There was nothing "sinister"(unless you're doing Latin word play, and in that language, "sinister" means nothing but "left".- in what Saul Alinsky did- all his work was ever about was about helping the powerless find ways to stand up to those who held them dowm- that idea is not intrinsically evil. And all Alinsky was doing in his book "Rules for Radicals" -he held no position at any point in his life where he actually had the power to impose or enforce rules for anything on anybody- was offering a guidebook for effective community action. Do you believe that the poor, the powerless, the dispossessed, the working-and-kept-from-working-by-capitalism class have no right to ever effectively challenge the power other people have over them? Must everything in the existing social and economic order be regarded as sacrosanct?

Also, are you the sort of person who could praise Rosa Parks for refusing to give up her seat in the white part of the bus if she did that solely of her own volition as nothing but a completely disconnected individual, but then decided what the did was illegitimate when it turned out it was a tactic she planned in association with the rest of the Black freedom movement in Birmingham? If so, why? What difference does it make? Why should resistance ONLY be considered acceptable if the person doing the resisting has no connection to any larger resistance movement?

And again, why keep acting as if Stalin and Mao could rise from the grave at any moment? Why keep acting as if the Cold War hasn't been over for decades and as if there are no ways of organizing life other than Galt's Gulch or the Gulag?