Book Review: Patriots

James Wesley Rawles’ (JWR) book, “Patriots” is a great story for anyone who is interested in survival.  It’s a “How To” reference manual, written as an engaging narrative about a small group of everyday people who use teamwork to build a protected community in a post-economic collapse society.

By the Team

Karambit Knife

The book covers a number of important things to consider for anyone considering building or joining a group focused on survival. Some examples of topics covered in “Patriots” in regards to group survival are; complimentary survival training and skills, assignment of responsibilities, standardization of survival equipment and location and planning to get to the bug-out-location when SHTF.


When I was working overseas on a security detail with a prior Force Recon Marine, he strongly recommended “Patriots“.  He has been prepping for a number of years from his bug out location in a remote area of the great northwest.  He gave more than just a strong recommendation though, he told me that it should be the first book I read, and the sooner, the better.

I took his advice and when I returned to the U.S. (while still at the airport waiting for my plane to board) I pulled out my iPad, connected to the local WiFi and downloaded the book.  The nice thing about having electronic copies of reading material is that you can carry an almost unlimited supply of reading material.  The drawback is that… well, it’s electronic so it’s susceptible to not being available in a situation where you have no power to recharge your battery (portable solar panels can help in a grid down situation), or worse yet they can get fried in an EMP scenario (which may be mitigated if your electronic media is stored in a faraday container). In the meantime I do enjoy my electronic conveniences and although I try and prepare as much as possible for a SHTF scenario and somewhat for TEOTWAWKI, I am not someone who would be particularly happy to have to find myself in either of those situations outside of work.

Now for the Book

I thought the book was a great read.  It’s sometimes difficult to get into a “how to” book regardless of the topic. Those types of books don’t lend themselves to being read cover to cover.  I personally usually only flip to the sections I need at the time when reading that type of material.  “Patriots” is a “how to” book that is written as a narrative. The positive aspects of this are that it makes it easy to read and I found myself getting through the story effortlessly since I was interested in finding out what happened next.  In the meantime, as I read the story I was learning about a number of situations that could be encountered (and their solutions) in a long term SHTF/TEOTWAWKI environment.

The book starts out with a great quote from Gene Roddenberry…nuclear warfare is not necessary to cause a breakdown of our TEOTWAWKIsociety.  You take a large city like Los Angeles, New York, Chicago— their water comes from hundreds of miles away and any interruption of that, or food or power for any period of time and you’re going to have riots in the streets.  Our society is so fragile, so dependent on the inter-working of things to provide us with goods and services, that you don’t need nuclear warfare to fragment us any more than the Romans needed it to cause their eventual downfall.

After this great introduction quote, the storyline kicks in as we begin to follow Todd Gray, an executive with a major corporation who is flown into Chicago for an emergency company meeting about the impending U.S. economic collapse.

We get to follow Todd Gray as he witnesses the economic collapse of America.  JWR let’s us know how Todd prepared for this through building his BOL (Bug Out Location), how he networked with others to create a self-sufficient group of people who would have complimentary skills and standardized equipment, how each of the individuals prepared for their roles within the group, and gave us examples of plausible ways that a crisis like this could unfold and how different situations could be dealt with.

The book was interesting and engaging.  Although there were a couple of situations that could be argued as “too good to be true”, or less likely to happen (“lucky” for the group), they were still plausible and within the realm of the possible even if remote.  Remember that luck is not a planning tool and even if you don’t invite Murphy to your group, have not doubt that he will be there and his input trumps all.  The best course of action is to plan first for what you would like to happen (the end result) and then backwards plan from there, taking into account at least two contingency plans for each phase of your plan. If your plan involves going somewhere to accomplish some type of goal, don’t forget to plan getting back home in the same manner.

There are numerous examples of more likely scenarios that give great information and narrative about how the characters in the book are able to navigate through successfully.  These are useful because when it comes to survival and prepping because there are an unlimited number of situations that you could worry about. It’s unrealistic to plan for every contingency (and expensive) however it is much more manageable to plan for the more likely situations.  If prepping for the most likely situations first, you will find that you’ll be better equipped to deal with a wider range of scenarios than you may realize at the time.

Some useful information covered in the book included: the benefits of weapon standardization within a group, advantages of SSB Cars that run after an EMP(single side band radio), the ease and maintenance of keeping older American made cars running during a long term SHTF, how having SME’s (subject matter experts) within a group who focus on one area and then training the rest of the group – makes everyone more effective, and how to manage finite supplies like water, food, fuel and other consumables for the long term within a group setting.

The storyline is interesting and the information is useful.  I would recommend the book “Patriots” to anyone interested in the prepping lifestyle. I think this book is great for folks just starting out since the narrative covers a wide spectrum of prepping scenarios, gear and planning in an easy to read, logical progression.   I also think this book would be useful for folks who are further along with their exposure to survival skills and prepping too, since along with basics the book also covers more complex topics. Situations such as: group dynamics, long term planning, and plausible parallels to current developments in our society right now (economic crisis and it’s effects) are all covered in a well thought out and logical progression.

James Wesley Rawles’ New Book

JWR has also released a new book called “Survivors” and the storyline looks like it would be even more interesting to me given that it Survivalblog.comfollows a soldier who is stuck overseas when the SHTF back in the states and has to figure out how to get home to his family.  I’m looking forward to checking that one out next!

Patriots by James Wesley Rawles – Available on Amazon for $7.14
How To Survive TEOTWAWKI by James Wesley Rawles
Available on Amazon $10.20
– (Read Review)

Photos by:
Ulysses Publishing
Mad Max

91 thoughts on “Book Review: Patriots”

  1. Don't get your hopes up too much for "Survivors".

    "Patriots" was a very enjoyable read on several levels.

    "Survivors" is a pretty thorough dud on just as many levels. Rawles should be embarrassed about taking people's money for it. Check Amazon's reviews.

    • Ya know, I enjoyed the book Survivors – no it was not as great as Patriots but it was better than a lot of post-apocalyptic fiction.

      Patriots is good – while controversial in the sense of choice of weapons – whether to scavenge – and seems a bit sanctimonious.

      I respect Rawles for serving and so he was welcome to my money for the work he put into the book…

      Peace –
      through superior firepower…

      • Billy Bob, I'm glad you enjoyed the book. I realize that that opinions, like something else, are something that we all possess.

        It's true, not everybody has the same taste or expectations for literature.

        That's why I recommended that anyone considering purchasing this sorry excuse for a novel first take a look at the Amazon reviews.

        Regarding respecting Rawles for serving – sure. That doesn't justify (to me) his promoting and foisting such a miserable book on his fans. I served, but I wouldn't try to sell you a miserable product based on that premise.

        And for the record, I regularly visit and enjoy his website. I would rather just send him a donation than have to suffer through another book as tedious and poorly written as "Survivors" was.

        And that's an opinion shared by MANY of the people who had the misfortune to to purchase this book. Again – check the many reviews on Amazon.

  2. Back to this post though, I thought "Patriots" was great. I may have to reread it again since it's been awhile and it never hurts to have my memory "jogged" for preparation purposes..

  3. I thought that Patriots avoided what I consider a "fatal flaw" in many survivor books – the finding of just the thing needed at just the right time. I considered "lights Out" flawed in that way. Way too many 'we can't make it without (fill in the blank)' and then that item shows up.
    What I found unrealistic in Patriots was the level of combat they ended up with. Having European troops appear on US soil to enforce martial law is unrealistic in the extreme. The European countries can't even care for themselves without US logistics – they'd NEVER be able to mount a major offensive across 3500 miles without the US to provide logistics support.
    Logistics is the key to major combat – you can't do modern combat operations without a major logistic tail.
    I did think the slide into chaos was reasonably well done. I suspect it will happen much more quickly than any of us think. I also think that whatever the trigger event, some type of pandemic will be the ultimate result.

    • I agree it may not be feasible but sorting thru the many conspiracy theories in the mix, I will offer this:
      Have you noticed how many "groups" of Eastern Europeon truck drivers out there? There are 4-6 men per truck and all of military age, clean cut and usually in decent shape (especially for truck drivers). Recently, while doing some investigative work, I was told the federal govt is funding these Euro truck drivers and offering perks and benefits to the companies who hire them; which if true, adds credence to some theorists to me.
      Also, many of the illegals are of military age. I know this can be placed under it is also the working age, but some of the theorists have valid points, altho I think most are off base.

  4. Sounds like it's worth the read. Where did you go and who were you with? Didn't run into Luke by chance did you? You can get back to me off line if you want.

  5. I have not read Survivors, but after Patriots I wouldn't be surprised if it was bad. All I can say is that James has to do something to afford the stockpile at his BOL and righting bad books is at least legal. Where to begin? I understand we are dealing with fiction, but James is essentialy writing a How To manual for surving the "Crunch", so I must also look at this as work of non-fiction. The idea that average Americans could, or even should, invest the vast amounts of money necessary to stock a BOL with the quantities of supplies that James suggests is unrealistic at best, scary at worst. Continued on next comment…

  6. Additionally, James displays a contempt for both the federal government and the United Nations that borders on paranoid. The story progresses from one absurd event to another with little story line, plot, or character development. Just days after the economy collapses the books main character and his heavily armed militia hold-up some travelers on the road and discover a cart full of canned food and childrens limbs. Apparently, cannabalsim is not a last resort. They quickly execute the two. If this isn't enough to cause you to put the book down, perhaps the idea of mad max style renegades mounting an all out assault on the heavily fortified compound with no clear purpose or plan will do it. Continued on next comment….

  7. The book quickly changes direction and turns into a political manifesto. In Rawles world survivors must create fortified military compounds in order to defend themselves from biker gangs and the United Nations (Evil Empire). The UN is apparently not a peacekeeping body founded and funded by the USA, based in New York, composed of almost every nation on the planet, that has deployed troops around the world in order to prevent genocide or secure peace in conflicts, but is instead an evil organization bent on the destruction of the USA and freedom, and who's troops apparently do nothing but rape and pillage unarmed civilians. For a much more realistic TEOTWAWKI book I would recommend One Second After by William Forstechen.

    • Paul,
      I respectfully disagree with your opinion of the UN. That is what it is supposed to be, given. That is NOT what it is. The scandals of the UN pushing its one world, "sustainable" development vision that flies in the face of national sovereignty, science and even international law are so numerous as to beg the question of why we still belong. Since the majority of the nations are in no way democratic, republics or even benign dictatorships one must question the wisdom of trusting them to do anything. Even their "global warming" agenda is the source of much fraud. I find little or nothing to recommend the UN as a good in the world today, even if it was at some time in the past. Their vision of what the world should be is part of what I am prepping against. Remember, they want to take your guns, tax transaction within the country and arrest citizens of every country for trial by their tribunals. No, I think not for me and mine.
      I do agree that the book focuses way too heavily on military action. I also agree that only a very few folks, with proper jobs and sufficient resources could possibly follow the path JWR lays out. Most can't work from home or live in other states. I don't see where much of the book enhances survival techniques but if it starts folks thinking then it has helped some.

      • I appreciate your comments. Obviously we can disagree about the UN. What some might see as an attack on national sovereignty and liberty, others may see as an attempt to unify our planets people and nations into a more cohesive unit with universal laws and objectives. Think STAR TREK 🙂 Is it a perfect organization, of course not. The UN does some good work around the world, including humanitarian aid and peacekeeping. The idea that the UN would form a scientific panel made up of scientists from around the world to explore climate change makes sense, it is exactly what the organization is designed to do; to tackle the big global problems that no one nation can undertake. Either way, I think you would agree that Mr. Rawles doesn't just think the UN is corrupt or pointless, but in fact he suggests that the UN is actively trying to take over the world through military action; raping and pillaging it way through the countryside. Unfortunately, in reality there is no evidence that the UN has taken over any sovereign nation by these means. See next comment…

        • You're way out of bounds Paul and considering the site that you are on, I think that your views, while protected by the freedoms that our great Nation (singular) offers, are going to fall on deaf ears here. While your disagreement would be accepted and appreciated if your comments were made in generalities and stayed within the parameters of the book without zinging spoilers laced with irrelevant comments that support your ideology and hint at disdain for the main focus and interests of this site and its visitors while feigning genuine interest for the survivalist / prepper lifestyle. You have showed your hand and discredited your own review and future posts … good luck with that Star Trek utopia that you're dreaming of.

          • Sorry for the spoilers. I would take exception with the rest of your comment though. I am a very dedicated survivalist and prepper. I don't see why failing to subscribe to paranoia and baseless conspiracy theories would disqualify me from membership. Last time I checked surviving and preparing for manmade and natural disasters was not political. The fact that I embrace science and find many of the views of some of my conservative brethren to be off base should not matter at all. I believe in a self-sufficient lifestyle, but I do so with the philosophy that humans should minimize their impact on nature. We should respect the earth and our natural resources. We should help our fellow man. We should, if possible limit the destruction of our rivers, lakes, oceans, and the air we all breathe. We should recycle and conserve. We should pursue energy that is clean and minimizes the release of carbon. See next comment…

          • These are not liberal concepts, but very conservative ones. Use only what you must, conserve. With 7 billion people and counting how much longer do you think people can go on using their natural resources up without any consideration before we find ourselves living on a planet with no more clean water, clean air, trees, etc. People should be prepared for the effects of climate change, not from a UN invasion that will never come. I chop and burn wood in an efficient stove. I pump my own water from a well with solar and by hand. I run my freezers on solar. I grow 80% of my family’s food. We drink raw milk from our goats. I have plenty of bullets and guns to fend off the people who think they can just take. I don't feign genuine interest for the survivalist/prepper lifestyle, I live it.

    • You need to do just a little more homework on the UN,
      Ask those African nation's ( Darfur, Sudan just to name 1 ) how well THE PEACE KEEPING mission has been going.
      Not to mention the UN has on numerous ocassions tried to get the United State's to modify the Constitution in order to make there resolution's binding with or with out the consent of any nation, Just the UN as a Body.
      Not to mention their feeling's on our 2nd amendment, as they have tried to have our congress give the right to keep and bear arm's provision to the UN and allow them the authority to repeal the second amendment so IMHO SCREW THE UN

  8. If it's OK I would like to pick your brain? I consider myself pretty well informed and I usually do a great deal about the topics that interest me. I also love a good debate and would welcome the opportunity to convince you that in fact global warming is very real and has been accepted as scientific fact by the scientific community around the world for many years. Unfortunately, there has been a great deal of effort by the oil and coal industry to create the appearance doubt. Very similiar to the campaign of disinformation that the cigarette company's mounted. Even when science porved that cigarettes caused cancer and were ver bad for people, the cigarette spent millions on a disinfomation campaign that included hiring "scientists" to make contrary claims to create the appearance of doubt. We now know the truth. The same sort of campaign was mounted against ozone depleting CFCs by manufacturing and again science was right. I strongly suggest you do your own independent research on the subject. See next comment…

  9. Please use some reputable sources like NASA, NOAA, National Geographic, Scientific Journals, etc. You will quickly find that there is no doubt or debate. There are many websites devoted to denying climate change, but most of these are not science based. Most I've explored are using outdated anti-climate change theories that have long been debunked by the scientific community, yet these website continue to misinform readers. What you are witnessing is corporate misinformation to create doubt about a subject that would greatly impact there profits. The idea that scientists from around the world would all conspire to fabricate a massive fraud about climate change is absurd, yet somehow people will believe that idea before just accepting that science has discovered that we are warming the planet an alarming rate by releasing millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. The greenhouse effect is settled science. Global warming is settled science. Google Richard Muller. He was up until recently the poster boy for many climate change deniers. He recently concluded a 2 year research project to prove that global warming was a hoax. What he found instead was that his results matched those of the scientific community confirming climate change. I look forward to your reply. Thanks

    • Climate change REALLY you mean like the world's most notable UN scientist telling the world that in the 1970's no matter what we did it was tooo late we were about to enter the ICE AGE well that one really worked out well ( Excuse me while i remove the wooly Mamouth's and polar bear's from my back yard…..) Ok I am back. Then NOOOO It was GLOBAL WARMING.
      Oh yeah all these Cat 5 Hurricane's after Katrina were going to happen at least 5 a year. What do you mean the temp's are cooling again
      DAMMMM the Water's are cooling again uuuuuhhhh that's right CLIMATE CHANGE.
      Look sir GOD is up in heaven right now laughing saying , Look I am the almighty If I want it warm it will get warm If I want Florida to be a Skier's paradise then I will make it one.
      Now Name 1 Just 1 scientist that had a thermometer and was alive 200 year's let lone 2,000,000 year's ago to let us know what the temprature was let lone what the climate was when then earth was created. And tell AL GORE to leave my light bulbs alone. Because as human's although we like to think we are God we are not, We did not create the world nor do we have the power to destroy it, unless that is you think the UN can tell God what to do.

      • Rest assured, while we may not have the power to destroy the earth, yet, we most definitely have the power to destroy ourselves. History is filled with the ruins of past civilizations that have destroyed themselves, usually by overexploiting their resources. See Easter Island. It is a fact that our planet get's its life supporting climate because of the greenhouse effect. Fact, we are pumping millions of tons of CO2 and Methane (greenhouse gases) into the atmosphere. As the planet continues to warm as it already has, the thermafrost will melt, possibly releasing even more trapped methane into the atmosphere. Weather will become more extreme. You can bury your head in the sand and say God will just fix everything, but I prefer to take a more active role in preventing a future that leaves my children on a planet with no ice caps.

        • Please One volcanic eruption put's more emmision's in the air than all car's used in the 20th century, ( Ask NASA ). Weather has alway's been extreme, Let us use some common sense, You say that at one time in this world there was an Ice Age.
          Now as I look out my window on this 60 degree November day I See no Ice anywhere, No wooly mamouth's or sabre tooth tiger's No polar bear's Knocking on the door asking for a cup of ice and some baby seal's WHY ? Because global warming made it melt away. Now you tell me what car's or factorie's or aresol product's did UGH the cave man or that dude from the Gieco commercial use to bring this warming?
          HHHHHHMMMMMM Oh yeah that's right NOT A DAMN THING be cause it is a natural occurence that happen's from time to time Now Who's Head is burried where ?

          • I have to admit I am a bit confused by your hostility. You seem pretty upset about the science and scientists around global warming, but you use the same science to make your points. Science is the reason you even know that there were ice ages in the past, or dinosaurs, or that the earth is older than 6000 yrs, or that the earth orbits the sun. Science gave you vaccines and penicillin. Science helped put a man on the moon. Science is the search for truth. So why then are you so mad about the idea that science has made an observation about the RECENT global warming trend? Yes, the earth has experienced warm and cold periods throughout its billions of years. Yes, large volcanic eruptions do release harmful greenhouse gases and can even plunge us into mini ice ages. You only know this because of science. So why then are you so upset when those same scientists tell you that this current trend is not normal and is being accelerated by human activity. See next comment…

          • Humans are releasing many of the greenhouse gases (CO2 and methane) that mother nature locked away over millions of years at an alarming rate. We are destroying the forests that help clean those gases out of the atmosphere. The polar ice caps are shrinking. These are all facts that 98% of the scientific community agrees on. Even Richard Muller, climate change denier, now agrees that global warming is occurring. Why are you so interested in perpetuating junk theories about climate change that have already been considered and debunked by science? I urge you to take a good look at the real peer reviewed science behind global warming without the hostility.

          • I am not mad at Science after all underwater mountain range's were discovered by them in the early 20th century….. Except for the fact that the old testament made mention of them 3,000 year's ago.
            I have no problem with science but they make many mistake's as well, the only thing absolute is mathmatic's it never change's, how ever science can be presuaded by politic's, see next paragraph

          • not to mention in a recent study Doctor's were polled and asked when life started, Over 95% said life begin's at conception, now if that is true then Abortion is Murder, Yet you do not see countrie's attempting to outlaw it ? Why ? Too much damn money to be made.
            Kick a Dog you get 6 month's in prison Kill A Child awwww no biggie.
            It's like the so called seperation of church and state, Aint it funny that no state local or federal office's are open on dec 25th , Global warming is the same thing The UN say's it exsist because there is money to be made

          • I thought we were debating anthropogenic global warming. Not sure how you've reached the conclusion I've lost the debate. Science is not wrong, it's a method. Do the science right and you arrive at the correct answer, do the science poorly and you arrive at the wrong answer. AGW is a theory first proposed in the 19th century. Science has spent the last century testing the theory and collecting evidence through data to either prove or dissprove the theory. See next comment…

          • The science and evidence overwhelmingly supports the theory. This is just a fact, if you can't understand that there really is nothing more we can debate. Many, so called, opponents have thrown out competing theories to explain our recent warming trend including much of the nonsense you see on the internet, what they never tell you is that these theories have been tested and dissproved. See next comment…

          • Richard Muller, noted physicist (that's math), who has challenged the science behind global warming recently conluded a 2 year research project to dissprove the science used by previous models. Surprise!! Muller found that the crticisms of the science were unfounded and had no effect on the science. You can see his testimony from Nov. 2011. Richard Muller has now joined the 98% of people in the scientific community who understand that global warming is happening at a faster rate then can be explained naturally and that humans are contributing to this increase.

          • Your contempt for the science around global warming doesn't seem based on the science, but instead on politics. You don't like that the science proves that people are having a negative impact on the climate and that liberals are sounding the alarm. You need to get over it. We are destroying our water supply, we are overfishing the oceans, we are warming our planet by burning fossil fuels. The only people that gain from denying these facts are the companies reaping BILLIONS in profits.

          • As most liberal's you are high as a kite, You just said that science support's the theroy of global warming therefore it is a fact ? Check the definition of THEROY and the definition of FACT you will find 2 different theroy's and The ONLY people that will lose money are the Fart brain's that push the religion of global warming, No more curley Q light bulb's , Their plush meeting's where every body flie's there private jet's ( At government expense ) see next coloum

          • And sit's in total luxury telling everybody else how to live but not adhearing to their own word's.
            Global warming is NOT caused by man It is a natural phenomonom that has happened too many time's to count.
            Let's see Ted Danson said we would have lower sea level's , Al Gore would not know the truth unless it smacked his ass.
            Sorry Paul but you have no fact's other than scientist that continue to manipulate the figure's to support a known lie, Did they not hack in to some tool's computer in england a couple of year's ago and find him hiding evidence that went against the BS he's been teaching ? contiunued

          • So now Liberal scientist can go back to doing what they do best and that is BS ing the people and claim to know what they can't it's called the GOD Complex, When asked to debate the subject they never do with anyone other than people that believe the same crap as they do. History teache's us that no matter how much we think we know we dont know as much as we think,
            you say scientist told us that ciggerattes kill people, Well they also told us that Sacharin did too OOOOPs missed that one

          • Science is neither liberal or conservative. By the way, I'm a conservative who just also happens to understand science., doesn't make me a liberal. It seems you have an opinion about this subject that is simply based on information you hear or read from right wing sites or talk radio. I don't care what Ted Danson or Al Gore have to say. I do, however, read the scientific reports that have been peer reviewed and base my conclusion on that.

          • What I have are the scientific observations, experiments, data, and peer reviewed reports that all say global warming is very real. That this recent warming is not only natural, but mostly caused by man. What you have is junk floating around the internet and on talk radio. You repeat these things as if they were science. You get upset or avoid the facts that I present you with. How do you explain Richard Muller?

          • I could have this discussion all day with you, but it seems clear that you have an opinion about the subject and science. You feel very strongly about it and have no desire to do any research to see if your position could be wrong. At least I have read all the theories and claims made by those who oppose AGW and I have found that in almost all cases they are unproven and often flat out fabrications.

          • First you have a theory, then you device experiments to test the theory and gather evidence to prove the theory, then you have what most would consider a fact; the earth is warming at an accelerated rate and it's because of what humans are doing and not anything else. Gravity, evolution, tectonic plates, etc. All theories first, facts now. By the way, I'm a conservative who just happens to understand science, doesn't make me a liberal.

          • Your are a political operative. The main motivation of science these days is money and power. Provide the "scientific evidence" that maximizes both. The is why anthropomorphic global warming is a hoax. Scientists are now understood to be as corrupted as the providers of the funding for their research. Al Gore is the most public purveyor of this hoax. No one believes the lies any more. The corruption of "science" has been exposed, from GW to evolution to abortion. Global warming might be occurring but there is no justification to change our entire economy and make communism the law of the land or to allow Al Gore get rich over it.

          • Look, the notion that I’m some political operative is laughable. I’m a business owner who believes in preparedness and sustainability. Unlike you, I hold “science,” not necessarily scientists in very high regard. As in any profession, scientists can sometimes be persuaded with money or corrupted. You saw this with the tobacco industry and their “scientists.” The same nonsense occurred with CFCs, the industry paid they’re scientists to contradict the consensus. You see it today with the fossil fuel industry and GW. However, not all scientists are corrupt, that suggestion is absurd. In fact, 97% of actively published climate scientists with peer reviewed research have reached the consensus that AGW is unequivocal. Continued…

          • There is debate amongst scientists about the rate of future warming or the effects of feedbacks, etc., but not about the underlying science. The evidence for AGW has only gotten stronger over the last 20 years as more research has been conducted and better data made available. Almost every respected scientific organization on the planet has affirmed the consensus view on AGW. Science is not a matter of opinions, but evidence that can be reviewed and experiments that can be repeated. Scientists are working at the CDC to stop the spread of disease, scientists study fossils and geology to uncover our past, scientists study the stars and space for knowledge, and scientist’s go into science because they want to uncover how the universe works, not to create a hoax. Continued….

          • Do some more research an AGW before making absurd claims about global scientific conspiracies. Ockham's Razor, 97% of climate scientists conclude anthropogenic global warming is real because the evidence leads them to that conclusion or they believe it because scientists the world over are all conspiring to manipulate data, suppress evidence to the contrary and silence the opposition (big oil). Sorry, but I have no idea what Al Gore or communism have to do with the physics and the evidence of AGW.

          • I'd like to remind you that science also said cigarettes kill and that CFCs destroy the ozone layer. Both issues were met with massive misinformation campaigns by the industries that profited from both. Climate change is the same thing. The only people decrying that it's a hoax are the coal, gas, and oil industries. The idea that thousands of scientists from multiple fields would all conspire to create a hoax about global warming is laughable. Anyone who knows anything about science would know that science is not based on opinion, but reproducible experiments.

          • Paul,
            I've tried to stay out of this but I guess it is time to join. I am an astrophysicist and I work for NASA. While Climate change is a given (constantly) there is no compelling evidence that Anthropomorphic Global Warming is a theory, never mind a fact. The fact that the rate of climate change has been flat for the last 13 years, in spite of increasing CO2 levels, can not be accounted for by ANY of the AGW theories. The so called theories totally ignore the effect of solar activity on the earth. If you go to a tool like
            you can look at the various cycles going back hundreds of years. Low sunspot counts tend to correspond with cooler weather and high sunspot counts tend to correspond to warmer weather. Check out the Maunder Minimum and the Medieval warming period. Interestingly enough, the witch hunt against scientist who do not except Gore's "settled science" is coming to light and the AGW theories are falling apart. I note that NONE of their predictions are occurring, that they are having to ignore data, and that the "scientist" who support AGW are not necessarily physicists and meteorologist. The head of the UN IPCC group is a railroad engineer. No doubt intelligent enough but not exactly a rocket scientist. I know this because I am a rocket scientist and yes, I am one of the skeptics who went on record as being unconvinced.
            Finally, why is global warming a bad thing? During the Medieval warming the Vikings were growing grapes in Canada. Food production skyrocketed and humanity left the Dark Ages. As an aside, before you tell me I have to wreck the world economy to change the earth's temperature, you must define how you measure it and then tell me what the Earth's "CORRECT" temperature actually is. The planet has been both much warmer and much cooler. I will argue that a global snowball is probably too cold but growing wheat in Canada doesn't sound too catastrophic to me. In the 50's there are photos of the Nautilus surfaced near the North Pole in nearly ice free seas.
            The latest revelation that Richard Muller of UC Berkley has changed sides from skeptic to believer is interesting but since the other members of his group have objected that he went public (not in peer reviewed journals, I note) without their agreement and they (the rest of the group) don't agree with his statements as the data does NOT support what he said I tend to put him in the same category as political NASA appointees who agree with the government/UN position.
            So, the UN IPCC guys have openly lied, they've tried to silence those who disagree, they've manufactured data and excluded data that contradicts them, they use computer programs that the programers said at the time were inappropriate, they ignore satellite sea data and they do this to try to tax and regulate modern societies into their vision of what we should be. What's not to like?

          • Welcome! I'm happy you've joined the conversation. While I don't doubt your credentials I do dispute your facts. Most of the explanaitions for the recent (last 100 years) increase in global temperature have already been debunked or accounted for in the IPCC report. Additionally, as recently as 2009 the State of the Climate Report released by NOAA (a US agency) states categorically that the last decade was the warmest on record. Here are the highlights: See next comment…

          • Each of the last three decades has been much warmer than the decade before, it reports. At the time, the 1980 was the hottest decade on record. In the 1990s, every year was warmer than the average of the previous decade. And the 2000s were warmer still. Specifically, the decade of the 2000s had a surface global temperature that was 0.96°F above the long-term (20th century) average. This shattered the 1990s value of 0.65°F above average, according to Thomas C. Patterson, chief scientist at the National Climatic Data Center…. The report focused on 10 indicators of a warming world, seven which are increasing and three declining. Rising over the decades are average air temperature, the ratio of water vapor to air, ocean heat content, sea-surface temperature, sea level, air temperature over the ocean and air temperature over land. See next comment…

          • Indicators that are declining are snow cover, glaciers and sea ice. "The temperature increase of one degree Fahrenheit over the past 50 years may seem small, but it has already altered our planet," said Deke Arndt, co-editor of the report and chief of the Climate Monitoring Branch of the data center. "Glaciers and sea ice are melting, heavy rainfall is intensifying and heat waves are more common," he says. I will also point out that Richard Muller the physicist famous for denying global warming just released the findings of his 2 year long effort to debunk global warming. Drumroll, Richard Muller found that his results matched those of climatologists from around the world. He has now conceded what most scientist already new. See next comment…

          • Sorry missed your response about Muller. However, it seems convenient that everyone who sees the data and comes to conclusion that global warming is real you just automatically label as a chrony. With that outlook it would seem that your opinion is not based on any real science, but a ver prejudiced view. Muller spent years criticizing global warming proponents and questioning the data's accuracy, yet when the lead scientist of the group tells you before congress that he has been convinced you simply discount the fact that the groups charts match the current global warming trends exactly because some right wing blog says the rest of the group reached a completely contradictory conclusion. REALLY???

          • Paul,
            This is a no win situation because very few people actually read entire reports. They read executive summaries and press reports. IF you actually look at the data, you will find that the Chart DOES NOT MATCH! The scale is chosen to hide the fact that there has been no statistically significant warming in 13 years according to the rest of the team. I spent several years as a reviewer for peer reviewed work and this stuff would not be published by a peer reviewed journal. In fact, by talking to the press Muller guaranteed that there would be no scientific review. Journals do not publish (in general, could be exceptions) articles that are released to the press prior to publishing. None of his team were informed of his intended actions and all of them have distanced themselves from his actions and conclusions. Sorry, he has no credibility with me at this point. By violating the standards of scientific research AND betraying his team, he has proven he is not trustworthy. I assume what ever reward he receives might be worth it but you should pay a tad more attention to the contents of the articles and do your own correlating rather than reading press reports and executive summaries. It might be eye opening.

          • I would also like to point your attention to the recent report by the UN states that heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are building up so high, so fast, that some scientists now think the world can no longer limit global warming to the level world leaders have agreed upon as safe.
            New figures from the U.N. weather agency Monday showed that the three biggest greenhouse gases not only reached record levels last year but were increasing at an ever-faster rate, despite efforts by many countries to reduce emissions. I know , the report is from the UN so it's obviously fabricated. It must make it easy to maintain a position if you can simply discount all the findings made by every international body and governement agency from around the world. NASA, NOAA, the Defense Dept, EPA, UN , EU, etc. Your right, all these organizations are subscribing to this massive fraud to "oh my" limit carbon emmissions. So sinister!! Is it not more likely that it's the fossil fuels industry that will be negatively impacted by the fact that the recent global warming is mostly man-caused that is spreading the misinformation?

          • So we should stop trying, right? To start with, CO2 is not the prime "greenhouse" gas. That would be water vapor. Secondly, ALL (as in each and every one of them) of the models used by the AGW folks apply the effects of clouds on the environment in the wrong direction! These "climate scientist" don't have a clue about how clouds impact the planets temperature so of course they can project the earth's temperature 100 years from now. On this you want to destroy economies and freedoms? Sorry, not me.

          • Dude you really and I do mean REALLY need to check FACTS.
            Since GOD created this planet The climate has changed numerous time's. The only reason anybody hear's about this B.S. is because of the UN"s proffit margin, The UN has been wrong on SOOOOO many thing's we wont even go there.
            As far as the Climate ( HA HA HA HA ) that's a good one , They have Radar, Satalite's, Doppler and so on and can't even predict a thunderstorm that is an hour away, BBUUTT some how or another they can tell me the mean temprature of Persia 8,000 year's ago ? Dude you have lost this argument on soooo many level's

          • The problem with accelerated global warming is that we don't know exactly what may happen. Yes, the planet has been both much colder and warmer, but human civilization as we know it has only existed during the recently mild window in time. Global warming, especially at a rate that we can't sufficiently cope with has the possibility of melting large portions of the worlds ice which could spell trouble for you if you live near the ocean (thats most of mankind). Additionally, the effects on the oceans pH has already been documented and presented to congress. The bleaching of corral reefs is just the canary in the mine. What's frustrating for me is the recklessness that I see from many with your position. You repeat much of the jumk science floating around on right wing websites and radio as if it were compelling or even new. It's not. Many of the claims about the Medieval warming period are floating around on the internet. With this nonsense the right tries to convince people that there is no problem. See next comment…

          • OK, Paul, I'm getting tired of the multiple posts. This is a book review, not a discussion on AGW. If you will bother to do your homework you will find that the little ice age devastated human society. The famine caused by global cooling triggered the French revolution. The year without a summer started the westward expansion in the US when crops failed in the North East. Global cooling shut down the Viking colonies in Greenland (yes it was GREEN) and helped weaken Europe to the point that the plagues killed off about a quarter of the people there. If you don't like it, it is "junk science". The problem is that science, when done properly, doesn't care about your political view.
            Oh, and I'm still waiting for the PROPER Temperature for planet earth.

          • Did you ever hear
            Of that terrible year
            Way back before you were born
            When Santa Claus took a holiday
            On the night before Christmas morn!

            It was a year without a Santa Claus
            A Christmas Eve so sad
            It was a year without a Santa Claus
            The worst we've ever had

            I put forward that global temperature fluctuations are the results of the Miser Brothers' ongoing sibling rivalry.

            "It's gonna snow, ho, ho, right here in Dixie…"

          • It's funny that many of the "scientists" first cited by global warming deniers were also many of the same "scientists" that also disputed cigarette smoking as hazardous to health. Many of these sights perpetuate lies like "500 scientist stand up at UN to disagree that global warming is real". Never happened. In fact, it was a letter produced by Republican Senator Inhofe signed by many unknown individuals, many not even scientists. I could debate this all day and night, but it seems that if we can't agree on what science is, how could we ever reach a consensus on it's findings. I will site every reputable scientific organization on the planet and you will claim they are just part of the conspiracy. I beg you to ask the question, WHY? Why would every international panel, renouned climatologist, agency, university all reach the same False conclusion. Simple answer, it's not False, but True.

          • By the way, there is no correct temperature for the earth. We already measure earth's temperature on the ground and with sateliltes. We can measure Co2 and other gases with ice cores, etc. The greenhouse effect was scientific fact in the 19th century. While growing wheat in Canada sounds OK, not so sure you'd want to live in the US Southwest or Africa. Florida, probably not a good idea either. The only dispute about the models is how accurate they are at predicting the effects of global warming, not the fact that global warming is real.Many would argue that, in fact, scientists have been quite reserved and optomistic in their predictions. Once sea ice melts, less of the earth's surface will reflect sunlight. Thermafrost will begin to thaw accelerating Methane release. Many fear this will create the snowball effect that could tip us into a warming cycle that feeds on itself dangerously acceratling global warming. This is science, not right wing propoganda.

          • OK, last response and then I'll shut up; if you don't know what temperature to shoot for and you admit that the system is complex (in fact chaotic in the mathematical meaning of the term – Google Chaos Theory) then how can you guarantee that you aren't making things worse? 50 years ago it was a coming Ice Age. Not only did it not happen, no explanation was ever offered for why the theories were wrong. Now some of these same people are screaming about AGW. Do you REALLY want to hang your hat on Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth?" OK, I'm done. Either you have enough intellectual honesty to go read the data and make an informed judgement or you don't and nothing I say will help. Remember it is GLOBAL not a hot summer here or there.

          • Last time I checked there are rarely any guarantees in life, that's no reason to do nothing. The theories of a coming ice age were exactly that, theories. Global warming was also a theory at the time. What happened to the Ice Age crowd? They did the science and a funny thing happened, they discovered their theory was false and the global warming folks had it right. Happens all the time in scientific circles. Research Einstein and competing theories. I don't hang my hat on Al Gore, but the thousands of scientists from around the world actively conducting research into climate change and it's causes. One hot summer does not make climate change, but for the record this was the hottest on record. No, in fact I've already shown that we're not talking about a hot summer but successive decades of recorded warming.

          • No need to shut up. I really enjoy the spirited debate as long as it doesn't descend into hostile name calling. I find that when presented with irrefutable scientific fact to the contrary of ones position the next reaction is usually insults and screaming. I trust that you are big enough to conceed your position if presented with enough facts to the contrary of your current position.

          • Evolution is still called a theroy because it can not be proven with any certanity,
            Global Warming is not a proveable fact,
            We can not prove it's exsistance because Just as many scientist say it is bogus as say it is a fact.
            To say that people will not conspire to create a hoax is a flat out lie , If there is money to be made people will do what ever it take's to get that proffit.
            I do not think that Scientist are stupid I have a Cousin that graduated from the University Of Maryland as Valedictorian at 15 year's old as a Bio Chemist
            Next coloum

          • I am a conservative that ALWAY's listen's to both side's of an argument WHY ?
            Because I am not alway's Right and do not know everything, But there is an old saying " When in doubt follow the money ".Sir if Global Warming was true and we were in some sort of danger of destroying our atmosphere or world It would be beyond obvious to the point that the Government's would stand United and put and end to the guess work.
            Because if Exxon or BP could make fuel out of switch grass or Algea or some Bio mixture We would already have it in abundance next coloum

          • Who ever come's up with a cheap alternative fuel would be like coming up with the cure for cancer ( Instant Trillionaires ) The fact's are sir that That nobody make's money off of Dead people on a dead planet. If global warming was true All major companies would cease what ever it was that was causing it after all who win's with a dead planet ? nobody, Now who win's with trying to convince people that if they pay more taxes or the companies that sell these solar pannel's ( See Solyndra ) or these expensive electric car's that have an average price of 65,000 dollar's
            See next coloum

          • I can tell you from personal experience that people will go through just about anything to make a buck , But nobody would want to knowingly die for money that will do them no good,
            However If I know and preach the religion of global warming knowing it is a hoax then Im not worring about dying just making the big buck's like bernie madoff, Just follow the money

  10. I have attempted to read "Patroits " 3 time's, Now I must admit that I am not much of a reader though certain book's have that SOMETHING that make's me want to read it, Such as the "Left Behind series and One Second After "as well as a few other's .
    The book has to grab my attention in the first 20 to 30 minute's , If not it is no use.
    Sorry guy's it is no use. To much technical data for a novel, save that stuff for how to book's or The Wall Street Journal

    • It was the same way for me when I read it too … I picked it up and put it down for about a week before I got through the first 2 Chapter when things finally picked up at which time I began to enjoy it and finished it three days later. Worth the patience to get through the slow start.

  11. I am currently half way through the audio book, and I am enjoying it very much. In my own opinion, the book needs to be evaluated from the standpoint that it is survival FICTION written from the author's perspective on prepardness. Take his opinions as you will, but as for me one book is not going to sway my political positions. Yes I agree this book is not going to get the Nobel Prize in Literature, but it does provide the hollywood style action on occasion that entertains me. The true value of the book comes in the day-to-day proccedings of the group where the author takes a great deal of time to explain possible gear choices/ where they can be aquired, skills of independent living that would be helpful to learn, and survival topics that are greatly overlooked (leadership/group dynamics, communication/radios, etc). This book is not a comprhensive source but it has brought to light the weaknesses in my own preperations in terms of gear, knowledge, and skills. How the reader goes about making the changes they feel they need to make is personal like every level of preperation.

  12. This book is full of great information on how to survive a very large scale disaster. If you can pick out those elements there's a lot to learn. The problem is that this information is wrapped inside some serious religious stuff that made me skip entire pages at times just to get past it. If you're an atheist like myself, you may find the story difficult to get through. It's worth it in the end because of the quality of the survival preparation information in my opinion. Just be forewarned.

  13. read it, honestly other than the technical stuff i felt it went way too much into religion and really didn't take into account a good number of things such as human reaction to being under such stress over long periods of time, it was too black and white good vs bad kind of people story. I also hated how his preps were very nicely laid out and feasible…if you are an executive with a lot of money that can afford to do all the things he says. I found it laughable at who he puts into positions of leadership over others in this scenario. i wont go into detail since it would be a spoiler. over all i think he should have stuck with writing a prep manual and left out the story part and put in there that you need to be rich to have the ability to do even half of what he recommends.

    a much better and more realistic read IMHO is "one second after"

  14. Agree 100% with wardog513 One Second After is a much better read and will make you really think about what can happen and how to prepare for it, very realistic book and well written.
    Rawles is only out to make a buck as evidenced by his website where everything is linked to Amazon because they pay him a fee for the referal to only allowing articles that promote his book or someone that advertises on his website. Do yourself a favor and avoid wasting money on his books, there are a lot of other good reference material out there.

  15. I sorry to get involved in this discussion, this is supposed to be a reveiw of a book not a discussion of global warming.
    So what if the Earth is warming, how long have humans been keeping records of the earth’s temperature? Accurately?
    Also it’s fact that the earth’s temp has fluctuated over the years, and all this happened long before there was green house gas emissions from humans (unless you consider cooking fires). The earth heats up and cools down with or without human assistants. Why do humans believe that we are in control of the earth. If that was the case we need to start controlling tornadoes and hurricanes so they stop all the devastation they do.

  16. I have started reading this and while I am not far enough along to offer a review, I did feel that I should make a few observations immediately.

    As the author describes the weapons cache and attempts to provide instruction, there is much information that is incorrect or omitted. As one example, when speaking about calibers, .223 and 5.56 the author would lead one to believe (or at least omits) that these are the same or interchangeable. They are not and would prove dangerous to those unaware. (No .223 firearm will accept 5.56, and few 5.56 accept .223).

    He also suggests that the out-of-date HK 91 is one of the choices for a standardized weapon for the group. He talks of Colt AR-15 and CAR-15, model designations not used since the early 70s.

    When given such inaccuracies and misinformation, it takes away from the reading. I find myself looking for other issues and having to spend time fact checking. This could have been fixed if the author had written varying or thought provoking ideas discussed among his characters, but he does not, and as he presents items as facts, he loses credibility when it is not correct.

    If this meant to be a "how to" manual, so far the information is suspect.

    • Havent read the book yet but you are aware the widely used mini 14 in .223 can and will fire the 5.56 just going to throw that one out their and as for choices of weapons im a 22 cal (LR) guy myself but from the sounds of those choices it has to do with availability of the weapon their surplus guns now , thier cheaper and easier to come across

  17. While enjoyed the book and found the information plausible and for the most part practical and relevant, I won't read Survivors based on the many reviews that I've read and friends who I spoken to that echo the reviews. A great series of books written over a decade ago by a former Navy SEAL along the same lines is a great read for those who enjoyed this book. The author is Matt Bracken and the first Book is Enemies Foreign and Domestic and he has a website of the same name …

  18. For me, this book was slightly above average. The story was "believable," at least as much as any story is. I liked how some of the characters would die of real life situations, it kept me wondering who would make it out of what situation. However, the story seemed lacking in many places. My biggest complaint was the chapter dedicated entirely how to use a radio. I read that entire chapter because I kind of expected it to just end and get on with the story, but alas, it did not. Also, the sheer amount of stuff they had was outlandish and absurd. Enough food stockpiled for over a thousand days? What? Also, I never got a good picture of the environment they were living in, though that may fault on my part. Over all, it was an OK read but nothing compelling. If you can get it for cheap or borrow it from a friend I recommend it, but not for it's full price.

  19. Rawles is in such a hurry to get particular political points across, that he should have done more research into the different survival subject matters.
    There is a collapse of world financial markets, including the European Union, but were led to believe that the UN still manages to send German, Belgian, and Dutch troops in, but the world's largest navy cannot retrieve any of its 345,000 troops from around the world in order to protect our capital? Yes we could have chaos and collapse that would be TEOTWAWKI, but in no way would our military be unable to protect our capital, most state capitals, Federal Reserves, and domestic Military installations. As bad as Patriots is, Survivors is worse.

  20. Finished the book last week. I thought it was a decent read, but very wordy in places. I did learn a few things here and there! All in all. it wasn't too bad. However, if Survivors isn't a "better" book (doesn't look like it is if you guys are correct) then I'm not wasting my time! How did Global Warming (a verified hoax) get brought into the mix?

  21. I had read in these reviews that this book was an instructive narrative. Knowing that, I thought it was a good, not great, read.
    The author pushes the idea that only God-fearing Christians (which i do consider myself) will be the fabric of society, the only people prepared for a collapse, and the only people capable of rebuilding. It's off-putting. Otherwise, I enjoyed the "Red Dawn" themed writing. This would make a decent B-grade movie.

  22. Paul Bardinas…you really need to find a new site. I am tired of wading through your garbage when reading book reviews. GET LOST!

  23. Paul Bardinas…I’m tired of wading through your smug slimy garbage that you spew. This is a book review blog. Take your carbon footprint elsewhere.


Leave a Comment