Oh dearie me, another dose of cant by someone arguing from his conclusions rather than toward them. Concluding on no evidence whatsoever that Fleming authored Bond to "stoke a fantasy of national potency and significance," this writer overlooks the more likely explanation that Fleming was simply a British author who wished to write a thriller about a British agent doing stuff at the behest of the British government. I don't accept the writer's implicit notion that the Bond novels would have more literary integrity if they'd featured an American, a citizen of a nation that at the time was in geopolitical ascendency. I doubt Ian Fleming truly believed (though there is some of this in the novel of FRWL) that he was on a mission to bolster public confidence in Britain's geopolitical standing, or that any of the continuation authors shared any such motivation. I think it accurate to argue that estates who authorize, and authors who write, continuation novels from Bond to Holmes and others rely on the accumulated good will of fans of the existing works, though why this is a bad thing frankly escapes me.
The final two paragraphs honestly make no sense and conclude some name calling ("thickly costumed farce") unsupported by any real semblance of logical support. The writer lets us know that he would prefer a hero to inhabit a world of "disappointment, failure and decay," but he never tells us why the reading public should share that sentiment. There is undoubtedly room in espionage fiction for such a character, but I for one am pleased that James Bond isn't that guy.