This is actually a popular misconception. MLK was just as radical as Malcolm X, it's just that his more radical writings and speeches are not as popular or quoted. Libs and conservatives both want you to believe that MLK was a reasonable progressive liberal, when in fact he despised them. I say this as a huge fan of both MLK and Malcolm X, and I had this explained to me initially by a professor of African American history at university.

Another way to say it is that every movement needs a carrot, a stick, and an ultimatum. The carrot is evangelizing the injustice (MLK), the stick is direct action (Malcolm X), and the ultimatum is an implicit show of force and dedication that demonstrates how many people will resort to the stick if the carrot is not accepted (the mach on Washington).

While I am nearly always in the peaceful outreach camp, I strongly suspect that my efforts will not see fruition until breathless WSJ editorials start describing environmentalists as "dangerous" and "unamerican."

Funny how the people who want to harm the oil companies are "terrorists," but the people literally destroying the earth are not

Radical? Sure. Terrorist? Nah. Liberals (and especially right wing libs) are violent towards marginalized groups and literally the planet itself, among others. Marxists, anarchists, etc. are violent towards capitalism and those who seek to uphold it. Revolution takes shape in many ways and some of those are violent, particularly towards the end. Don't act like the system we're living in isn't abhorrent and violent. Politics in all of its forms boil down to violence. What are you seeking to build, what needs to be destroyed, who stands in your way, and what means are you able to use? That's politics in a nutshell. Answer those questions for the majority of governments the world over and then answer them for your left wing Boogeyman of choice. Which sounds like it's worth fighting for?