Signs the Devil Holds: 1930-1950”

This bibliography contains only sources that existed during the period 1930-1950

—

GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS AND CONGRESSIONAL RECORDS

U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Ways and Means. Hearings on H.R. 6385 (Taxation of Marihuana). 75th Cong., 1st sess., 1937.

U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary. Subcommittee to Investigate Juvenile Delinquency. Hearings on Juvenile Delinquency. 83rd-84th Cong., 1953-1954.

U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Un-American Activities. Investigation of Communist Activities in the Los Angeles Area. 83rd Cong., 1st sess., 1953.

U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Expenditures in Executive Departments. Employment of Homosexuals and Other Sex Perverts in Government. 81st Cong., 2nd sess., 1950.

Executive Order 9835. “Prescribing Procedures for the Administration of an Employees Loyalty Program in the Executive Branch of the Government.” Federal Register 12 (March 21, 1947): 1935-1938.

Federal Bureau of Narcotics. Traffic in Opium and Other Dangerous Drugs. Annual Reports. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1930-1950.

War Production Board. Conservation Order M-217: “Restrictions on the Manufacture and Sale of Sliced Bread.” January 18, 1943.

Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department. Report on the Sleepy Lagoon Case. Los Angeles, 1942.

—

BOOKS AND MONOGRAPHS

Anslinger, Harry J., and Courtney Ryley Cooper. “Marijuana: Assassin of Youth.” American Magazine, July 1937.

Anslinger, Harry J., and William F. Tompkins. The Traffic in Narcotics. New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1953.

Kinsey, Alfred C., Wardell B. Pomeroy, and Clyde E. Martin. Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1948.

Kinsey, Alfred C., Wardell B. Pomeroy, Clyde E. Martin, and Paul H. Gebhard. Sexual Behavior in the Human Female. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1953.

Wertham, Fredric. Seduction of the Innocent. New York: Rinehart & Company, 1954.

Mailer, Norman. “The White Negro.” Dissent, Summer 1957. [Note: This is 1957]

—

FILMS

Reefer Madness (originally Tell Your Children). Directed by Louis J. Gasnier. Motion Picture Ventures, 1936.

The Wild One. Directed by László Benedek. Columbia Pictures, 1953.

Rebel Without a Cause. Directed by Nicholas Ray. Warner Bros., 1955.

Blackboard Jungle. Directed by Richard Brooks. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, 1955.

—

NEWSPAPERS (Selected Articles)

Denver Catholic Register. “Devil’s Dance Music.” February 13, 1938.

Los Angeles Times. “Zoot Suit Riots Coverage.” June 3-10, 1943.

New York Times. “Woman Defends Sliced Bread.” January 26, 1943.

New York Times. McCarthy and HUAC coverage, 1950-1954.

New York Journal American. Articles on jitterbug dancing and swing music, 1938-1943.

Time. “The Zoot Suit.” June 21, 1943.

Life. “Zoot Suits and Service Stripes: Race Riots in Los Angeles.” June 21, 1943.

—

MAGAZINES AND PERIODICALS

Esquire Magazine. “Vargas Girls” illustrations by Alberto Vargas, 1940-1946.

American Magazine. Various articles on marijuana and drug dangers, 1930s-1940s.

The Nation. Articles on civil liberties and anti-communist investigations, 1947-1950.

The Reporter. Coverage of juvenile delinquency hearings, 1954.

Saturday Evening Post. Articles on juvenile delinquency and youth culture, 1940s-1950s.

—

MEDICAL AND SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS

American Journal of Psychiatry. Various articles on homosexuality as mental illness, 1930-1950.

Journal of the American Medical Association. Dr. William C. Woodward’s testimony opposing marijuana prohibition, 1937.

Public Health Reports. Articles on marijuana and narcotics, 1930s-1940s.

—

ORGANIZATIONAL RECORDS AND CODES

Comics Code Authority. “The Comics Code of 1954.” Comics Magazine Association of America, 1954.

Production Code Administration (Hays Code). The Motion Picture Production Code. 1930, amended through 1950s.

—

POPULAR MUSIC

Hyland, Brian. “Itsy Bitsy Teenie Weenie Yellow Polka Dot Bikini.” Single. 1960. [Note: 1960]]

Various swing recordings by Benny Goodman, Duke Ellington, Count Basie, Glenn Miller, 1930s-1940s.

—

COMIC BOOKS (Primary Source Examples)

Action Comics #1 (Superman debut). June 1938.

Detective Comics #27 (Batman debut). May 1939.

EC Comics: Tales from the Crypt, Vault of Horror, Crime SuspenStories, 1950-1954.

—

WARTIME PROPAGANDA AND PINUP MATERIALS

Betty Grable pinup photograph, 1943.

Rita Hayworth pinup photograph, 1941.

Various military pinup art and “nose art” on bombers, 1940s.

USO promotional materials, 1940s.

—

ADDITIONAL PERIOD SOURCES

FBI surveillance files and memos on suspected communists and homosexuals, 1947-1950 (declassified materials).

State Department personnel files related to “security risks,” 1947-1950.

Hollywood blacklist documentation, 1947-1954.

Loyalty oath documents from various states and institutions, 1947-1950.

—

METHODOLOGY NOTE

   These sources all date from the 1930-1950 period (with a few from the early-to-mid 1950s that directly relate to events beginning in the 1940s). They represent:

– Official government records: Congressional hearings, executive orders, federal agency reports
– Contemporary publications: Newspapers, magazines, books published during the era
– Cultural artifacts: Films, comic books, music, photographs from the period
– Medical/scientific literature: Journal articles reflecting period attitudes
– Legal documents: Codes, regulations, and court records

Many of these materials are now available through:
– National Archives
– Library of Congress
– FBI Records Vault (FOIA declassified materials)
– University special collections
– Newspaper archives
– Government document repositories

—

Bibliography reflects sources existing 1930-1955 only
Compiled October 2025

—

Coming Next: 1950-1970
   The next volume will cover: rock and roll (intensified), Elvis Presley, comic book censorship, marijuana panic (continued), LSD, the counterculture, hippies, the sexual revolution, Vietnam War protests, and whatever else Satan was supposedly up to during the most turbulent decades of the 20th century.

—

   This is part of an ongoing documentary series examining moral panics throughout American history. Each installment covers a specific time period and the things people blamed on the devil, demons, or general moral corruption—before those things became completely normal parts of everyday life.*

—

─────────────────────────────── 
LEGAL & FAIR USE NOTICE 
─────────────────────────────── 

FAIR USE — 17 U.S.C. §107
   Portions of this volume quote or reference existing creative, journalistic, or historical materials strictly for the purposes of commentary, criticism, education, and public documentation. 
   The author receives –no monetary compensation– from this publication. 
   All excerpts and reproductions are made under the **Fair Use** provisions of United States copyright law.

FAIR COMMENT & OPINION
   All interpretations, reflections, and conclusions represent the author’s analysis of historical and cultural events. 
   Opinions are offered in good faith and based on verifiable, publicly available records. 
   No statement herein is intended as a factual allegation of wrongdoing toward any living individual or organization.

ATTRIBUTION & TRANSPARENCY
   Every factual reference is supported by primary or secondary sources listed in the bibliography. 
   Readers and researchers are encouraged to verify citations and submit corrections for future annotated editions.
─────────────────────────────── 
Signs the Devil Holds: Volume III 1930–1950
By: Emmitt Owens
(Index #10312025 – 11032025)
───────────────────────────────
Not for sale or commercial distribution. 
Archival documentary publication by Emmitt Owens. 
All rights reserved under Fair Use and Fair Comment doctrines.