Customer Reviews

Age of Tolerance, A Novel of Alternate History from Al to Allah

5 star:		(8)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(5)

 

 

While the Age of Tolerance is an interesting read, it fails one of the key tests for any novel of alternate history...that of plausibility.

Before I delve into the implausibility, let me outline a few of the strong points here. While nobody's going to confuse Reinsford with Eric Ambler, or Alan Furst for that matter, Age of Tolerance is a fast-moving, enjoyable read that reaches a certain poignancy towards the end. More importantly, it serves as important reminder of the implacable nature of what Hitchens calls Islamafascism and nicely satirizes the "useful idiocy" of its apologists.

However, this books is implausible along a number of dimensions.

1. Reinsford seems to have let his Republican partisanship get in the way of his novelistic judgement. He accurately describes what American policy would have been had the President and his top advisors been drawn from The Guardian or the Middle Eastern studies department at Columbia University. However, there's a big differences between each of those organizations and the Democratic Party's Presidential wing. Al Gore campaigned to GW Bush's right on foreign policy in 2000, calling for larger defense budgets and making noises about a "humble" United States. He was radicalized later, after he believed that the 2000 election had been stolen from him, which would not haver occurred in Reinsford's scenario. In short, it's inconceivable that President Al Gore would have failed to take aggressive military action against the Taliban in 2001. And he would have been impeached if he had not.

2. Which brings us to a second point of implausibility. Enslaved to plot mechanics, Reinsford ignores the feedback loops in American politics, allowing his novel's leftists to over-reach and over-reach without political consequences. Much of the country (sadly) seems to think President GW Bush is too liberal on immigration, yet President Gore can openly reshape American demographics via his "Pillars" program, without causing an electoral apocalypse? President Hillary Clinton can, in effect, create concentration camps for hundreds of thousands or millions of abortion opponents, without destroying her presidency? She can stand by and let Palestinian fanatics slaughter Israelis without tearing apart the Democratic party? Chuck Schumer, Joe Biden, and other relatively hawkish, pro-Israel Democrats didn't throw a fit?

3. Reinsford's depiction of the media is just as unrealistic as his depiction of politics. He implies that once cable network manages to enable America's slide into Sharia law by manipulating the news. Putting aside that CNN isn't any where near so biased as Reinsford implies (though the Guardian and other European outlets certainly are), one does wonder where rest of the press are? The range of media venues available today (Fox News, MSBNC, blogs, the Atlantic Monthly) make it impossible for any news organizations to shape (or manipulate) the debate as, say, the NYT, Time and CBS News might have in 1968.

In short, while the Age of Tolerance is a horror story, it's not a plausible one. So what would a truly scary scenario look like.

Age of Tolerance makes an interesting comparison to "Prayers for the Assassin," in which the northern US succumbs to Islamic domination after nuclear terror attacks on NY and DC, blamed on the Jews, spark a civil war.

Plausibility would probably require a the catastrophic event (both larger than 9/11 and blamed on a scapegoat) posited by "Prayers for the Assassin" followed by years of political authority gradually slipping from democratic, liberal institutions to Islamic radicals (as described in "Age of Tolerance")

James

Conservative fiction has certainly changed from the post-nuclear, "Deathlands" genre. This is an intelligent book that is humorous in places, but told in a realistic way.

The story begins with a prelude that is forty years in the future, where it appears that 9/11 is happening all over again. It is there that we meet Pat Ridley and Robert Danforth, two men whose differences are a lot deeper than race.

How could 9/11 happen again? Well, it turns out that Al Gore was elected President in 2000 and he steered the country in a different path after the WTC attacks, including an immigration drive to attract Muslims in order to bring the country's diversity into balance with the rest of the world. Though the consequences aren't immediately evident, they play out logically in the future as the story progresses from 2001 to 2067.

Much of it centers around eight students who are born around 9/11 and come of age in a shared classroom on the campus of Berkeley. The well-indoctrinated graduates go on to positions of power in politics, law, journalism and television, where they promote the far Leftist agenda that ivory-towered academics promised would yield success in the real world.

For military buffs, there is a West Bank evacuation near the beginning (when Hillary is President) and a "Doolittle-like" raid further along that are both quite imaginative. The story picks up a lot of speed in the last half and is a real page-turner.

Real life characters in the book range from Michael Moore to O.J. Simpson. Other characters seem to be based heavily on familiar people, like a Susan Sarandon/Cybil Shepherd-type actress. There are even actual quotes used to justify various decisions in the storyline. Certain events are recognizable, such as the Beslan hostage tragedy - although this Beslan is in South Carolina!).

Reinsford tackles a lot in this book, from illegal immigration to racial preferences and academic indoctrination. He integrates all of this into a story that is told in snatches from various viewpoints over the years.

Although it is a fun book, it was clearly meant to be educational, and this makes it different from the average novel. I think it is as important in the fight against multicultural "political correctness" as any non-fiction book you will find.

First of all, Reinsford's book is very readable. The story is engaging and appealing. Some of the characters are a little one-dimensional, but that is sort of the point of satire. It doesn't significantly detract from the novel.

Second, this book has an extremely important message. Islamists will use our values and freedom against us, if we let them. The goal of Islam is, and always has been, world domination. The Islamic world doesn't have the means to subjugate the US by force, so they will (and do already) try other tactics. Terrorism apologist group CAIR is a prime example of this.

Third, I would like to address some of the other comments/criticisms of the novel.

"The book is clearly dangerous because it implies that certain cultures or religion can be inferior to others, even if Reinsford doesn't come out and say it."

The idea of moral and cultural relativism, which justifies female circumcision, honor killings, and genocide, is far more dangerous than the denial of said relativism.


"Indeed, the whole book is an exercise in schizophrenia. It develops early in the story when Al Gore is presented as a robotic moron ("Not a single one of the Arab hijackers had been racially profiled at the airport. Now that's something to feel good about!") while certain other Democrats appear patriotic and level-headed. What are we supposed to believe - that Democrats are OK or not OK?"

Perhaps this commentator is simply confused because he is used to reading unproductive partisan rhetoric, but the fact that Reinsford does not pigeonhole people based on their political parties is a good thing.

"He is anti-racial throughout...but then argues forcefully against Affirmative Action and even appears to support racial profiling...Bizarre..."

Perhaps Reinsford (rightly) belives that Affirmative Action is a racist policy, and that racial profiling is, in fact, not.

"Either Glen Reinsford has multiple-personality disorder, or he is some sort of enlightened sage that thinks way outside the box. I suspect the former."

I suspect the latter. Reinsford takes an honest look at Islam and its "Unholy Alliance" with the left-wing. He values factual correctness over political correctness - exactly the kind of person I like to listen to.

I would recommend this book to anyone. Determined left-wingers and Muslims will probably manage not to like this book, but that doesn't make them right.

I read and enjoyed this book when it first came out but with President Bush in the White House, it was most assuredly a work of fiction. I'm not sure anymore. Now we have President Obama, who is engaged in far worse domestic and foreign policy than either Al Gore in the book or his successor. I am re-reading the book in that light and now feel it is more non-fiction than fiction, and I don't think I will enjoy it like I did the first time. But this book is certainly worth a read today, even more than when it first was released.

This is a broad story about a hypothetical moral and social collapse in the future United States, as well as the consequences of isolationism and appeasement. It is the only work of fiction I know of that mocks political correctness and reduces liberals to naïve caricatures that sound very much like their real-life counterparts.

The story begins with a Gore/Lieberman presidency on 9/11. Gore's response to the attacks is textbook American Leftism, a combination of compassion and the pursuit of "international respect." He also takes a liberal approach to immigration and border security ("there are no 'illegal' people") and actually seeks to curry world opinion by making the country 'look' more like the world... think pro-diversity.

Flash-forward 25 years into the future, where the consequences of such policy begin to take shape. The border is a mess, business is saddled with unions and government regulations, Islamists have penetrated the intelligence agencies, and dictators are consolidating power across the globe. All the while, liberals (who slowly inherit America from fleeing conservatives) are celebrating their country's "progress" - completely clueless of the fact that they've "accommodated those who have no intention of accommodating them."

There are several dimensions to the story: America through the eyes of a Black conservative, the alternate history speculation about Al Gore, cultural critique of a "Hollywood Nation," and the demise of patriotism and individual responsibility. The author bites off quite a bit. Radical environmentalism, progressive taxation, government encroachment in industry, affirmative action, Islam, and even animal rights are among other issues strung together like a series of Flannery O'Conner stories across a vast timeline.

The characters are fun, particularly the liberal ones, who come in wide variety. There are the Manhattan socialites, narrow-minded college professors and plenty of left-of-center politicians that blame every social failure on phantom reactionaries and racists.

Parts of the book are obviously satirical (in one scene, a woman responds to a foreign military threat by closing her eyes and Visualizing World Peace). Other parts are inspiring, such as the massive American bombardment of Alberta.

Meanwhile, political correctness runs amok. Pearl Harbor is renamed Peace Harbor, for example, to protect the sensibilities of Japanese-Americans. It is later decommissioned altogether as liberal politicians see little need for maintaining a military in a gilded age of peace and tolerance ("nothing is worth war").

It might have been better if the author hadn't tried so hard to make it realistic (ie. tying it to a timeline and basing it around real-life events). For example, Ward Churchill and OJ Simpson will certainly be recognized by most readers, but that may not be true in the case in which Sybil Shepherd's "alar scare" performance in front of Congress is mocked (even if it is hilarious to those of us who remember it from the 1980's).

The story builds to a very dramatic conclusion and I honestly don't think that there's a conservative in America who wouldn't like Age of Tolerance, even if it does get a bit dark in some places and preachy in others (it's not a kid's book, let's put it that way).

The main test of alternate history as a genre is that it be somewhat believable. I got two pages in and the character "Al Gore" was so far off the mark that I went back to the reviews here, and returned the book to get my money back. I then borrowed the copy of a friend who recommended it. I read Turtledove and other alternate history, I study real history as a hobby. I'm to the right of the current republicans (if you're going to occupy a country, start up the draft!) and consider myself a cranky libertarian. This one is just weak writing and political polemic. The weakness of modern American politics is the constant tendency to present your opponents as idiots rather than to argue rationally. If you want to see what the next war looks like, check out The Execution Channel

Here's a couple of news items for people who don't get this book...

First, it's called SATIRE! This isn't Dickens, because it isn't meant to be. He forces his subplots and characters to make political and social points. Sure the transitions are awkward at times, but that's to be expected when you try and fit 50-years into 500 pages.

Second, Glen Reinsford can't predict the future. This may sound obvious, but people are taking this story way too seriously. Just because he bases his situations on actual events and quotes doesn't mean that he is claiming a deadly disease will hit America in 2046, for example, or that there will be another 9-11 in 2051.

This guy obviously had fun when he wrote the book, and the more a person has kept up with current events in America over the last decade or so, then the more fun they'll have when they read it. I didn't recognize some of the things that are in it myself, but I could tell when he was basing a scene around a real-life event.

Sure, he takes more than a few crotch kicks at liberals. You know what - they do the same thing to us, so it's about time someone turned the tables on those who control our media and pop culture.

The only genuine complaint that I've heard so far is that the proof-reading wasn't perfect, but I get the impression that it was rushed to print and (for me) it's hardly a big deal.

If you're a Gore supporter, then DON'T buy the book. If you're expecting Hemingway, then buy Hemingway. Otherwise, know that you're getting a deeply partisan novel that is unique, preachy and morbidly intriguing.

The premise of Age of Tolerance is that Al Gore Jr. was President of the United States during 9/11. From the first melt down in that Florida school room, the novel relates a nightmare history of the 21st Century which, thank God, we may have avoided. The depiction of the alternate weeks following 9/11 is just a jumping off point for a cautionary tale of what happens when a country loses it's sense of it's own self worth. "Tolerance" is this story is tolerance of things that ought not to be tolerated, but are by the far left.

The one quibble I have with the book is that in the story, the dominance by the far left is all but total. Where is talk radio? The blogosphere? Fox News? The thing that has saved our society is that there is a feedback mechanism that corrects for execesses. Jimmy Carter led to Ronald Reagan Bill Clinton led to George W. Bush. Surely a President as feckless and weak as Al Gore (and he would have been, I believe it utterly) would have been a one term President.

But I suspect that the author was not out to create a realistic alternate history of an Al Gore Presidency. His notion was a kind of Swiftian satire, showing the ultimate consequences of far left policy, if implemented in anything resembling the rea world. The book will surely make people on the far left as mad as hell. But it will make the rest of us think and perhaps sigh with relief that, but for five hundred votes in Florida and the grace of God, there go us.

This book is a complete waste of paper. Pure right-wing hackery.


1. There's an assumption that 9/11 would have happened under Gore. This attitude that 9/11 was somehow inevitable is a complete neocon fantasy, because it completely absolves the Bush administration of blame. A scenario that's more likely than the events of this book is that, instead of ignoring the memo "bin Ladin determined to strike in the US," law enforcement agencies under the Gore administration would have rounded up the terrorists before they had a chance to implement their plan. Pre-9/11, the Bush administration's national defense focus was a missle shield. They also ran as far away as they could from any emphasis of the Clinton administration... including counterterrorism.

2. Bush pushed for elimination of racial profiling of Arabs in airport security on Oct. 11, 2000, during the second presidential debate, saying "Arab-Americans are racially profiled in what's called secret evidence. People are stopped, and we got to do something about that. My friend, Sen. Spence Abraham, is pushing a law to make sure that, you know, Arab-Americans are treated with respect. So racial profiling isn't just an issue at the local police forces. It's an issue throughout our society. And as we become a diverse society, we're going to have to deal with it more and more." In other words, you can get rid of the idea that reducing Arab racial profiling was a solely Democratic one, or Gore's.

3. The idea that Bush would have visited the 9/11 site as governor of Texas is completely laughable. He didn't even bother to visit the Oklahoma City bombing site as governor of Texas, and that was right over the border.

4. The idea that Gore would have pressed for a diplomatic solution after 9/11 is incredibly dumb and a complete mischaracterization of the man. He had no problems with striking Serbian military targets. He certainly wouldn't have hesitated to plot a military response to 9/11.

5. Writing the character of "Sherry Danforth" as he did, the author showed himself to be a polemicist as low as Ann Coulter.

6. Vice-President Aziz Sahil? No freaking way. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

These are just some of the more egregious fallacies in the first 80 or so pages. If you want to find the rest of them out, then read this garbage for yourself - but I assure you that unless you're full of the administration's Kool-Aid, you won't appreciate it much. If you just have to read it, though, check it out of the library. Buy a used copy. Anything but give your hard-earned money to this lunkhead and his publishers.

This whole book is the print version of ABC's "Path to 9/11" - a completely manufactured piece of trash that bears no resemblance to the truth. Of course, it's probably gospel for the people who have given this book a positive rating. I'm just glad that I borrowed this book instead of buying it; I'm happy that I didn't line the pockets of an author whom I consider to be a dishonest political hack whose motivation was nothing more than to present a completely unrealistic hit job that would make neocons feel better about the terrible job that their heroes have done.

Oh, and did I mention that the book was so poorly written as to make the reading painful? An high school senior might have done as well.

This book when I first read it was just a good read and then in the last year with the comments from Gore, Hillary, Obama and other Democrats I see it coming horribly true in the next few years. If you are a liberal Democrat or antiwar you will hate this book because it brings into question everything you believe. For everyone else this is a horror story of what would have happened if Gore had won the Florida recount and then used all his political correctness run wild just as he does now in his speeches to give Bin Laden a blank check to carry on his war. There is no happy ending as laws are passed against conservative talk shows in the name of balance and the armed forces have their budgets pared to nothing because we need the money for the unfed masses. In the end Bin Laden's children rule.