This is where you might be missing some important context about Alexander's views. Namely, he's the guy who literally wrote a point-by-point refutation of neoreaction. And he clearly says in his email messages that he cares about debunking really bad neoreactionary ideas such as the ludicrous notion that we should all be collectively asking for a new king, like the frogs in Aesop's tale.

So why not just credit the simplest explanation, that he's disappointed at not being able to do the same with a non-trivial portion of HBD claims? Do we really need to believe that this guy is secretly a huge racist who believes in fixed hierarchies of moral worth among races, when literally everything he writes publicly takes the very opposite as its starting point?

Look, I know I sound glib here, and I'm trying not to be, I promise I am, but the funniest part about this is:

(1) I agree, Alexander isn't a supporter of neoreaction-ism, and

(2) One of the few valuable bits of information he claims to have gleaned from them is NRx-flavored HBD!

You get how that's essentially saying "well, I definitely don't think we should create a global monarchy, but those people do seem to have a point about the suitability of Africans for chattel slavery", right? That's what NRx-flavored HBD is. (I mean: it's really what all HBD is, but the NRx people are explicit about it.)

But don't just take my word for it. One of the two "more" well-supported links he cites is to Steve Sailer's blog!

I am not here to call you a racial supremacist for enjoying Alexander's writing, for whatever that's worth to you. I like a lot of Christopher Hitchens writing. That doesn't make me, personally, an alcoholic.

(I edited this a bunch, but tried not to change the meaning of anything I wrote previously. Sorry if that was annoying.)

Does it not concern you at all that you have, like, zero ability to assess the merit of HBD claims, and therefore are in no position to reason so glibly and confidently about Alexander's motives? If arguments for population differences are compelling, then all this schlock about suitability to chattel slavery and what have you becomes irrelevant. You imply that Alexander believes the former due to preferring the latter, but that's only a plausible accusation if the former is assumed a priori to be ridiculous.

(It isn't; on the contrary, there is no plausible scientific hypothesis that can attribute population differences solely to environmental causes. The entire blank slate case relies on sneering of the sort you do here).

I find it strange when competent people get so fixated on flaunting their ignorance.

I'm sorry again, but I just have trouble equating Scott's supposed agreement (by way of NRx) as to the nowadays-quite-fashionable claim that "American capitalism is uniquely founded on the oppression of enslaved Africans" with moral support for any claim of racial supremacy. A claim that slavery "worked" really well is tantamount to a claim that powerful, enduring systems of social organization could be built on the oppression of slavery as a foundation, and vice versa. These statements only differ by way of their connotation as to whether they assume slavery to be morally acceptable.

Nothing I am saying has anything at all to do with the 1619 Project (of which I am not especially a fan). When NRx people talk about chattel slavery, they're really talking about chattel slavery. Like, Calvin Candie style. And again: this is the part of NRx thought that Alexander found compelling. It's right there in the email! Which is about scientific racism, and Alexander's secret support for it ("NEVER TELL ANYONE I SAID THIS"). He called it "pure gold", like Kenny Bania on Seinfeld.

> When NRx people talk about chattel slavery, they're really talking about chattel slavery. Like, Calvin Candie style.

I suspect you're quite right as to where most real-world HBD-pushers are coming from. If this is your reason for your remark ITT that "HBD is generally problematic, and does tend to demand a response", I of course agree with that. I'll even sympathize with the intuition that engaging at all with such notions is by all indications a bad idea.

But when the guy who chooses to wrestle with some of these ideas is someone who has previously taken the time to logically and comprehensively debunk absolute monarchy, of all things, I think there just might be some room for extending the benefit of doubt.

We don't disagree about Alexander's support for NRx and never did. Follow this thread towards its root and you'll see me complaining that the person who brought this email up tried to claim Alexander as an NRx-supporter. That's a stupid hill to die on; Alexander is notorious for writing a ponderous rebuttal to NRx, and, more importantly, there's a much more attractive, easily climbed, and trivially defended hill right next door, as the email demonstrates.

I don't know if we agree or disagree about Alexander and racial supremacism. I think the email lays Alexander remarkably bare on that front, to a degree you don't often see even from people who publicly affiliate with white supremacy. It's a hell of a thing.

Finally: you're right: I'm not much interested in Alexander as a subject. I certainly wouldn't have brought his racial supremacist email into a random Alexander blog post! I think the comment that did was justifiably flagged. But once that happened, and HBD-curious comments started coming out of the woodwork... well, there's value in being clear about what was actually said, and in not pretending like it's defensible.