The Tuloriad Afterword: Not Exactly Scholarly

As I said in my last post, I'm planning a little rant about Tom Kratman's collection of work. While researching it, I found another of his afterwords online, this time from his most recent collaboration with John Ringo, 'The Tuloriad' (Read it here). Like all of his afterwords, Kratman attempts to extend the elements of his novels into the real world, with various degrees of believability.

Any way, the afterword 'Where Was Secular Humanism at Lepanto?' is Kratman's attempt to, I think, make the argument that religion (specifically Christianity) is better for the world than atheism or secular humanism. After reading through it, I couldn't help beginning to pick it apart. With a few minutes' research, I was quickly poking holes in it.

So for fun, I thought I'd take you through it and just note where reality and Kratman diverge. Prepare for a dive into the mind of Tom Kratman (I'm sorry for the scars you're about to collect). Kratman is in italics, I'm in normal.

Where Was Secular Humanism at Lepanto?

The moral of this story, this afterword, is "Never bring a knife to a gunfight." Keep that in mind as you read.

In any case, religious fanatics? Us? We don't think so.

We're not going to sit here and lecture you on the value and validity of atheism versus faith. We'll leave that to Hitchens and Dawkins or D'Souza or the Pope or anyone else who cares to make the leap. One way or the other. Hearty shrugs, all around. A defense of the existence of God was never the purpose of the book, anyway, though we would be unsurprised to see any number of claims, after publication, that it is such a defense.

Um, no. This entire essay is supposed prove that faith is better than atheism. Later on, he'll go on to mock an atheist's arguments against God. So yeah, he opens with a lie.

Sorry, it ain't, either in defense of Revelations or in defense of Hitchen's revelation that there was no God when Hitchens was nine years old. (Besides, Dinesh D'Souza does a much better job of thrashing Hitchens in public than we could, even if we cared to.)

Moreover, nope, we don't think it's unethical to be an atheist. We don't think it's impossible, or really any more difficult or unlikely, to be an atheist and still be a highly ethical human being.

Let's just take a moment to mention Dinesh D'Souza. Who is he? Well he's a conservative intellectual famed for believing it's Roosevelt's fault for the Soviet Union taking over Eastern Europe and thus it's his fault that the Taliban took over Afghanistan. He also believes that church-state separation is an effort to make all religious people second-class citizens.

The same, sadly, cannot be said for governments. Thus, consider, say, the retail horrors of the Spanish Inquisition which, from 1481 to 1834 killed—shudder—not more than five thousand people, few or none of them atheists, and possibly closer to two thousand. Compare that to expressly atheistic regimes—the Soviet Union, for example, in which a thousand people a day, twenty-five hundred a day by Robert Conquest's tally—were put to death in 1937 and 38. And that's not even counting starved Ukrainians by the millions. The death toll in Maoist China is said to have been much, much greater. Twenty million? Thirty million? A hundred million? Who knows?

Hmm. So let me get this straight. The activities of a non-governmental organisation, using 15-18th century technology, with official blessing, but not much support, is a comparable example to mass-murder with full state support and 20th century tech? Hmm, yes, of course the Spanish Inquisition is completely comparable to Mao and Stalin.

Personally, we'd take our chances with the Inquisition before we would take them with a militantly communist, which is to say, atheist regime. The Inquisition, after all, was a complete stranger neither to humanity nor to the concept of mercy.

Umm, what? Firstly, the second sentence is a weirdly pointless double negative. It'd be simpler to say 'The Inquistion, after all, wasn't a complete stranger to humanity or the concept of mercy'. Also, I'm not much taken by the conflation of communism and atheism here. Sure, communist states have always been atheistic (elevating the state over all others), but Kratman makes the mistake of conflating cause and effect here. Basically, communisms aren't atheistic because of an ideology, but because loyalty to God is an added loyalty that distracts their citizens from their work for the state. To ascribe the sins of communisms to atheism is to ignore all of the other reasons for those crimes.

Now we're onto the main thrust of the arguement: the Battle of Lepanto.

But that's still not the point of this book or this afterword. Go back to the afterword's title. Ever heard of Lepanto? Everyone knows about the Three Hundred Spartans now, at least in some form or another, from the movies. Not enough people know about the battle of Lepanto.

Lepanto (7 October, 1571, 17 October, by our calendar), near the mouth of the Gulf of Corinth and the site of several battles from Naupactus on, was a naval battle, the last really great battle of oar-powered ships, between the fleet of the Moslem Ottoman Empire and the combined, individually much inferior, fleets of the Papacy, Christian Venice, Spain, plus tiny contingents from various places like Malta and Genoa. The combined Christian fleet was outnumbered, both in terms of ships and in terms of soldiers—"Marines," we would say today—who made those ships effective. Yes, they had half a dozen "super-weapons" in the form of what were called "galleasses"—bigger galleys (but much slower, they had to be towed into line by others, and one third of those could not even be towed into position), mounting more and larger guns, and carrying more Marines—but still the odds lay fairly heavily with the Ottomans.

Those odds ran about two hundred and eighty-six warships, some of them smaller (Turk), to two hundred and twelve (Christian), six of them larger. In soldiery the odds were similar. The Christians had a better than two to one advantage in artillery, yet this means less than we would think today, since the bulk of artillery on a galley was intended to be fired once, generally without careful aim, and then promptly forgotten as the ship-borne infantry took over the fight.

Worse for the Christians, the Ottomans had a much greater degree of unity of command. Indeed, for most of the larger individual sections of the Christian fleet, there were long-term, serious advantages to letting the other sections be crushed. It wasn't, after all, as if Spain and Venice were great friends.

Nor were the stakes notably small. The last jewel of the Byzantine Empire, its capital, Constantinople, had fallen the century prior (after, be it noted, having been badly weakened by being sacked by "Christians" two and a half centuries before that). Since then, the Ottomans had exploded across the known world. The Levant was theirs, as were Egypt and Mesopotamia, along with most of North Africa. The Balkans, too, had fallen to the crescent. Thousands in Italy had been killed or enslaved by Ottoman sea raiders. An almanac of Venice, for the year 1545, showed half a dozen Ottoman galleys, raiders, close offshore.

Times looked bleak, indeed, for Western Christendom. And yet, when the smoke cleared, the Ottoman fleet, despite exemplary bravery on the part of the men, was crushed, never really fully to recover. Christian losses in men had been severe, yet were only about equal to the number of Christian slaves liberated from Ottoman galleys.

It was a victory even an atheist might be inclined to call miraculous, with the Ottomans losing about fifteen ships for each Christian loss; over one hundred and eighty Moslem galleys to twelve.

I'm going to start this with a little note: this is the first moment of this afterword I'm going to ascribe to poor research. Either that or some very deliberate interpretations in one direction. Let's take a look at the battle's Wiki page. Let's start with being out-numbered. The Holy League fleet actually had 284 ships (202 Galleys, 6 heavier Gallease and 76 'other', presumably privateers, armed merchantmen and the like), while the Ottomans had 287 ships (208 Galleys, 46 galliots, a smaller class of galley, and 23 fuste, an even smaller class of galley). So the Ottomans had a 3 ship advantage, just a 1% size advantage, with most of their 'larger' fleet being smaller ships. The Holy League had approximately 41,000 soldiers and sailors, while the Ottoman fleet had 47,000 soldiers and sailors (a 15% advantage). In addition, while much of the Holy League soldiers were of high quality, the Ottoman had few of their Finally, the Holy League had approximately 1815 guns on their ships in total, while the Ottoman fleet had approximately 750, which is slightly over a third of their opponent's.

So it's not like the odds were as bad as Kratman makes out. Even worse, reading the account of the battle sinks his opinion of the Gallease (the 'super-galley'). Almost the first thing that happens is that the Ottoman fleet takes two of the Gallease for merchant ships and attacks. The ensuing skirmish ends with 30 sunk Ottoman galleys. That's the Ottoman numerical advantage gone, along with approximately 5,000 men (almost 11% of the fleet's total military complement).

This isn't to say that the battle wasn't a considerable victory for the Holy League. The casualty count reflects a titanic disaster for the Ottoman fleet, that isn't in dispute, but I have a lot of reservations attributing the success solely to divine intervention and not a mix of superior technology and training.

Now let's suppose, just for the moment and just arguendo, that God doesn't exist, that He's a pure figment of the imagination. What then won the battle of Lepanto? No, back off. What got the Christian fleet together even to fight the battle, for without getting together to fight it it could never have been won?

First question? Umm, superior weapons and training? Second question? Pure self-interest? I'm not saying that the main reason the Holy League came together is that they were Christian and the Ottoman Empire was Muslim, but there's no mention of simple self-interest or the Christian nations' desire to control Mediterranean trade.

The answer is, of course, faith, the faith of the Pope, Pius V, who did the political maneuvering and much of the financing, and also the faith of the kings, doges, nobles and perhaps especially the common folk who manned the fleet. And that answer does not depend on the validity of faith, only upon its sincere existence. Faith is, in short, a weapon, the gun you bring to a certain kind of gunfight.

So of course, it follows that the Ottoman Empire didn't bring any faith to Lepanto. Am I allowed to laugh now? Kratman's got a massive Islamaphobic streak to his writing (baring State of Disobedience, every single one of his solo novels has involved villainous Islam as the central enemy), so it's not a surprise that he makes no reference to the strength of faith inherent in the Ottoman fleet. Evidently, to Kratman, sincere faith in Allah does not help in a fight.

They've taken to calling themselves "brights," of late, those who disparage and attack faith. At least, some of them have. One can't help but note the prior but parallel usurpation of the word "gay" by homosexuals. And, just as gays do not appear notably happier than anyone else, one may well doubt whether "brights" are any smarter . . . or even as smart.

Perhaps sensing that he's flogged his first dead horse a little too much, Kratman switches to a head-snapping alternate argument. It only takes him three sentences to spectacularly hash it up, which may have to be a new record in this sort of thing.

This is research fail number two: Brights. As anyone who spends the time to stick 'brights' into Google then look at the Wikipedia entry (here) will tell you, he's very wrong. 'Brights' was originally coined by the movement's founder (Paul Geisert) to be a positive umbrella phrase for anyone who considered themselves 'godless'. The idea was inspired by the homosexual co-option of the word 'gay', which has helped give them a positive sound. In other words, Kratman's belief that 'Brights' think themselves better than the religious based on their own self-coined name is simply wrong.

To make things worse, guess what the Bright term is for the religious? Super, as in someone who believes in the supernatural. I'm pretty sure no one outside of a comic has ever used 'super' as a perjorative.

Example: The religious impulse is as near to universal a human phenomenon as one might imagine. Not that every human being has it, of course, but it has been present, and almost invariably prevalent, in every human society which did not actively suppress it (and some that did).

Yep, well done, religion has been around as long as humanity. I'd have loved to seen some mention of the 'God gene' in here, but I doubt Kratman accepts its existence.

Now imagine you're a human being of broadly liberal sentiment, much opposed to religion and also much opposed to the oppression of women and gays, equally much against sexual repression, which, by you, and not without some reason on your part, religion is generally held responsible for. You are, in other words, a "bright." Let's say, moreover, that you're a European "bright."

Kratman decides, once again, to ascribe his own image to a liberal group. Having had a quick glance at the Bright philosophy, it's quite clear that every member disagrees on their exact opinion on religion. Some are at best indifferent and others are clearly opposed solely to religion iself, not the existence of God.

What has been the effect of your, the collective "your," attacks on and disparagement of Christianity? Did you get rid of religion? Yes . . . ummm . . . well, no. You got rid of Christianity for the most part. And left a spiritual vacuum for Islam. So, in lieu of one religion, a religion, be it noted, that has become a fairly live and let live phenomenon, you've managed to set things up nicely for a religion which is by no means live and let live. You've arranged to replace a religion that hasn't really done much to oppress women and gays in, oh, a very long time, with one firmly dedicated to the oppression on the one and the extinction of the other.

Oh God, it's all my fault! Because I don't like religion, Good, Kind Christianity has been displaced by Evil, Intolerant Islam!

Sorry, Sarcasm-Mode Off. This may have to be the stupidest part of Kratman's argument yet. Kratman makes no reference to Christianity's own failings, like the huge hammering the Catholic Church has taken for its hypocrisy over child-abuse or the loss of relevance to most in the West. Of course, he then sprays his Islamaphobia all over the place.

Finally, I'm going to have to stop here and go: Christianity 'hasn't really done much to oppress women and gays in, oh, a very long time'? Then what the FUCK was the Mormon church doing funding Prop 8? What the hell is with the huge church opposition to abortions? Why the hell do so many American churches bar homosexuality and treat it as though it was a disease? Even if it's not as bad as Islam in many places, oppression is still oppression.

And you'll insist on calling this "bright," wont you? Because it so cleverly advances your long term goals, right?

No, not really. Firstly because Kratman's got this so wrong that this actually makes no sense.

Christopher Hitchens even subtitled his recent book on the subject, "How Religion Poisons Everything." Odd, isn't it, that the subtitle fails to note that with poison toxicity is in the dose? Or that some doses are worse than others. Or that, given that near universal religious impulse, to get rid of the non-poisonous dose sets things up for a poisonous one? Yet this is "bright."

Hmm. 'How Religion Weakens A Few Things and Kills Some Others'. Yeah, that sounds catchy. Gods, has this man ever heard of the word metaphor? Not very 'super', Mr Kratman.

If you look up 'poison' in a dictionary, you'll find that it doesn't just mean 'to give someone a substance in hope of killing them'. It can also mean 'to ruin, vitate or corrupt' or 'something harmful or pernicious'. Which is what Hitchens was obviously looking for.

Oh, and by the way, Mr Hitchens doesn't actually like the label 'bright'. Just an FYI.

Ahem.

Did religion poison those Christian sailors, rowers, and Marines at Lepanto? No; it was not poison to them, but the elixir of strength that gathered them and enabled them to prevail against a religion that was poisonous to them and their way of life. And isn't that odd, too? That such a bright man as Hitchens should claim religion poisons "everything," when the plain historical record, just limiting ourselves for the moment to Lepanto—something a bright man ought to know about—shows that this is not the case?

As it's pretty clear that because Kratman hasn't bothered to actually read Mr Hitchen's book, his criticisms aren't really valid. Worse though, he seems to conflate the words 'religion' and 'faith'. Brights have issue with religion, not personal faith. Yes, many brights disagree with religion and the concept of faith, but many also have faith in their own personal convictions.

This is the real problem with the whole essay. Kratman is basically saying 'faith makes warriors stronger', but his every example is Christian and his opposition is atheism. There's no other samples of faith, just Christianity or none at all. There's no examples of faith in other people (ie 'The General is coming and we need to hold out') or ideals ('my belief in X gives me strength'), just Christianity. There's no examples of other religions (like Judaism or Buddhism) having a similar effect.

Hmmm. Perhaps "bright" doesn't mean, after all, what "brights" want it to mean.

No, 'bright' doesn't mean what you want it to mean.

Theft of the word "bright," while it doesn't quite rise to the level of linguistic matricide (the malicious murder of one's mother tongue), so common in PC circles, is still an exercise in intellectual dishonesty. It's hardly the only one. For example, it is often claimed that there's not a shred of evidence for the existence of God. This is simple nonsense; there's lots of evidence, some of it weaker and some of it stronger. Some of it is highly questionable and other portions very hard to explain away. (And one of our favorite bits revolves around just when and how Pius V knew that the battle of Lepanto had been won, at the time it had been won, and in the absence of long range communications. Look it up. Really.)

Again, Kratman repeats his mistake about 'brights' (This actually seems to be his favourite complaint about them).

His linking here is a bit suspect. Basically, he extends his miscomprehension of 'Brights' and then adds their belief that there isn't any proof that God exists to claim that they are intellectually dishonest. Firstly, again, Kratman has the meaning of Bright wrong, so that's not dishonest. Secondly, the existence of God is one of the oldest arguments in existence, so claiming that the Brights are intellectually dishonest for not accepting Kratman's side is a little iffy. He pays no interest in any evidence for the non-existence of God, which is even more intellectually dishonest.

Evidence, in any case, there is. What there isn't is absolute, irrefutable proof. To use the word "evidence," when what you mean is "irrefutable proof," is intellectual dishonesty of quite a high order, much worse, much more vile, than simple theft of a word. It's even worse, in its way, than the intellectual dishonesty of failure to note, when discussing poisons, that toxicity is in the dose.

The problem here is that there also isn't irrefutable proof of the existence of God. While the Catholic Church has documented hundreds of miracles and the Bible is full of many more, there is little provable evidence, But no-one has ever found Noah's Ark or anything similar. Every miracle is apocryphal in its extent, often reveal solely after the saint's death, when there isn't any chance to truly document it.

But then if "brights" are not required to be "bright," if a disliked religion must give way even if it opens up the world to a loathed one, how can we expect "evidence" not to mean "proof" or dosage to matter to toxicity?

So let's just stop here for a moment. Brights don't actually think they're brighter than Supers, the actual idea of brights is to have nothing to do with any religion, not destroy them, there's no real proof either way on God and Kratman still doesn't understand metaphor.

We clear on all that?

And some would insist, still, that the contradictions claimed to be in the New Testiment render it invalid.

Ahem.

Note, at this point, that we have still not claimed that, in fact, there is a God. We may, and do, believe that there is, and believe that there is evidence that there is. But there is no absolute proof, a point we've already readily conceded, and we see no point in arguing for what cannot be proven.

But you'll happily claim that there's no evidence against the existence of God. Right, that's a completely different thing.

Still, we can't help but note that much of what masquerades as disbelief in God is really just disapproval. Consider the following pair of claims on the subject, voiced, along with some others, by Hitchens during a debate with Dinesh D'Souza:

1) People are badly designed. No god could be so incompetent.

2) Earth is not paradise. Most of humanity has lived in misery for most of mankind's existence, though things are somewhat improved now. No god could be so heartless. No real god could have permitted Auschwitz.

Leave aside that people for whom evolution, biological and social, is an article of faith are therein complaining that a real god could never have permitted evolution, social and biological. That's funny enough, of course, being more reminiscent of some snake-charming cult in the backwoods than a new York salon, but not the point. The point is that, by those measures, a real god would be a eugenicist ala Heinrich Himmler, so that man would not have been or be so biologically imperfect, and, since most of mankind's self inflicted misery arises as a result of freedom to act, no real god would permit man that freedom. Rather, He would be a sort of benevolent Stalin.

These are the criteria by which a god should be measured, his similarity to Himmler, in some particulars, and Stalin, in others?

Hmm, a sardonic compression of several hours' debate followed by the evocation of Godwin's Law. That's not a good sign. Let's take his two arguments separately:

1) People are badly designed. No god could be so incompetent. The evidence that humans evolved rather than be designed is long-running so I'll just grab a simple example: the Appendix. The Appendix serves absolutely no purpose in the human body apart from getting infected and having to be removed. I'd love too see Kratman explain why God put it in.

2) Earth is not paradise. Most of humanity has lived in misery for most of mankind's existence, though things are somewhat improved now. No god could be so heartless. No real god could have permitted Auschwitz. This is the oldest question in religion and weirdly, Kratman seems to think that citing this shows that Hitchens has no real argument. This question is one every religious person struggles with, either from a personal perspective or a pastoral one. It is 'the' question in religion. Strangely, Kratman seems to find it moot, which makes me worry about him.

Kratman then continues by making a few laughable connections. Firstly, Kratman falls for the old 'evolution is a belief' canard. It's actually a scientific theory that Hitchens is convinced is right. There's a world of difference there. More importantly, belief in God implies an acceptance of the story of Creation, rather than evolution. Kratman's complaint is that Hitchens' can't accept the idea of a God who uses evolution as his tool. That may well be right, but technically, any faithful person is also in the same position, as this would deny the story of Creation.

In addition, Kratman assumes that because Hitchens dislikes the idea of a God who does not create a 'perfect' being, he thinks God should be a eugenicist like Heinrich Himmler. This argument falls face first several times, most notably because it seems to be an argument that God isn't omnipotent and omniscient. If God is interested in creating a perfect, disease-free human then he could just do it. He wouldn't have to spend time experimenting and failing, as he is, by definition, fully capable of succeeding first time.

Finally, he assumes that to prevent man's self-inflicted evils, God would have to become a benevolent Stalin. Umm, you what? Basically, Kratman assumes that all our evils and suffering are due to Free Will and that to remove that would create a Godly dictatorship. He seems not to consider any other acts, like for example, taking away the major causes of conflict, like scarce resources and giving a single defined religion to the world in uncontested style. Strangely, there's also no mention of what would happen with natural disasters, one of the biggest creators of the 'Why?' question.

Ahem.

Never mind. Let "brights" be not very bright. Let dosage not matter to toxicity. Twist word meanings. Make Stalin a god, too. Why not; it's been done before and likely will again.

Even so, never go to a gunfight without a gun and, if you intend to win, never go to a religious war without religion. You'll lose.

Right so let's sum up. Kratman doesn't really research his opponents. He also doesn't understand metaphor. He's a master deliberately misunderstanding something to make a point. He uses Godwin's Law when possible. All atheists are bad.

To be frank, Kratman really doesn't understand the argument he's trying to make. He's trying to make a case for faith giving more strength than disbelief, but he hasn't properly researched his central case and then wanders off into his usual, petty attacks on liberals. His arguments aren't well researched and are often little more than alternate definitions of single words. In particular, he never misses an opportunity to misunderstand the title of 'Bright' every time he uses it, despite the insanely simple amount of research he would have needed to know the correct answer.

I'm not a fan of Kratman and after reading an afterword like this, it's not hard to remember why. He's got an over-inflated impression of his own intellect and scholarly skill. He clearly restricts his research to sources which agree with his opinions and doesn't really seem to even consider alternate views as valid. Most unfortunately, he's not much good at holding together an argument. His faith as a force-multiplier argument is unfortunately derailed by his desire to smack-down atheism. This weakens both arguments and eventually cripples the two.

Transnational Progressivism: The Conspiracy You've Never Heard Of

I'm currently planning a little review of Tom Kratman's work and it won't make any sense without an explanation of his weird little obsession with transnational progressivism or 'tranzis'. An explanation will be too large to go into the actual review, so I kind of need to separate it into its own section. So, there's a huge chance you're reading this to understand what I'm ranting about some time in the future.

Transnational Progressivism is a strange political concept and it's primarily due to its origins. It was first proposed by John Fonte in his The Ideological War Within The West written in 2006 and this is the first strange thing. Unlike every other political ideology I've ever heard of, Transnational Progressivism is the only one ever named by its opponents. Marxism, Leninism, Communism, Liberalism and Conservatism are all names at least partially coined by their members. They're proudly owned by their adherents and this is where Transnational Progressivism gets a little weird. It's a label that seems to be applied solely by tranzis' opponents.

So what exactly is Transnational Progressivism? Fonte defines eight policy areas that are at its core:

1)The ascribed group over the individual citizen (people are part of an assigned 'group' rather than an independent citizen),

2)Grouproportionalism as the goal of fairness (assigned groups should be proportionally represented in all areas of life)

3)The values of all dominant institutes to be changed to reflect the perspectives of the victim groups (all institutes should reflect not just the dominant world view, but also the world view of all participating groups)

4)The demographic imperative (the standard paradigm of immigrants assimilating into the national culture should be replaced with an encouragement to diversity)

5)The redefinition of democracy and democratic ideals (Replace the idea of the democratic majority with the sharing of power between different groups)

6)Deconstruction of national narratives and national symbols of democratic nation-states in the West (the folding of national identities into a more inclusive structure)

7)Promotion of the concept of postnational citizenship (decouple the concept of citizenship from nation-states)

8)The idea of Transnationalism as a major conceptual tool (transnationalism as the next stage of multicultural ideology)

A quick problem immediately strikes once one reads through Fonte's list: many of these concepts are almost completely without definition or attributed to a handful of relatively innocuous pieces of work. Take, for example, number 7. The only evidence given is a single line written by Law Professor Linda Bosniak. There's no context given, nor is it mentioned that a quick Google search shows that Professor Bosniak's work is almost entirely in the area of US immigration and the rights of migrant/immigrant workers. This is scarcely someone interested in rewriting global democratic structures.

This kind of cherry picking is endemic throughout the whole work. Fonte's opening example is the asking of the UN, by fifty American NGOs, to censor the US for its discrimination. Fonte seems to find that because the NGOs' requests were ignored or stymied by federal officials, they should have simply put up and shut up, rather than publicly appealing to the UN for help. It's a fairly nonsensical argument, almost akin to claiming that a whistle-blower should take his problem to his manager and then shut up when told to.

There's also a massive streak of American Exceptionalism running through the work. While 'examples' of Transnational Progressivism are taken from all over the Western world (mainly from the UK, EU and Israel) they are only presented as a threat to the US. The ideology only really seems to come across as the enemy of US Constitution, not the larger world.

Of course one simple paper isn't enough to define my problems with the concept of Transnational Progressivism. David Carr coined the short term 'Tranzi' and immediately adds to the concept when he observes that many tranzis are:

'high-level statesmen, the wealthy and the heads of multibillion-dollar corporations. Their behaviour cannot be explained away in terms of the Marxist "Class struggle.'

Because of course, all left-wing effort is directed towards the 'Marxist Class Struggle' and that's something only the poor care about. It has nothing to do with a rich man's desire to do something good in the world, not at all.

Where things get a little weird is in a fundamental shift from Fonte's words, to the words of his followers. Fonte's three works on Transnational Progressivism (link for the Wikipedia article on the subject with all three papers linked) always point out that Transnational Progressivism is a political ideology and opposed to traditional liberal democracry. His supporters, however, view tranzi-dom in a far darker light. Take this article written about Transnational Progressivism (the second result on a Google search). Almost immediately, the author states that:

Fonte is quick to forewarn us that this coming global administration will be no respecter of our freedoms and suggests that some form of racialist police state will be imposed.

I've browsed through Fonte's papers and I can't really find anything of the kind. Fonte is worried about the increase in multiculturalism and the effect on democracy, but he never suggests, for example, that the elites will encourage the historically oppressed to get even with their 'oppressors'. Nor does he suggest that the police will side with the 'oppressed' against the 'dominant'. To be honest, this sort of thing is reaching.

This strikes at the heart of my problem. Transnational Progressivism is a historical successor to the Red Scare of the Cold War and bears many of its trappings. There is no-one defining themselves as a tranzi, only people labelling others as such. Their 'ideology' has been stretched into a kind of conspiracy. And that's really what the problem is with tranzi-dom: It's a conspiracy theory, no different from bleating about George Soros or claiming that Obama's a secret Muslim.

Goodbye 2009

Looking back on 2009, it's relatively easy to compose a mental list of some of the best and worst of the year. So saying that, let's take a look at some the highlights:

Worst book of the year: The Last Centurion (John Ringo)

Techincially, this is a 2008 book, but I read it in 2009 and that makes it a contender for this year. However, it's here because it simply blows all other contenders out of the water. The Last Centurion is characterised by the worst first-person writing I've seen in a published book, hectoring, offensive partisanship and an author avatar that pushes the boundaries of the Mary Sue. The book starts with a ten chapter screed against seemingly everything, including a chapter-long NHS bashing and a stunning moment of Bush-shilling. The rest of the book is little better and the finale is so far-out stupid that my eyes actually glaze over every time I try and read it. It is a measure of how bad The Last Centurion is that I was openly wondering all the way through the novel as to whether it had actually seen an editor during its creation. Empirical evidence says no.

Runners-up: Claws That Catch (Ringo & Taylor)

Biggest Disappointment of the Year: Torch of Freedom and Storm from the Shadows (David Weber and Eric Flint)

I've been looking forwards to the new Honorverse novels since the events of At All Costs. Unfortunately, Weber's obviously waiting for Mission of Honor to start the new plot. As such Torch of Freedom and Storm from the Shadows were mere holding pattern books. Both fleshed out exactly what's going on with Mesa, with Storm taking the strategic side and Torch taking the human side, but as a result, they weren't the greatest novels. In particular Storm suffered horrendously with very little action happening during the course of the novel.

Runners-Up: Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (Micheal Bay), My Warriors of Chaos Army this summer

Best Series of the Year: Mahou Sensei Magister Negi (Ken Akumetsu)

I'm a big fan of Akumetsu-Sensei's Negima and this year has been simply brilliant. The year started with the trapping of the cast on the magical world and several volumes later, they're almost all together finally. Their varying adventures have been original and interesting. There's been loads of development of the characters and the relationships. Incredibly, the action scenes have gone from strength to strength, opening with the epically mental battle for the gateport and simply sky-rocketing from there. Many questions that have been in the story are finally being answered (like exactly what is going on with Asuna and why?) with fresh ones being posed constantly. Those new characters being introduced are likable and multi-dimensional. I'm probably never going to stop admiring the skill that's going into juggling the forty-odd characters in the series. Negima may be the best action manga currently being published and it's been a constant priority purchase for me over the last year. Even better, the new OVAs are excellent, finally showing just how awesome the battles in the manga could be if animated.

Runners-Up: Codex Alera (Jim Butcher), Full Metal Alchemist (Hiromu Arakawa),

Surprise of the Year: Star Trek (J.J. Abrams)

I'm going to be honest. I wasn't looking forwards to this movie. I've never been the biggest fan of Star Trek, but this film was impressive. The central ideas and themes were strong, the characters were well-done and the visuals were awe-inspiring. Sure, the plot was a little thin and the time-travel elements weren't stunning, but the film was full of charisma. Both Zachary Quinto and Chris Pine dominate the film with their performances. There's some wonderfully funny moments, courtesy of the other characters (Simon Pegg's Scotty is a constant supply of hilarity, especially in the wonderful nod to the Enterprise series). Over all, I was hugely impressed.

Runners-Up: X-Men: Misfits (Dave Roman, Raina Telgemeier and Anbu)

Book of the Year: Fruits Basket 23 (Natsuki Takuya)

The finale of the incredible Fruits Basket series is effectively a volume long epilogue. That's not to knock it. I've always enjoyed a well written epilogue and this is definitely one. It's got the requisite tying up of loose ends and the taking of new paths. It's both sad and happy at the same time as the cast confront their inevitable separation. There's a brutal moment where it is made clear that there are some scars which aren't healed yet. There's still a plentiful amount of FB's trademark humour, mostly thanks to Yuki and his friend Manabe. There's an almost elegant brutality to this finale, with the cast accepting the minor sadness of losing each other as the price for their new found freedom. Over all, it's a wonderful ending to the series and a great excerpt from it.

Runners-Up: Too many to mention

Anime of the Year: To Aru Kakagu No Railgun (A certain scientific railgun)

Railgun is the sequel to the relatively blah To Aru Majutsu No Index (A certain magical index). Unlike its predecessor, Railgun is far better scripted and characterised. The central four girls are each likeable and unique with a good group dynamic defined far more by personality than power. The art and action is top-notch with several stand-out powered battles towards the end. Best of all is the gloriously fun storyline, where almost every moment has something to do with the whole part. It all simply works.

Runners-Up: Basquatch, Gurren Lagann

And now a few notes about what I'm looking forwards to:

First Lord's Fury

The final novel in Jim Butcher's excellent Codex Alera, I've been looking for this for the last month. It's not hard to list the reasons why I'm looking forwards to this. We're finally going to see the battle for Alera between Tavi and the Vord. We're finally going to see the last moves from the Aquitanes. And then there's the big question of exactly what Tavi met at the very end of the previous novel. Given the general excellence of the previous novels, it's not hard to imagine how much I'm going to enjoy reading it.

Mission of Honor

Given how much I complained about Storm from the Shadows and Torch of Freedom above, you might be surprised to know I didn't regret buying them. At their most basic level, they've set up an incredible avalanche to come. Manpower and Mesa are coming and no one's ready for them. The sheer epic nature of the coming story arc is awe-inspiring. Weber is looking at the breaking up of the Solarian League, the sole superpower of the Honorverse stories. The changes that are coming will be insane.

Iron Man 2

I've only recently seen the first trailer from this, but I've got to admit I'm interested. It retains the glorious madness of the first and Mickey Rourke's Whiplash looks he's going to kick butt as well as provide a certain stalkerish pathos to the story. After all who can't love a guy who can freely boast 'I have successfully privatised world peace!'?

Merry Christmas all.

Crown of Slaves Review

Author: David Weber & Eric Flint

Publishers: Baen Books

Quick Synopsis: Slaves in a sci-fi future capture their own world with the help of a few unusual characters.

Quick Review: Simply magical. One of the best books by either author

I've written a lot of reviews criticising some of Baen's more dreadful novels and ideas, so it only seems right that I actually be nice about one of their books. Crown of Slaves is one of the best novels I've read and may simply be my favourite Baen book. It's an incredibly intelligent story about nation-building and is a welcome addition to Weber's excellent Honorverse story universe.

Plot: A number of individuals (including a Manticoran princess who wants to be a spy and the galaxy's most wanted terrorist) from the Honorverse come together for the funeral of a famed anti-slavery advocate on the planet Erewhon, foremost among them Victor Cachat, a 'troubleshooter' for the Republic of Haven. Seeing an opportunity to advance his own star-nation's interests, he co-opts the local powers (including Manticore, the main good guys of the Honorverse) into helping him steal the nearby slave-plantation planet Congo from its owners, the delightfully hissable Manpower Corporation. In doing so, his allies lay the groundwork for a sane nation by the creation of their very own Crown of Slaves.

Like any good book, Crown Of Slaves is complex and has many parts. What starts as a state funeral segues into an assassination attempt then two separate hostage rescues before ending with the stealing of an entire planet and the foundation of a new nation. The impressive part of this story is that it works. There is an underlying logic to the entire business that works and the groundwork for every element is laid well in advance. The concept of a ex-slave nation and its myriad difficulties is well laid out early on with an emphasis on how hard it is for the ex-slaves to actually be independent and successful with a passel of pissed of ex-owners on their case, as well as how hard it is to subliminate their understandable anger into constructive purposes. The political scientist who creates this nation (the excellent W.E.B Du Havel, ex-slave and owner of more academic prizes than any one mad should really have) comes up with a doozy of a solution and it is a tribute the the characters involved that you don't doubt it for a moment.

It helps that the characters involved are extremely well written. Some of them are Flint regulars from his earlier Honorverse short-stories, in particular Anton Zilwicki, Victor Cachat and Jeremy X. Others existed before in an almost implied fashion in the universe (Princess Ruth for example, the princess who wants to be a spy, is the child of a relationship from an earlier Honorverse short story), while others are entirely new (Berry, Thandi Palane and Web being prime examples). None of them are merely one dimensional with often brilliant personal issues that show up on a regular basis.

The stand-out has to be Victor Cachat, Havenite master spy. Victor is obviously one of Flint's favourite creations (he's the only character to star in two Honorverse short stories) and the reason shows. He's at once an incredibly scary secret agent, one far more ruthless than Daniel Craig's awe-inspiring Bond of recent years, and a good man, almost as horrified by his acts as his allies. This is best exemplified by the interrogation scene part way through the book, where he thoroughly intimidates three very dangerous men and gets information out of them in about a minute. One of them is still utterly terrified of him two weeks later. In a later scene, he is selected to impersonate a religious fanatic because he is the best at acting like one. These scenes of incredible threat and intimidation are tempered by his burgeoning relationship with Thandi Palane, an incredibly dangerous Marine with heavy-world ancestry. It's an awkward, believable romance that makes a genuine impact on the reader.

The other great character is Anton Zilwicki's daughter Berry. She's inveigled into the plot when she is convinced to be disguised as Princess Ruth for security reasons. A rescued orphan from the slums of Old Earth, she's wonderfully described as 'specialising in sanity'. She quickly becomes central to the plot and showcases incredible courage, in particular volunteering to be a hostage with the solid knowledge that she's probably going to be raped. In doing so, she manages to be adopted by a shipload of slaves and a central part of the plot to steal Congo. Her eventual promotion at the end of the novel is entirely believable and one of the best parts of the novel. A particular favourite scene of mine is the scene when she's discussing her historical epitath. The mixture of teenage pride (she objects to both the royal 'we' and 'the great' on the basis that she has enough issues about her weight as is) and clear-eyed determination is simply magical.

It helps that Crown of Slaves is at times extremely funny. The scenes around Thandi and Victor's eventual hooking up are utterly hilarious, going from Victor waking up guilty about the night's debauchery to he and Thandi discovering that a number of characters were spying on them. The moment when Ruth tries to parse a threat of 'regicide' by pointing out that she isn't a sitting royal is surreally hilarious. Jeremy X is possibly the funniest terrorist in fiction (he was designed to be a jester and it worked, Manpower just epically pissed him off first), needling and mocking his friends with massive panache. One great moment come from near the end, where Thandi's superiors list the reasons why she shouldn't be eliminated for quitting. One of them then proceeds to list the people who would be irritated about her death. The last name is Jeremy X and is wonderfully explained with the following line: 'Talk to Manpower. Ask for their bodycount department'.

The only problem with Crown of Slaves is that it comes with a degree of baggage. While it is a stand-alone novel, set as it is in a series with something like eleven previous novels and four short story compilations does mean that there are a few plot points that only really make sense if you've read the rest of the series. You're unlikely to know why Anton and Victor get on when they are on either side of a bitter war unless you've read the story where they first met. Nor are you likely to know exactly why the High Ridge Government in Manticore is so incompetent if you haven't read War of Honor. These are really minor quibbles as the book does a good job of defining exactly what is going on and why. Reading them will just give you a bit of extra colour.

Crown of Slaves is a thoroughly excellent novel with a cracking story, interesting characters and some wonderful scenes that will stick with you for quite a while. Its story is a constant surprise and I've tried to keep as much of it back as possible for your reading pleasure. The best word to define the book is simply 'magical'.

Goodbye Mr Card

Orson Scott Card is one of science fiction's biggest names. His novel, Ender's Game is frankly seminal, a marvellous novel of growing up and war. However, that was a while ago and nowadays, his reputation is a lot worse. His support for right-wing causes has coloured his writing to the tune that Empire, one of his most recent novels, is renown for it's tea-party level excesses. But what's really made him unpopular is his opposition to gay marriage. Still there are a lot of reasons why he might oppose gay marriage, even if I can't think of any sane reasons to oppose it. Then I found this online:

The hypocrites of homosexuality are, of course, already preparing to answer these statements by accusing me of homophobia, gay-bashing, bigotry, intolerance; but nothing that I have said here -- and nothing that has been said by any of the prophets or any of the Church leaders who have dealt with this issue -- can be construed as advocating, encouraging, or even allowing harsh personal treatment of individuals who are unable to resist the temptation to have sexual relations with persons of the same sex. On the contrary, the teachings of the Lord are clear in regard to the way we must deal with sinners. Christ treated them with compassion -- as long as they confessed that their sin was a sin. Only when they attempted to pretend that their sin was righteousness did he harshly name them for what they were: fools, hypocrites, sinners. Hypocrites because they were unwilling to change their behavior and instead attempted to change the law to fit it; fools because they thought that deceiving an easily deceivable society would achieve the impossible goal of also deceiving God.

Basically, it's Card describing his opinions on homosexuality, with respect to his Mormon religion. It's a little distasteful. Firstly, Card consistently treats being gay as a 'phase'. He directly and frequently compares it to childhood experimentation. Indeed so attached is he to this metaphor that he effectively advocates the treatment of homosexuals as children, with their 'punishment' intended to correct behavioral issues rather than punish. This single memetic concept is so incredibly offensive as to be astounding. He is basically saying that every single Gay, Lesbian and Bi person who's ever lived was immature and irresponsible. He is ignoring every person who's ever had to stand up and say 'I am not straight, I cannot take pretending to be so any more', despite the cost in family and friendship. Worse, he's effectively laid the blame on the head of every victim of a gay-bashing ever, as he implies that everything is the fault of the gay person, as they should be able to restrain their sexuality.

In a sane world, the Mormon church would be embarrassed by this, though their Prop Eight support will tell you that in this world, they're not. Card frequently and often establishes that being gay is impossible within the Mormon church, that the only way to be exist in the church is to knuckle down, admit your sin and pretend that you're straight. This is the kind of dialogue that gives the Church of Latter Day Saints such a bad name. Effectively, Card states, to be Mormon is to be anti-gay, because the words of their prophets say so. It's the kind of fundamentalist absolutionism that gives religion a bad name.

To be blunt, by writing this op-ed, Card's cheerfully thrown away his credibility. It's an authoritarian nightmare advocating for the arrest of practicing homosexuals by an author who clearly has no real clue what gay life is like. He equates gay rights with tyranny and seems to believe that his church has the right to dictate someone's sex life. I'm straight and I still find that incredibly offensive

Baen Finally owns up to being Right-Wing (and not in a good way)

Baen Books has long had a reputation for being a bit right wing. It's not entirely unwarranted, given their massive love for all things Heinlein (king of sci-fi libertarianism). Still, they also publish a number of authors (in particular Eric Flint) who are definitely not right wing. However unfortunately, they then turn around and publish something like this:

http://www.webscription.net/p-1153-taxpayers-tea-party.aspx

The book's called Taxpayer's Tea Party by Sharon Cooper and Chuck Asay. It's a reprint of a book published in the 90's during the Republicans' big revolt against Clinton. As one might imagine it's aimed at the Teabagger and their friends. The book doesn't entirely raise one's hope about its contents, proudly proclaiming it's dual forewords by Newt Gringrich and Rush Limbaugh. Yes it has the support of a Republican who resigned from office due to corruption charges and, well, Rush freaking Limbaugh, they guy who has his face next to the dictionary definition of 'Right-Wing Jackass' (For added humour, their website's preview of Taxpayer's Teaparty contains no actual book, just the two forewords and a cartoon I had to keep reminding myself wasn't satire). It's also possibly the sign that Baen's finally fallen down the rabbit hole they've been can-canning around for the last decade or so.

The thing is, Baen is a Science Fiction and Fantasy label. That's not to knock them. They publish dozens of truly excellent books every year and I'm a big fan of several writers (the aforementioned Eric Flint and David Weber in particular). They've also got a few books in the catalogue which are non-fiction works on the science involved in Sci-Fi. What they aren't however, is a political publisher. They publish entertainment, not education.

Still, to be honest, I'm really not surprised that Baen's finally taken the plunge into publishing right-wing populism. They've been doing it for years in stealth. I first noticed Baen's rightward lean when they published Tom Kratman's unpleasant screed, A State of Disorder. Anyone who can read the book's prologue alone and claim that it's completely balanced deserves a medal. The book itself is even worse, with possibly the most grotesque parody of Hillary Clinton ever written (Let's just say she starts off as a narcissistic closet lesbian who was actively involved in the death of her first running mate and that she gets worse), while the book's conclusion, a series of constitutional amendments rammed through by the good guys, is likely to provoke sheer horror in anyone left of Limbaugh (the amendment banning abortion alone is awe-inspiringly clueless and offensive). To be honest, my first response to ASOD was sheer horror, but now it's almost a nodding acceptance. This is what Baen does these days.

The years after ASOD haven't been good years either. Kratman's continued to write a handful of books, none of which can be really considered fair or balanced. His Caliphate might just have to considered one of the most incredibly racist science fiction novels ever. His Legion El Cid novels are a incredibly unpleasant screed about how Kratman 'would' fight the War on Terror, with a disturbing obsession with brutality. Kratman's books brim with right-wing anger and paranoia. He constantly casts all liberals as the enemy, with vehemence particularly reserved for the media (which he sees as terrorist supporters, let alone enablers) and 'transnationalists' (a weird right-wing fantasy about an illuminati of liberals looking to reintroduce Soviet style aristocracy). About the only thing that can be said for his books is that they so quickly accelerate past the suspension of disbelief as to at no time can you take the books for anything to do with reality.

No mention of Kratman would be done without mention his frequent collaborator, John Ringo. Mr Ringo is one of Baen's biggest authors, but unfortunately that seems to have only magnified his tendency towards the more ridiculous end of the political statement. Ghost is probably the best starting point. Ghost tells the story of a ex-Navy Seal who finds himself getting into multiple encounters with various Islamic terrorists while also meeting a bevy of beautiful girls. Think of it as the right-wing bastard child of Jack Bauer and James Bond. The book and its sequels are incredibly right-wing, attributing all failures in the War on Terror to either Clinton or political correctness. They're also incredibly over-sexed, frequently in directions that are incredibly tasteless and unforgivably vile (Any possible good feeling I felt for the main character disappeared by the end of Ghost, where he hires and rapes a prostitute, a scene written with far more detail than necessary).

As bad as Ghost and its sequels were, the true cherry on the top has to be The Last Centurion. If you want a full description, look at the review below. Here's its suffice to say that LTC is a book with only one real purpose: blame every ill in the world on liberals and suggest that right-wing solutions are the only way to fix the mess that the world is in. The first ten chapters of the book are little more than an extended, poorly thought out rant as to the failings of an imaginary female Democrat President (see a pattern here? Baen seems to have its hate on for Hillary), with her every move being exactly opposite to the logical path mapped out by the author. What makes the book so thoroughly objectionable was that it was published in late 2008, in a transparent attempt to be out before the presidential election (a decision presumably made when every one thought Hillary was a shoe-in for nominee).

Still, much of Ringo's work shines before his collaborations with Kratman. A Watch On The Rhine may just take the cup for most incredibly wacko book ever published by Baen. Again, see my review below for details, but in a nutshell, the SS save Germany from invading aliens. I'm going to repeat that, in case your mind instinctively wiped the idea from your head, the SS save Germany from invading aliens. The book is an ode to the SS' ruthless strength and epically manages to make the liberal villains less sympathetic than the cannibalistic aliens. Their other collaboration, Yellow Eyes, is an improvement, but only by a little. The story's relatively forgiveable and is frankly the best story to come from Kratman's pen, but it all falls over at the end. Kratman sees fit to include an afterword about some of the book's themes and the results are well, memorable. He offers a weird little rant about Transnationalists and their goals, vis-a-vis the International Court and warcrimes prosecution. Being, well, Kratman, he misses the point in style and comes to the conclusion that everything is an effort to hamstring the common soldier with the fear of prosecution. It's the kind of pap he pumps out on a regular basis, secure in his little happy place, uncaring as to the realities of the world.

I honestly don't mind some of the right-wing books published by Baen. I greatly enjoyed reading Freehold by Michael Z Williamson, even if I think the libertarian country at the centre of the story is a laughable fantasy. I'm also hugely tempted by Monster Hunter International by Larry Correria, a book with a notable anti-government theme. What I do mind is where the author can't put his politics behind the needs of the story. Many of the above books by Ringo and Kratman would be far better if they'd restrained their urges.

In all honesty, I feel much of my complaints about the above stories would be improved if their editors had restrained them. I can't imagine Yellow Eyes would have done worse without its repugnant afterword. Nor can I imagine A State of Disorder doing worse with its ridiculous liberal bashing excised. To be honest, I can't imagine any amount of editing fixing some of their other works (Watch On The Rhine). Honestly, I find it hard not to imagine an editor handing most of Ghost and Caliphate back to their respective authors with a message along the lines 'start again, less ick'. Quite frankly, there seems to be a decision by the editorial staff not to remove the more offensive lines of their right-wing authors, instead letting them run rampant.

This decision leads almost inexorably towards publishing something like Taxpayer's Teaparty. Baen already lends succour to the extreme right-wing by publishing fantasies of Liberal treachery and Conservative victory, so why shouldn't it directly help by publishing a blueprint to protest? It's hard to say exactly what Baen's lost here, but legitimacy is probably the best word to start with. The argument that Baen isn't a conservative company, with a distinct bias in a given direction has fallen over, probably forever. By publishing Taxpayer's Teaparty they've lost forever the right to claim that they are misrepresented.

It's possible that one day someone's going to look back at the history of Baen Books and directly trace it's decline to Taxpayer's Teaparty. It's definitely not a positive sign for the company, clearly trying to cash in on the conservative zeitgeist and it's going to backfire. Baen's already garnered an amazing amount of ill will with readers like myself, who don't enjoy having asinine politics shoved down our throats. The only reason I look at their site at the moment is to keep up with the latest books by David Weber and Eric Flint, as well as seeing if they've got any new authors that might catch my eye. As soon as those two leave Baen's fold, I'm gone as well.

A Watch On The Rhine

Author: Tom Kratman and John Ringo

Publisher: Baen Books

Quick Synopsis: Germany is forced to reform the SS to stave off alien invasion

Quick Review: An idea with potential mutilated by the wrong author

I have to admit that the idea behind A Watch on the Rhine is an original one: can the German SS really be redeemed? Are they the monsters of history, or are they misunderstood, patriots fighting for an evil regime? Unfortunately, the authors don't really manage to answer these questions. They go into the book with their own preconceived notions and don't manage to make them convincing. Worse, they let their own prejudices colour the story, further damaging their efforts by trying to score cheap points with hollow characterisation and weakarguments.

Plot: Set in John Ringo's Legacy of Aldenata universe, the book follows Germany's defence against the Posleen hordes (an alien species that considers all animal life food, up to and including their own dead and young). Aware that their army stands little chance, their government decides to rebuild the SS, using alien technology to regenerate the few survivors and give them fresh recruits to train (Just to be clear, by SS, I mean the Schutzstaffel, the paramilitary force within Nazi Germany infamous for running the concentration camps as well as several other atrocities). While the intention is to use the new units up in the coming conflict, they prove far more useful than that.

It's a measure of AWOTR that I'm still unsure on the central theme of whether or not the reputation of the SS can be redeemed. Quite simply, there is very little of the book devoted to this argument. Those few characters who make the argument that they are irredeemable and that Germany shouldn't resurrect them, regardless of the alien threat, are generally classed as at best misguided or at worse, villains (indeed the primary opposition is from one of the book's biggest villains). Kratman (Ringo appears to have been very hands-off on the novel, going from the authorial afterword included with the book) ultimately seems uninterested in this argument, consistently portraying every SS character as mostly apolitical, with little interest in any aspect of Nazi ideology (the exception would have to be the vile Kreuger, who openly celebrates his service in the Totenkopf brigades, those parts of SS who served in the concentration camps). Most memorably, this occurs early on in the novel, when one of the old SS encounters an Israeli army officer. It is the Israeli who is portrayed as being out-of-line, not the SS officer who barely seems to care. The few references to the SS's crimes are simply waved away with either a distinction of the Totenkopf's responsibility or the excuse of 'everyone did the same thing', an argument best saved for the schoolyard. To be blunt, Kratman simply doesn't care about the SS's crimes, paying mere lip-service to the pain that they have caused.

Unfortunately, if a mere inability to make a decent argument was the biggest problem with AWOTR that probably wouldn't have made the book as bad as it is. No what really picks the book up and slaps it out of the park is Kratman's political axe-grinding on top of the sensitive subject matter. Remember that villain I mentioned above, the one opposed to the resurrection of the SS? He is the leader of a cabal of left-wing and green (he's the leader of the Greens in the Bundestag)politicians who assist in an alien conspiracy to weaken Germany's defences in before the invasion, in an effort to ensure humanity's downfall. His explanation for this when confronted? He's 'protecting' the Earth by using the Posleen to wipe out the excess population, planning to return with his evacuated family and do things 'right' after the Posleen have been eradicated. The entire speech where this is admitted is gloriously over-the-top and ridiculous, sounding as if he's ad-libbing the villain from Moonraker. What of course makes this all the more laughable is that the Posleen are known for destroying the worlds they conquer, breaking out into nuclear infighting as their population spirals out of control. The protests he organises earlier on are just as ridiculous, with SS characters musing about the hypocrisies evident within the crowds and the protesters being portrayed as brain-washed and clueless(crowning this is the protester who is so impressed by the SS riot police that he immediately goes off to a recruiting station). Most disturbingly, this gives a creepy moment in one scene, where the German chancellor orders the SS to arrest all of the members of the conspiracy to weaken the defences, implying to the reader that the SS are occupying the same quasi-political position they had in the Third Reich, acting as the muscle for those hunting 'enemies of the state'.One cannot help, but get the feeling that Kratman views the liberal characters as more evil than the Posleen, who are often treated with more empathy than the humans (please note that these are the aliens who make use of human shields and make a quilt of human hair during the course of the book).

These issues unfortunately overshadow the book's actual plot. Not that that isn't a good thing. There's very little coherence to the book's set up and Kratman is very bad at setting the scene for all of the action sequences. The narrative is spread over about five years, covering the preparation for the first and then second waves of invasion as well as the battles fought during them, but there seems to be little development during the time-skips (most notably, the few 'new' SS characters don't seem to receive any sort of promotions during the book, despite being veterans of the first wave). The book is also achingly non-canonical, frequently violating many of the setting's rules (Ringo constructed an alien force for which the best counter is infantry supported with artillery, while Kratman instead plants the SS forces in supertanks). Perhaps worse is the actual reason given for the necessity of resurrecting the SS. The stated rational is that Germany needs everything it can get, that its own military lacks the training cadre needed for the massive expansion necessary. It all rings a little hollow. Kratman consistently portrays the regular German army as weak and cowardly, crippled by political correctness. The SS are necessary because Kratman makes them necessary, effectively writing them in by authorial fiat. There's little consideration given to the repercussions, nor are the German opposition portrayed as anything other than clueless. Grotesquely, the book's epilogue has the surviving characters engaging in what is implied to be genocide in the future, deliberately attacking a planet of the alien species which has been playing the Posleen against the humans with the intention of destroying their entire species.

Most laughable is Kratman's big theme of 'Survival overrides programming'. He tries to make the argument that the modern military is not ruthless enough and that modern sensibilities are to blame. Unfortunately, the theme is shoehorned into the book, primarily with a French woman who is a liberal stereotype as only Kratman can write them, ie clueless. In a poorly thought out scene near the end, her son fails to demolish a crucial bridge during battle. Kratman would like you to believe that it his liberal 'programming' that is to blame, but unfortunately that's about the last conclusion the reader is likely to draw. The boy in question is a child soldier in his first battle, who's placed in a position of utmost importance. The bridge in question is packed with human refugees at the time, being used by the Posleen as human shields. As far as can be seen, Kratman decides that mere human compassion is an obstacle that can be blamed on liberalism. Disturbingly, his authorial afterword suggests that he considers this to be a major problem in the War on Terror.

Watch on the Rhine is not a good book. The arguments made within are hollow and self-serving, the story is instantly forgettable and the characters are weak. Kratman seems to think that the SS's talent for ruthlessness forgives all of their sins, when he is not drawing false equivalences between their crimes and the Allies'. His personal politics colour the narrative, with left-wing politics being made out to be the biggest threat to the cast. This is unfortunate, given that he is essentially writing in support of one of the greatest right-wing perversions in history. Watch on the Rhine is at its core a poorly thought out polemic which, given its sensitive subject matter, is all the more appalling. One of the worst books I've ever read.