Army, Republic of Viet Nam (ARVN)

Talk about a bum rap and a raw deal.  It’s been over 33 years since Saigon fell in April 1975.  The hardcore protesters forming the core of the antiwar movement today draws upon its experience in the protests of the 60s, against the Vietnam War.  The peaceniks bust on Bush and the neocons for refusing to admit that the Iraq War was a mistake, or that what’s going on now isn’t a colossal goatfuck.  Yet Saigon fell, thousands of Vietnamese fled, in makeshift boats, and continue coming to the US even today.  And somehow, the Vietnam War was a huge mistake on our part?  Were we wrong to have attempted to save South Vietnam from the communist, totalitarian regime of the North?  Aren’t the peaceniks, and their allies in the liberal media, responsible, at least partly, for the bloodbath which did in fact follow from the collapse of South Vietnam in 1975, a collapse which occurred because the antiwar movement was successful at getting the US to abandon South Vietnam?

Part of the excuse the leftists and their media lackeys use to try to extract themselves from any apology, admission, or retraction on the issue (which should be obvious to anyone who knows anything about it) is to slam the ARVN and President Thieu, blaming the victim, as it were.

I’ve now read Forgotten Army: Heroism and Betrayal in the ARVN by Andrew Wiest.  Clearly the ARVN wasn’t the tightest, most badass military machine the world has ever known.  Many of its generals were appointed politically and were more interested in money and power than defeating the North Vietnamese (the same accusation could be made about many of the early Union generals in our own Civil War).  And the leaders of South Vietnam weren’t exactly Jefferson, Madison, or Lincoln – but then again, neither were the majority of the other 40 Presidents.

But what really comes out in the book vetoes that.  Here are some of the more pertinent facts about the ARVN and the war effort:

1.   Although many of the top generals were, in fact, politically appointed, and desertion was always an issue (as it also was with the VC and NVA, for that matter), there were some notably competent ARVN generals and officers.  General Truong, Hue Ngoc Tran, and Dinh Van Pham are three mentioned prominent in Forgotten Army.  Unfortunately, ARVN salaries were always very low (no one joins the military because it pays well) which had a corresponding impact on morale. 

2.  The ARVN had its share of elite Ranger, Airborne and Marine units which performed well in battle.

3.  For much of Westmoreland’s time, the ARVN was shunted down as a poor relation to the US military, which took the more active role in large scale military operations.  ARVN officers were not trained to call in artillery and air support, which was restricted to the US advisors serving with ARVN units.  Then when US units were pulled out, the US did a poor job training ARVN officers to take over this role.

4.  The Tet Offensive of 1968 was a military disaster for the communists.  Whether it be the US Embassy compound in Saigon, or Hue, all territory taken by the NVA was ultimately lost, and lost with high casualties by the NVA.   The VC was wiped out as a relevant military force after this.  Also, the ARVN acquitted itself particularly well during these engagements, much to the surprise of the NVA.

5.  In 1969 the US and ARVN continued to gain ground and wipe out the NVA.  Unfortunately, the idiocy of Hamburger Hill persuaded Congress and the US public to pull the plug, at which point Nixon began withdrawing US troops from South Vietnam. 

6.   Even during the Easter Offensive of 1972, by which point most of the US ground forces had been withdrawn, the ARVN still gave the NVA a bloody nose.  It was three years before the NVA could launch another offensive.  They had to bide their time while Nixon & Kissinger dicked away at the Paris peace talks and Congress eventually lost patience and completely pulled the plug on military aid to the ARVN, at a time at which China was still supplying tanks, planes, SAMs, and AK-47s to the NVA.

7.   Westmoreland out, Abrams in.  In June 1968, Abrams took over as commander of US forces in Vietnam.  Westmoreland employed “search and destroy” tactics, in which enemy forces would be defeated, then an area left for the enemy to simply walk back in when the US and ARVN had left; in other words, a battle of attrition to simply kill as many NVA as possible, thus this misplaced focus on “body counts”.  By contrast, Abrams’ strategy was “clear and hold”, in which a permanent presence was established once an area was cleared of VC/NVA, and an infrastructure and liaison was permanently established with the locals (not merely given lip service).  This had been tried in the early 60s under Diem, but when he was assassinated the revolving door of various ARVN generals in command let the policies lapse, to the point where by 1965 US intervention was necessary.  In ’68-72, as in the early 60s, this policy paid off well.  Abrams also focused on developing the ARVN as an independent force, knowing that without US forces to back them up, the ARVN itself would be shouldering the majority of the effort.  Westmoreland himself had given short shrift to the ARVN, giving US forces primary responsibility and letting the ARVN atrophy by default.

8.  The problem was that Abrams had only been in a year when Nixon pulled the plug.  When the US forces withdrew, there weren’t enough ARVN replacements to fill the vacuum, so areas which had been “cleared and held” had to be left to the NVA to take back.  In other words, Abrams’ strategy had not been given enough time to work.  The US advisors on the ground reported extremely favorable results at the local level at winning the “hearts and minds” of the Vietnamese peasants – AFTER Abrams finally gave that portion true priority and not merely lip service.  Advisors like John Paul Vann argued – based on what he saw at the village level – that after 1968 the tide was indeed turning in favor of the US & ARVN.

Puppets?  The peaceniks claim that the South Vietnamese government had no legitimacy in the eyes of Vietnamese, whereas the North Vietnamese dictatorship did.  Consider the following facts:

1.         The NVA was supplied by China and the USSR, it could not have produced the tanks, MiG-21s, SAMs, or AK-47s itself.  The North Vietnamese regime was as much as Chinese puppet as the South was a puppet of the US.

2.         In 1955-56, when the border was established between North and South Vietnam, approximately 450,000 Vietnamese left North Vietnam to go to South Vietnam.  The amount who went North was approximately 10% of this number. 

3.         The NVA expected, when it launched its Tet Offensive in 1968, that the people of South Vietnam would welcome its forces into the cities with open arms, as liberators.  WRONG.  Not only did the South Vietnamese not welcome the NVA, the ARVN fought twice as hard against them. 

4.         Finally, the real proof came in 1975, when the North took over completely.  The waves of refugees leaving Vietnam, and the fact that there are expatriate communities in California and my area, should put paid to any claim that the South Vietnamese really wanted the NVA to come down and “liberate” them.  Whoever believes that is seriously mistaken.

Nixon vs. the Press.  The press acted as a magnifying effect on certain portions of the American public who were not only against the war, but loud and angry about it and willing to protest in public.  Even today I see that the protestors in DC get a disproportionate amount of coverage by the media, which invariably takes them at face value and pretty much gives them as much publicity as they want.  Of course we have Walter Cronkite, who offered his own pithy, idiotic opinion on the whole thing.  Rather than simply giving us FACTS, and the correct ones at that, the press decided to jump on the NVA bandwagon (Jane Fonda) and do what they could to influence politicians such as Nixon to pull out.

The equation is:  X (actual anti-war sentiment in the US) times Y (multiplier effect of liberal media grossly distorting this sentiment out of proportion to its true size) + N (Nixon) = VN (Vietnamization - US withdrawal from Vietnam at a time at which Abrams’ strategies are finally working).  Without the Y factor distorting X, Nixon would not have been in the position of doing VN.

The Johnson Administration, and Westmoreland, deserve some blame.  In particular, Westmoreland idiotic attrition strategy and “light at the end of the tunnel” propaganda was a matter of the boy crying wolf: it was bullshit, so when things actually did turn around, no one would believe the Pentagon anymore.  Certainly Daniel Ellsberg didn’t help by leaking the Pentagon Papers.  But none of this changes what was really going on in 1968 and 1969 – the war was being won.

Also, much of the abuse and scorn thrown on the ARVN comes from US military sources, although these same sources also give credit to the ARVN when it did fight well.

Bottom line was that, never mind corrupt ARVN generals or imperfect South Vietnamese politicians, in 1969 the war was winnable and could have been won by the US and ARVN working together.  They had finally developed a working relationship which was paying dividends, yet the strategically insignificant, Pyrrhic victory on Hamburger Hill, plus the ’68 Tet Offensive, persuaded all the geniuses back home, who did NOT know what was really going on, on the ground in Vietnam, that the war could not be won, just at the point at which it was the most winnable.  In other words, under Abrams the ARVN became a fighting force which could have worked with the US to permanently remove the threat of NVA invasion of South Vietnam.

Tool - Jambi (Live)

TOOL, 8/6/06 at Selland Arena, Fresno, CA. We've seen Tool's abstract, CGI videos: here is Tool live in concert. The band disappears amidst the darkness, light, and sheer power of its music, creating something infinitely greater than itself. The light shows on screens behind them take center stage, reducing the band to invisible wizards conjuring the massive musical magic (always avoid alliteration). Whew - whatever, just enjoy it.

New Wave of British Heavy Metal

Recently I got two albums, Songs From the Sparkle Lounge, the new album by Def Leppard, and The World’s Gone Mad, a two-disc compilation of Vardis.  Both of these bands came from England in the early 80’s, part of a musical trend now referred to as the New Wave of British Heavy Metal (NWOBHM).  I won’t pretend to cover the genre exhaustively – I have neither the patience, nor the knowledge, and Lars Ulrich has already collected practically every album by every band.  I’ll comment on the bands I’m most familiar with.

            In the late 70’s, England was particularly unhospitable for “metal” bands, with punk bands and new wave dominating the record companies’ interests.  Iron Maiden formed in 1977 but took until 1980 to secure a record deal, frequently having been told to “cut their hair and play punk music” if they wanted to get a deal.  Needless to say, not everyone in England was enthusiastic about the Sex Pistols, Dead Kennedys, Black Flag, and other hardcore acts.  Nonetheless, a new crop of bands managed to spring up like unwanted mushrooms in the dark, fetid underground of the UK.  They shared a love for Black Sabbath (sped up by a factor of 2-3), Marshall stacks turned up to 11, Gibsons & Fenders, and particularly atrocious production.

            At first listen, especially listening to the NWOBHM compilation I have, all the bands sound exactly the same.  This isn’t helped by the fact that in many cases, they do sound the same, or that the particular songs chosen were considered “representative” of the genre, probably none more so than “Helpless” by Diamond Head.  And while bands like Iron Maiden eventually developed a unique sound, at this point in their career they were pretty much like everyone else.  You really have to delve into the individual bands for at least one album each to begin appreciating their subtle differences, though with the lesser lights, such as Venom, it hardly seems worth the bother.  So here’s a brief rundown of the various bands which make up this subset of metal, as it were. The most successful of the NWOBHM bands were Saxon, Def Leppard, Iron Maiden, and Motorhead.

Saxon.  From Yorkshire. Saxon have the distinction of being the NWOBHM band which (A) lasted the longest AND (B) changed their sound the least – quite the opposite of Def Leppard.  The lead singer, Biff Byford, appears frozen in 1980.  Their top albums are Wheels of Steel, Denim & Leather, and Strong Arm of the Law, which provides my favorite Saxon song, “Heavy Metal Thunder.”  They still put out albums, still tour, and to listen to Saxon, it may well still be 1981.  By now, former guitarist Graham Oliver and bassist Paul Dawson have split off to form “Oliver/Dawson Saxon”, with Biff retaining the rights to just plain “Saxon”.  Like Leppard, Saxon love to wave the Union Jack, or white/red English flag, around, and embrace their heritage; they were kicked off a slot at a metal festival in Dubai due to their older song, “Crusader”.  They just need to stop in the middle of the show, sit down, and drink tea, maybe a likely outcome as they get older and Biff’s long hair turns grey.

Def Leppard.  From Sheffield (North England), their equivalent of Pittsburgh.  To me their peak was High’n’Dry, produced by John “Mutt” Lange, released back in 1981.  Still forged steel balls, especially “Lady Strange”, “Another Hit & Run”, “Bringing on the Heartbreak”, and “Switch 625.”  Not a bad cut on the whole album.  Pyromania, which followed, was a step in the commercial direction.  But if we thought Pyromania was a sellout album, Hysteria, which followed, showed us what the band would REALLY put out had they signed their souls away to the Devil for as much commercial success, money, and pussy as they could possibly handle – apparently Rick Allen’s arm, and Steve Clark’s life, were the price they paid to Eric Bloom’s friend Lou C. Fer for all that success.  Despite these losses, they’ve kept going since then.  We saw the Hysteria Tour in 1987 (supported by Tesla!) but lost interest after that.  Their newest album, Songs From The Sparkle Lounge, is not bad, but it might as well be Hysteria II.  If you’re nostalgic for 1990, by all means knock yourself out.  They’ve had a bit of a Union Jack gimmick going on for awhile, either Rick Allen wearing Union Jack boxers, or Joe Elliott wearing a Union Jack sleeveless t-shirt (who says Americans have a monopoly on flag-waving – though I’m not aware of any other country whose own people actually BURN the flag!).

Iron Maiden.  I mentioned this band earlier, referring to Live After Death.  Maiden come somewhere between Saxon and Def Leppard.  They achieved phenomenal commercial success, particularly in the late 80s.  Unlike Def Leppard, they did this without selling out.  And unlike Saxon, they have improved their sound and progressed:  Number of the Beast, Piece of Mind, Powerslave, etc. show a remarkable maturing of ability over the first two, very raw albums Iron Maiden and Killers – and I don’t mean just replacing Paul D’ianno with Bruce Dickinson. [By the way, I’ve heard “Sanctuary”, “Iron Maiden”, and “Wrathchild” enough times by now.  “Phantom of the Opera” is a good song, and a nice bone to be thrown to us as an early classic, but can we please hear “Strange World” or “Prodigal Son”?].  A Matter of Life and Death, their most recent album, is 100x more advanced and different than Iron Maiden, than Saxon’s most recent material is from Saxon.   Fortunately, after two loser albums with loser vocalist Blaze Bayley (hardly surprisingly, X Factor and Virtual XI have easily the lowest sales numbers of any Maiden albums) Bruce Dickinson came back - with a haircut.  I can’t say that Brave New World, Dance of Death, or A Matter of Life and Death are as high caliber as their earlier work with Dickinson – unfortunately, they are undeniably past their prime – but they certainly don’t stink as much as the Blaze Bayley albums and are better than No Prayer for the Dying and Fear of the Dark, the last two Dickinson albums before he went solo.  If you count their popularity in Brazil, Iron Maiden are as big as ever.

Motorhead.  Funny, I never considered them a NWOBHM band.  Lemmy was kicked out of Hawkwind in 1975 after being busted for amphetamines in Canada, on their Warrior on the Edge of Time tour.  Shortly after, he formed Motorhead.  Lemmy was already famous in an established band, Hawkwind, during its classic period, and he got Motorhead up and running – first album in 1977 (not counting On Parole’s delayed release) - long before the NWOBHM thing got going, so it’s hard to qualify Motorhead as a NWOBHM band, although their sound is certainly consistent, and Ace of Spades came out around the right time (1980).  It’s probably more accurate to consider them the #2 influence, after Black Sabbath, on the NWOBHM bands.  Lemmy tends to bitch that we consider Ace of Spades their peak, and insists that the band has been productive since then.  Yes, they still put out albums and tour.  But every Motorhead album sounds exactly the same, like a yearly copy of Iron Fist, Bomber, Ace of Spades, etc., with 1916 and Another Perfect Day being rare exceptions.  Maybe they have been cranking out new albums, but if they sound exactly like every prior album, there is little reason to buy the new albums and listen to them.  I’ve seen them a few times and they are good in concert – I particularly remember seeing them at the Bayou in Washington DC, in January 1996 in the middle of a huge blizzard.  Lemmy and the guitarist like to leave their instruments leaning up against the amps at the end of the show to feed back.

After these three, you get the lesser known bands who have fallen by the wayside and probably deserve more attention:

Diamond Head.  From Stourbridge (southwest of Birmingham).  Easily the top “underrated” band of the NWOBHM thanks to Metallica.  “Am I Evil”, “The Prince”, “Helpless” were all covered by Metallica, though my favorite, “Sucking My Love”, only appears on Metallica bootlegs.  Like Iron Maiden, they languished in the wilderness for years before getting a record deal – mainly because they were so atrociously managed.  They broke up in 1985 after three albums, the third of which, Canterbury, was a light & fluffy commercial turd.  It seemed they were bored with metal and wanted to try something else, but couldn’t get anyone to listen to them, or a record deal, in Def Leppard mode.  After a few brief reunions including Sean Harris, the singer, and a few times opening for Metallica and Megadeth (Sean Harris collaborated with Dave Mustaine on a song) they are back again, with only guitarist Brian Tatler as the remaining original member, Nick Tart handling the vocals now.  Diamond Head seem to be the sturdiest, most substantial bridge between Black Sabbath (70’s metal at its heaviest and finest) and Metallica (late 80s-90s metal at its finest).

Vardis.  From Wakefield (Yorkshire), led by Steve Zodiac, a remarkable cross between Mark Farner and Johnny Winter.  He played Telecasters exclusively (and got a good, meaty tone like Page on the first Zeppelin album) and insisted on going on stage in bare feet. Vardis were a 3 piece, with the one of the most bluesiest sound of all the NWOBHM bands.  Their first album, 100 MPH, was a live album, described as a continuous guitar solo (sounds like Man’s set at the Greasy Truckers show to me).  After some management problems, their record company went broke, so 1986 was as long as they lasted.

Witchfynde.    Another northeast band, from Nottinghamshire.  Their first and notable album, Give ‘Em Hell, features one of the best NWOBHM songs, “Leaving Nadir” (Lars Ulrich’s favorite, and mine as well).  Their major problem was various record labels going under or failing to promote them.  After some time apart, they have reformed, including guitarist Montalo, and have new material pending.

Angel Witch.  From London, of all places.  In fact, I lump them in with Witchfynde not only by name, but also having a good first album (Angel Witch) and being somewhat of a fairly decent ripoff of Black Sabbath; their sound has been described as “the first Sabbath album played through a cement mixer.”  Along with Witchfynde, one of the better obscure NWOBHM bands given that Diamond Head have been so heavily publicized by Metallica.  Instead of having (A) management issues, or (B) record company issues, Angel Witch suffered the “Deep/Snake/Crimson/Rainbow” problem of personnel issues, Kevin Heybourne (vocals/guitar) being the only consistent member.  In one case a US version of the band led by him was undone by the INS….which deported him back to England.

Grim Reaper.  I got one album of theirs, See You In Hell, but wasn’t overly impressed (apparently sharing Beavis & Butt-head’s opinion).  Oddly, they have reformed without Nick Bowcott.

Venom.  Talk about over the top.  I got Black Metal, and we had tickets to see them in fall 1985, but the show was cancelled.  Later, at college, my buddy Baron had a video of Venom which we watched, hammered with a few dozen beers between us, and fell out of our chairs laughing so hard, it was so awful.  Cronos, Mantos, and Abaddon (no, not their real names) could barely seem to play their instruments to save their lives.  It was like KISS meets Alice Cooper, or even Spinal Tap.  I hate to imagine anyone who took these clowns seriously.

Budgie.  Here’s a judgment call.  Budgie, from Wales, predate the NWOBHM movement by a long shot (starting off around 1971) but when the NWOBHM trend came around, they had lost guitarist Tony Bourge, gained guitarist John Thomas, and jumped on the bandwagon.   Power Supply, Nightflight, and Deliver Us From Evil were the three albums with JT, and sound almost exactly like Saxon and the other NWOBHM bands.  It’s a shame, because with their last 3 albums with Bourge, Bandolier, If I Were Britannia I’d Waive The Rules, and Impeckable, they finally transcended their Black Sabbath influence and injected some looser jazzy elements – even somewhat bossa nova (???) – and achieved what could finally be called their own unique sound.  With these JT albums, they’re just another (competent) NWOBHM band.  It’s ironic, though: Metallica, more than any other band, has been responsible for bringing bands like Diamond Head to light, but the two Budgie songs they cover, “Breadfan” and “Crash Course in Brain Surgery”, date from the earlier Tony Bourge era, not the John Thomas NWOBHM era.  And they’re not even Budgie’s best songs.  Their newest album, You’re All Living in Cuckooland, the first since they reformed after the John Thomas era, bears more resemblance to the Bourge material, but is somewhat undefinable.

Honorable Mentions:  As I noted, the list is not exhaustive.  Here are the other bands commonly considered part of the genre: Tygers of Pan Tang (notable for John Sykes), Praying Mantis, Samson (prior band of Bruce Dickinson), Holocaust (Metallica covered “The Small Hours”), Sweet Savage (prior band of Vivian Campbell, Metallica covered “Killing Time”), White Spirit (prior band of Janick Gers), Jaguar, Fist, Cloven Hoof (I saw their album at FNAC but passed on it, they looked a bit too goofy), Girlschool & Rock Goddess (both all-female bands of not only dubious talent, but unfortunately dubious attractiveness as well), Pretty Maids (who we saw open for Saxon), and Demon (I remember seeing their albums at FNAC but never bought one – they seemed to steal their logo right from Dodge!).

Bottom line: A surplus of talent, an absence of luck, all too often the story for many of these bands, especially when you consider that of the bands that ended up being least successful, those are the ones who most influenced Metallica, with the major exception of Motorhead, who Metallica consistently cite as a major influence even though I don’t think they really qualify as a NWOBHM band.  In a sense, Metallica scooped up their influence and used it to start their own career.  The three bands who were independently successful – Saxon, Iron Maiden, and Def Leppard – have the least connection to Metallica in terms of influence.

The Atomic Bitchwax -"Astronomy Domine" 2007

Atomic Bitchwax, a spinoff of Monster Magnet who now have a career of their own, performs the Pink Floyd classic "Astronomy Domine" at the Brighton Bar in N.J.

Queens of the Stone Age "Better Living Through Chemistry"

The Queens performing 'Chemistry' live at Rock Am 2001 - Nick Oliveri still on bass (Dave Grohl not yet on drums). My favorite QOTSA song of them all. I was psyched to hear them play this at the 9:30 Club....

Grateful Dead 6-18-67 Viola Lee Blues MPF Monterey CA

6-18-67, Monterey Pop Festival, Monterey CA "Viola Lee Blues" from the first album. Check it out: No Mickey Hart, Jerry has no beard (looks like Howard Stern off his diet). Extended jam....

Grateful Dead - Birdsong

A fabulous, acoustic "Bird Song" from the Radio City Music Hall run of 1980.

Particle (feat Joe Satriani and DJ Logic) - 'W'

Clip featuring guitar hero Joe Satriani and DJ Logic jamming with Particle on the band's Transformations Live. Particle are a livetronica band (meaning it's a mix of traditional jam band music and electronica) from Los Angeles. Like most jam band music, it's probably best appreciated when you're er... feeling trippy.

King Crimson - Matte Kudasai Live TV Appearance

A rare TV appearance of King Crimson playing Matte Kudasai (off "Discipline") from 1981! Mellow, but very addicting.

Dire Straits - Why Worry

Dire Straits Why Worry Australia Live. Terrific, mellow song.

The Beach Boys - Don't Worry Baby

One of my favorite Beach Boys songs - also a favorite of Keith Moon (the Who).

Budgie "Who Do You Want For Your Love?"

This is what I mean by having that jazzy edge. While I still prefer "Hammer & Tongs", "Zoom Club", and "In the Grip of the Tyrefitter's Hand", these songs, and this one, are far better than "Breadfan" (which I'm sick of by now). Quality performance from an underrated band.

Hawkwind-Motorhead

I always prefer the original Hawkwind version of this song - and this slideshow is pretty damn well done (especially the acid effects).

The Pink Fairies - When's The Fun Begin?

Unfortunately it's just a slide show - but it beats the "videos" with only ONE shot which doesn't even change. But a good song, so I'll let it slide....

Wishbone Ash - Jail Bait - 1971

Original lineup - Ted Turner, Martin Turner, Steve Upton, and Andy Powell. "I wonder why your face no longer shines...."

Uriah Heep - Wizard

Classic 'Heep - David Byron, Mick Box, Gary Thain, Ken Hensley, and Lee Kerslake. Lipsynched, I know, but still quality.

Danava Where Beauty And Terror Dance Music Video

Very interesting: imagine Hawkwind turned into a NWOBHM band.. and covered "Stranglehold". ????

Metallica With Diamond Head Live - Am I Evil

Metallica 1992 and Diamond Head Live - "Am I Evil". After having heard Metallica play this DH tune in concert so often (including Donington 1985 - two years after DH themselves played that festival) here's a treat: DH join Metallica on stage. Woohooo! Lars Ulrich, of course, provides the introduction.

Communism vs. National Socialism vs. Capitalism

This is NOT a rehash of my GULAG v. HOLOCAUST blog, nor is it an attempt to apologize for or glorify National Socialism, but more of an overall discussion on a wider topic, authoritarianism vs. totalitarianism vs. capitalism.

Authoritarian regimes are typically the right-wing dictatorships and juntas, such as Brazil’s military from 1964-85, Marcos, Pinochet, Salazar, Batista, the various South Vietnamese governments from 1955-75, etc.  Really you just have a thug or general who wants power for its own sake, little excuse beyond that, and all he cares about it making sure he gets his “piece of the action” and enough pussy (or whatever his particular vice happens to be).  He has no grand vision, no big plans, no grandiose scheme or desire to micromanage the entire country down to the last molecule – and no pretensions thereof.

Totalitarian regimes are what we think of like 1984, where the state encompasses the entire society and attempts to control literally everything.  With the exception of Nazi Germany, they are invariably communist regimes: Soviet Russia, Red China, Vietnam, Eastern Europe, Cuba, North Korea.  From cradle to grave, the regime seeks to modify not merely our behavior but our very thoughts.  Unlike authoritarian regimes, which rarely bother to justify their existences, power, or authority, totalitarian regimes cloak their actions in the veneer of ideology and moral superiority.  “We represent the PEOPLE – if you oppose us, you oppose the people, and must be struck down.”

Class.  According to Marxist doctrine, there are three classes: the aristocracy (kings, queens, nobles), the bourgeois (merchants and capitalists), and the proletariat (workers and peasants).  Under feudalism, the aristocracy rules, with a small but growing bourgeois class.  Eventually the bourgeois overthrows the aristocracy and institutes capitalism, then sets about exploiting the proletariat until it too is eventually overthrown in a proletarian revolution - and we get socialism.  Eventually the state withers away to a point of anarchy called communism, and we all live happily ever after.  “Communist” regimes are actually socialist, as true communism has never been achieved in any country – nor is it ever likely.

Under a socialist dictatorship, the state is supposedly the legal representative of the proletariat.  The bourgeois are dispossessed and thrown into re-education camps to be rehabilitated into socialist society.  Without any class besides proletariat, such a society is, theoretically, classless.  By comparison, under the fascist/National Socialist dictatorship, all three classes are subjugated to the state, which represents the people.  Worker, farmer, businessman, industrialist, all are enslaved to the state.  For this reason, fascists and communists ostensibly hate each other and oppose each other vigorously, yet the reality is that they have far more in common than the theoretical ideological deviations would suggest.

In many countries in Western Europe, the socialist party has taken power, yet without installing the dreaded dictatorship of the proletariat.  Instead, they maintain the market system, individual rights, and otherwise a capitalist democracy, though with 90% taxes, free health care, free education, 40 hour work week, pensions, etc.  These are essentially capitalist countries with substantial doses of socialism added.

Stalin v. Trotsky.  Neither had much of any ideological differences with the other: Trotsky was merely the loser of the power struggle.

Cult of personality.  Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Tito, Ho Chi Minh, Ceaucescu.  Despite being about “the people”, communist regimes oddly focused on strong single personalities, individual leaders.  The reality was, none of these leaders cared about the people: they simply cared about power for its own sake, and were predictably brutal and ruthless about suppressing revolt even from within the proletariat.  Lenin dismissed reports of cannibalism among Ukrainian peasants by laughing that this meant they were too weak to oppose him.  The rare examples of sincere patriots inevitably became the first victims of the purges, in which the revolution weeds out the idealists in favor of the pragmatists - who are the only ones devious and ruthless enough to survive or prosper under such regimes.

1984 & Animal Farm.  George Orwell’s pair of books, each explaining these concepts in a different way.  1984 examines the nature of the state itself, which ultimately exists for its own sake, against its own people.  Ayn Rand once defined “dictatorship” as a war between the government and its own, legally disarmed, people.  And this is explained in even more detail in the book Winston reads, provided to him by O’Brien, who is pretending to be part of the resistance but is in fact an officer of the secret police.  Odd, though:  O'Brien turns out to be more of a source of information to Winston than the other way around, and the torture Winston endures is not to extract information - he knows far less than O'Brien does, and little of value - but to corrupt him, force him to betray his lover, and destroy him as a person and an individual.  Indeed, the movie "The Lives of Others", concerning a Stasi agent in East Berlin in the mid 80s, shows that the quality of life of the secret police really wasn't that much better than that of the poets, playwrights, actors, etc. who were the victims of the police state.  It was all one big  dark, depressing prison for everyone concerned.

            Animal Farm works on several different levels.  The animals sincerely want liberation from their human master, and were reasonable in following the pigs’ revolution.  But you can also see how the worker – Boxer, the horse – is ultimately exploited by the same revolution, and how the pigs eventually took over the same role as the human farmer.  Even the vicious, snarling, dogs act as the enforcers for the pigs.

Nazi Germany.  The notable exception, the only totalitarian regime which was not communist.  The Nazis had an ideology, a Final Solution, the SS, the Gestapo, and the will to carry it out.  Hitler had a master plan, as described (vaguely) in Mein Kampf, for anyone patient enough to read it.  Cloaked in German nationalism and anti-semitism, the Nazis terrorized not only the Jews and subject occupied nations, but their own people, as willing victims, co-conspirators in mass insanity as they may have been.  But while the world is fairly unanimous in challenging and condemning this form of totalitarianism, equally oppressive and evil forms – especially Soviet Russia – found no shortage of “useful idiots” apologizing for, or even supporting, their ideologies.  Tom Morello, I’m talking to you...

Statism vs. capitalism.  For all its faults, capitalism remains the ideal form of economic system.  Authoritarian and totalitarian regimes (Nazi and socialist) can be collectively referred to as statist or collectivist.  They boil down to the priority: individual vs. collective, the needs of the many vs. the needs of the few.  The cruel irony of collectivist regimes is that in their rampant and fanatic devotion to “the people”, “society”, “the collective”, etc. they completely negate the individual, yet society is, ultimately, nothing more than an aggregate of individuals.  The ultimate minority is, of course, the individual, who is the ultimate victim, the sacrificial offering to the sacred collective.  By destroying the individual as a person with any rights or importance per se, the collectivists ultimately destroy themselves.  Without freedom for the individual, there is no freedom for anyone.

The response to this, from most socialists, is that left to its own devices, capitalism produces various market failures: poverty, hunger, economic injustice, inequality of wealth and income.  Politics and economics, the distribution of scarce, limited and finite resources, is too important to be left up to the whims, caprices, and apparently random vicissitudes of at best an impersonal market and at worst an aggregate of sometimes monopolistic and oligopolistic markets.  Why leave this to chance, when there are highly intelligent planners who can redistribute wealth and income, and micromanage the entire country, far better?  If we need to do this by a brutal dictatorship, well, so be it – better than being run by Big Business, right?  Raise the spectre of a country run by GM, IBM, Ford, or Bill Gates to scare us into the arms of Big Brother.  (Comrade Moore & Comrade Nader will be happy to oblige).

Who are these geniuses?  They’re the socialists themselves.  Have we ever met an avowed socialist who was not highly intelligent AND fully confident in his or her intelligence and wisdom (e.g. Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, or Christopher Hitchens).  The one problem with their “brain the size of a planet” issue is that no two socialists can ever agree on anything (see “Life of Brian” for this symptom of continually splitting socialist factions).  Fortunately for us, that is.  But there were no shortage of highly intelligent opponents to collectivism, including, but not limited to, Ayn Rand, Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, and Ludwig von Mises.  Bottom line is that for all its faults, capitalism keeps us free – which is far more than can be said for its alternatives.

Bill Hicks

It’s the 4^th of July, but I don’t have anything particularly patriotic to say this time around; the prior 7/4 entries concerned the Grateful Dead (7/4/06) and the American Revolution (7/4/07).  Though I suppose, getting more esoteric and obtuse, that free speech and expression – in the most extreme form of irreverent comedy – could be considered patriotic.

Recently George Carlin died.  I liked him, he was excellent, definitely irreverent, definitely witty and on the ball – especially his rails against political correctness and his classic “football vs. baseball” comparison.  But when it comes to raging, obnoxious, dead on the nail thinking man’s comedian, forget Bill Maher, the ultimate was BILL HICKS.

The problems I have with Bill Maher: first, he seems phenomenally absorbed in himself.  He has this smug, smartass arrogance which turns me off.  The second is that he appears to rip off George Carlin: “say a whole bunch of obnoxious, outrageous, offensive, crazy stuff, to get people to pay attention to me.”  I don’t sense so much sincerity in his act so much as an effort to offend people for the sake of offending them... to draw attention and publicity to himself.

Somewhere along the line, some artists picked up the idea that great art offends the popular mainstream, so if it doesn’t provoke a reaction, if it doesn’t anger or offend anyone, it’s not worthwhile or real, true, art.  Marilyn Manson is the top example of this philosophy in the music world; punk rock was its earlier manifestation.  Even John Lennon got on board with his Two Virgins album with Yoko Ono.  Robert Mapplethorpe and the urine-soaked Jesus crowd are yet more examples.  And in comedy we have… BILL MAHER.  Enough said about him.

Bill Hicks was original, he was sincere, he was cool.

With Bill Hicks, as obnoxious and offensive as he could be, there was a difference, a very subtle and difficult distinction.  Hicks wasn’t out to offend, for the sake of offending: he had messages and ideas he sincerely believed in and wanted to get across, and if he did so in a way that was offensive, well, too bad.  It was funny and it worked. 

 Some of his wacked out humor:

1.         All the best music of the 60’s and 70’s was inspired by drugs.  If you want non-drug inspired music, chuck out all your favorite albums.

2.         “Clean cut” music which doesn’t offend anyone SUCKS.  If rock and roll IS the “devil’s music”, well, what do you know?  The Devil rocks!

3.         There can be POSITIVE drug experiences – it’s just that the press doesn’t want to be seen as glamorizing drugs by reporting them.

4.         Backwards messages telling people to kill themselves (e.g. Judas Priest – not a fan, though, two less JP fans = two less gas station attendants): IDIOTIC.  Why would the band want to kill its own audience?

5.         “Devil” music is about sex:  SO WHAT?  What’s wrong with sex?

6.         Women cringe about performing oral sex on men as “disgusting”, but they wouldn’t think of refusing a man to perform oral sex on them…as “disgusting” (imitates woman moaning, receiving oral sex, saying “no, don’t do that….it’s so disgusting… uhh yesss….”)

7.         If a guy could blow himself, he would. “Ladies, if this were possible, you’d be here by yourselves in the audience...looking at an empty stage.” (Ok, he doesn’t speak for me on that one….) 

8.         Alcohol vs. Pot: “Ever see any loud, obnoxious, aggressive, angry fan at a sports event or concert?  Now think, what drug is he on?  Pot? Uh uh.  Guess what, he’s DRUNK!”

9.         Legalize drugs so you can tax them!  Taxing alcohol is great, as it pays for roads… on which we can drive drunk and kill each other.  If a stoner causes an accident, who cares?  He was driving at 4 miles per hour!  “Whoa, we hit a pizza truck!”

10.        The Gulf War was hardly a war, it was so one-sided.  The much-feared Republican Guards went from “elite” to “hey, where did they go?  They ran away!”  Their casualties, 150,000; ours: 79!!!  “We could have gone to war with just 80 men and we’d still have won!”

11.  Railing against health-obsessed, arrogant non-smokers (as he lit up on stage and puffed away), he advised them of a chilling but undeniable fact: "non-smokers are dying every day."

Best is to rent one of his DVD’s, to see the man in action: “Bill Hicks Live: Satirist, Social Critic, Stand-up Comedian 2004”.