[Lattice]

Has anyone read Patriots by James Wesley Rawles?

 

[Alpha-17]

I have, several times. While Mr. Rawles isn't the best author, and I don't always agree with him, I thoroughly enjoy his works. Besides Patriots, he's also written Survivors, and Founders. Both are quasi-sequels, to Patriots, dealing with different events and new characters during the same time frame as Patriots. Rawles' characters lack anything resembling personality (at least in Patriots, he got better by the time of the others), and he has a tendency to bash you over the head with his values and beliefs on gun control, Constitutional authority, and Christianity, but the information he includes in the books is very, very good.

Honestly, I'm not lying when I say that Patriots was probably one of the biggest influences into turning me into an honest to goodness Prepper, and not just a gun collector talking about Zombies.

 

[survival]

x2, check out Mel Tappen on Survival (1984ish), James Wesley almost mimicks everything he says in his books. James biggest influence was Mel Tappen if that tells you something.

 

[Lattice]

Thanks. Ive been reading it but am having a difficult time getting through it. I don't mind being bashed with a writer's beliefs. The same thing happens in my favorite author's books, but his writing more than makes up for it. Other than the lack of character development I am having a hard time getting through the "uberdetail at the wrong moment" thing he likes to do. I almost closed the book when he went into step by step detail when the man was explaining how his wife got shot. I found it very unbelievable that anyone would do that while their wife is bleeding out instead of simply saying. "Two guys ambushed us on the road a couple hours ago. Hows she doing?"

You say he gets better in his later books. Will it kill me not to finish this one and start anew with his other books?

 

[survival]

I did the audio book from the Library, which I know I would have put the book down if I had to read it when he was going into details about a lot of things.

 

[Lattice]

I tend to only be able to read a dozen pages at a time. I suppose that an audio book would have been better.

Now don't get me wrong I do like details. But those details need to be delievered at the right time. IDK, maybe I got spoiled on Terry Goodkind's writing.

 

[Alpha-17]

You say he gets better in his later books. Will it kill me not to finish this one and start anew with his other books?

Not at all. I'd recommend reading Survivors then Founders, but you really don't need to read Patriots to get all of the story. They mention the characters in Patriots a few times, but they're not the main characters.

And if you're moving on to this from Terry Goodkind, no wonder you're having a hard time reading it. He's probably one of the best modern authors I've had the pleasure of discovering. Patriots is a thinly disguised survival manuel. Terry Goodkind's works are amazing. Not much of a comparison.

 

[Lattice]

Aight thanks.

And you're right, he is a phenomenal writer. But it seems to take forever for new books to come out.

 

[J.T.]

Collision Course is also a pretty good read....

I just started reading this. So far I'm not too excited about it. The storyline seems a bit rushed. I'm only 60 pages in so I'm not giving up on it yet. The author's first book, Lights Out, was of course phenomenal.

As far as Patriots is concerned....ugh, I just couldn't get through it. I know it holds value as far as survival/prepping tips and techniques, but as a literary work of fiction it is a painful disaster. If anyone wants my copy you can send me a few bucks for shipping and its yours.

The last really great novel I read was D.J. Molles's The Remaining. And that book was AMAZING. Its actually a series of three relatively short books but the writing, storyline, and characters are excellent. The thrill and suspense factors are sky-high chapter after chapter. Well worth your time.

 

[Ripon]

Patriots is a good book for a prepper to read. I'll be honest in saying that so few people are prepared to "that" extreme so it wasn't as real to the reality I'd suffer or most of us I predict. One Second After was better to me, and Rawles last book was very good.

 

[inceptor]

The end of Collision Course is worth it....

Thanks, I'm about to buy it.

 

[Jazzman]

Has anyone read Patriots by James Wesley Rawles?

Rawles ripped off everything he could from Saxon , Tappan and others , and he thinks quite a bit of himself. He's also a NeoCalvinist with a distinct bent towards a theocracy , I could go on at length , suffice to say that his original bent on the " American Redoubt" was that folks who are " different" and don't " think as we do" shouldn't move to within it's borders , he didn't much care for it when certain of us told him straight up that we'll live where we damn please and that he wasn't the Second Coming and Savior all rolled into one.

He talks a game , but he fails to understand that Liberty and Freedom are for *everyone* not just those who subscribe to HIS parameters.

 

[Jazzman]

I tend to only be able to read a dozen pages at a time. I suppose that an audio book would have been better.

Now don't get me wrong I do like details. But those details need to be delievered at the right time. IDK, maybe I got spoiled on Terry Goodkind's writing.

Read ' Alas Babylon' by Pat Frank , hell you'd likely get more from Heinleins " Farnham's Freehold" than from Rawles schtick.

 

[inceptor]

Read ' Alas Babylon' by Pat Frank

Yup, definitely a good read.

 

[Piratesailor]

Just finished "one second after". Not only a good read but rather informative.

I read, or should I say struggled, through the 299 days series. Interesting parts.

 

[Jazzman]

Ok I'll tear open this can of worms based on a e-mail I received on the subject of Rawles...........


Y'all who have read " patriots" , will take note that the society he described is just as socialistic and repressive as what he CLAIMS to rail against , a despotic " my way or the highway" tyranny in descriptive thought , complete with bigoted NeoCalvinistic overtones and the attendant requirements.

And his version of the " American Redoubt" is nothing more than a theocracy set up as his personal fiefdom with him as the " guru and leader" , straight out of Domionist doctrine that goes in a straight line all the way back to Kuyper's perversion of Calvinism.

And *yes* I *am* the individual who in a different forum called him a NeoCalvinst F*** straight to his face and stated that if he wished to run me and " my kind" out of the " American Redoubt " he'd best develop the temerity to come do it himself , and yes I called for straight up and open debate with him right from The Book that he purports to " follow"............. he cut and ran.

Accepted the " Great Commission" my half-breed ass , what he accepted was " establish Dominion " , completely setting aside " carry the Gospel to all".........not bludgeon it into them , he abrogates the FREE WILL , that the Book and God clearly assigns to each and every human being , the Free Will for each to make their own decision.

And he completely sidesteps the issue that *ethics and morals* have existed since long before various religions and doctrinal stances , especially modern institutionalised religion , came about. He has ZERO answers for the abusive assholes within the ranks of said institutionalised religion and when these examples are pointed out to him he inevitably resorts to the standardised " No True Scotsman" defense.

He wishes to create a "society" that is indeed the Orwellian on the hoof , a herd/flock reminescent of " Animal Farm" marching in lockstep behind him and bleating the equivalent of " Two legs bad , four legs GOOD".

It's unfortunate for him that he's gonna have a bit of a problem getting rid of those who don't think as he does in three freaking states and the major portion of two others , and y'all will note that Utah isn't included in his " Redoubt".........because the LDS folks would kick his ass all the way to the Canadian border if he stuck his stick in the Beehive State. He's a coward who picks his targets.

And YES I'll state what I've stated HERE straight up to him AGAIN , and I'll call him a Christian Hypocrite AGAIN............verses he ignores.


" Love thy neighbor/fellow man as you love thyself."

" Judge NOT lest ye be judged."

" Remove the log from thine own eye Brother , prior to worrying about the mote in another's."

 

[Alpha-17]

Don't know who you are, or what your supposed dealings with Rawles are, but I'd say you're way off the mark by calling his society in Patriots as Socialistic and repressive as the one before it. Is it likely? Probably not. Bad? Not really. I'm not a Calvinist, nor am I a Dominionist, but over all found little to disagree with his theology in Patriots. Whatever person issues you have with him, don't drag a good thread on his books down. You want to rant about him? Go for it in the Rants section.

 

[Jazzman]

Don't know who you are, or what your supposed dealings with Rawles are, but I'd say you're way off the mark by calling his society in Patriots as Socialistic and repressive as the one before it. Is it likely? Probably not. Bad? Not really. I'm not a Calvinist, nor am I a Dominionist, but over all found little to disagree with his theology in Patriots. Whatever person issues you have with him, don't drag a good thread on his books down. You want to rant about him? Go for it in the Rants section.

Uh huh , so you don't find his concept of " do as I say or get out" to be repressive and restrictive? Not to mention distinctly collectivist in nature.........and insofar as it goes , perhaps you need to explore the Domionist and Reconstructionist movement prior to making those assessments as regards theological and doctrinal stance.

In the end the theocracy he describes and that he wishes to set up within the " American Redoubt " is a highly repressive construct requiring all to submit to his edicts , though he attempts to camo it up under the guise of " for the good of all".

And tell you what , the thread is discussing the book , it rather seems that you require fanbois rather than actual discussion , you're due to be disappointed and frankly if you can't stand to have the warts of the tome and it's author pointed out then it's not really *my* problem and bespeaks the same " march in lockstep" attitude as portrayed within the book.

By the way , there are millions in this country who *require no theology* whatsoever to live a moral and ethical life.

 

[Alpha-17]

Uh huh , so you don't find his concept of " do as I say or get out" to be repressive and restrictive? Not to mention distinctly collectivist in nature.........and insofar as it goes , perhaps you need to explore the Domionist and Reconstructionist movement prior to making those assessments as regards theological and doctrinal stance.

Don't know what you're talking about. Again, I've not met the guy, I've only read the books, listened to a few interviews, and read his blog occasionally. At no point have I seen, heard, or read anything that implied he has that method of thinking. The closest I can think of is in Patriots, the reference to the group leader making decisions, and if you didn't like it, you were free to leave. That does make sense to me, but then again, I'm military, so a clear chain of command makes sense. As for him being "collectivist", I'll agree that the group described in the first book did operate as a collective, or even a commune. Not my cup of tea, but when you have multiple families retreating to and living in the same house, it does kinda make sense again. His later books, not dealing with the well prepared group, are very much individualist, and if anything, focus on families surviving together. While Rawles does have a tendency to bash his readers of the head with his religious views, I wouldn't say that his books preach it in a negative sense, so much as what would naturally happen if people had to go through a collapse. I'll disagree with him on that, but that's 'cause I'm a Dispensationalist, and I think things are going to get much, much worse before they get better.

In the end the theocracy he describes and that he wishes to set up within the " American Redoubt " is a highly repressive construct requiring all to submit to his edicts , though he attempts to camo it up under the guise of " for the good of all".

Every organization needs some sort of command and control. A survival group, or a government are no different. What matters is how much power the person in charge has. In Rawles' books, the head of the group, or the head of the household was in charge, and had the final say. Not really that bad when put in that light. At no point, at least in my readings, does he say there should be a national, or even many local, leaders with the absolute dictatorial power you are talking about.

And tell you what , the thread is discussing the book , it rather seems that you require fanbois rather than actual discussion , you're due to be disappointed and frankly if you can't stand to have the warts of the tome and it's author pointed out then it's not really *my* problem and bespeaks the same " march in lockstep" attitude as portrayed within the book.

Not sure what you're trying to say here. My point was this: if you have a problem with something in the books, fine, it's on topic, and let's discuss it. If you have person problems with the author, and his particular brand of survivalism, why don't you go create a thread on it?

By the way , there are millions in this country who *require no theology* whatsoever to live a moral and ethical life.

I never said there wasn't, but I'd like to point out that the people that do live moral and ethical lives have been vastly affected by the principals of Christianity, and the cultures that have been created because of it. They might not realize it, but most people aren't good because they want to be, or because they're good at heart, they're good because they were raised and taught to be.

 

[Jazzman]

I never said there wasn't, but I'd like to point out that the people that do live moral and ethical lives have been vastly affected by the principals of Christianity, and the cultures that have been created because of it. They might not realize it, but most people aren't good because they want to be, or because they're good at heart, they're good because they were raised and taught to be.

I'll speak where I wish to speak thank you very much , ya may as well save your orders for someone they'll have an effect on. And you're correct , you know nothing of Rawles and his movement save his indoctrination oriented "books".

Now to your last that I quote above , nothing more than the standard Christian " there is no ethics or morality" schtick , which is patently and completely bullshit.

CAre to discuss the thousands of other doctrinal and theological systems that were completely uninfluenced by Christianity? Many of which existed far prior to the advent of the specific doctrinal system now known collectively as Christianity , or hows about pure ideological systems that get along quite well without the "influence" you speak of.

You don't know it quite yet so I'll just let the cat out of the bag , you're in the deep end of the pool with a shark on this one , I know the subject since I was *born* into the bowels and seedy depths of abberrant southern Christianity , educated within it's auspices , taught within it's framework and in the end LEFT because of the assorted hypocrisies , inconsistencies and modern institutionalised Christianities failure to clean up it's own house........don't even make the attempt to lecture *me* on the subject , you who can't even recognise NeoCalvinism when it's staring you in the face within the framework of Rawles books.

Want me to start with a list of abberrant modern Preachers and the fracturing of the Body of Christ into a thousand and one different denominations , each screaming that they are the " One True Church? High the pecadillos and doctrines directly opposed to the Word within the Book common to such TRASH as Joyce Meyer , the Murrays , Benny Hinn , Oral Roberts , Jimmy Swaggart , ted Haggard and assorted others....or should I just drag out Fred Phelps and his crew of jackasses and then subsequently LAUGH as you attempt the hackneyed " No True Scotsman" defense?

Shall I address Hoekema's " Big Four" and the common threads between them? Including the intense usage of extra-Biblical "prophets" and the intense control they wish to have over their adherents? Maybe discuss idiots such as Rod Parsley , who is angling of course for political power.

DO NOT pontificate to *me* on this subject , I'll make a fool of you , and DO NOT again put forth your notion that Christianity is a requirement for a moral and ethical base , Joyce Meyer tried that crap on me in open debate at a conference at TCU , Imade a fool of her and she stomped off the dais.

You might wish to stay away from the " Young earth" crap too. And frankly , while I'm quite willing to allow you to believe as you wish to believe YOU seem to be bound to proselytise to me , and on a subject that you have but rudimentary knowledge of........that's a mistake.