I have done what I could to expose Stefan Molyneux's racism and advocacy of state-imposed racial discrimination -- all of which Molyneux argued in favor of on eugenicist grounds. But Molyneux still has his apologists, and I notice that some prestigious commentators are still lending Molyneux's podcast -- which revolves around Molyneux's racist advocacy in most episodes -- a veneer of respectability by going on as guests to be interviewed. What is ironic about this is that at least one of those guests has written about the perils of white-supremacists' historical revisionism. Perhaps we should be acquainted with Molyneux's attempts to whitewash the history of the apartheid regime in South Africa.
At the 0:50:59 mark of his video "The Truth About South Africa and Apartheid" (Podcast #3066), Stefan Molyneux proclaims, “The institution of apartheid was not racism but was designed to preserve the white population against the increasing communist militancy of the blacks.” On this point, he cites someone whom in the video he simply calls a "historian." He quotes that "historian" as follows:
The Cape Town-Stellenbosch axis of the nationalist intelligentsia, which was the most influential lobby in Malan’s NP, almost without exception defended apartheid not as an expression of white superiority but on the grounds of its assumed capacity to reduce conflict by curtailing points of interracial contact [emphasis added].
If you run a Google search on that quotation, it will take you to Jared Taylor's white separatist website American Renaissance, specifically the glowing review that American Renaissance provides to the book that is the source of that quotation: Ilana Mercer's Into the Cannibal's Pot: Lessons for America from Post-Apartheid South Africa (take a guess as to why a book so dedicated to downplaying the mistreatment imposed upon native Africans would have the word cannibal in the title😒).
Ilana Mercer is not a scholar of history; she is a Trump apologist, a self-described "paleolibertarian" (similar to Lew Rockwell of the Mises Institute, who has published her as well), and a columnist for the paleo-conservative World Net Daily and even for VDare.Com, the latter of which is brazenly racist. (Click here for Cathy Young's exposé on VDare.) When expecting you to believe his assertion that apartheid in South Africa was not about racism, Molyneux cites not a history scholar but someone who churns out polemics promoting anti-immigration nationalism and who has aligned herself with VDare.
Molyneux provides only one major complaint against the apartheid regime in this video, and he does so at the end. The one complaint is: the apartheid regime conscripted young white men; that's it.
Given that the apartheid regime, thankfully, no longer exists, why is Molyneux dredging the topic up again? It is to rationalize his repeated assertions about the necessity for the State to enact statutes to keep different ethnic groups separate from one another. Such state-enforced segregation includes banning Africans from immigrating to countries whose current majority populations are of Western European descent. One commenter who calls himself "Master Yoda" typed in the YouTube comments section,
Hi Stefan, this is an absolutely brilliant piece. The facts are indisputable and right on the money. I sincerely hope that all Europeans watch this video. If they allow the hordes of African immigrants to enter their countries, they will soon look like the once beautiful South Africa.
Does Molyneux chew this guy out for the obvious racism, informing "Master Yoda" that he is not interested in reinforcing such bigotry? Of course not. Molyneux simply responds, "Thank you." (I have other witnesses who have seen, on their own computer screens, that Molyneux replied as much to "Master Yoda").
Here is a screen shot of that from December 10, 2016.
This is from February 9, 2017:
When you lend your credibility to Molyneux by going on his show as a guest and not confronting him about this racism, it is comparable to being interviewed by Richard Spencer and acting as if there is nothing controversial about Richard Spencer's main area of advocacy. By the way, Molyneux whitewashes Richard Spencer's white nationalism as well, as you can see here and here.
On February 12, 2017, I added the link on the bottom to the essay "Milo Yiannopoulos and Stefan Molyneux Whitewash Richard Spencer's Racism."
UPDATE from February 16, 2017: The Moorfield Storey Institute has provided a detailed refutation of Molyneux's revisionist history. It points out,
In a stunning example of Molyneux’s ignorance apartheid was advocated by communist controlled trade unions in the early 1900s. These trade unions represented white workers and they wanted a labor cartel to freeze out black workers to lessen competition for workers in the urban areas. . . .
This followed the attempt by white Marxists to take control of the country in 1922, leading to such things as the South African Air Force bombing Johannesburg, and the Red Flag flying over city hall in Durban. Contrary to Molyneux the Communists were the original allies of apartheid. A Marxist-written history, which is quite candid in this regard is, Time Longer Than Rope by Edward Roux.
The Storey Institute explains how it was much later that the communists, under instruction from Stalin, decided to back the black South Africans over the white trade unionists. You can read this here.
