As jeremy says, the available abstract is not a good start:
"Now, as we survey what’s left of the movement from its smouldering ruins, we may wonder what the fuss was about, and how these authors managed to build such formidable straw men of religion and human history on their way to selling millions of books. But New Atheism was never about faith nor, indeed, atheism. It was about asserting the supremacy of Western culture in spite of the enduring place of religion in Western institutions and societies, for the purpose of giving renewed justification to Western imperialism."
So far as I'm aware the "new" atheists didn't build straw men at all - rather they critiqued the arguments theists attempted to validate their beliefs and commented on the malign effect those beliefs had and have when privileged in the real world. And there was no "asserting the supremacy of Western culture" either - atheists come from across the world, and any "supremacy" that was argued for was (and is) the supremacy of reason over faith.
The "for the purpose of giving renewed justification to Western imperialism" is Sriram-level bonkers too - the products of reason, specifically scientific ones aren't imperialistic at all. Is someone living in a theocracy who avails himself of a cure for cancer developed in the West suffering from cultural imperialism?
