As can be seen on a quick gaze through this site, I have all the readership of a paving slab. Under six feet of snow. So it was with a little surprise that I found that two of my posts had actually garnered comments (you can see them here and here). So after doing my reflexive duck and hide response, I (eventually) took a look.
To my utter surprise the commentator was the last person I'd ever expected: Mr Tom Kratman. That mostly explains my immediate hide response. Both posts didn't exactly agree with him and he kind of noticed. But still, I did write those posts with the intention of being read.
So, without further ado:
Welcome to the site Mr Kratman.
You'll probably want to read my review of your books here (you probably won't like it)
You'll also want to read my opinion of Watch on the Rhine (you also won't like it)
You might want to read my opinion of Baen's decision to publish Taxpayer's Teaparty (you definitely won't like it)
Also it seems I should respond to your comments (it's been almost three months since you posted them after all) so here's my response.
Firstly your comments on my Tuloriad piece:
I don't really want to waste much time on this but, sorry, Tim, no, that's not the argument. The argument - stripped - of all sneers and dicta - is simply this: unreasoning faith is power. Period. Only a fool could believe otherwise.
Consider, using nothing but unreasoning faith, some cloth,, cheapie detonators, and a little high explosive, a minority group poor in everything but unreasoning faith first stymied the greatest military power not merely in the world but in the history of the world, then nearly drove it out of Iraq. Or do you imagine suicide bombers operate of off objective, real world, measurable, physical self-interest?
Just about everything you've claimed about the above afterword is wrong (I am tempted to add something about moats and beams, but why bother?), but I don't care about that as long as you get it through your head that faith is power and that to believe otherwise is at least as credulous as someone's hope and expectation of 72 self-rehymenating virgins.
By the way, many thanks for helping me scar some people. Yes, I'm still struggling with the whole Christianity thing. Even so, I appreciate it when someone helps me along with my purpose.
best,
Tom
Actually, the interesting thing here is, I have no problem with your central argument. I agree that faith is power. What I disagree with is your method, because it is terrible. Your central argument that the Battle of Lepanto is an example of faith in action isn't hugely credible. A cursory glance at the record simply doesn't support your conclusion. You then proceed to spend half your time bashing atheists, which by the basics of your argument are already irrelevant, as they lack any faith. There seems to be no real reason to this beyond what seems to be your own personal animus against those you disagree with.
The problem here is you have a fixation on religious faith as a powerful force multiplier. What I really think you're looking for is 'faith in one's convictions'. Take for example your favourite people, Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. Do you really think that they speak so frequently and forthrightly about the benefits of atheism because logic demands it? No. They have faith in their convictions and find themselves driven to speak on it. Is that really so different from the courage shown by the religious who have stood up and fought for what they believe in? One of the things I've always found admirable about America is its conviction that to be American is to be held to a higher standard of morality and law, to accept that freedom requires sacrifices and pain, that the better path is often the harder one. Is that not, in its own way, faith?
I'd be more forgiving of this particular afterword if it simply wasn't so poorly put together. Both the comments about Lepanto and Brights don't stand up to even the most cursory research (in particular your comments about Brights display a stunning lack of comprehension). Far too much of the work is taken up with petty, poorly thought out attacks on people who don't agree with you. Rather than an essay meant to change people's opinions, this instead comes off as an incitement against a group you don't agree with. As I said, I agree with your argument, but not with your approach, because it simply doesn't work.
Now for your comments on my piece on Transnational Progressivism:
Well...personally I prefer Kosmos, for Cosmopolitan Progressivism, but that's just me. "Tranzi" will do.
You're not the first one to note that Tranzis never call themselves Tranzis. I'm not sure what they gets you or them, though. Nazis didn't call themselves M3s, for mass-murdering monsters, yet they still were; the term would be apt, whoever used it.
It's not actually a conspiracy theory, or at least, to me, it isn't. In my not inconsiderable experience of people, even very capable people, they're just not competent to conspire at that level. Of course, a larger consensus doesn't rule out the existence of smaller conspiracies, here and there, to support it. But its existence doesn't depend on them, either. The whole gamut of things we call "Victorian" was just a consensus, well-placed people with similar (enough) backgrounds, seeing similar problems, coming to similar conclusions and solutions, and (generally independently) moving things as best they were able to effect those solutions. Tranzism operates like that.
As for the rich (and we may as well include the other players), old Euro royalty, the entertainment industry, media, academia, etc., having little to do with those at the bleeding edge of the class struggle, I think you're forgetting about hypocrisy and dishonestly, and writing the existence of useful idiots out of the equation.
In any case, have fun writing your review. Hell, it will probably sell a few more of my books, as such things tend to, no matter what the reviews say. If you get anything factually wrong, I may come by and tell you. Otherwise, have at it.
best,
Tom Kratman
I think I should start by saying I respectfully disagree with you here. Firstly your point about names is off. My point was that any movement reminiscent of Tranzi-dom doesn't really seem to exist. The evidence cited for their existence by yourself (in your afterword for Yellow Eyes) and by John Fonte doesn't convince me that there really is such a movement. To be honest much of what you cite is the simple desire to make the world a better place, rather than some grand scheme for world domination. Whether that desire is misguided or not is, of course, a different matter.
Your second point misses the original point by a mile. Basically, I think of Transnational Progressivism as a conspiracy theory. As I've already pointed out, I don't particularly think Tranzi-dom exists, but it is, to be blunt, a conspiracy. While your argument as to its memetic nature, rather than a specific organization, make it clear that you don't view it as a classical, organised conspiracy, it's very clear that Transnational Progressivism is most defined by its conspiratorial nature. It is after all, an effort to do one thing(gain global power), under the disguise of doing something else(maximise minority power). Isn't that pretty much the definition of a conspiracy? Merely because there isn't a group of guys meeting in a dark room somewhere directing the efforts of the ignorant masses, doesn't make the overall tone of the predictions extremely conspiratorial.
It took me a little while to work out exactly what your third point was, based as it was on a single sentence tucked somewhere in my argument. My point was that the idea that people of power can't do anything out of the goodness of their hearts is a little ridiculous. David Carr's full statement statement, which inspired the comment, is frankly ludicrous. Basically, he seems convinced that the because the left-wing contains people of power and influence, it can't still be involved in Marxist class struggle. This actually falls over at two points. Firstly, to continue to classify the entirety of left-wing politics as 'Marxist Class Struggle' is to betray a massive ignorance about the realities of said politics. A short example would have to be environmentalism, which unfortunately seems to be a predominantly left-wing area. There's no way someone can claim that concern for the environment is classist. Secondly, the attitude that no-one of power and influence cares about those with a worse lot in life says more about the author than it does about the people he talks about. I'm well aware of hypocrisy and dishonesty, but they're far more believable than some attempt to buy popular support for a bid at global dominion.
As a final note, I have written that review of your books, linked above. If anyone did consider buying one of your books based on my review, I'd have to conclude that it can only be out of a sense of morbid curiosity.
I'm sure you're probably tempted to respond by now, so I'll just leave you with a thought from someone a lot smarter than me.
I don't mind continuing this discussion, but then again, I've always thought windmills make great targets.
Best
Timothy Maguire
Lemme tell ya a story, Tim, true story as it happens. Once upon a time, a left wing German science fiction writer and columnist for the left wing monthly, Koncret, one Dietmar Dath, wrote a review of a book in English. It was scathing, nay horrifying. The book, which, again, was in English, had been hovering around 14-15k in rank on Amazon.de, and the author really didn't expect it to go any higher. It was, after all, and again, in English, not German. Well, after the review was published (in Frankfurter Algemeine Zeitung), the book shot up to 117 for all books in Germany. For English books it was number two, behind the then latest Harry Potter. It has generally stayed fairly high for 5 years, though it does seem to be dying off now.
ReplyDeleteThat book was Watch on the Rhine.
_You_ are perfectly welcome to think of Transnational Progressivism as a conspiracy theory. What you are not entitled to do - indeed, what is intellectual dishonesty of a very high order for you to do - is to attribute to me that I think it's a conspiracy, that I hold to a conspiracy theory as regards it. If you understand that I do not, that I think of it as a consensus, which may or may not have smaller conspiracies here and there that advance it, please redeem yourself and admit it.
Whatever would make you think I expect to change anyone's opinion about anything, Tim? Puhleeze! We - western civilization - are way past the ability to reason anyone out of anything that already fits their personal pravda. I didn't write any of those books or any of those afterwords to _reason_ the left - the bulk of the adherents of which I consider to be essentially incapable of reason anyway - out of anything but simply to piss them off. I write to piss off the left and to buck up the right. I enjoy it. And I'm good at it.
You see, here's the thing Mr Kratman.
ReplyDeleteI, to be honest, don't care that your books happen to sell. I'm not surprised. Baen wouldn't keep printing them if they weren't. But then again, there are a lot of published books that, to be honest, are dreadful. Both the Da Vinci Code and Twilight are insanely popular, but that doesn't make them good. Simply the fact that your books sell doesn't make them good. It just means you have a reader base that enjoys your stories. Given that they are, to be honest, right-wing power fantasies where good, honest men defeat the evil liberals and muslims before setting the world back on its rightful path, I'm not surprised that your books appeal to a certain section of the population. Still doesn't make them good though.
I will say though that having you charge me with 'intellectual dishonesty' immediately made me think of three words: pot, kettle, black. After all, you've never responded to my points about your Tuloriad afterword. You managed to completely misinterpret the nature of 'Brights' within. Only a brief amount of research would have shown that your comments that Brights believe themselves to be smarter than religious people was completely wrong. I mean seriously, all I had to do to check those charges was actually read their Wikipedia page! It doesn't help that much of your charges simply didn't hold up to scrutiny. Your assertion that it's Brights' fault that Christianity is declining in the West fails to note the many issues that have driven falling church rolls (a lack of relevance to the young, continuing scandals within churches of all denominations and many denominations' unwelcome decisions to take partisan positions in modern politics are only the examples that spring to mind). Much of what you made of the Battle of Lepanto simply wasn't supported by an examination of the historical record (In the first engagement of the battle, two of your 'ineffective' galleases are believed to have accounted for over a third of the Ottoman fleet). In short Mr Kratman, I don't really think you're qualified to throw the first stone on 'intellectual dishonesty'.
For the sake of clarity, let's have another look at this 'consensus vs conspiracy' argument. Your argument seems to be that, as you don't believe that Transnational Progressivism is an organised conspiracy, labelling your belief in it a 'conspiracy theory' is wrong. To be honest, it's actually semantics. I don't label your belief in Transnational Progressivism a 'conspiracy theory' because I think you believe there are a group of people in a dark room somewhere directing hordes of dupes in an effort to gain global power. I label it a 'conspiracy theory' because it ascribes dark motives to a group of unconnected people, motives which seem to be entirely disconnected from the goals and ideals of said people. That is why I call it a 'conspiracy theory'. I could, I suppose, call it 'a theory that a consensus of groups are unwittingly working together to promote goals contrary to their public positions', but it wouldn't really have the same ring as 'conspiracy theory', now would it?
As a final note I have to ask: why are you posting here? You clearly seem to think that my opinion is set into stone and that we'll never agree on anything. After all, I'm liberal and you are, quite clearly, very conservative. So why are you bothering to respond? After all, you're about the only person who reads this.
And your personal qualifications for judging books, beyond that you don't like them, are...??? Seriously; you either can't tell the difference between a consensus and a conspiracy - which calls into question your command of English - orm as you admit, use the wrong term because you are looking for a particular effect - which calls into question your integrity. But then, the left has no integrity and never has had.
ReplyDeleteOne example of that, "Caliphate is racist." Does that mean that a blond-headed, blue-eyed German, who converts, rather, "reverts," has somehow changed race? Lysenko would be so proud.
Tim, there was simply too much wrong with your analysis of the Tuloriad Afterword, from your dependence on Wiki (C'mon, be serious; _Wiki_?) to your ignorance of matters military. You latch on to things like D'Souza's opinions on FDR, as if that matters to the point I made, which was that he can trash - because he has trashed - Hitchens in debate. You consider that _scholarly_? Nonsense, it isn't even good rhetoric. You think the Inquisition was limited in its killing by technology, as if you had never heard - as perhaps you have not - of Cannae and Carthage, Ghengis Khan and Tamerlane. That's scholarly? Do you begin to see why a detailed dissection of your commentary was so fruitless? There was simply too much wrong with it and every indication that you are incapable - as the left is generally incapable - of seeing anything that disagrees with your worldview.
And you don't read with comprehension. One example: Bill Boyd is not American. Why did you claim he was; I certainly didn't. He is - and yes, he's real - a now elderly, rich Panamanian - "the only rich man in Panama with a social conscience," as one Panamanian journalist described him - who went to high school here, and received a draft notice upon graduation. (Yes, when we draft, we draft resident foreigners.) He could have ducked it; he had the money and connections. Instead, given the magnitude of the cause, he allowed himself to be inducted and served as an enlisted infantryman throughout the last two-thirds or so of the campaign in France, Belgium, and Germany. But he is still Panamanian.
Why do I bother? The same reason I do pretty much anything, because I enjoy it. Why do you bother writing it, if you believe no one reads it?
I found this blog by googling for "Watch+on+the+rhine+nazi+sympathies". I'm only to chapter 4 in this book, which I'm reading via Baen's free publicly viewable e-files, and I'm already fairly disgusted by what I've read so far, and Mr. Maguire's review of it doesn't inspire further confidence.
ReplyDeleteBefore I read Watch on the Rhine, I read the Tuloriad, and I laughed at how awful some of the characterizations were. But that's another story.
Mr. Kratman,
I am a born and bred Texan of 24 years. I've lived in the Dallas area since I was five years old. I vote in county/state elections as a Republican, nationally as a Republican (except for president), and I read the National Review Online and Wall Street Journal Op-Ed page almost religiously.
I'm an ardent pro-Israeli fellow who can't stand even the slightest whiff of anti-semitism from people I associate with. I generally thing that the European Union can't do anything right and that its Labor parties will eventually bankrupt it. I also think that the only thing keeping it from being invaded is the large American presence in Germany and other associated bases.
In short, I should be one of your biggest fans, Mr. Kratman. However after seeing this argument you've seen fit to strew across a gentlemanly fellow's blog, as well as the content of some of your books I seriously think it's time to abandon all pretense of polite discourse.
What I'm trying to say here is that I think you're acting like a fucking cocksucker.
Love your blog, Mr. Maguire, keep it up. I was thinking of submitting my first manuscript to Baen. I think I still will, but after seeing what a nasty place Baen's Bar is (An FAQ section on the Civil War? And on Mercedes Lackey being banned for complaining it was right-wing? Seriously?) and Mr. Kratman, I may have to consider contingency plans.
I don't care what you read or what you don't read. I don't care how you vote. I don't care how young and inexperienced you are. I don't care if you're Texan. I don't care if you care about Israel. I don't care that you support our very limited presence in Germany. I don't care about you.
ReplyDeleteI'd rather not have you as a fan, Durandal. One has to maintain _some_ standards, after all.
Oh, by the way, I am not sure what you mean by "contingency plans," but one possibility suggests I should tell you, "Anytime, foolish child; anytime."
ReplyDeleteIt means that I might have to reconsider submitting my manuscript to Baen if it involves being published by the same company as insecure old men like you, Mr. Kratman. Sorry to disappoint your paranoid, internet-tough-guy sensibilities but no, I wouldn't punch you in the face if you paid me, much as you might deserve it.
ReplyDeleteIt's a large ego and a poor sense of self esteem that motivates someone to endlessly run google searches so they can keep watch for negative comments about their writing style. (How DID you discover this blog anyways?!)
Mr. Maguire's an unpublished author and yet he's managed to get the goat of a 50+ year old man who has fought in Panama and has published several novels. And the fact that you've apparently tagged this blog to notify you of replies means that you're positively salivating for his next reply so you might repartee him yet again. Good God.
Talk about David and Goliath. Objectively, he's already won.
You don't tag blogs, Durandal, you set up a google alert.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, out of curiosity I went and looked at Baen's Bar's FAQ until I found the sections on the Civil War and Mercedes Lackey that you commented on. My only thought on this is that unless you can write a lot better than you can read, which seems unlikely, you're most unlikely to get published there or anywhere.
Just FYI, there is no such thing as an unpublished author. There are authors, those who have been published by something besides a vanity press, and then there are aspirants. The generally accepted definition in the publishing world is that an author has one book or three shorts published by something besides a vanity press.
Tim is an aspirant. He would do his case no good, if he's trying to get published, to refer to himself as an author. You? I doubt you could do your case any harm or any good, but that's based of your apparent inability to read, with expectation that it carries over to an inability to write.
I'm actually fairly tough in real life, too, Durandal.
And, on that note, I'll close this missive with this advice. I think it's probably wasted, since your reaction to my comments - which were quite mild, really - suggests you are neither tough nor bright, and far too sensitive. You think you can write. The odds are overwhelmingly good that you cannot. Yes, the friends you show your manuscript to tell you how good it is. That's because they're your friends and want to stay that way. Until you have about a million words under your belt, you probably going to just outright stink, literarily. _Nobody_ in publishing - not editors, not agents, not the drones on the slush pile - are going to care about you. If you are actually going to try to market your baby, be prepared for absolutely cold indifference on the part of everyone that matters. I've done a lot of rather difficult things in life, Army Ranger School, say, for one particularly miserable example. Nothing I have done was as hard, demoralizing, or miserable as getting published. Nothing I can glean about you, either here or on the blog page that says you are still a student, suggests you have that kind of toughness. And this is even leaving aside the fact that you cannot read well, and so are unlikely to write well.
"You don't tag blogs, Durandal, you set up a google alert."
ReplyDeleteIt's rather strange that you accuse me of lacking the ability to read properly, and yet you missed the part where I stated rather plainly I was from Texas. Our colloquialisms don't have to make sense to you puny mortals and your fully operational headmeat.
[...] "You? I doubt you could do your case any harm or any good, but that's based of your apparent inability to read, with expectation that it carries over to an inability to write."
Because I didn't give Baen's Bar a fair shake? Please. Or are you one of those "War of Northern Aggression" slavery apologists too?
"[...] Nothing I can glean about you, either here or on the blog page that says you are still a student, suggests you have that kind of toughness. And this is even leaving aside the fact that you cannot read well, and so are unlikely to write well."
Oh man, again with this Fisher Price psychology. Thanks to an old man whose prose turned the Posleen from the scariest thing in the galaxy to an oddball crew of retards who comically swear "Shitshitshitshitshitshit" at the top of their lungs in The Tuloriad, I have rethought all my desire to be published and will stay in the safe, warm cocoon of a 9-5 job as a paralegal. Cue credits, Van Halen jump. GI Joe PSA scroll. That's a wrap.
I can brag to my wife that I have the ability to send a published author and army veteran into a rage with a few simple keystrokes. Maybe you could put that kind of character in your next novel. (It would be an improvement over your current stable of cliches)
Are you going to keep posting replies for eternity? Because if so I'm going to need to run to the grocery store and get some mad-lib forms.
If you think this is a rage, Durandal, you are flattering yourself. You seem particularly disposed to that.
ReplyDeleteWhat you missed, apparently because you cannot read, was that that particular section was a dead horse section that laid out every silly position people might, because people had, taken on the civil war. The intellectual trick there was to notice that alternative silly positions were given equal billing. Ah, but intellectual tricks...those require...
It's good you're giving up writing as an aspiration. I don't think you have what it takes. Really.
"Ah, but intellectual tricks...those require..."
ReplyDeleteExcessive ellipses? And yes, I'm aware of what the point of the FAQ was. That's why it's called an FAQ. That it required an FAQ entry is a sign of the kind of stupid opinions being expressed there, ditto Mercedes Lackey's exile.
You seem to excel in being pedantic, both in your prose and in your opinions. What's that old cliche about Military Intelligence being oxymoronic?
Except I was infantry, not MI.
ReplyDeleteIf you were aware of it, you've done a remarkable job of hiding how clever and insightful you are. Really; I was completely in the dark about it. You did such a good job of portraying someone who couldn't read very well that, not only do I agree with your decision to give up on writing, I strongly urge you to seek your future in Hollywood.
Test
ReplyDeletetest
ReplyDeletePlease Work
ReplyDeleteSo anyway, I've been having a few problems with the blog. Hopefully, if you're reading this, it's working again.
ReplyDeleteDurandal: Thanks for commenting. I hope you've found it all interesting and enlightening. I feel I should point out that I doubt that either Mr Kratman or Mr Ringo are in any way Nazi sympathizers. To be honest, Watch on the Rhine merely suggests that they are guilty of little more than excessive enthusiasm for the SS' battlefield accomplishments, which has, in turn, blinded them to their less likable acts.
Also, I wish you luck in getting published/ It's incredibly hard, but there's no feeling quite like the first time you hold a book with your name on. I also considered submitting a book to Baen, but in the end, I've decided not to. I realized that doing so would require me to comment upon, and probably lie about, many of the authors in the Baen stable. I should point out that there are a number of very good authors published by Baen (David Weber, Eric Flint and Lois McMasters Bujold quickly come to mind) so judging the company purely on Mr Kratman's works alone is probably unwise.
Mr Kratman: I think we've been around this 'consensus/ conspiracy theory' business three times so far. The problem is that you regard it as a binary set, either conspiracy or consensus, whereas I see it as a consensus being presented in the manner of a conspiracy theory. I see Transnational Progressivism as a conspiracy theory, emphasis on theory. This does not reflect my opinion as to its structure, but my opinion of the people who discuss it. It comes off as the latest re-tread of the Clinton-era New World Order paranoia, wrapped up in a veneer of psuedo-intellectual anti-multiculturalism fearmongering.
As for qualifications for reviewing your books, I've got the only ones required: eyeballs. Unless you want to claim that the only people qualified to read/ review your books hold English degrees or have to be military veterans, then that's the only qualifications that matter. Frankly, Mr Kratman, it's not like I need to look hard to call your books 'Right Wing Revenge Fantasies'. When you have thinly veiled Kerry and Bill Clinton clones actively plotting to shaft their own country (Carnifex) or Greens deliberately plotting to end all life on Earth (Watch On The Rhine), it's not hard to see. Much as it's not hard to describe much of your Legion El Cid series as 'How Tom Kratman would have prosecuted the War on Terror'. One thing I will most definitely stand by is calling Caliphate Racist. When you present the entirety of Muslim immigration into the West as a kind of Sharia law-loving fifth column, there aren't many other words to use.
Actually, Mr Kratman, when I began my review of your Tuloriad afterword, I was wondering how much research I was going to have to do. I was appalled at how little work I had to do to refute your arguments. I stuck to Wikipedia for one simple reason: I didn't have to look any deeper. Leaving aside your exceptionally clueless remarks about Brights, which appear to show that the only kind of research you did into them was to read the opinions of people who disliked them, your comments about the battle of Lepanto simply did not stand up to scrutiny. During the opening moments of the battle, two of your 'useless' gallease sank several times their own number in galleys. Later, a single gallease shored up an entire flank. Tell me, Mr Kratman, did this simply not happen?
My point about Dinesh D'Souza was to demonstrate that I doubted he was willing to engage in honest, forthright debate. In retrospect, I should have pointed to some of his comments he made in an op-ed entitled 'God Knows Why Faith Is Thriving'. In it, he claims that atheists' sole reason for having children is to stroke their own egos. If he's willing to make such baseless comments, I really doubt he approached the debate with the intention of being fair and honest.
Continuing the above:
ReplyDeleteInterestingly Mr Kratman, I do know of Hannibal, Genghis Khan and Carthage. I didn't know about Cannae, but I was well aware that Hannibal defeated numerically superior Roman armies during his campaign. I didn't know of Tamerlane, so thanks for expanding my knowledge. Of course, this has little or no relevance to your argument about religious mass-murder against 'atheist' mass-murder. My point was that the Inquisition's crimes can't be compared to the crimes of Communist Russia etc simply because the scale, motivations and technology used makes such comparisons meaningless. Actually, Mr Kratman, it is scholarly to consider whether or not the comparisons used are fair and balanced, because to do so otherwise is to prevent this comparison from being in anyway meaningful. To ignore the factors that allowed these more modern atrocities to be wider in scope than older ones is to betray a simple lack of understanding of the wider factors involved.
Finally, Mr Kratman, two things. I write this blog because, when all else fails, it quite amuses me. I reviewed your works because I felt it important for someone to point out just how offensive and prejudiced much of your work is. That's why I wrote this.
Secondly, I have to admit that, after reading your conversation with Mr Durandal, I'm extremely unimpressed. Your behaviour, in particular declaring him a hack writer purely because he disagrees with you, was unbecoming and ugly.
To be honest Mr Kratman, I expected better from you.
Tim, I don't believe I called him a hack writer. I think the only fair implication is that I called him no kind of writer at all. And that was not because he disagreed with me, but because he's no kind of writer at all.
ReplyDeleteI've limited time, at the moment, but I would encourage you to look at little more carefully at Ottoman losses to the Galleasses at Lepanto. Pay particular attention to the difference between lost or damaged and sunk. Note, after you do, that the writer of the Wiki article seems not to know the difference. Seventy or so were damaged in some degree or other, four, or perhaps a few more, were sunk. This is a large difference, no?
In short, you really should have done more research on Lepanto before commenting. I suggest Capponi's book on the subject as being about as good as exists in English.
Oh, hell, I can't resist this one.
ReplyDelete"One thing I will most definitely stand by is calling Caliphate Racist. When you present the entirety of Muslim immigration into the West as a kind of Sharia law-loving fifth column, there aren't many other words to use."
Are you absolutely sure I did that? I mean so sure you're willing to, oh, say, put 10000 dollars in escrow on a bet on the question? Remember, the key word there is "entirety." To be right, there could be no, not even one, Muslim immigrant to Europe, in the book, who is not a "sharia law-loving fifth columnist." If we can agree that those are the parameters...
Nah, that would be taking candy from a baby. You're simply wrong, so wrong that I have to wonder if you read the book. Look for Mahmoud, in the interludes to the main story, which is the only place in the story Muslim immigrants are mentioned, for the blond and blue-eyed (which is to say, non-middle eastern, rather native German) Islamic characters in the future part of the main story, and, lastly, Lale, in the afterword.
Is it possible for you to be more wrong? And that's leaving aside the utter silliness of the notion that Islam is a race. Or do you mean that people change genes when they change culture or religion? Who knew? Lysenko would be so proud.
Mr Kratman, I have to admire the non-defence you used to defend your comments about mr Durandal. What tells you that he's no writer at all? His comments about your writing? His ability to use the english language in his posts? Or is it simply that you don't like him? How does this excuse your behaviour? Using your own success to bludgeon someone aspiring to a similar position is a display of unbelievable arrogance and is enormously unbecoming.
ReplyDeleteInterestingly, rechecking the Wiki page finds that the sentence I was referring to involves the phrase 'were said to have sunk upto 70 galleys'. Evidently that does mean that they could have sunk less than that. Still it doesn't change the basic facts. Taking your numbers, which I will grant are probably more accurate then Wiki, still means that two gallease managed to, at the minimum, impair the combat efficiency of almost a third of the Ottoman fleet. That's quite an impact for a pair of 'useless' ships.
So anyway, Capponi's book 'Victory of the West'. I haven't read it, but I did do a little research. Firstly, it's worth pointing out it's cited as a reference for the Wiki page you think is so wrong. More interestingly, I read through every review of it on Amazon and Google Books and you know what I found? Quite a lot of comments about the effects of superior European technology and tactics. There weren't a lot of comments, however, saying anything about the effects of faith on the battle or a miracle occurring during the battle. Even more obvious was that the book's primary focus isn't on the actual battle, put on the historical events that led up to it.
As for what I said about Caliphate, you are aware how incredibly ridiculous your argument is, right? Let's see, I said that your characterisation of muslim immigration into Europe was racist. Your defence was to point out that one, specifically, one muslim character in your book, doesn't want this. I'd probably be slightly forgiving of this ridiculous defence if Mahmoud hadn't been your author avatar, a character who's sole role in the book was to tell the reader just how bad the coming muslim takeover is going to be. He's simply the 'exception that proves the rule' about Caliphate.
The rest of your defence is, to be honest, silly. You defend your asinine Lysenko charge by repeating the mistake that began it. I called Caliphate racist because of your characterisation of muslim immigration, both in your book and your afterword at the end. That is all. Please do tell me, how can a German Muslim immigrate into Germany? I'm trying to work that one out.
To be honest, your Lysenko comment is is amazing in its sheer outrageousness. The first time you made it, it was understandable. You'd misunderstood what I meant by calling Caliphate racist. The second time? Not so much. This time I'd explained why I said what I did and, you again, repeated you accusation. The first time was accidental, if rude. The second time only has two explanations:
1: you still don't understand my position. I don't think that every word of Caliphate is racist. But, its basic plot relies on a assumption which is vile and full of racism and islamaphobia. Worse, you then declare in the afterword that this is what you expect to happen if nothing happens to stop it. Still, your lack of comprehension doesn't entitle you to insult me based on an inaccurate assessment.
2: You do understand my point. That's a little more ugly. Basically, at some deep level, you know that Caliphate is racist, but you don't want to admit it, even to yourself. So instead, you double down on your ridiculous, clearly inaccurate defence. If this is true mr Kratman, then you have insulted me to cover up your own failures.
Which is true Mr Kratman? Are you either basically an idiot, because you don't understand my opinion, or are you incapable of admitting your own failures? Neither really reflects well on you.
Durdandel? I don't think he can write because, as demonstrated, I don't see where he can read with understanding. What's hard to understand about that?
ReplyDeleteSorry, Tim, won't wash. To say "sunk up to" when the reference said damaged and sunk 2 plus at least 2 more, is not using a reference, it's misusing one, wilfully or ignorantly, take your pick.
Faith and tech? See, here's another bit of typical ignorance on the part of the noncognoscenti. (And, c'mon, Tim; citing to Amazon reviews? Puhleeze!) The battle was hard fought, until the very end. Know anyone with two brain cells to rub together that would disagree with that? Anyone? Hey, Durandel, you want to disagree? It was also, for the most part, a fire and shock (qv) infantry battle at sea, as almost all battles at sea were until fairly recently. Those were moral issues, almost invariably. Lepanto was not different.
So, let's say the tech mattered (didn't say it didn't). And the Christians still won by just a hair. Now take away their faith, so that only the Moslems have it. Whose morale is better then, and who wins that very closely fought battle?
If anyone is an idiot, Tim, it's the one who consistently portrays a matter of culture as a matter of race. That would be you. And if anyone is dishonest, it would be the one who did claim "entirety," and then recants. that would be you, too.
You know I could make some kind of reasoned argument now. I could sit down and point out the holes in your argument again. I could point out how little justification you have for your behaviour, but let's be honest Mr Kratman, there's no real point.
ReplyDeleteBecause Mr Kratman, you are always right.
You're never insulting or rude, you're always right.
Your words are never bigoted or arrogant, they are always right.
You're never wrong, inaccurate or even mistaken, because you, Mr Kratman, are always right.
You're not a fool or an idiot or a bigot, because you are always right.
The thing is, you're not always right.
You want to know why I trust a handful of reviewers from Amazon and Google Books over yourself? Simple. Experience. Reading your arguments has taught me that you have a distinct aversion to opposing viewpoints and often, to be frank, actual reality.
Even worse is your profound intemperance. You seem to have no understanding that what you say is often screamingly offensive. If your Lysenko charges hadn't been so blindingly stupid, they'd be one of the most offensive things I'd ever heard. Your comments about Liberalism display not only a total lack of comprehension of the subject, but show a distinct personal animosity which is just plain ugly.
So finally Mr Kratman, I'm going to make a simple plea:
Please stop. Please.
You are not doing well here. You are not changing my mind on any of the points we have argued. Often you have done little more than harden my opinion.
What you have done, however, is very poorly present yourself. From the beginning of this conversation, you have been rude and astonishingly arrogant. You have attacked my honesty and intelligence for disagreeing with you. Even worse, your arguments have often relied on you consistently misinterpreting my words and explanations. That's no way to win an argument.
In conclusion Mr Kratman and with every drop of respect I can muster: Please stop. You are not winning.
Tim, you wouldn't know a reasoned argument if it were gnawing at your ankle. I think that's much of what I find so really offensive in the left, with damned few exceptions. They think they're somehow of adequate intelligence, yet - with vanishingly few exceptions - they're morons. And you just can't convince a moron that he's a moron. And you will never change his mind. Supremely confident that the darkness of that mind will never be illuminated, he crawls through life, finding racism where there is none and feeling virtuous in his mistake.
ReplyDeleteI don't have to always be right, Tim. I only have to be right about this, when discussing this. And I am. You - and the left, uniformly - prostitute the words, "racism" and "racist," which had and have legitimate meanings, until they mean nothing and serves no purpose except to punctuate that a liberal is losing an argument.
And of _course_ you're offended, Tim; you're a liberal and I tried to bring a little light to the shadowy corners of your mind. Would you like a measure of just how stupid and divorced from reality you are, as compared to me? Tough, here it is, anyway:
Tim, we've been insulting each other, from the beginning, which began with you. And you're too damned idiotic even to see it.
By the way, early on I mentioned that I do this for fun. I do. And I need to thank you for something. Infuriating the left, by offending them and insulting them, is practically the only reason I get out of bed in the morning. So thanks, for giving me the opportunity.