comment: >
  
  I think you are misunderstanding Malcolm X. I'll break it down. 
  1)Malcolm is often times witty and hyperbolic in his speeches. So the part you are talking about about the American Revolution, you're taking him way too literally there. He is pointing out that the same way how in those struggles armed self defense was justified when there was no other alternative, he is also saying blacks have a right to armed self defense when they are being murdered and killed by groups like the KKK and the government does nothing about it. 
  2)No where in those quotes and speeches does he say to attack all white people. If you read one of the quotes he says "be respectful, obey the law, but if someone lays a hand on you you send them to the cemetary". He is saying don't initiate violence. But if someone attacks you you have a right to defend yourself. And if someone attacks innocent men, women and children and babies you also have a right to pick up arms to defend them. He makes the point that in any other context that would be acceptable but in this context it is hypocritically denounced as "advocating violence".
context: Yeah, that's pretty much it.  I prefer the second iteration of Malcolm X, but the first is still good. >
  
  I think he's very wrong.  I agree with MLK's assertion that "riots are socially destructive and self-defeating. I'm still convinced that nonviolence is the most potent weapon available to oppressed people in their struggle for freedom and justice. I feel that violence will only create more social problems than they will solve."
  That was from his speech where he said riots are "the language of the unheard."  He understood why they happened, but the thought they were tactically foolish and self-destructive.  
  Also, Malcolm X's analysis of historical revolutions is laughably bad, from his thoughts on causes to his ideas about what happened.  "There was nothing more bloody than the American Revolution"?  Really, dude?  Nothing?  Really?
  Beyond that, the combining of every white person ever into something called "the white man" as if such a creature exists and has agency is absurd.  Do you attack all white people because of the actions of some white people?  Or, should you instead insist on finding the individual perpetrators of atrocities like church bombings and seek out justice against them?  In the case of the bombing in Mississippi, it took electing Bill Baxley as AG of Alabama to get justice, a process that involved voting, campaigning, and so on rather than the violence advocated for by Malcolm X.