Has anyone read Patriots by James Wesley Rawles?
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.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?
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.Collision Course is also a pretty good read....
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.Has anyone read Patriots by James Wesley Rawles?
Read ' Alas Babylon' by Pat Frank , hell you'd likely get more from Heinleins " Farnham's Freehold" than from Rawles schtick.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.
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 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.
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.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.
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.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".
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?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.
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.By the way , there are millions in this country who *require no theology* whatsoever to live a moral and ethical life.
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".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.