Sunday, December 23, 2018

Stefan Molyneux’s Dubious Claim to Have Written Someone Else’s Book

Plus: Molyneux Plagiarized 18 Sentences and Over 390 Words From a  Media Wiki Article, No Credit Given to It


Stuart K. Hayashi




Note from December 31, 2018: I want to thank “motchmaster” for posting a link to this essay onto Reddit’s Skeptic forum. Largely due to that, this blog post is receiving much more traffic than the tiny amount to which I am accustomed. Because it also relates to something dangerous, I should mention that on 26 December 2018 on his YouTube channel, Stefan Molyneux has reverted back to pressuring people who call in to his podcast to disown their parents and cut off contact from them. Since this particular post is getting so much traffic, I think I should ask the reader also to check out my blog post over here about the dangerous disown-your-parents campaign of Molyneux’s.


Note from January 2, 2019: I made two updates to this blog post. I wrote that as of January 2, 2019, Molyneux has not acknowledged the reproduction of text from the Media Wiki article on either the SoundCloud page or the FDRpodcasts.Com page for his “Truth About the Stock Market Crisis” presentation.

___________

Regular readers of this blog know that the cult leader Stefan Molyneux hosts a podcast called FreeDomain Radio (FDR) — which, as of this posting, boasts over 880,000 subscribers on YouTube. Fortunately, there is an online forum known as FDR Liberated — a support network that discusses Molyneux’s cult and its effects on the loved ones of those who have been pressured into the cult.

After my initial posting about Stefan Molyneux’s repeated acts of plagiarism, which was largely informed by Liberal Sanity Project’s video on plagiarism from the Alt-Right (using Molyneux as a prominent case study),  members of the FDR Liberated forum have informed me of other ethically troubling instances from Molyneux. In this blog post, I want to address two in particular. First is that, out of the blue in one of the videos, Molyneux outlandishly proclaims that he is the true author of a book that has been marketed by a psychology writer who appeared to be a longtime friend of his.  That claim seems especially disingenuous in consideration of the second item we will discuss: one Molyneux video from February 6, 2018, plagiarized 18 sentences (coming to over 390 words) from a 2016 Media Wiki article.



Part 1 of 2: Stefan Molyneux Bizarrely Telling His Viewers He Wrote His Friend’s Book 

Regular readers of this blog and my other writings on Molyneux might be familiar with Stefan Molyneux’s September 8, 2014 video “How NOT to Fight Evil,” as it marked a turning point both in the “TruShibes” saga and in the general ideological direction in which Molyneux took his podcast.

Molyneux is on record repeatedly stating that all intellectual property rights, including copyrights, should be abolished. To my knowledge, though, Molyneux did not offer, as his objection to copyrights, any assertion that plagiarism is OK. Rather, he made the same argument against copyrights that has been repeatedly made by the Murray Rothbard-influenced libertarian anarchists at the Ludwig von Mises Institute: that copyrights are a government-enforced monopoly over an industry and are therefore evil.  (Murray Rothbard himself cast scorn upon patents while conceding a proper place for copyrights, but most of his disciples malign the institution of copyrights as well.)

(For those interested, in several essays [1, 2, 3, 4] I have rebutted the misleading assertion that copyrights and patents amount to a government-enforced monopolization of an entire industry. That is a straw man that conflates a claim of ownership over a general idea for a broad category of product, versus an author’s or inventor’s ownership over a specific original design among the many other designs for similar products in the same industry. Copyrights and patents are the latter, not the former.)

For the record, most of these Murray Rothbard-influenced libertarian anarchists who advocate the abolition of copyrights and patents still disapprove of plagiarism, at least in theory. Their objection to the enforcement of copyrights and patents is premised on their misconception that such enforcement gives the intellectual-property holder a state-imposed monopoly at the expense of consumers — in the case of literature, such consumers being the readers of the copyrighted material. Most of these libertarian anarchists would say that plagiarism is wrong because the plagiarist misrepresents him- or herself to the consumer (reader) as the true author, thereby cheating the consumer of the ability to enter into their contractual arrangement on good faith.

In any case, in 2014 — before the advocacy of white supremacy replaced the advocacy of anarchy as the regular theme of Molyneux’s podcast — a woman calling herself “TruShibes” went on YouTube and uploaded montages of old Stefan Molyneux videos that exposed not only his repeated self-contradictions, but also the numerous cases where Molyneux attempted to pressure the young people who called in to his show to disown their parents and join his cult. Molyneux had actually video-recorded himself browbeating these callers on the telephone for literally hours, and they took that abuse from him on account of their having mistaken him for a benevolently paternal figure. In this video montage of that from TruShibes, you can count over 60 instances of Molyneux doing that to his callers.

After all his teeth-gnashing against any party that used governmental authority to enforce its copyrights, Molyneux falsely reported TruShibes’s videos to YouTube Corporate as violations of his copyrights. Yes, that is doubly ironic in consideration of the fact that, at this point, Molyneux’s YouTube slide presentations had already been plagiarizing other authors for over three years. Of special interest is that when someone flags a YouTube video as infringing on his or her copyright, that flagging is enforced by court authority. This means that when Molyneux flagged TruShibes’s YouTube uploads exposing him, he was calling upon government authority in the name of enforcing his copyright. Moreover, when Molyneux knowingly falsely flagged TruShibes for copyright infringement, Molyneux perjured himself. This was how Molyneux lost most of his credibility among the libertarian anarchists who were the bulk of his fan base at the time, and also, I suspect, a reason why he ended up having to seek a new target audience, which he found a year later in the newly reinvigorated white nationalist movements of Europe and the English-speaking countries.

“How NOT to Fight Evil” had some morbidly amusing aspects in that Molyneux referred to the TruShibes incident and how it was getting to him. He shouted sarcastically, “But then — oh, my God! — somebody at FreeDomain Radio made a copyright claim! Oh, my God; let’s talk about that FOREVER!” He also pouted that in the aftermath of TruShibes exposing him, “We’re having a bit of a dip [in the level of donations] from last month.”



“How NOT to Fight Evil,” then, was an appropriate title  — Stefan Molyneux is the perfect person to  use as your model if you want to learn what it looks like when someone is doing the exact opposite of combating corruption.

But on the FDR Liberated forum, the user “Lupus” pointed out something else that was interesting about this video: in it, Molyneux oddly claims, out of nowhere, to have written someone else’s book.

A decade ago, Molyneux visibly interacted with a psychology writer named Lloyd deMause. You can check out his interviews with deMause here and here, and Molyneux’s audiobook reading of deMause’s The Origins of War in Child Abuse is over here.

In the “How NOT to Fight Evil” video, Molyneux bizarrely claimed to be the true author of this very same work. “I’ve written entire books; an entire book, or most of it,” Molyneux proclaims at the 1 hour, 2 minute, 14 second timestamp, “called The Origins of War in Child Abuse by Lloyd deMause.”

“Lupus” thus directed my attention to a February 2018 video uploaded onto YouTube by an account called “Dave Lordy.” “Dave Lordy” noticed Molyneux’s odd claim, and contacted the publisher of The Origins of War in Child Abuse, a Susan Hein, asking whether the book was coauthored by Stefan Molyneux. Ms. Hein replied to “Dave Lordy” that no one but Lloyd deMause authored that work.



This video from “Dave Lordy” is 2 minutes, 8 seconds long.

On December 23, 2018, I e-mailed Ms. Hein myself to ask this same question. With her explicit permission, I can write publicly that she replied the same day and answered that Lloyd deMause is the “sole author” of the book.

I cannot yet speak with full confidence that Molyneux lied outright about being the true author of The Origins of War in Child Abuse. But, consistent with other forms of plagiarism in which Stefan Molyneux has engaged, and of which I have written on this blog, I can present another clear-cut instance of plagiarism that “Lupus” pointed out to me. And this instance of plagiarism on Molyneux’s part seems to be the most shameless yet.




Part 2 of 2: Stefan Molyneux Plagiarizes 18 Sentences and Over 390 Words From the Same Media Wiki Entry

Stefan Molyneux frequently promotes himself as a business genius, just as he touts himself as a genius at writing and in so many other disciplines. That is an ambiguous distinction as, in his older podcasts, he said that his job as a company executive pretty much amounted just to ripping people off. I have also learned of some buzz that Molyneux might be a “Bitcoin millionaire.”

I don’t know whether or not Molyneux is some business genius, or if he is a Bitcoin millionaire (I’m not savvy when it comes to evaluating the authenticity of documents that allegedly record Bitcoin exchanges), but I do know there’s a good reason to be wary about taking investment advice from Molyneux: as much as he frames it as his own, the advice does not necessarily come from him.

As “Lupus” first tipped me off, there is a tremendous issue with Molyneux’s February 6, 2018 YouTube upload on investing, “The Truth About the Stock Market Crisis. Prepare Yourself.” This is another one of Molyneux’s Power Point-style slide presentations. And the presentation slides for this video heavily plagiarize from a Media Wiki article on the topic of “Quantitative Easing,” an institutional instrument of the Federal Reserve to control the quantity of financial credit (and, with it, the number of monetary units) circulating throughout the U.S. economy.

Media Wiki is like the similarly-named Wikipedia in that anyone can add new material to the articles. Therefore, how do we know that it wasn’t the case that Molyneux gave his presentation first, and then someone copied the text from Molyneux’s presentation slides into the Media Wiki article? We know it was Molyneux taking material from the Media Wiki article — not the other way around — because, like Wikipedia, Media Wiki retains a record of changes made to the articles. Media Wiki retains a copy of what the “Quantitative Easing” article looked like on November 1, 2016. When you read the 2016 version of the article, you see that the plagiarized text appeared on Media Wiki before it conspicuously ended up in Molyneux’s slide presentation.

I added the red mark in Microsoft Paint. Click on the image to enlarge.


I added the red mark in Microsoft Paint. Click on the image to enlarge.

I added the red mark in Microsoft Paint. Click on the image to enlarge.

I added the red mark in Microsoft Paint. Click on the image to enlarge.

I added the red mark in Microsoft Paint. Click on the image to enlarge.

I added the red marks in Microsoft Paint. Click on the image to enlarge.
I added the red mark in Microsoft Paint. Click on the image to enlarge.


And, as of this posting on December 23, 2018 — ten months after the initial YouTube upload — the description box of the upload doesn’t even include a link to the plagiarized Media Wiki article. The video does not acknowledge the Media Wiki article.


The YouTube upload Description Box, Image 1 of 2. Note the absence of any credit to the Media Wikia article. Click on the image to enlarge.

The YouTube upload Description Box, Image 2 of 2. Note the absence of any credit to the Media Wikia article. Click on the image to enlarge.

The audio from Molyneux’s presentation is on SoundCloud. As of January 2, 2019, the description area on SoundCloud does not acknowledge that the text from the presentation slides in the version Molyneux uploaded onto YouTube is taken from Media Wiki.

Click on image to enlarge.

As of January 2, 2019, Molyneux’s FDRpodcasts.Com does not acknowledge it either:

Click on the image to enlarge.

Click on the image to enlarge.


Molyneux’s presentation slides plagiarized 18 sentences from the Media Wiki article, coming to over 390 words. The amount of text that Molyneux plagiarized from a single article is almost as long as a newspaper editorial or op-ed (“op-ed” is short for “commentary opposite the editorial page”), and it is longer than most letters to the editor published in newspapers, which seldom exceed 250 words in length.

The first bit of text plagiarized from the Media Wiki article first appears onscreen at the 12 minutes, 43 seconds timestamp. From thereon, plagiarized text from the Media Wiki article remains onscreen until the 25 minutes, 13 seconds mark.

This means that plagiarized text from a single article remains continuously onscreen in the video for over 12 minutes straight.

Readers might find it tedious to compare the plagiarized text sentence-by-sentence as I did. Therefore, this evidence will be enclosed on the bottom of this blog post, subsequent to the conclusion. This blog post has three appendices.

Appendix 1 is the comparison of the plagiarized text sentence-by-sentence — again, 18 sentences and over 390 words in all. Appendix 2 is a block quotation of the portion of the Media Wiki article that Molyneux plagiarized. Appendix 3 is a block quotation of the text appearing in Molyneux’s presentation slides.



Conclusion

As I post this, I will not, as of yet, state with complete confidence that I know Molyneux is lying in proclaiming that he, not Lloyd deMause, is the true author of the book The Origins of War in Child Abuse, which definitely is marketed with Lloyd deMause’s byline. But, in light of the massive plagiarism in which Molyneux has flagrantly engaged, the prospect that Molyneux told the truth about being the true author is not a likely one.

Molyneux can proclaim all he wants that he has a long history of impressive financial acumen. But if he indeed earned the equivalent of a million U.S. dollars himself, you will not find any insight in how he did it in videos such as “The Truth About the Stock Market Crisis. Prepare Yourself.” Instead, you’re better off going directly to the Media Wiki article from which Molyneux snatched 18 sentences’ worth of material, uncredited.

I want to thank the FDR Liberated forum for informing me about these matters. Hopefully, when the truth comes out, potential victims of Molyneux’s influence might be liberated from a psychological tyranny — the tyranny of the illusion that Molyneux knows about the matters of which he speaks, as opposed to parroting a Media Wiki article and declining to acknowledge it.




Appendix 1 of 3: Sentence-By-Sentence Comparison of the Media Wiki Article (the Original) Versus Stefan Molyneux’s Presentation Slides


Sentence 01 of 18.

Media Wiki: “The U.S. Federal Reserve System held between $700 billion and $800 billion of Treasury notes on its balance sheet before the recession.” 
Molyneux’s Slide: “The US Federal Reserve held between $700–800 billion of Treasury Notes on its balance sheet before the recession.”



Sentence 02 of 18.

Media Wiki: “In late November 2008, the Federal Reserve started buying $600 billion in mortgage-backed securities.” 
Molyneux’s Slide: “In late November 2008, QE1 (Quantitative Easing 1) began and the Federal Reserve started buying $600 billion in mortgage-backed securities.”




Sentence 03 of 18.

Media Wiki: “By March 2009, it held $1.75 trillion of bank debt, mortgage-backed securities, and Treasury notes; this amount reached a peak of $2.1 trillion in June 2010.” 
Molyneux’s Slide: “By March 2009, it held $1.75 trillion of bank debt, mortgage-backed securities, and Treasury Notes; this amount reached $2.1 trillion in June 2010.”




Sentence 04 of 18.

Media Wiki: “Further purchases were halted as the economy started to improve, but resumed in August 2010 when the Fed decided the economy was not growing robustly.” 
Molyneux’s Slide: “Purchases were temporarily halted, but resumed in August 2010 as the economy did not show signs of recovery.”



Sentence 05 of 18.

Media Wiki: “After the halt in June, holdings started falling naturally as debt matured and were projected to fall to $1.7 trillion by 2012.” 
Molyneux’s Slide: “After the halt in June 2010, holdings started falling as the debt matured.” 



Sentence 06 of 18.

Media Wiki: “The Fed’s revised goal became to keep holdings at $2.054 trillion.” 
Molyneux’s Slide: “The Fed’s revised goal became to keep holdings at $2.054 trillion.”



Sentence 07 of 18.

Media Wiki: “To maintain that level, the Fed bought $30 billion in two- to ten-year Treasury notes every month.” 
Molyneux’s Slide: “To maintain that level, the Fed bought $30 billion in two-to-ten-year Treasury Notes every single month.”



Sentence 08 of 18.

Media Wiki: “In November 2010, the Fed announced a second round of quantitative easing, buying $600 billion of Treasury securities by the end of the second quarter of 2011.” 
Molyneux’s Slide: “In November 2010, the Fed announced a second round of quantitative easing —QE2 — with plans to buy $600 billion worth of Treasury securities by the end of the second quarter of 2011.”




Sentence 09 of 18.

Media Wiki: “A third round of quantitative easing, ‘QE3’, was announced on 13 September 2012.” 
Molyneux’s Slide: “A third round of quantitative easing (QE3) was announced on September 13th, 2015.”




Sentence 10 of 18.

Media Wiki: “In an 11–1 vote, the Federal Reserve decided to launch a new $40 billion per month, open-ended bond purchasing program of agency mortgage-backed securities.” 
Molyneux’s Slide: “The Federal Reserve decided to launch a new $40 billion per month, open-ended bond purchasing program of agency mortgage-backed securities.”




Sentence 11 of 18.

Media Wiki: “According to NASDAQ.com, this is effectively a stimulus program that allows the Federal Reserve to relieve $40 billion per month of commercial housing market debt risk.” 
Molyneux’s Slide: “This is essentially a stimulus program that allowed the Federal Reserve to relieve $40 billion per month of commercial housing market debt risk.”




Sentence 12 of 18.

Media Wiki: “Additionally, the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) announced that it would likely maintain the federal funds rate near zero ‘at least through 2015.’ ” 
Molyneux’s Slide: “It was also announced that the federal funds rate would be held near zero ‘at least through 2015.’ ”



Sentence 13 of 18.

Media Wiki: “On 12 December 2012, the FOMC announced an increase in the amount of open-ended purchases from $40 billion to $85 billion per month.” 
Molyneux’s Slide: “On December 12th, 2012, an increase in the amount of open-ended purchases from $40 billion to $85 billion per month was announced.”



Sentence 14 of 18.

Media Wiki: “On 19 June 2013, Ben Bernanke announced a ‘tapering’ of some of the Fed’s QE policies contingent upon continued positive economic data. Specifically, he said that the Fed could scale back its bond purchases from $85 billion to $65 billion a month during the upcoming September 2013 policy meeting.” 
Molyneux’s Slide: “On June 19th, 2013, Ben Bernanke announced a ‘tapering’ of some of the Federal Reserve’s QE policies — specifically noting that the Fed may reduce its bond purchases from $85 billion to $65 billion a month.”




Sentence 15 of 18.

Media Wiki: “While Bernanke did not announce an interest rate hike, he suggested that if inflation followed a 2% target rate and unemployment decreased to 6.5%, the Fed would likely start raising rates.” 
Molyneux’s Slide: “Bernanke did not announce an interest rate hike, but suggested a rate increase would likely occur if inflation followed a 2% target rate and unemployment decreased to 6.5%.”




Sentence 16 of 18.

Media Wiki: “The stock markets dropped by approximately 4.3% over the three trading days following Bernanke’s announcement, with the Dow Jones dropping 659 points between 19 and 24 June, closing at 14,660 at the end of the day on 24 June.” 
Molyneux’s Slide: “Following the comments, the stock markets dropped by 4.3% over the next three trading days with the Dow Jones dropping 659 points between June 19–24, 2013.”




Sentence 17 of 18.

Media Wiki: “On 18 September 2013, the Fed decided to hold off on scaling back its bond-buying program, and announced in December 2013 that it would begin to taper its purchases in January 2014.” 
Molyneux’s Slide: “September 18th, 2013, the Fed decided to hold off on scaling back its bond-buying program, but began tapering purchases in February of 2014.”



Sentence 18 of 18.

Media Wiki: “Purchases were halted on 29 October 2014 after accumulating $4.5 trillion in assets.” 
Molyneux’s Slide: “QE3 asset purchases were halted on October 19th, 2014 as the Federal Reserve had amassed over $4.5 trillion in assets.”





Appendix 2 of 3: Media Wiki Version

Remember that Stefan Molyneux’s YouTube video upload is dated February 6, 2018, whereas the Media Wiki section that he plagiarized, below, was on the Media Wiki domain as early as 2016. This text was on the Media Wiki page over a year prior to Molyneux’s  upload.
The U.S. Federal Reserve System held between $700 billion and $800 billion of Treasury notes on its balance sheet before the recession. In late November 2008, the Federal Reserve started buying $600 billion in mortgage-backed securities. By March 2009, it held $1.75 trillion of bank debt, mortgage-backed securities, and Treasury notes; this amount reached a peak of $2.1 trillion in June 2010. Further purchases were halted as the economy started to improve, but resumed in August 2010 when the Fed decided the economy was not growing robustly. After the halt in June, holdings started falling naturally as debt matured and were projected to fall to $1.7 trillion by 2012. The Fed’s revised goal became to keep holdings at $2.054 trillion. To maintain that level, the Fed bought $30 billion in two- to ten-year Treasury notes every month.

In November 2010, the Fed announced a second round of quantitative easing, buying $600 billion of Treasury securities by the end of the second quarter of 2011. The expression “QE2” became a ubiquitous nickname in 2010, used to refer to this second round of quantitative easing by US central banks. Retrospectively, the round of quantitative easing preceding QE2 was called “QE1”.

A third round of quantitative easing, “QE3”, was announced on 13 September 2012. In an 11–1 vote, the Federal Reserve decided to launch a new $40 billion per month, open-ended bond purchasing program of agency mortgage-backed securities. Additionally, the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) announced that it would likely maintain the federal funds rate near zero “at least through 2015.” According to NASDAQ.com, this is effectively a stimulus program that allows the Federal Reserve to relieve $40 billion per month of commercial housing market debt risk. Because of its open-ended nature, QE3 has earned the popular nickname of “QE-Infinity.” On 12 December 2012, the FOMC announced an increase in the amount of open-ended purchases from $40 billion to $85 billion per month. 
On 19 June 2013, Ben Bernanke announced a “tapering” of some of the Fed’s QE policies contingent upon continued positive economic data. Specifically, he said that the Fed could scale back its bond purchases from $85 billion to $65 billion a month during the upcoming September 2013 policy meeting. He also suggested that the bond-buying program could wrap up by mid-2014. While Bernanke did not announce an interest rate hike, he suggested that if inflation followed a 2% target rate and unemployment decreased to 6.5%, the Fed would likely start raising rates. The stock markets dropped by approximately 4.3% over the three trading days following Bernanke’s announcement, with the Dow Jones dropping 659 points between 19 and 24 June, closing at 14,660 at the end of the day on 24 June. On 18 September 2013, the Fed decided to hold off on scaling back its bond-buying program, and announced in December 2013 that it would begin to taper its purchases in January 2014. Purchases were halted on 29 October 2014 after accumulating $4.5 trillion in assets.



Appendix 3 of 3: Stefan Molyneux’s Version

  • The US Federal Reserve held between $700–800 billion of Treasury Notes on its balance sheet before the recession. In late November 2008, QE1 (Quantitative Easing 1) began and the Federal Reserve started buying $600 billion in mortgage-backed securities.
  • By March 2009, it held $1.75 trillion of bank debt, mortgage-backed securities, and Treasury Notes; this amount reached $2.1 trillion in June 2010. Purchases were temporarily halted, but resumed in August 2010 as the economy did not show signs of recovery.
  • After the halt in June 2010, holdings started falling as the debt matured. The Fed’s revised goal became to keep holdings at $2.045 trillion. To maintain that level, the Fed bought $30 billion in two-to-ten-year Treasury Notes every single month.
  • In November 2010, the Fed announced a second round of quantitative easing —QE2 — with plans to buy $600 billion worth of Treasury securities by the end of the second quarter of 2011.
  • A third round of quantitative easing (QE3) was announced on September 13th, 2015. The Federal Reserve decided to launch a new $40 billion per month, open-ended bond purchasing program of agency mortgage-backed securities.
  • This is essentially a stimulus program that allowed the Federal Reserve to relieve $40 billion per month of commercial housing market debt risk.
  • It was also announced that the federal funds rate would be held near zero “at least through 2015.”
  • On December 12th, 2012, an increase in the amount of open-ended purchases from $40 billion to $85 billion per month was announced.
  • On June 19th, 2013, Ben Bernanke announced a “tapering” of some of the Federal Reserve’s QE policies — specifically noting that the Fed may reduce its bond purchases from $85 billion to $65 billion a month.
  • Bernanke did not announce an interest rate hike, but suggested a rate increase would likely occur if inflation followed a 2% target rate and unemployment decreased to 6.5%.
  • Following the comments, the stock markets dropped by 4.3% over the next three trading days with the Dow Jones dropping 659 points between June 19–24, 2013.
  • September 18th, 2013, the Fed decided to hold off on scaling back its bond-buying program, but began tapering purchases in February of 2014. 
  • QE3 asset purchases were halted on October 19th, 2014 as the Federal Reserve had amassed over $4.5 trillion in assets.

Wednesday, December 05, 2018

Stefan Molyneux’s Repeated Acts of Plagiarism

Stuart K. Hayashi


I was at a point where I thought that there was nothing more that white-supremacist demagogue and cult leader Stefan Molyneux could do that would shock me. I was wrong.

The vlogger called “Liberal Sanity Project” has a video showing multiple instances of Molyneux committing plagiarism. The video is actually about Alt-Right vloggers in general engaging in this practice, starting with the one known as “Black Pigeon Speaks.” The section on Molyneux’s plagiarism begins at the 07:20 timestamp. Below, in the embedding, I have cued it to the section on Molyneux. The whole video, though, is worth watching.






UPDATE from Friday, December 7, 2018: Screenshots

The instances of Stefan Molyneux committing plagiarism that Liberal Sanity Project caught were mostly from YouTube videos in Molyneux’s “Truth About...” series of videos, which take the form of slide-show presentations in the style of Microsoft Power Point or Prezi. The plagiarisms consist of Molyneux’s presentation slides lifting entire passages out of written works, verbatim, without attribution to the real author or even quotation marks to indicate to the viewer that the lifted passages are quotations of an author not associated with FreeDomain Radio. On the YouTube pages of these uploads from Molyneux, there are dead links that once went to Molyneux’s official website where Molyneux claimed to have provided his sources. On Google I have founded cached versions of two of these pages where Molyneux promised to reveal his sources. Those pages provide linked URLs of the sources that Molyneux plagiarized, amid a whole disorganized jumble of other linked URLs, and do not specify or clarify that the author to whom Molyneux linked was the real author of the passages that Molyneux copied verbatim without attribution.

Using Liberal Sanity Project’s video as a guide, I have taken screenshots of Molyneux’s plagiaristic presentation slides and the sources that used the phrasings long before Molyneux repeated them without attribution.

You can click on the screenshots to enlarge them.



“Bomb in the Brain, Part 3”

At the 14:39 timestamp of Molyneux’s December 2009 video “Bomb in the Brain, Part 3” (which Molyneux made a few years before starting his white-supremacist phase), the presentation slide plagiarizes clinical psychologist Arthur Becker-Weidman.

Click on image to enlarge.


Arthur Becker-Weidman wrote those words at least as early as 2005, as you can see on Google Books here.

Click on image to enlarge. I added the red marks in Microsoft Paint.



You can see that Athur Becker-Weidman had those words published on the World Wide Web at least as early as August 4, 2008 — over a year before Molyneux plagiarized him — over here (on the Wayback Machine archive from June 2009 over here).

Click on image to enlarge. I added the red marks in Microsoft Paint.



“Truth About the Fall of Rome: Modern Parallels”

In the August 2016 video “The Truth About The Fall of Rome: Modern Parallels,” starting at the 11:27 mark and ending at the 13:37 mark, two of the bullet points on Molyneux’s slide repeat entire passages from J. Rufus Fears’s Heritage Foundation presentation from December 19, 2005, “The Lessons of the Roman Empire for America Today.” With the lifted phrases, the slide and spoken part make no attribution to Rufus Fears, and the slide has no quotation marks to indicate that the lifted passages were quotations of Rufus Fears.

Click on image to enlarge. I added the red marks in Microsoft Paint.


You can see J. Rufus Fears’s presentation, which is a decade older than Molyneux’s, over here.

 Click on image to enlarge. I added the red marks in Microsoft Paint.

Molyneux’s YouTube upload does have a dead link going to Molyneux’s official FreeDomain Radio website where he promises to cite his sources. I found a cached version of it over here. There, Rufus Fears is not mentioned by name. The closest that Molyneux comes to making any attribution to him is listing the URL to the Heritage Foundation speech amid a sloppy list of other URLs, as you can see below. I added the red arrow in Microsoft Paint.

Click on image to enlarge.


Note that if you use an entire passage from an author verbatim, it is not adequate simply to provide a URL that links to that author; there should be quotation marks to indicate that someone is being quoted verbatim. That is a very basic point of which college freshmen are reminded ad nauseam by their instructors.



“Truth About Slavery: Past, Present and Future”

Now we come to the February 2014 upload, “The Truth About Slavery: Past, Present and Future.” Starting at the 09:28 mark and ending at the 10:46 timestamp, two consecutive bullet points purloin passages from another essay without any attribution or even a use of quotation marks to indicate that someone else is being quoted.

Click on image to enlarge. I added the red marks in Microsoft Paint.


The words that Molyneux reproduces, omitting attribution, are at least a year older than his upload. They can be found on this 2012 blog post from some blog called The Muslim Issue (Wayback Machine archiving of the existence of that, including that passages, as early as 2012 is over here).

Click on image to enlarge. I added the red marks in Microsoft Paint.


Elsewhere in that same pre-2014 essay:

Click on image to enlarge.


The deleted page on Molyneux’s domain, which purported to provide Molyneux’s information sources, did list the URL to that Muslim Issue blog post  and link to it but, again, made no mention that entire passages were taken from it verbatim.

Click on image to enlarge. I added the red arrow in Microsoft Paint.


Molyneux hails himself as a great philosopher but apparently cannot be bothered with citation standards that are expected not only of philosophy professors, but their freshman students, philosophy major or otherwise.

At the 12:01 timestamp of that same video, Molyneux snatches another passage from another essay without letting the viewer know that another author is being quoted word for word.

Click on image to enlarge.


That essay is reproduced on many domains all over the Web.  As of this writing, the oldest version of the essay I could find dates back to 2004. The Wayback Machine has a copy of that page, complete with the plagiarized sentence, dating back to 2011.

Click on image to enlarge. I added the red marks in Microsoft Paint.


By even the most lenient and charitable standards of the ethics that are expected of authors, publishers, and vloggers, what Stefan Molyneux’s podcast has done amounts to plagiarism.



UPDATE from Tuesday, December 11, 2018: Screenshots

The trend that I described above continues in Stefan Molyneux’s December 10, 2018 upload “France: Burn Till You Learn!” This time there were some portions where, when the slide presentation quotes a ridiculously long chunk of text, such as one beginning, “With his popularity rating at record lows,...” from the website Zero Hedge (a paranoid right-wing Beware-the-Banksters propaganda blog that is thinly veiled as an investment advice website), the slide does apply quotation marks to the duplicated passage. Here at the 22:47 timestamp, Molyneux’s reproduction of a Helen Pluckrose essay in Areo Magazine is so extensive that it is embarrassing. At least there, the presentation slides use quotation marks to indicate that someone is being quoted, but the sections taken from Pluckrose are so large that one wonders why the presentation slide didn’t have its own phrasing. With this new and conspicuous usage of quotation marks for these long quoted sections of text, one wonders if whoever makes Molyneux’s presentation slides had seen this blog post prior to this December 11 update. But later, as you will see below, Molyneux uses Pluckrose’s piece in an even less creative fashion which, although being the least obvious instance of plagiarism here, still greatly casts into doubt Molyneux’s self-aggrandizement as an original thinker and meticulous scholar.

I caught two instances where, although the “description” section of the upload gives the URLs to the sources from which Molyneux takes passages, Molyneux still acts in a ethically dubious manner, not only taking the same quotations of other parties that his sources quoted, but using the same verbs that his sources used when describing how those other parties said what they said. When taking partial quotations that Roger Kimball quoted in a 1993 piece for The New Criterion magazine, Molyneux even lifted the words that Kimball had used before and after the quotations. There is also at least one instance of out-and-out plagiarism where, as of my first writing and posting this, the description section on the upload does not even list the source of the text reproduced.



Taking a Passage from The Epoch Times Without Attribution 

First, here is the most obvious plagiarism, which begins at the 03:05 mark and ends near the 05:19 mark. Molyneux purports to list what Yuri Bezmenov claims are the four phases that Soviet agents had planned on implementing in order to subvert the First World. Had Molyneux used the same phrases that Bezmenov did, Molyneux still would have been obliged to use quotation marks or other indicators that he was quoting Bezmenov. But the phrasing that appears in Molyneux’s slide is not the same as how Bezmenov phrased it. To show you how Bezmenov phrased it, I am linking to an interview of Bezmenov conducted by G. Edward Griffin, a New World Order conspiracy theorist endorsed by both Stefan Molyneux and Lauren Southern, and who cites a stained glass window[!] at the London School of Economics as proof that a cabal of bankers controls the world).

The Epoch Times is a far-right newspaper, right-wing in the same way that The Washington Times is. The Epoch Times is run by members of the controversial Falun Gong movement that is in conflict with China’s ruling party and government. The editorial board of the Epoch Times, not committing plagiarism, made its own phrasing for what Bezmenov said. As you can see here, the Wayback Machine documents that this phrasing was on the Epoch Times domain as early as June 14, 2018.

Bezmenov said that subversion comes in four stages: The first step is to foster the cultural decadence and demoralization of the enemy country; the second is to create social chaos; and the third to instigate a crisis that would lead to either civil war, revolution, or invasion from another country, culminating in the fourth and final stage of bringing the country under the control of the Communist Party. This is called normalization.

Again, as of this typing and posting, Molyneux’s YouTube upload did not even link to this Epoch Times piece.

Click on image to enlarge.


 Now let’s compare Molyneux’s presentation slide with what appeared in the Epoch Times over five months earlier.

Click on image to enlarge.


Click on image to enlarge.



Molyneux follows up with that by repeating the alt-right lie that Leon Trotsky coined the term racism as a form of manipulation, and that for you to identify any sentiment or action as racist entails that you are doing the bidding of Communists and Cultural Marxists. That is an outright falsehood. It is legitimate to identify instances of racism regardless of what any communist said or believed, and Trotsky clearly did not coin racism. You can see the alt-right canard refuted here.



Molyneux Apparently Too Lazy to Rephrase Helen Pluckrose’s Introductions to the Quotations She Uses 

The upload’s description box links to an essay by Helen Pluckrose in Areo Magazine, and, in the video, Molyneux mentions Areo Magazine by name when speaking. However, Molyneux does do something ethically dubious with passages from the piece. In the piece, Helen Pluckrose quotes the following parties: (1) author David Detmer, concerning a reply that former philosophy professor Laurie L. Calhoun gave him; (2) student protesters who rudely tried to shout down Charles Murray when he tried to give a speech on the Middlebury College campus; and (3) the official Twitter account of the March for Science. Not only does Molyneux use the quotations in the exact same order that Pluckrose did, but at the 25:11 timestamp Molyneux repeats them in a terribly sloppy fashion.

Check out Molyneux’s presentation slide.

 I added the red marks in Microsoft Paint; click on image to enlarge.


First, I want to give an example of something that is not plagiarism, but evinces how sloppily put-together Molyneux’s presentation is.

Click on image to enlarge.


The top of Molyneux’s slide says it is quoting an “Interview” with Laurie Calhoun. This time, Pluckrose does not use the word interview, nor does her source, the book Challenging Postmodernism: Philosophy and the Politics of Truth by Purdue University philosophy professor David Detmer. The quotation is of Detmer paraphrasing Laurie Calhoun’s reply “When I had occasion to ask her” about the pertinent topic. If you take just a minute to look this up on Amazon.Com, you find that this is in Chapter 7 of Detmer’s book and that it goes to Endnote 33 for that chapter. When you look in the endnotes section on page 301, it just says, “33. Calhoun, personal communication with the author”; it does not specify the context in which the exchange took place. For all we know, Detmer might have crossed paths with Calhoun at some conference, asked her a quick question, and got a quick answer. “Personal communication” does not necessarily imply an interview, at least not a formal one.

Now let us consider where Molyneux goes into what is in more plagiaristic territory.

I added the red marks in Microsoft Paint; click on the image to enlarge.


Just a few paragraphs down from the part about Laurie Calhoun’s reply to David Detmer, Pluckrose mentions that protesters directing their ire toward “Charles Murray at Middlebury,” and quotes what they “chanted” at him. Chant is an interesting word to use here, and I can understand why Pluckrose used it, but it was not necessary for Molyneux to use the same verb, especially since it was not a literal chant.

Dictionary.Com defines the verb chant as “to sing” or “to repeat (a phrase, slogan, etc.) rhythmically...” A literal chant has a musical quality to it; if students were protesting their dean, they would be chanting if they recited in a singsong fashion, “Hey-hey ho-ho/the current dean has got to go!” When you read what Charles Murray’s hecklers “chanted,” it already looks like a big mouthful, not something you could easily recite as a poem or song. And you can hear it for yourself here; I cued it to where they say it. When the protesters recite the lines in unison, it was awkward and not at all musical, even if they intended for it to be musical like “Hey-hey ho-ho/[Something-Something] has got to go!”. I am not faulting Pluckrose for using the verb chant; I am saying that someone who bothered to spare five minutes to look this up on YouTube could have used a verb different from Pluckrose’s and it would not have changed the meaning of what she described. But Molyneux and/or whoever makes his presentation slides could not be bothered.

Then Molyneux reproduces the exact phrase “the organizers of the March for Science tweeted...” That is not as egregious as the other examples above — and tweet, unlike chant, is the indisputably correct literal verb to use — but someone who has as many books published under his byline as Molyneux easily could have rephrased that. One rephrasing off the top of my head: “As the party behind the March for Science asserted in a tweet...”

Though Molyneux’s usage of Pluckrose’s essay comes across as amateurish at best, this must seem quite minor in comparison to the instances of plagiarism listed above. But I found one more instance, involving Roger Kimball in The New Criterion magazine, that is more clearly plagiarism, though not as glaring as what Molyneux did with the Epoch Times.



Stefan Molyneux Plagiarizing Roger Kimball in The New Criterion

The description box of Molyneux’s upload does link to that New Criterion piece by Roger Kimball, but that does not excuse the fact that Molyneux’s presentation slide takes passages from Kimball near-verbatim, not bothering to rephrase them.

Near the top, Molyneux takes a sentence that Kimball wrote about the French postmodernist philosopher Michael Foucault, “He several times attempted — and more often threatened — suicide,” removing only the more that preceded the often threatened.

Below that, Molyneux appropriates, “Those planning suicide, he mused, could look ‘for partners without names, for occasions to die liberated from every identity.’ ”

Then Molyneux takes this whole passage:

ideas as responsibility, sensitivity, justice, and law were merely “tokens of ideology” that completely lacked legitimacy. “The proletariat doesn’t wage war against the ruling class because it considers such a war to be just,” he argued. “The proletariat makes war with the ruling class because . . . it wants to take power” [Stuart enlarged the ellipse in the final sentence and put it in boldface].

I added the red marks in Microsoft Paint; click on the image to enlarge.

Click on image to enlarge.
Click on image to enlarge.
I added the red marks in Microsoft Paint; click on image to enlarge.


It is pretty funny that Molyneux’s slide even duplicated the ellipse that Roger Kimball inserted in that last sentence. It takes a mere second to find the complete sentence on Google Books: “The proletariat makes war with the ruling class because, for the first time in history, it wants to take power” (boldface added to the section Kimball removed).

Click on image to enlarge.


Really, if you go to Google Books and run a search on “foucault The proletariat makes war with the ruling class because”, what I showed above is the first result that comes up. Plus, the two results below it have the exact same quotation.

 I added the red marks in Microsoft Paint; click on image to enlarge.


Conclusion

Here is the most charitable way to interpret what is going on with Stefan Molyneux with respect to him taking these passages from other authors verbatim: I do not know whether Stefan Molyneux himself makes these presentation slides, or if they are made by someone who works for him, such as Mike DeMarco.

But I do know this: as Molyneux presents these videos and presentations as his own work, he is ultimately culpable for the plagiarism within them. Molyneux uploads onto YouTube on a near-daily basis, and, for that reason, one can see how whomever makes Molyneux’s presentation slides might feel pressured to do a rush job. But such a pressure does not excuse what is going on. At best, whoever is in charge of making Molyneux’s presentation slides has very consistently been horribly L-A-Z-Y about it, apparently going to various online essays and just copy-pasting passages from them directly into the slides. Students in college and even in middle school are instructed not to do what is done in Molyneux’s presentation slides. By the standards of what is expected even of middle-school students, what you find in Molyneux’s slide presentations is, at best, the opposite of conscientious and, at worst, something terribly underhanded.

In an interview (a known formal interview) with Michael W. Dean on the Freedom Feens podcast, Colleen — a former member of Molyneux’s cult from a decade ago, before Molyneux was regularly advocating white supremacism — recollected that Molyneux told her that everything he says is so original and brilliant, that every stray utterance of his ought to be recorded for posterity. (That discussion begins at the 9 minute, 28 second mark.) Molyneux told Colleen that this would be just as insightful, and of the same historical significance, as it would be if archaeologists and historians uncovered a transcription of the conversations that Socrates had with his barber.

But considering Molyneux’s frequent acts of plagiarism, which continue into December 2018, Molyneux’s followers should stop pretending that Molyneux is any sort of philosophic innovator or rigorous scholar.



UPDATE from Friday, December 23, 2018: 

The online forum FDR Liberated, which provides support to victims of Molyneux and FreeDomain Radio, gave me a tip on two other suspicious actions of Molyneux.  First is that Molyneux publicly and oddly claimed to be the true author of a book under a byline of an old friend of his, The Origins of War in Child Abuse by Lloyd deMause. Second is that another video slide presentation, “The Truth About the Stock Market Crisis. Prepare Yourself” from February 6, 2018, actually plagiarized a whole 18 sentences and over 390 words from a 2016 Media Wiki article on the Federal Reserve System. This time around, Molyneux did not link to the Media Wiki article or acknowledge it at all. This might be the most flagrant instance of plagiarism from Molyneux yet.

If I keep putting additional findings onto this same blog post, this one blog post will become impossibly long. Therefore, please read about these two new items on this follow-up post over here.