A Practical Guide for Defeating Obama/Alinsky Tactics

The book offers some insight into Alinsky's methods, but at times it appeared to misstate and oversimplify them with slippery slope arguments. For example, the author talked about one of Saul Alinsky's plots against a clothing store that refused to hire black residents. The plan was to bus in thousands of black people and have them browse the store all day. The goal was to scare off the store's more racist customers, costing them profits and future business. The author tried to argue that this act was itself racist and immoral, as if people of color peacefully organizing against racist organizations was somehow wrong or dangerous. He gives lip service to Dr. King, but he disparages an act he would have clearly supported.

Also he confused proletariat with bourgeoisie. How does an expert of leftist theory do that?

If you are a conservative and have a difficult time dealing with the vicious attacks from the progressive left this book help break down the nature of those attacks where they are coming from and how best to reply. Often how conservative respond can add fodder to the left. Obama is a master at using Alinsky's tactics and this book also uses his examples in a good and informative way.

Everyone needs to read this book and get themselves educated on what is going on in politics right now. Our nation's very survival is at stake. The people who want to tear it all down will stop at nothing to achieve their dystopia. I hope someone on the inside gets a copy to the Romney campaign.

Every American should read this book. It is obvious what Obama is up to. At least this book gives you some hope when so much in this world has brought out cynicism and hopelessness to the very future of America.

We needed this to be more popularly disseminated before the last Presidential election. We still need this to be disseminated, because it is their playbook.
No-one has come up with any alternative. This is a start.

I found the book very informative about the Radicals Progressives to destroy the Republic by any means. Also meaningful information on how to fight against these Radicals like Obama which lies so much he thinks that it the truth and will become the Messiah and rule the country.

On second thought, I gave it a third star...

Rules for Radicals Defeated: A practical Guide for Defeating Obama/Alinsky Tactics
I bought this book with a sense of anticipation. It covered a subject in which I was highly interested and its tile offered some guidelines to defeat the multiple lies, the hypocrisy and the power-grabbing nature of the current [©bama] clique (Hillary, Kerry, etc.) So I eagerly set about the task of reading it.
In a sense, I was disappointed.

I can’t say the book was... bad. It was just disappointing.

The first section of the book covers what I will call “communist morality”. Now – before you get all bent out of shape – I know that Alinsky and ©bama and the rest don’t call themselves communists. That way they can deny being communists. But if it looks like a dog... has ears like a dog... has a tail like a dog... barks like a dog... chases cats like a dog... lives in a dog house...and eats dog food... then you can be pretty sure that it IS a dog... even if it claims to be a... mouse. So the book explains “liberal” aka “leftist” aka “progressive” (all words used in English to substitute for “communist”) morality.

And although the author goes into various tenets of “communist morality” (or whatever euphemism you prefer), it can be summarized in an old and somewhat overused phrase: “the end justifies the means”. He takes some time getting there, and makes some mistakes in the process (for example, using “crony capitalism” to refer to what should more correctly and appropriately be called “fascistic socialism”), but he gets there, although it takes him some time to do so. The message for this section isn’t bad. It just takes a l o o o o n g time to get it across... and – in my opinion – not in the most effective way.

The next section of the book presents Alinsky’s rules and briefly describes them. Not bad. It’s a good summary. Some might refer to it as a “Cliff note” of the book. This is a good section. If you haven’t read Alinsky’s book, this section will be a good overview. If you have, it’s a good summary. All in all, the author gets good grades here.
The next part of the book theoretically covers the title’s promise. I say “theoretically” because – again, in my opinion – it makes an attempt... but doesn’t quite get there. Let’s first look at what it does offer. In this section of the book, the author presents 20 “rules” to “defeat” the “Rules for Radicals”. I would probably change that description. I would call them “20 Rules to Defend Yourself, as a debater, against an opponent using Alinsky tactics in a debate”. For “debate” we might also substitute “public discourse” or “media wars” or the like. I think you get the meaning.

Look at the difference in the implication in the title (“...A practical Guide for Defeating Obama/Alynsky Tactics) vs. the implication in my suggested title (“...to Defend Yourself, as a debater, against an opponent using Alinsky tactics...). The difference in implied scope should be obvious. Let’s explain why...

Alinsky wrote what could be called an “Operational Principles” book. If we look at the levels of planning for levels of operations, you have Strategic (which is the broad brush, overall planning level) and you have tactics (which is the individual action or small group level of action). In between strategy and tactics, we have operational level planning. And what operational level planning seeks to do is to coordinate and synchronize the individual tactical actions so that success in each individual tactical action contributes to the overall strategic objective and to overall strategic success. So what Alinsky did was focus on this “in-between” operational level and elaborate principles for designing actions and coordinating actions in order to achieve maximum effectiveness and contribution to the overall strategic objective, which can be summarized as “bringing down the existing system”.
Now the author – as a “debater” of sorts (and presumably a good one) – sees Alinsky’s book from HIS perspective. And as such, he responds to the book in a way that makes sense to HIM. By the same token, this response will also make sense to anyone who expects to be exposed in the public marketplace of ideas and who may be the subject of Alinsky attacks. So, by all means, anyone in that position (or potentially in that position), feel free to avail yourselves of the 20 rules in the book. They are good rules and they should be followed by successful debaters who may be subject to “Alinsky-based attacks”. However, those rules should NOT be considered as “Alinsky Rules defeaters”... because they are not. The 20 rules operate at a completely different level than the Alinsky rules.

Think of the Alinsky rules as guidelines in designing operations against your ideological opponents, be they individual or institutional or governmental. Think of the 20 rules presented by the author as guidelines for “self-defense” if you are a debater that is attacked by an Alinsky practitioner who is doing so as part of an overall operation that goes beyond the scope of you as a target. So the author is actually presenting a set of rules that can be applied at the tactical level, as rules that – according to him – can be used to “defeat” an operational level initiative.

That is a mistake.

Now, I don’t “blame” the author for making the mistake of confusing the operational level with the tactical level. This is a very common mistake, especially for people who have not been exposed to strategic vs. operational vs. tactical planning. But it does bring up the fact that these 20 rules won’t really achieve what the book claims: the “defeat” of the Alinsky rules.

In any case, you don’t want to “defeat” the rules (another mistaken presumption by the author). What you want to defeat are the operations that are designed and implemented using these rules. And to discuss THAT, we would probably need another book – and we have neither the time or space to do this here and now. Suffice it to say that the 20 “rules” are a good set of rules to follow if you plan to publicly debate against people who have been Alinsky trained or Alinsky inspired. But that’s as far as they go. Don’t expect any more than that. I did, and that is why I was disappointed. But my disappointment takes nothing away from the value of the rules to a debater or someone who will be publicly (or privately) defending against Alinsky inspired tactics.

The final section of the book, titled “The Road Ahead” mentions “Other Alinsky Tactics”. Therein, he discusses (1) class warfare, (2) infiltration, (3) plants, (4) the encouragement of misconceptions and (5) speaking in generalities. Although one can nit-pick whether these can all be called “tactics”, the descriptions accompanying them are worth reading and contribute to an overall understanding of the Alinsky approach to conflict. They also demonstrate the “ends justify means” approach to political action that Alinsky espouses.

The author completes his book making some predictions regarding the 2012 elections that at this point are beyond the scope of my comments.

So that’s it... the extent of my comments. I gave the book two stars because I expected more from it... but perhaps what I expected was not the author’s to give. As far as it goes, it’s a good book... probably worthy of four stars. But I will leave that rating for someone who approaches the book with lower expectations.

Would I recommend the book? Yes... to someone who wants to get a grasp of what Alinsky is all about. I would also recommend it to someone who’s going to be “out in the field”, exposing him/herself as a potential target for the leftist packs that roam our streets. It offers a good set of self-defense rules that you should not be without. And finally, I recommend it to the legions of clueless fellow citizens out there who never imagined that the terms “leftist”, “liberal” and “progressive” mean nothing other than “communist”... even though these hypocrites will constantly deny it. But then, what can you expect from the lowest, worthless examples of the human species?

This book was written during the 2012 election cycle and was intended as a guide for conservatives to keep President Obama from winning a second term. This is stated at the end of the first chapter.

On page one of this book is a disclaimer: "Anything contained in this book that is not documented is strictly the opinion of the author." I suspect this was added on the advice of an editor or a lawyer to cover for the mistruths printed inside.

There are a couple of things said about Saul Alinsky in the first chapter that are not quite right:

1. The book claims Alinksy was a Marxist. This is stated factually in the first chapter and later repeated as an opinion towards the end of the book, which I suppose the author believes is acceptable because of the disclaimer. The fact is Saul Alinsky never subscribed to any political party or ideology at all. None. He was not a Marxist or a Democrat or a Republican.

2. The book claims that Saul Alinsky's goal was to destroy capitalism and replace it with a Marxist utopia. This one is ridiculous. Saul Alinsky was a community organizer and his life's ambition was to help small communities of people who were oppressed gain some control (power) over their situations to make their lives better. He never had any ambitions at the national level at all.

3. In the first two chapters the author paints a picture of Alinsky and all liberals as morally bankrupt. This is a thesis throughout the book, which is important because he also connects Hillary Clinton and President Obama to Alinsky, therefore showing that they, too, have no moral code. It seem strange to me that he chooses as evidence a particular example from the Alinsky book. In that, Alinsky describes a time when a company produced evidence of Alinsky sleeping with a young woman and threatened to make it public if he didn't stop his protests. Alinsky wasn't married at the time and the woman was also a single adult, so he told them to go ahead. As a result of that, an insider in the company brought Alinsky proof of a senior executive in the company involved in a homosexual affair. Alinsky chose not to use the information, and explained in his book that it was too far. He would not stoop to that unless there was absolutely no other way, thus proving that Alynski had moral boundaries. Well, the author in this book ignores Alinsky's explanation and tries (unsuccessfully) to state that the incident does not in any way show Alinsky had any morals at all, because the author says he didn't. What I find strange about this is it disproves the entire second chapter of this book, yet the author chose to include it, anyway. Maybe he didn't expect anyone to have read the Alinsky book.

The third chapter of this book describes each of Alinsky's tactics and then attempts to provide examples of how President Obama used each of them, either during the 2008 presidential campaign, or during his first term as President. Well, Alinsky wrote his book "Rules for Radicals" as a guidebook for community organizers. Few of his tactics actually would work for a politician, although some do. Some of the examples presented here seem to fit an Alynski tactic, but the majority just don't quite work the way the author presents them. Also, if these examples given about President Obama do prove he used or uses Saul Alynski's tactics, then I would say all or most politicians do, as well, because similar examples can be given for many of them.

In the fourth chapter, the author provides his own "rules" to defeat Alynski tactics. I suppose he chose to call them rules because calling them tactics might confuse the readers. I believe the rules he provides would be very effective. In fact I see them in action all the time.

The final chapter is an essay of the author's predictions and opinions about the 2012 election and what he believes conservatives should do to win.

Ben Carson recommended that "rules for radicals" should be read by voters, or in other words, lovers of liberty. I did not want to purchase the actual book and fund an evil pant load, instead I purchased Jeff Hedgpeth's book, and sent him the money. Good book, nasty topic, long live liberty.

Sadly I found this book because Twitter was announcing the death of the author. In memoriam I decided to download it and read it. It is a very easy read and the examples of Obama's use of each rule after the author explains the rule is great! A must have if you are an activist seeking to battle in the public policy arena.

Poorly written and sophomoric.
Unbalanced - a political point of view. He neglects to discuss the down and dirty tactics of the the Neo Con right.
Dated - he spends a great deal of time talking about how to defeat Obama for a second term. Wonder what he thinks about President Trump.
Inaccurate - he twists history to suit his premises. He leaves out obvious counter examples that
Illogical - his arguments do not support his conclusions many times.
Slanted - his hate of Obama overrides all including his reasoning. Reads like a political diatribe. "Obama and Alinsky are in league with Lucifer".

I gave it one extra star because its a short, interesting read on how "conservatives" think about Alinsky.
Note many of the positive reviews are one liner compliments. Wonder how many are real?
Would not recommend.

This book was an oversimplification, confusing at times, and poorly written. The author misused words at times - one example is "result to murder" instead of "resort to murder." He mixes up the definition of proletariat and bourgeoisie. The author exhorts the reader to "memorize," "re-read," and attend to his repetitious statements so we can connect the dots. It's patronizing and embarrassingly small-minded. When the author tries to cover Alinsky's morality, or lack thereof, his explanation is dated, inadequate, and pseudo-intellectual. His examples of how the tactics have been used were somewhat informative, thus I gave two stars instead of one.

We currently have a traitor running the country. I've read D'Souza's book on the Roots of Obama's Rage to understand where Obama is coming from - why he thinks his mission is to tear down America and how he convinced too many "low information voters" to elect him. I used to think that Obama's time as a community organizer was just a way of getting out of having a real job. But this book helped me understand that his C.O. skills are essential to how he operates. I didn't want to support Alinsky's heirs wallets by buying his Rules for Radicals, so this is the next best thing.

Jeff explains clearly Alinsky's rules - nothing earth-shaking, but taken together as a system they can be powerful. If you've watched Obama at all, you can see clearly how he uses these rules all the time. Jeff then goes on to offer suggestions on how to counter the rules, without descending into the scum-pit of Obama's supporters.

Worth buying for any patriot who wants to take up the struggle against the socialist transformation Obama is attempting to inflict on America.

This book is required reading for all conservative activists as we prepare for the 2012 elections. It is a well reasoned and documented approach for neutralizing Alinsky tactics, including an recently updated emphasis on what we are likely to see from the other side this year. I highly recommend it!

I found this book does nothing to Defeat Rules for Radicals. The author sounds like Jeff Flake, Mitt Romney, Lindsey Graham, John McCain who all believe you can defeat evil by playing patty-cake with the enemy and fails to realize we are at war. He too, fails to realize that we are not just engaged in a war, but that we've been at war for over 60 years. If war is an immoral act, then how do you apply moral restraint or moral relativism to what is already an immoral act. Especially when trying to do so, binds your hands behind your back and blindfolds you in the fight? It also greatly increases the length of conflict and collateral damage. This guy could be one of those new age battlefield lawyers who question every action of the soldier who has to fight the battle and is trying to survive. We as a nation, need to wake up, realize we are engaged in a war, not just for our nation, but also our freedom and our souls. I was sorely disappointed in this book, which attacks Alinsky on a morality basis, while ignoring the reasons for Alinsky's tactics or really defining how those tactics can be used against Alinsky. We are not at war with Alinsky, he was simply a tactician. Our war is with the Left, who seek control over every facet of our lives.

Rules for Radicals Defeated is a well written, on-point guide with good insights and backgrounds to the tactics, excellent defensive methods and sound moral advice. A definite recommended reading to all who want to thwart the unscrupulous methods of the Obama divisive machine.

Rules for Radicals Defeated: A Practical Guide should probably be named a Totally Biased Guide to dealing with the author's perceived enemy. The first couple of chapters demonstrate that the author hates Saul Alinsky, but either doesn't understand Alinsky or deliberately misrepresents what Alinsky stands for. Alinsky specifically endorses Democracy,. He says "Democracy is ..the best means toward achieving (Judeo-Christian) values," but Hedgpeth is buying none of it. Alinsky largely expects his advice to be used by the Have Nots to get a larger share of the pie at the expense of the Haves, which has been labeled "class warfare." To today's Republicans who believe that the poor are poor only because they are lazy and that the rich are rich because they deserve it, Alinsky must be a Marxist, therefore, he must be defeated. This is Hedgpeth's rationale. However, in the words of Warren Buffet, “There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”

Since increasingly Democrats and their mouthpieces are resorting to the tactics
of Saul Alinsky, it is important to know what they are and how they are and
might be applied. Mr Hedgpeth also outlines 20 ways to counter these
strategies. He does an excellent job of all of this, while keeping it pithy.

Instead of shaking our heads at all of the seemingly incomprehensible
things that the left says and does, it behooves us to understand
them because they don't follow our normal way of thinking. They
have no interest in a rational discussion of the issues, being "fair"
to their opponents, etc, and this book will help shed light on why this
is so. I might say more but this book does it so well it is better to
just let Mr. Hedgpeth explain it his way.

Just finished reading Jeff Hedgpeth's Rules for Radicals Defeated: A Practical Guide for Defeating Obama/Alinsky Tactics. I found the book informative, although I found it a little short on examples of ways to defeat Alinsky tactics. That being said, Jeff needs to fire whomever proofread and edited his book. There are so many typographical and grammatical errors in the book that it became distracting. I expected better.

Although I agree that Alinsky's tactics were/are used almost exclusively by Democrats/liberals, this book shows how really driven people of any political stripe can abandon all morals to achieve their desired goals. I believe Alinsky's followers are truly evil, willing to step over a lot of dead bodies if necessary to get to their 'ends'. It would be difficult for me to believe that anyone could read this book and not be able to relate it, and least in part, to our current political climate. The Obama apologists even admit to the depravity of Alinsky's tactics, but in their efforts to make Obama appear as a 'pure' man of the people, refuse to see how his 'team' used these to get elected, and to this day, to attack any opponents of their policies.

I gave this one star because of the treasonous, subversive, seditious author. I purchased and read this book because I believe in knowing the enemies of freedom and knowing how they think so that I can better fight against them.

A few decades ago, I bought both of Saul Alinsky’s books on community organizing, Reveille for Radicals and Rules for Radicals. I found them both to be quite impressive and selected them as “keepers” in my library. In more recent times I have been saddened to see the enormous volume of recent bilge appearing on the internet comparing Alinsky, quite unfavorably with Judas Iscariot and Karl Marx. Since poor old Saul had been largely forgotten, moldering in his grave for about 36 years, only one explanation seems reasonable – Barak Obama was a community organizer and the radical right want to tar him as a follower of this “devil.” So to quote the Nicene Creed, “on the 36 th year he rose again according to the right wing scriptures”. This seems to be on par with the Obama birthers, but I will try to avoid sinking to their level of ad hominem arguments.

The author states that Alinsky’s recently resurrected book’ “Rules for Radicals is looked upon as the Bible of the Leftist revolution and counterculture. It contains principles designed to help the would-be radical foment a revolution – a revolution that is intended to bring down capitalism, and usher in a new age of utopian bliss.”

I must conclude that author must be living in some Wonderland along with Alice, where old Saul is raised to the level of a dangerous lurking Robespierre.

Later the author hyperventilates, “Obama/ Alinsky model, and traditional American thought is the war between collectivism and individualism. It is a war between the Alinsky/ Marx view where America and its capitalistic society play the part of villain, and a more traditional American belief system founded on the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. A belief system where America is the protagonist defending a system of bottom up governance against attempts by Alinsky and others to create a top down system of governance.”

Now let’s look at what Alinsky actually did.

He organized local communities and went on to found the Industrial Areas Foundation. In working with local communities he was usually supported or invited in by churches. Calling these churches Marxist or socialist is simply silly. He purposely advised members of these communities to choose limited and incremental goals – collectively work to improve housing, get jobs for minorities in industries that won’t hire them, support and advise unionization drives, improve wages, etc.

What really gets my goat is the following quote from this book.

“Obama took a break from his Harvard studies to travel to Los Angeles for eight days of intense training at Alinsky’s Industrial Areas Foundation, a station of the cross for acolytes.”

The author doesn’t state that another Industrial Areas Foundation graduate “acolyte”, Caesar Chavez went on to fight major battles and improve the lives of thousands of California farm workers. We have a state holiday in his honor.

If I were to select a best adjective describing this book, I would choose - excrementitious.

Drivel, inane,paranoid,3rd grade level, dung.

Alinsky ... class warefare.... Alinsky..... [insert patriotic qoute] ......Obama/ALINSKY ....Alinsky....

Your history and english teachers failed, but maybe your actually a hypnotist. Taping into the suggestable and saying, liberal, socialist enough will make us conservozombies.

Better prose in an Army Field Manual.

More truth, an similar, to a Tokyo Rose informercial.

Buy only to impress rich friends. But please, don't read. You may realize facism isn't dead.