Fair, but is the distinction actually important in this case? It seems to me to be more of a means of obfuscating/derailing the discussion of Molyneux's views.

It is important, because it implies Molyneux would take steps to build such a state, when he wouldn't on principle. Molyneux is an anarcho-capitalist: he desires there to be no state at all.

It just happens to be a convenient feature of said anarcho-capitalist society that he would be free to oppress non-whites. You're cherry picking one particular argument he makes without considering his other espoused beliefs.

I think precision is important in this context, because people have a bad habit of using terms like "white supremacist" as generic insults against any right-wing figure. Being imprecise diminishes the force of the arguments against Molyneux, who really has made explicit claims that white people are better than everyone else.

I agree with you. I edited my original comment to clarify a bit.

> who really has made explicit claims that white people are better than everyone else.

Where?

Is it possible that Stefan Molyneux wants one, even though he doesn't actively advocate for it?

Because everything I've heard from him suggests he would love one... which meets your definition squarely.