# Patriots



## 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

Lattice said:


> 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.

drt4lfe said:


> 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

drt4lfe said:


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


Thanks, I'm about to buy it.


----------



## Jazzman

Lattice said:


> 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

Lattice said:


> 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

Jazzman said:


> 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

Alpha-17 said:


> 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

Jazzman said:


> 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.



Jazzman said:


> 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.



Jazzman said:


> 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?



Jazzman said:


> 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

Alpha-17 said:


> 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.


----------



## Sr40ken

And once again, reinforcement through belittling. Not always the best formula for understanding.


----------



## Jazzman

Sr40ken said:


> And once again, reinforcement through belittling. Not always the best formula for understanding.


 Whatever Ken , I could care less when about the above when someone starts smarmily dicating to me about religion and puts forth the notion that not only is it a requirement but a spcific system is a requirement for adherence to a moral and ethical code.


----------



## Anthony

Is it okay that i have no idea what were talking about ?


----------



## Alpha-17

Jazzman said:


> Whatever Ken , I could care less when about the above when someone starts smarmily dicating to me about religion and puts forth the notion that not only is it a requirement but a spcific system is a requirement for adherence to a moral and ethical code.


I seem to recall you starting the rant, smashing Patriots and everything related to it. You don't like Rawles because you can't stand Religion, or at least the Christian faith? Fine, that's your call. Just don't try to justify it be anything else. I was going to respond with a big reply, and address the issues that you've brought up, but I can see that it would be wasted effort, and you'd just thrive on the attention. I don't care about your background, or how you want to puff yourself up. People that do that online, especially with BS phrases like " you're in the deep end of the pool with a shark on this one", are typically not worth arguing with. I will say this: if you honestly believe that western civilization and culture was not profoundly impacted by Christianity, and then the cultures and law of other parts of the world through Western Colonization, you are living in a dream world.

Take care, have a good New Year, and God bless.

EDIT: Ah, just found the ignore option. Things should be much more peaceful now.


----------



## Jazzman

Alpha-17 said:


> I seem to recall you starting the rant, smashing Patriots and everything related to it. You don't like Rawles because you can't stand Religion, or at least the Christian faith? Fine, that's your call. Just don't try to justify it be anything else. I was going to respond with a big reply, and address the issues that you've brought up, but I can see that it would be wasted effort, and you'd just thrive on the attention. I don't care about your background, or how you want to puff yourself up. People that do that online, especially with BS phrases like " you're in the deep end of the pool with a shark on this one", are typically not worth arguing with. I will say this: if you honestly believe that western civilization and culture was not profoundly impacted by Christianity, and then the cultures and law of other parts of the world through Western Colonization, you are living in a dream world.
> 
> Take care, have a good New Year, and God bless.
> 
> EDIT: Ah, just found the ignore option. Things should be much more peaceful now.


 I see , so all opinions/experiences other than those fitting into your narrow mindset are to be discouraged , and please DO put me on " ignore , threaten me with a good time why don't ya.

You are living breating example of the " Our Way or The Highway" attitude common the Modern Fundamentalist Christianity , and in the end of course you'll cut and run rather than deal with discussion of hard issues which you're unable to face.

And fact remains that many folks are quite unwilling to trade an abusive government for an abusive theocracy. Get back to me sometime when you actually have an understanding of ...A. Calvinism....and B. NeoCalvinism descended directly from Kuyper , along with the basic differences in doctrinal and theological stance as regards them.

YOU started this arguement , in an attempt to muzzle another , then ya couldn't carry it off. Simple as that.


----------



## Sr40ken

Jazzman said:


> Whatever Ken , I could care less when about the above when someone starts smarmily dicating to me about religion and puts forth the notion that not only is it a requirement but a spcific system is a requirement for adherence to a moral and ethical code.


I 100% agree with that statement as I find even tho I'm a Christian I'm not always the "correct" flavor etc..
Depending on the scenario I hope all of us can be more excepting of one another, our lives may depend of certain alliances.


----------



## Jazzman

Sr40ken said:


> I 100% agree with that statement as I find even tho I'm a Christian I'm not always the "correct" flavor etc..
> Depending on the scenario I hope all of us can be more excepting of one another, our lives may depend of certain alliances.


 Exactly , and hopefully to get the discussion semi back on track...........the novel in discussion and corollary to that the " alliances" you cite , be they religious , ideological , political etc in nature will inevitably contribute to a "balkanisation" syndrome when/if there is a collapse.

Every guru and petty wannabe dictator will be attempting to cover out a parcel of territory for themselves.........***and the templates already EXIST*** , the novel under discussion is one such template , and indeed the scenario within the novel is **EXACTLY** what Rawles proposed on survivalblog as regards the " American Redoubt" , complete with his doctrinal/theological stance and the words ' I have accepted the Great Commision' along with " if you don't believe as we do then you shouldn't come here"...........these words have since been *removed* since of course they created a shitstorm of backlash from folks who don't see eye to eye with Rawles that *already live* within the " Redoubt Region.".

Marching in lockstep with ANY given wannabe ideology and or doctrinal system is NOT currently a requirement in this land , and quite frankly utilisation of the same old hackneyed " it;s for the common good" tactic is highly transparent and an inherently dishonest ,along with potentially abusive tactic.

Certain individuals here attempted to play my stance off as " personal issues with Rawles" that too is a fallacy and is patently dishonest , the beef is with a template/concept that basically would render it all down to " if you don't think/look/act/believe as we do then get th hell out or we'll kill you or run you off" , along with a potentially concerted attempt to appropriate a VAST portion of territory to " balkanise" into the equivalent of a feudal fiefdom.

Many here would decry the Butler/Hale crowd that tried the same thing in Northern Idaho and ended up unsuccessful though on a more limited scale and with much less palatable ideological stance................however is there REALLY that much difference in concept between their abusive and racist application and Rawle's more insidious and larger template?

Folks should keep in mind that the current abusive govt we have operates frequently with the SAME " it's for everyone's best benefit" schtick.........BEWARE when *anyone* tries to run that game , take a close look at who *really* benefits.


----------



## inceptor

One of the 1st things that popped out to me, and there were others, is there was little to no air support for the UN/Gov't troops. Somehow that didn't seem right. It made job easier for the main cast but just didn't seem even remotely realistic. The same with the US aircraft. One character stated people took them home. Ok, where did they store that many jets and helicopters? Not a one was found by the new gov or the UN? How do you hide a Blackhawk and if you had one, why wouldn't you attempt to use it?

It was a decent read. I know zippo about Rawles and am not enamored of his website. This comment is strictly about the series.


----------



## Alpha-17

inceptor said:


> One of the 1st things that popped out to me, and there were others, is there was little to no air support for the UN/Gov't troops. Somehow that didn't seem right. It made job easier for the main cast but just didn't seem even remotely realistic. The same with the US aircraft. One character stated people took them home. Ok, where did they store that many jets and helicopters? Not a one was found by the new gov or the UN? How do you hide a Blackhawk and if you had one, why wouldn't you attempt to use it?
> 
> It was a decent read. I know zippo about Rawles and am not enamored of his website. This comment is strictly about the series.


That was actually one of my biggest complaints, and (while slightly off the subject), I especially thought the idea of arming a light civilian aircraft with M16s or an M60, and making gun runs was stupid. Not just, I don't think it would work very well, but just dumb. As for UN/Gov't aircraft, it doesn't make sense that they had every sort of 'copter, but no jets. Only thing that would possibly work is that with the severity of the Crunch, the UN couldn't afford to operate high-maintenance aircraft in a combat theater.


----------



## danthefordman

Just finished the book (audio book), I enjoyed it.


----------



## nitromud

I downloaded Survivors, Patriots and Founders to my phone from audible.com and have listened to all three books at least 3 times. I just started Patriots again. I love those books. I has made me rethink a lot of what I buy and how I look at things.


----------



## jc-hunter

I have read all his books and enjoyed them all. I am a Christian and also can understand that in a true SHTF scenerio, "democracy" within a small group may get everyone killed. A good leader should be assigned and obeyed. As some of the other posters with military experience stated.


----------



## vulf

There are better Prepper books out there, but Patriots is informative but pretty bad after page 200. I just finished "On there own" by Joe Nobody a really good fast read not as brutal as I would like it to be but gives you a realistic idea of what could happen and you learn a little from it not alot, looking forward to the sequal.


----------



## vulf

Jazzman said:


> 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.


Jazz seams we lived the same life, but you must know by now if there a believer whatever you say is going to go in one ear and out the other.


----------

