Nicholas Reeves is another intransigent critic of Akhenaten.

In his Akhenaten
Egypt's False Prophet, he tries to show that the monotheistic king was nothing more
than an oppressive oligarch of his people. But he doesn't realize that he
contradicts himself when he refers to this topic. Thus, in a first statement
concerning the people that adored the king and the royal family, he comments:

�For ordinary folk, there is little doubt that Akhenaten's actions as king over
time inflicted the greatest misery...and brought to the very verge of bankruptcy by
their king's over-ambitious schemes and administrative incompetence,
disillusionment was clearly widespread�.

But, despite of the �misery and bankruptcy� that Akhenaten's actions brought upon
the people, and the �widespread disillusionment� that this caused, (for which
Reeves provides no specific proof) the author in another part of his work admits
contradictorily:

�Upon these altars offerings from the two geographical domains were made to the
Aten daily, before the food reverted to the priests and populace after the god had
had his fill... The populace were grateful for their fine town�.

One cannot help but laugh at how the common people of Akhetaten, who ate from the
tables of Aten provided by Akhenaten (and of course were happy about it) and were
grateful to the king for his fine city, at the same time were suffering from
extreme misery and bankruptcy which caused them such a widespread disillusionment.
The certain thing is is that Reeves' latter postulate is the truth, while the
former must be rejected as unfounded.