How so?

Here's the key paragraph from the OP:
It's relevant because this paragraph is just plain wrong, and it is the premise of the entire thread. Ron Paul hasn't really done anything for the "freedom movement". The "freedom movement", to the extend that one can call it a movement at all, accounts for basically the same 0.5% of the population that it always has.

You keep saying that but you don't provide any proof. I think everyone will agree that the freedom movement hasn't accomplished anything concrete yet. But this thread isn't about the freedom movement's past accomplishments (or lack thereof), it's about how best to effect change in the future.

And if your sole purpose in this thread is just "the freedom movement will never accomplish anything," then you should re-examine the title of the thread.

I think most people aren't even sure the freedom movement exists. Is it just what Ron Paul supporters call themselves?

Obviously most people don't think the freedom movement exists. No centralized naming authority exists with respect to Paul's supporters.

Then what is the freedom movement?

Increasingly many people supporting political philosophies promoting personal freedom, i.e. libertarianism. I have no idea if this is actually happening or not, but I think that's probably what's meant by a "freedom movement".

Plenty of people heard of him, most just forgot him. That's not going to happen now.

Anti-state pro-market, etc. Pretty much what you think it would be.

MLK specifically wanted equality, but the point is that he was radical because he wanted to systemically change everything, he was against inequality everywhere. There was no gradualism in his movement, it wasn't a "well give us the same water fountains and buses and we'll be happy" his stance was that all forms of inequality had to be fought. Thats what radicalism is, attacking the system in its entirety instead of bargaining with it. Don't forget that at the time when this was happening the moderate position was essentially "separate but equal" frame of mind. Something, that if it was espoused today, that sounds extremely racist but was generally accepted.

Plus MLK's methods were nothing if not radical. He took buses of black people to the most racist and confrontational areas in the country.

I disagree. His rhetoric was about the world his children would live in and his dreams for the future. Malcolm X who was not a gradualist was advocating armed resistance right now and that blacks cannot wait for whites to give them rights, they have to take them today.

That is not what is meant by the OP in terms of radicalism and gradualism (and where I think a lot of the confusion is stemming from). MLK's goals were about total equality, this is what is radical. He wanted, and expressed this desire for, deep and systemic change in society. Gradualism, in the sense of the OP, would have been to preach about and ask for only small concessions. Only the integration of buses for example, just because he expected his goals to take time to achieve doesn't make them not radical.

The fact that Malcom X advocated violence and King peaceful methods has no relevance in the discussion of were they gradualist or not.

Oh ok, I thought you meant something else by gradualism.

I know, I never said that.

You certainly implied it when you mentioned that X advocated violence.

No, i thought the time frame was the important issue. Malcolm X also happened to advocate violence which was a coincidence.

King had the same timeframe though. Whenever anyone on his side of the movement ever said anything like we should slow down, the country isn't ready for this or that, he always rejected that approach.

edit: and timeframe isn't really relevant to whether someone holds a radical position or not. By that argument I am a gradualist, even though I'm an anarchist, since I think that most likely nothing is ever going to come of the libertarian/market anarchy movement.

I was wrong on what gradualism meant, or how people are using it in this thread. I think we need another word for the opposite of gradualist since radical is such a broad term that people usually use to indicate any non-mainstream view regardless of whether it is gradualist or not.

Huh? You don't think that market anarchy is a radical political philosophy?

No, I meant that even gradualist policies like starting with legalizing all drugs are considered "radical" by most.

The whole point is that Borodog's assertion in the OP is just that, an assertion. He has provided no evidence that it is true AND IT IT HIS ASSERTION TO SUPPORT. So there are claims that there have been great advances for radicalism recently, but little/no evidence of such advances actually doing anything meaningful (which is what the OP is about...the most effective way to make meaningful changes: radicalism or incrementalism).