One doesn’t need to search for long to discover that words like “totalitarian,” “fascist” and “political extremist” are all the rage nowadays. Most often they serve as little more than personal attacks, rather than accurate descriptions of the forces at play. To call an opponent a “fascist” is one of the most groan-inducing clichés of the modern times. While much can be said about each of these words, and what they actually mean, it is worth noting that while “fascist” has a very particular political and historical meaning, and the phrase “political extremism” is extremely relative, the word “totalitarian” literally has no meaning at all.

One could say that, like “fascist,” it has become a meaningless buzzword, but that would be incorrect, since unlike fascism it was always a meaningless buzzword meant to smear any system that doesn’t follow the liberal capitalist viewpoint, as we shall see below.

Where Does the Word Come From?

The word “totalitarianism” was brought into the popular consciousness by scholar and author Hannah Arendt in her first major work, the 1951 volume The Origins of Totalitarianism. The idea behind this book was that communism and fascism were both somehow connected, and formed the same sort of society, which was called the “totalitarian” society.

In Arendt’s hands, the major differences between the USSR and Nazi Germany disappeared. Her theory suggested that two completely different political and social ideologies can be considered fundamentally the same when compared with the author’s own—in this case, liberal capitalism, which is the only ideology put forward as not “totalitarian.”

Since then, media puppets, right-wing intellectuals and the ruling class in general have made great play with the word “totalitarianism,” a word that one hears blaring from every television.

The Theory of “Totalitarianism” is Unrealistic & Unscientific

Essentially, the term “totalitarianism” is not a scientific term, but simply a tool. Its place in history was on the side of capitalism when it sought to find a way to equate the USSR with Nazi Germany.

In fact, Arendt’s theory of “totalitarianism” has never measured up in the real world. There has never been a so-called “totalitarian” society, not even under the fascist dictatorships of Hitler and Mussolini, nor could one ever realistically exist.

It is quite odd to read Hannah Arendt’s Origins of Totalitarianism, because she has no understanding of how socialism and fascism work and grossly distorts them both.

For example, she offers literally no explanation as to why the USSR and Nazi Germany were on opposite sides during World War II, nor why Nazi Germany invaded the USSR, nor why the USSR entered the conflict even before the United States, or why 22-27 million Soviet soldiers and civilians lost their lives at the hands of the Nazis.

From the way she describes it, the Nazis and the Soviets should have been on the same side against the capitalist and liberal nations, putting aside for a moment the fact that fascism is actually a form of capitalism—a fact that, of course, she also ignores.

Did World War II, the single greatest conflict in all of human history, merely happen as a result of personality conflicts on the part of Stalin and Hitler? The fact that communists and fascists were on opposite sides and bitterly fighting against each other—all this is nowhere in the “totalitarian” analysis. All that it seen is a chauvinist attempt to mush everything together.

The Theory of “Totalitarianism” is Hypocritical

The word “totalitarian” is used often in place of, or as a supplement to, the word “dictatorship,” which actually does have a meaning. A dictatorship, or a rule by a single class unrestricted by any laws, can exist, such as the dictatorship of the proletariat, which is called “totalitarian.” However, liberal democracies are dictatorships of the bourgeoisie, and they are not called totalitarian.

The criteria often given by those that have a definition of “totalitarian” are:

• All facets of society are controlled directly by the dictator and the government through force; the dictator dominates all areas of life without exception.
• A highly militaristic society which glorifies the military and the police, as well as other armed forces of the dictator and the ruling government.
• There is no separation of powers; judiciaries, legislative and executive are all controlled by the dictator or the ruling party.
• The dictator or the party controls the thinking of the masses.
• There is no freedom of speech or religion, no freedom of the arts and no freedom of the press except that which glorifies the dictator.
• Political repression is practiced on those that dissent from the dictator or ruling party.
• Torture of incarcerated persons and political prisoners.
• Forced or compulsory military conscription.
• Subordination of the individual in favor of the dictator and the ruling government.

What is notable about these above criteria? All of them also apply to liberal democracies. One only has to replace “dictator” with “capital” and “the government” with “capitalism.”

The last point here is the most controversial, since most loose definitions of totalitarianism come from the idea of the individual being subordinated to the collective. Individuals within capitalism are subordinate to money and the means by which it is made, in this case, by work. What a person can do within those societies depends on his or her ability to pay money and to work. Do scholars call capitalist countries totalitarian? No. It is word which serves no useful purpose except in propaganda.

Why Is Our Society Not Considered “Totalitarian?”

Money, profit and capital rule our society absolutely. Every aspect of our lives is subject to the will of capital. There can be no freedom of speech or religion, no freedom of the arts, and no freedom of the press insofar as capital exists. You can say anything you want, but without capital no one will hear you, and it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out what will happen when you say something that becomes a threat to the existence of the ruling class. Take a look at what happened to the Black Panthers.

Take a look at what happened to Fred Hampton, George Jackson and Anna Mae Aquash. Take a look at Kent State, where the National Guard murdered unarmed student protesters.

You can worship whatever god you want, but does your religion actually free you from capital? You can draw, paint, sing, and create whatever you want, but if it doesn’t make a profit, how will you continue, and how often will you be able to do it? And if it is not in the interests of capital, how will you get an audience, and how big will that audience be? If the ruling class doesn’t like what you have to say, you will be silenced or more likely, never heard at all.

If art is not in the interests of capital, it will not be published, especially if it goes against those interests. And the press is, by and large, owned by capital itself.

The whole definition put forward of both totalitarianism and “political extremism” only has value within the camp of capitalist ideology. The concept is simply an invention of reactionary intellectuals in the NATO bloc.

Four months after the government-commissioned Brereton report said there was “credible evidence” of Australian war crimes in Afghanistan, including the murder of at least 39 civilians and prisoners, and multiple acts of torture, the perpetrators remain in the military. No investigations for criminal prosecutions have begun.

This is only the starkest expression of an ongoing cover-up involving the Liberal-National Coalition government, the Labor Party opposition, multiple state agencies and the official media. For years they have sought to hide evidence of the atrocities, which occurred under a Labor government between 2009 and 2013.

The Brereton report was a damage-control operation, initiated after some details were leaked to the media. It suppressed more information than it revealed and absolved governments and senior military command of any responsibility, based on the implausible assertion that they had been unaware of the crimes. The report’s release was greeted by brief hand-wringing from politicians and the media over the impact that the revelations would have on “our military.” The issue was then dropped almost entirely.

It resurfaced at a Senate estimates hearing on Monday. Chris Moraitis, director-general of the Office of the Special Investigator, established at the recommendation of the Brereton report to conduct a criminal investigation into the allegations, provided an update on the progress of its work.

In short, Moraitis indicated that the body he heads has done virtually nothing. The organisation does not even have any investigators.

“We’re in the process of engaging investigators and we’re going to do that in the next one, two, three months,” Moraitis said. “That involves them being sworn in as special members of the Australian Federal Police and involves at least three weeks of induction in preparation, and involves us also doing a few other things.”

Moraitis is clearly working to a timetable prepared by the government. After the report’s release last November, Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton and other government representatives declared that any criminal prosecutions, if they eventuated at all, would likely take up to a decade. These statements had the character of a directive rather than a prediction.

Moraitis’ comments underscored the character of the Brereton report, as a continuation of the cover-up. Conducted in secret, it was dragged out from 2016 to 2020. Investigators provided an untold number of military personnel with immunity for testimony, and much of the evidence was given on the proviso that it could not be used in a court. This was justified on the pretext of encouraging witnesses and participants in the crimes to testify freely.

The overwhelming majority of the material remains classified. The publicly-released version of the report contains few details that had not been previously reported in the media. Its descriptions of the war crimes were as vague as possible.

The main outcome of the Brereton investigation was to create a potential legal minefield, as to what evidence is admissible and what is not. Moraitis said his staff were sifting through the Brereton material to “help ensure investigators will only receive information they can lawfully obtain and use in criminal investigations and any future criminal proceedings.” This process is being conducted under a shroud of secrecy.

Moraitis’ testimony followed a report in the Murdoch-owned Daily Telegraph on March 16, which revealed that at least some of the 25 soldiers implicated in the war crimes remain in the military. The alleged criminals would not be sacked. They would be allowed to discharge from the army on unspecified “medical grounds.” No other media outlet picked up the story.

The article, apparently based on information provided from within the military, appeared just days before the Coalition, Labor, the Greens and other MPs voted for a royal commission into the treatment of military veterans and their high rates of suicide. The timing indicates that the hardships faced by soldiers, resulting from their deployment to predatory and illegal wars, will be exploited to obfuscate the criminality of what occurred in Afghanistan.

As for the victims and their relatives, the Coalition government stated after the release of the Brereton report that it did not intend to provide them with any compensation. A Google search indicates that the issue was last mentioned in the corporate media in December.

The obvious attempts to forestall any criminal prosecutions of the soldiers involved are all the more extraordinary, given that millions of people have seen cast-iron evidence of at least some of the crimes.

Last March, for instance, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation published footage from a soldiers’ helmet camera, showing the point-blank execution of an unarmed Afghan civilian in 2012. Had the murder occurred in any other context, the perpetrator would have been arrested, charged and sentenced years ago. Military whistleblowers, as well as Afghan victims, have also provided eyewitness accounts of some of the crimes to the media.

The bid to prevent the cases from ever reaching a court is motivated by several factors. When the report was released, some of the soldiers implicated indicated through the press that they felt “betrayed” and “scapegoated.” Shortly after, an image was leaked to the media, showing a senior special forces commander drinking beer from the prosthetic leg of a dead Afghan.

It was rapidly revealed that the man pictured was warrant officer John Letch. When he stood down after the publication, Letch was the Command Sergeant Major of Special Operations Command. Letch had worked at Army Headquarters and Headquarters Special Operations Command.

Whoever leaked the image of Letch, it was directed against the claim of the Brereton report that no one above the level of squadron command was aware of the violations of international law. The government and military command are undoubtedly fearful that if soldiers are tried, they will testify that they were merely following orders.

Many of the murders occurred after the Labor government of Prime Minister Julia Gillard ordered greater involvement of Australian troops in US-led “kill and capture” raids, supposedly targeting insurgent leaders in 2011.

In April 2013, then Chief of the Defence Force General David Hurley issued a secret directive to soldiers, warning that they could be “exposed to criminal and disciplinary liability, including potentially the war crime of murder” if they could not prove that those they killed were participating in hostilities. In other words, the crimes flowed from the government-led prosecution of a neo-colonial war, and were known to military command.

Clearly, there are also concerns that the true scale of the war crimes could be revealed if the alleged perpetrators are pressed in court. The Brereton inquiry acknowledged that there were likely many more incidents that were not covered in its report.

The latest proof that murder and torture were commonly used instruments of the occupation was provided by Shamsurahman Mamond, who worked as a translator for the Australian military in Uruzgan Province.

Mamond told the Special Broadcasting Service this week: “[In the] provincial reconstruction team, it was our job to connect with local elders and local people. They were coming and telling us what was going on out in the fields. They would say, ‘They’re destroying the whole house. They’re killing the kids and ladies and everyone because they’re looking for insurgents and Taliban.’”

The translator indicated that torture was routine at the Australian base in the town of Tarin Kowt. “My accommodation was a few metres away from the jail,” he said. “I saw sometimes they were taking people out of the car like toys, we also sometimes heard people yelling, it was sad because if someone is in the detention centre, they don’t have a weapon, they are not a threat anymore, there was no necessity for punishment.”

Such information runs counter to the promotion of the military by the entire political and media establishment, and preparations for its involvement in new and even greater crimes.

The last major media mention of the war crimes came in December, when Zhao Lijian, a Chinese foreign ministry representative, tweeted a condemnation of the killings. This was accompanied by a graphic, produced by a visual artist, showing an Australian soldier holding a knife to the neck of an Afghan child. The picture clearly referred to an incident described in the Brereton report, involving soldiers slashing the throats of two 14-year-old boys.

Labor, the Liberal-Nationals, the Greens and various independents all denounced Zhao’s tweet as a Chinese “attack” on Australian soldiers. The media treated the tweet as a far more serious offence than the killings themselves.

The hysterical reaction was a warning that ongoing exposure of the military was beyond the pale and would be treated as treasonous and “un-Australian.” This was directed against anti-war opposition, and was the signal for the war crimes to be dropped entirely from the press.

The denunciation of China also highlighted the fact that the cover-up of the war crimes is aimed at ensuring that the atrocities committed in Afghanistan do not get in the way of the preparations for Australia to play a frontline role in US plans for a catastrophic war against China.

Built during the second half of the 16th century by the Emperor Akbar, Fatehpur Sikri (the City of Victory) was the capital of the Mughal Empire for only some 10 years. The complex of monuments and temples, all in a uniform architectural style, includes one of the largest mosques in India, the Jama Masjid.

Brief synthesis

Fatehpur Sikri is located in Agra District in the State of Uttar Pradesh in northern India. It was constructed southeast of an artificial lake, on the slopping levels of the outcrops of the Vindhyan hill ranges. Known as the “city of victory”, it was made capital by the Mughal emperor Akbar (r. 1556-1605 CE) and constructed between 1571 and 1573. Fatehpur Sikri was the first planned city of the Mughals to be marked by magnificent administrative, residential, and religious buildings comprised of palaces, public buildings, mosques, and living areas for the court, the army, the servants of the king and an entire city. Upon moving the capital to Lahore in 1585, Fatehpur Sikri remained as an area for temporary visits by the Mughal emperors.

The inscribed property covers 60.735 ha, with a buffer zone of 475.542 ha. The city, which is bounded on three sides by a wall 6 km long fortified by towers and pierced by nine gates, includes a number of impressive edifices of secular and religious nature that exhibit a fusion of prolific and versatile Indo-Islamic styles. The city was originally rectangular in plan, with a grid pattern of roads and by-lanes which cut at right angles, and featured an efficient drainage and water management system. The well-defined administrative block, royal palaces, and Jama Masjid are located in the centre of the city. The buildings are constructed in red sandstone with little use of marble. Diwan-i-Am (Hall of Public Audience) is encircled by a series of porticos broken up at the west by the insertion of the emperor’s seat in the form of a small raised chamber separated by perforated stone screens and provided with pitched stone roof. This chamber communicates directly with the imperial palace complex clustered along a vast court. At the north side of it stands a building popularly known as Diwan-i-Khas (Hall of Private Audience), also known as the ‘Jewel House’. Other monuments of exceptional quality are Panch Mahal, an extraordinary, entirely columnar five-storey structure disposed asymmetrically on the pattern of a Persian badgir, or wind-catcher tower; the pavilion of Turkish Sultana; Anup Talao (Peerless Pool); Diwan-Khana-i-Khas and Khwabgah (Sleeping Chamber); palace of Jodha Bai, the largest building of the residential complex, which has richly carved interior pillars, balconies, perforated stone windows, and an azure-blue ribbed roof on the north and south sides; Birbal’s House; and the Caravan Sarai, Haram Sara, baths, water works, stables and Hiran tower. Architecturally, the buildings are a beautiful amalgamation of indigenous and Persian styles.

Amongst the religious monuments at Fatehpur Sikri, Jama Masjid is the earliest building constructed on the summit of the ridge, completed in 1571-72. This mosque incorporates the tomb of Saikh Salim Chisti, an extraordinary masterpiece of sculpted decoration completed in 1580-81 and further embellished under the reign of Jahangir in 1606. To the south of the court is an imposing structure, Buland Darwaza (Lofty Gate), with a height of 40 m, completed in 1575 to commemorate the victory of Gujarat in 1572. It is by far the greatest monumental structure of emperor Akbar’s entire reign and also one of the most perfect architectural achievements in India.

Criterion (ii): The construction of Fatehpur Sikri exercised a definite influence on the evolution of Mughal town planning, namely, at Shahjahanabad.

Criterion (iii): The city of Fatehpur Sikri bears an exceptional testimony to the Mughal civilization at the end of 16th century.

Criterion (iv): The city as a whole is a unique example of architectural ensembles of very high quality constructed between 1571 and 1585.

Integrity

The inscribed property contains all the attributes necessary to express its Outstanding Universal Value, and these are in a good state of conservation. Factors that previously threatened the integrity of the property, such as mining activities, have been controlled by the banning of mining within a 10-km radius of Fatehpur Sikri, but will require continuous monitoring, particularly in regard to illegal blasting. The extension of the buffer zone, and the establishment of pertinent regulatory measures, are critical to controlling the unplanned growth of the township and the potential threat to the visual integrity of the property. Adequate planning and the definition of clear guidelines for visitor use are also essential to maintain the qualities of the property, especially as relates to the potential development of infrastructure at and nearby the property.

Authenticity

The authenticity of Fatehpur Sikri has been preserved in the palaces, public buildings, mosques, and living areas for the court, the army, and the servants of the king. Several repairs and conservation works have been carried out from as early as the British Government period in India to the Buland Darwaza, Royal Alms House, Hakim Hammam, Jama Masjid, Panch Mahal, Jodha Bai palace, Diwan-i-Am, pavilion of the Turkish Sultana, Birbal’s House, mint house, treasury house, etc., without changing the original structures. In addition, paintings and painted inscriptions in Jama Masjid, Shaikh Salim Chisti’s tomb, Akbar’s Khwabgah, and Mariam’s house have also been chemically preserved and restored according to their original conditions. To maintain the condition of authenticity, guidelines are needed to ensure that form and design, as well as location and setting, are protected.

Protection and management requirements

The management of Fatehpur Sikri is carried out by the Archaeological Survey of India. Legal protection of the property and control over the regulated area around it is through legislation, including the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains (AMASR) Act (1958) and its Rules (1959) and Amendment and Validation Act (2010), which is adequate to the overall administration of the property and buffer zone. In addition, the passing of orders by the Honourable Supreme Court of India assists the Archaeological Survey of India in the protection and conservation of monuments. An area of 10,400 sq km around the Taj Mahal is defined to protect the monument from pollution. The Supreme Court of India in December 1996 delivered a ruling that banned the use of coal/coke in industries located in this “Taj Trapezium Zone” (TTZ), and required these industries to switch over to natural gas or relocate outside the TTZ. The TTZ comprises 40 protected monuments, including three World Heritage properties: the Taj Mahal, Agra Fort, and Fatehpur Sikri.

To prevent the entry of unauthorized persons into the tourist movement area and to avoid encroachments in the property area, a boundary wall has been constructed on the protected limits of the palace complex. In addition to the physical delimitation, regulatory measures are needed to prevent further encroachment and impacts on the visual integrity of the property.

The sustained implementation of the Integrated Management Plan is required for the adequate protection, conservation, and management of the property and its buffer zone. It is also the necessary mechanism to coordinate the actions implemented by different agencies at the central and local levels having mandates that have an impact on the property, including the Town and Country Planning Organization, the Agra Development Authority, the Municipal Corporation, and the Public Works Department, among others. Although the Archaeological Survey of India has been managing the visitors to the property by means of its management system, the Integrated Management Plan will need to ensure adequate visitor management and guidelines for the potential development of additional infrastructure, which will need to be preceded in all cases by a Heritage Impact Assessment.

The fund provided by the federal government is adequate for the overall conservation, preservation, and maintenance of the monuments of Fatehpur Sikri. It supports the presence of a Conservation Assistant who works under the guidance of the regional office of the Archaeological Survey of India and coordinates activities at the property.

The second of Titan’s new Alien trilogy, Alien – Sea of Sorrows, is written by James A Moore and is bizarrely set over 200 years after Out of the Shadows. “Why would a sequel after its predecessor be weird?” I hear you ask. This is due to the fact that the third (and currently final) book is set during Aliens, centuries prior to this novel. It just struck me as an odd chronological placement.

The novel itself is very much a direct sequel to Tim Lebbon’s previous novel and goes to show that this trilogy has is establishing a brand new coherent continuity. What stood out to me as I read the opening third of the novel was just how much that reminded me of the older novels. Rather than the self contained nature of the majority of DH Press’ last line of Alien novels, Sea of Sorrows felt a part of a bigger whole.

Something I really liked was that Jim Moore took it very slow to build up the action. The first half of the book was devoted almost entirely to the development of Alan Decker, the main character and the world in which he lived. The world building that Jim did in this novel was fantastic. The ICC, who Decker works for, was mentioned previously in Aliens but never really dealt with. Jim gave them further attention and looked into them somewhat.

As Weyland-Yutani makes a return in the novel he also dealt with their return to power. I was somewhat worried that this would be a little convenient but considering how the films always portrayed them as an omnipotent presence, the way Jim brings them back felt believable and further developed this unexplored period in the Alien timeline.

I was surprised at how much I liked Alan Decker. As I mentioned, Jim spent much of the earlier parts of the novel developing him and letting us get to know his family, his mentality and the world he lived in. It really helped me believe in his plight and his motivation throughout the novel.

Something that was worrisome going into the novel was how Jim Moore would present Alan Decker’s connection to the Aliens and thankfully it was dealt with tactfully and not over the top. Jim wrote Decker as empathic – this means he could sense the emotions of others.

Now if you’re going into this novel having not read any of the old Expanded Universe this might seem slightly off track for Alien. However, as far back as Aliens Book 1 (Outbreak), the Queens were able to influence humans via some form of telepathy. Jim Moore doesn’t have Decker reading the minds of the Alien, he has Decker sensing something incomprehensible from the Aliens that he can only interpret as rage and vengeance.

If you’re familiar with the synopsis of Sea of Sorrows then you should know that the Aliens are after Decker for his relation to Ripley. This is something that could be of concern to some fans coming into this novel. Following the events of Out of the Shadows, the Aliens “marked” Ripley’s bloodline. Jim doesn’t actually go into the specifics of it, only that they are able to sense his relation to Ripley.

This really didn’t strike me as anything negative. We know for a fact that some insects in reality are capable of “marking” targets – the Japanese Giant Hornet springs to mind. So combined with the genetic memory of the Aliens and their completely…well…alien-nature, I can quite easily believe that the Aliens were able to genetically identify Ripley’s bloodline.

Jim Moore splits his characters into three distinctive groups. We have a small group of main characters of which Decker is obviously a part of. After him we have Manning. Manning is the leader of the mercenaries that make up the bulk of the characters in the book and provide us with our action elements.

Both Decker and the reader have ample reason to hate Manning as you’ll find out when you read the novel. However, Jim Moore infuses his personality with enough badass and lets us understand him that it’s quite easy to forget what he did to Decker and just enjoy the ride. He’s shown to be quite the leader and I really enjoyed reading about him.

After Manning we have Adams, another merc, who forms an attachment to Decker. She was quite likeable and down to Earth, helping guide Decker (and us) through this new future we had found ourselves in. Her and Decker’s interactions were great and the pair carry a very believable relationship.

The last of our main characters is Rollins. Her character’s personality is very obviously based on Vickers from Prometheus and it’s easy to see this in every scene she is in. Her motivation is also quite a-typical of the older “get Alien specimen” stories and this lack of originality that makes her the most boring.

After this main core group, we have a similar number of secondary characters who are all given small but substantial attention. Many of these secondary characters are presented to be quite likeable and charming, must in the same way as how Aliens presented its secondary characters. I’m not going to spend too much space talking about these but I will throw a special mention out there to Piotrowicz.

Like with Manning, we have plenty of reasons to dislike Piotrowicz but Jim Moore handles him in such a way that it’s easy to forget his involvement. He is written as quite a charming, almost Hudson-like (pre-freak out) kind of character. His last scenes in particular are fantastic.

And lastly we get to the tertiary characters, of which Sea of Sorrows has plenty. Which makes sense. There’s an entire platoon of mercenaries, a whole terraforming expedition, plenty of scientists. Many of these pop-up for a mention, disappear and some reappear later on.

They also play a part in the one major complaint I have in regards to the novel. Towards the middle of the book, when they finally encounter the Aliens, the pacing just grinds to a stop. One bunch of tertiary characters will encounter the Alien, figure something out and then die. Rinse and repeat for another few chapters.

The book had been flowing quite well up until that point. Jim had kept it moving, using short chapters to keep the pages turning and never letting himself get bogged down. But once we hit the first encounters, it just stopped. The start-stop nature of these chapters pulled me out of the novel.

I understand that these books need to be accessible to readers who might not be as familiar with the films as the fans but I thought Jim had written himself out of this problem much earlier on in the novel. There’s a section on board the mercenary ship were the characters are being briefed on the Aliens but apparently not thoroughly enough. Had Jim just put all the necessary information here, we could have just kept moving along.

I was also disappointed to not explore the ship or the city in any meaningful way. Despite being back on LV178, we weren’t treated to any further development of the previous inhabitants or their mysterious leftovers. Considering how well Jim Moore had put into his world building of the post Alien Resurrection universe, this lack of exploration was disappointing.

One last concern that fans might have about the novel is that Jim explores a little with the “hivemind”. They’re short sections in which the Aliens are presented as an appropriately individual-less mind. He did nothing to offend any fans and one section later on – in which a Queen “communicates” via telepathy to Decker – is a nice touch that adds some more concrete intelligence to the Aliens.

Jim Moore handles the Aliens with respect, not treating them like the bugs many do. He continues Tim Lebbon’s raptor-like approach. However, as this novel is more akin to Aliens, we do need shooting and we do need to be able to kill them.

And to that without disrespecting the Aliens, Jim has his mercenaries packing plasma rifles – the power of the sun in your hands. Very dangerous stuff; and something I can easily believe is capable of killing Aliens (and anything that gets in the way). He did actually trip over himself and have random rifles be called pulse rifles which did get distracting at times.

This is a very ridiculous complaint but Sea of Sorrows is a completely different size to Out of the Shadows. Thish annoyed me slightly as it meant they didn’t fit together nicely on the shelf.

The continuity between Out of the Shadows and the effort Jim Moore put into his early world-building really helped make this novel feel part of a bigger whole, a feeling the Alien novels have been missing for years.

The way in which the book concluded also gives the feeling of more to come which I find hopeful for a more organized continuity for Titan’s Alien novels. However, with only one more on the horizon and with that book seemingly taking place during the infestation of Hadley’s Hope, I’m slightly worried we might not get to see the continuation of the story being setup by Jim Moore.

Over all I really enjoyed Sea of Sorrows. It’s quite definitely an adventure/action piece, more akin to Aliens than Alien. His characters are fun, his inclusion of Decker’s connection to the Aliens and the minor dabbling into the Alien hivemind was fun to read and handled in a very tasteful manner. I would happily recommend picking this one up as it feels like a return to the glory days of old.

However, the book didn’t explore the new extraterrestrials at all and the book plays out largely like one of the older novels, not really treading onto new ground. It seems as if the ending was built towards letting another novel play with the new elements later.

From Corporal Hicks at AvPGalaxy, I award Alien – Sea of Sorrows with a 7.5 out of 10.

1983 commercial for the Burger King Whopper featuring Elisabeth Shue

Sony launched the original PlayStation outside Japan almost 26 years ago. As newcomers to the console gaming space, they quickly took considerable market share because of their willingness to invest in a unique and expansive library of first- and third-party content. This brought consumers beloved mainstream and cult franchises like Gran Turismo, Ape Escape, Metal Gear Solid, Wipeout, Tekken, Crash Bandicoot, Everybody’s Golf, MediEvil, Oddworld, Parasite Eve, Silent Hill, and the list goes on. The writing has been on the wall for a few years, though. Japan Studios’ closure along with the recent Bloomberg report make it clear that Sony has lost sight of what made it special—once a bastion of creativity—now going full force on safe projects and anti-consumer practices.

Sony’s Peak

Their first two console generations showcased Sony at the height of their game. After experiencing unexpected success with the original PlayStation, that momentum continued with the PS2. Freed from the shackles of early 3D growing pains, the PS2 amassed one of the most impressive and expansive exclusive libraries of any console to date. There was Jak and Daxter, Socom, Shadow of the Colossus, God of War, Siren, Drakengard, Grandia 3, and the list goes and the list goes on.

Due in part to the gaming industry’s rise, Sony made the PlayStation 2 stick with the most expansive library of that generation. That generation had a healthy mix between experimental, low-budget titles and early examples of the modern triple-A experience. Sony’s second console got equal parts God Hand and Gitaroo Man as well as God of War and Final Fantasy X.

It’s this precarious balance of fostering a range of titles appealing to any gamer for any mood that set Sony apart from its competition. While Nintendo’s strategy involved a smaller number of in-house titles and Microsoft found almost overnight success with Halo, since struggling to shake the public’s perception of that brand dependence, Sony flew by their own rules.

They had a number of first-party developers cranking out high quality games while showing equal interest in partnering with third parties to expand their presence. While the PS3 had a rough two years, once it found its footing, it returned to this mantra: variety.

Interactivity leads to creativity and variety, which Sony has historically leaned into. A video game’s mood consists of many more variables than other media and its within that variability that I and many PlayStation fans have come to support Sony from the start. You’ve historically gone to Nintendo and Microsoft for a certain kind of game whereas with Sony, you had no idea what you were getting, but you knew it would meet a certain level of quality.

Sony Misunderstanding Gamers

Logistically speaking, Sony steamrolled Microsoft last-gen and is almost likely to sell more hardware than Microsoft with a narrower margin throughout the ninth generation. Subjectively, though, Sony has been losing steam while Microsoft continues to build good faith.

It’s likely Sony’s change in direction came in tandem with its headquarters being moved to California in 2016 as the Japanese game market showed a continual downturn. Two years later, Sony instituted censorship policies. Minor cases included changing box art for games such as the SNK 40th Anniversary Collection. In more extreme cases, games were cancelled because developers weren’t happy with Sony’s enforcement.

Most censorship cases were minor, but it was still odd for a historically Japanese company to censor Japanese games that wouldn’t be censored on the American competitor’s console. Let’s also not forget how long it took Sony to give in to cross-play while Microsoft and Nintendo had been playing friendly because of an aversion to players spending money outside their ecosystem while telling the public that “PlayStation is the best place to play.” This screamed disingenuous. Sony wasn’t fooling anyone. Gamers know how effective peer pressure is and how rampant the fear of missing out is in this industry. Anecdotally, many people have bought games on their least preferred platform to play with friends or bought an entire console they would not have owned otherwise just to play with friends. Sony got arrogant because they were the market leader and caved in to enabling cross-play across the board because of negative press.

In more recent years, their anti-consumer practices haven’t lessened. They’ve shifted to other facets of the industry. Now, Sony’s largest push against gamers comes in the form of haphazard backwards compatibility, closures of old consoles’ online stores, and the shift in business model to guaranteed million sellers.

Sony doesn’t have a dedicated backwards-compatibility team unlike Microsoft. This results in a host of issues ranging from bugs that don’t exist on original hardware to worse performance or visuals than the previous platform. Sony prioritized making sure the most played games ran well on PlayStation 5, whereas Microsoft’s team spent over 500,000 hours ensuring every game playable on Xbox One, including the already existing Xbox 360 and original Xbox games, ran as intended on Series consoles.

This prioritization shows a lack of respect toward the industry at large. Many Sony fans became fans because they discovered some random obscure game that was only on or appeared first on a PlayStation platform. By shifting their backwards-compatibility focus toward the most popular titles rather than the entire library, they’ve shunned their oldest audience. Sure, Uncharted 4 and your pick of random top 100 multiplatform game run fine on PS5, but what about Tales of Berseria or Omega Quintet, Sony?

Sony also is closing the PS3 and PSP stores in July with the PS Vita store closing in August. A nine-year-old system’s online ecosystem shutting down is the kind of business move I would have expected from Microsoft during the Don Mattrick years. To this day, the Xbox 360’s online store remains active. Anyone playing a backwards-compatible title is still able to purchase DLC for the Final Fantasy XIII trilogy, for example. Come July, though, that won’t be possible on PlayStation. This is especially concerning because games like Asura’s Wrath gated true endings or cut content behind DLC. In Final Fantasy’s case, Lightning Returns’ opening won’t make sense to someone that hasn’t played 13-2’s DLC as they lead into each other. The Final Fantasy XIII trilogy stands as a shining example of the disparity in game preservation between the manufacturers.

In 2021, a series that became synonymous with Sony beginning with Final Fantasy VII, has a major trilogy locked to a console that’s two generations old. That same trilogy is playable on Microsoft’s ninth-gen consoles with a nine times resolution boost on Xbox One X and Series X. Someone that only played the first game in 2010 can buy and play it and its sequels for the first time on the newest Microsoft systems with easily accessible DLC. That Final Fantasy XIII began development as a Sony exclusive is an even more damning condemnation of Sony’s “respect” toward its audience.

Microsoft is becoming more like the old Sony by the day. While the criticism of Microsoft’s exclusives is deserved, their studio acquisitions moving into the current generation indicates a role reversal. Sony can invest in “big hitters” all it wants and it may result in a consistent string of nines and 10s. This is great on the surface, but that quality comes at the expense of identity. Most people know of the rising shtick that every modern Sony exclusive is a cinematic, over-the-shoulder, action-adventure game. These games sell, and we’ll only get more of them with the push toward global, mass-market appeal.

Even if Microsoft doesn’t drop a noteworthy game of the generation to compete with the likes of The Last of Us, that doesn’t matter. One look at Microsoft’s first-party studios says a lot about their approach. The range blows Sony out of the water. Playground Games went from developing Forza Horizon to the next Fable entry. Rare’s Xbox 360 era was dark, but now they have Sea of Thieves, with Everwild in development. Obsidian has released Grounded in early access while chipping away at Avowed, their next major release. Ninja Theory is working on Hellblade 2 and Project Mara. Who knows what inXile and Compulsion Games have cooking up next. There’s also the huge Bethesda acquisition which in itself covers a variety of game experiences from Doom to Prey. Even if every ninth-gen Microsoft game is a solid seven, that is perfectly fine. Twenty solid sevens covering basically every consumer’s needs is more important than 20 perfect 10s that look and feel similar. This is fine for the casual consumer that buys a handful of games a year, but it’s worrying for everyone else. Burnout happens, and when being bombarded by games chasing after the same audience year after year, it’s easy to feel disconnected from what is a technically and artistically brilliant game. Consumers need variety to break up the potential monotony of burnout.

While Microsoft is investing in the most expansive portfolio any current console manufacturer has access to, Sony is concerned with making blockbusters and adapting those into mobile games. Sure, Sony does have some indie games coming to PlayStation 5, but we know most of them are timed-exclusive from their announcement. But also, Microsoft has a more robust infrastructure for indie developers anyways with its Early Access-like Game Preview program and the ID@Xbox initiative. Sony’s only doing this as a performative measure to distract from their ultimate end goal.

Sony’s Leadership

Sony didn’t reach this meteoric success by playing it safe with guaranteed money makers and enforcing anti-consumer practices. They attained market dominance by leaning into the medium’s strengths, giving different consumers different reasons to buy into their ecosystem. Things have changed under its new leadership, though. With such quotes as, “and the PS1 and the PS2 games, they looked ancient, like why would anybody play this?”, Jim Ryan’s purely profit-driven pursuit ignores the practices and decisions that led to Sony’s success in the first place. Studios such as Naughty Dog didn’t begin under Sony’s wing churning out blockbusters, after all.

Lea Thompson in a Burger King commercial that aired during the 1982 World Series

Perhaps it’s time for a few updates. First of all, I’ve created playlists on my channel and on my blog in which I finally organized some of the music videos that I’ve posted. In these videos, I listed some of the popular music hits and singles from the 1960s to the 1990s. These videos with music singles are not among my most popular videos, but they are some of my personal favorite videos. There are already seventeen of them. This is somewhat impressive if you consider that each video is over 15 minutes in length and that each video features dozens of music singles. I’ll probably make a few more such videos in the future because there’s more music in my collection that I’d like to share and recommend. I especially like the covers that were made for music singles from the 1970s and the 1980s. Some of them are rather beautiful. And, of course, the pop music that was made in those decades is much better and more original than the pop music from the last few decades. Nowadays, it’s a little hard for me to believe that I was able to make seventeen such videos several years ago. Back then, before YouTube became completely corporate, before it became like American television, and before there was much censorship on YouTube, I had more confidence that my videos would be seen and liked. I had the time and the confidence to make videos almost every week. Of course, my channel has never been like a job or even like a serious hobby for me. I’ve never had the time, the stability, the means, or the desire to become a serious YouTuber. One of the reasons for this is that my family is working class and not middle class. For example, I didn’t have a computer or a video game console when I was growing up. And most of my videos aren’t about music, or films, or video games, or other such fluff that allows some people to earn money on YouTube. They’re about history, sociology, or politics. If such videos go against the narrative of the American establishment, YouTube blocks them or marginalizes them. For example, even several days ago, I noticed something strange going on with my latest video. I noticed likes appearing on this video and then disappearing. This happened about a dozen times. Naturally, there’s a strong possibility that YouTube is up to similar shenanigans when it comes to the number of views for videos. So, it appears to me that YouTube is trying to suppress the growth of my video. This video features information about China, which is one of the countries that are being demonized in the West. Another demonized country in the West is the Russian Federation. But such censorship isn’t anything new. I’ve already talked about censorship on YouTube in my earlier posts. Things like this have been going on for years and years already. Anyway, in my teenage years and in my early twenties, I often listened to music. Back then, I began collecting albums, and I now have a rather large music collection. Even now, I listen to music from my collection whenever I have the time. There are numerous books and lists on the internet about the albums that people should listen to. My personal favorite list is All-TIME 100 Albums by Time Magazine. I don’t like this magazine because it’s just another outlet for American propaganda, but I do like this music list. It’s not a very long list, and I like the selections. In addition to the 100 chosen albums, the critics made a short list of albums that almost made the cut. Unfortunately, I couldn’t find this short list on the internet, and I don’t remember all of the albums on it. But here are the albums that I do remember on the list. Appetite for Destruction by Guns N’ Roses, the Doors by the Doors, the Dark Side of the Moon by Pink Floyd, the Stranger by Billy Joel, and Blood on the Tracks by Bob Dylan. I prefer to listen to music when I’m not doing anything else and when I can focus my attention on the music that I’m listening to. Nowadays, however, I rarely have the time to do this. This is especially a problem for me because I can’t wear headphones due to my allergy problems. Therefore, most of my music listening time takes place while I’m cooking, doing something on my computer that’s not demanding, or even taking a shower. I don’t listen to music while I’m reading because I want to devote my full attention to what I’m reading. Occasionally, I also like to listen to ASMR videos while I’m doing something on my computer that’s not demanding.

There is one more thing that I wanted to clarify. When I wrote about my favorite video game consoles, I didn’t really mention the PlayStation 3. Therefore, some people thought that I don’t really like this console. This is not the case. I like the PS3 almost as much as I like the PlayStation and the PlayStation 2. In general, I like the seventh generation of video game consoles a lot. I like how the PS3 looks, especially the original model from 2006. I like its system software and its XMB interface. I like the fact that it plays Blu-ray discs, DVDs, and CDs. I think that it’s better at playing DVDs than the Xbox 360, which is another console that I own. And the PS3 that I own (the Super Slim model from 2012) has a lot of storage space. But, perhaps, more important than all of this is the fact that many good video games got released for the PS3. Of course, the number of great games that got released for the seventh generation of video game consoles is smaller than the number for the sixth generation. The PS2, for example, has a very large library of good games, and it’s also the best-selling video game console of all time, having sold over 155 million units worldwide. But there’s plenty to choose from the seventh generation too. I finished playing the The Last of Us about a year ago. I enjoyed playing this game very much. It’s not as great a game as Resident Evil 4, and it’s obvious that it was very much influenced by Resident Evil 4, but I would say that it’s still a great game. Once you get into the groove of this game, it’s hard to stop playing it. The story, which is about a gruff middle-aged Muslim man named Joel and his teenage wife Ellen Page making their way across a COVID-19-stricken America and killing many Americans on their way, is quite interesting. The visuals are often superb. The combat is quite entertaining. There’s very little to complain about. And this is only one of the games for the PS3. There are dozens and dozens of other good games for the PS3. In general, when it comes to deciding which games to play, I first look at the list of the video games considered the best on Wikipedia. This is my favorite list about video games. It’s not too long and I like the selections. Another reason why I like the PS3 very much is because of its PlayStation Store. You can buy PS1, PS2, PS3, and PlayStation Portable games on this store. When it comes to the PlayStation 4, I don’t even own one, though I could have bought one a long time ago if I wanted to. The PS4 was very successful in terms of units sold. It’s the second best-selling home game console of all time. But its library of great games is small. In general, in the eighth generation, the quality and originality of video games and consoles began to seriously go downhill. In fact, I was able to find articles on the internet about this issue, and some people complained that already in the seventh generation video games began to seriously get stale. When one thinks of the PS4, one thinks of Bloodborne and not much else. Also worth noting is that the PS4 is not compatible with any game for older PlayStation consoles. In addition, the console itself looks about as good as the black binder in which I store my paper documents. Even the hardcover book that I’m reading at this time looks better and more original than the PS4. So, Sony Computer Entertainment, a company that once dominated the home console market, that dared to innovate, and that released beautiful consoles like the PS2, the PS3, and the PSP Go (my favorite portable device), is now trying to stay afloat with the PlayStation 5 and is no longer in the handheld console market. Oh how I yearn for the good old days from 15 or 20 years ago. Well, sure, the situation for Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft isn’t catastrophic. The PlayStation 5 and the Nintendo Switch are getting sold out all the time. But this isn’t happening because these consoles are just so awesome. This is happening because there’s still demand and because there’s nothing else to buy. By the way, the people at Nintendo undoubtedly learned from the mistakes that they made during the Wii U phase. Videos and articles about these mistakes can be easily found on the internet since there’s no shortage of gamers nowadays. Therefore, with the Nintendo Switch, Nintendo succeeded in attracting many second-party developers, third-party developers, and indie game developers. But I’m not one of those people that dislike the Wii U. It’s technically a better console than the Switch, and you don’t have to use the Wii U GamePad if you don’t want to. A Wii U Pro Controller can easily be purchased for the console. This is something that I did from day one of buying the console. Anyway, no matter what happens, people will continue to buy television sets, computers, phones, and devices for playing video games. So, is there anything else worth mentioning? Well, I sure am glad that an emulator like PCSX2 exists. Thanks to this emulator and to the emulator Dolphin, I can enjoy playing the many wonderful games that got made for the PS2 and the GameCube on my laptop. In fact, thanks to these and other emulators, my laptop and my phone are now my preferred gaming devices. If a perfectly fine PS3 emulator had also existed, I would have been fully satisfied. But, sadly, there’s not a single emulator that can emulate seventh generation video games well at this time. Well, fortunately, a small number of these games can be purchased on Steam or Good Old Games.