I think the purpose is clearly stated up front. Robinson is frustrated at the plethora of bad critiques of Murray's work, and dismayed that so many bad critiques likely contribute to Murray's impression that he's being unfairly targeted.
Robinson takes issue with Murray's apparent inability to see why people have problems with his work, even if they present bad arguments against it, and suggests that part of the reason for the negative responses has to do with Murray's presentation of the data, not the data itself (which Robinson states is admissible and even above-par). He then goes on to suggest that one possible reason why Murray feels unfairly attacked is because he sees so many poorly formulated arguments against his work.
Robinson's point is that it's a vicious cycle--Murray seems oblivious to the social implications of his data (even going so far as to prematurely deny those implications, which is very strange and, in my opinion, politically motivated), inciting fervor from his opponents; his opponents, partially blinded by their fervor, levy poor rejoinders back at Murray, further cementing his obliviousness and justified belief that said opponents are unfamiliar with his work.
Robinson starts out with the statement that he is odious because of horrible moral values. This is beating a dead progressive horse and informs the reader of the purpose of the article on the outset. Robinson then acknowledges the following:
Press coverage of Murray has distorted his positions, and it’s frequently true that people label him a “white supremacist” or “eugenicist” without knowing what he actually says about race, genetics, and intelligence. Plenty of writings about Murray, such as the
Southern Poverty Law Center’s long file on him, are sloppy or biased, failing to engage seriously and fair-mindedly with his various claims. This has allowed Murray, and
those that appreciate his writing, to claim that there are two Bell Curves, the book that people believe exists, and the book that actually exists.
The SPLC is retarded. Like Stephen Miller, I am shocked! But anyway, Robinson then goes on to express incredulity that Murray doesn't understand how his morals are so terrible. Because no one by the name of Haidt ever addressed the disconnect. Robinson presses on to say that:
I do not necessarily believe Charles Murray thinks he is a racist. But I do believe that a fair review of the evidence must necessarily lead to the conclusion that he is one.
Well of course he is, he is white after all. Case closed. But Robinson insists on being thorough and explaining this evidence. Good show!
The following claims are defended in Murray’s writings:
- Black people tend to be dumber than white people, which is probably partly why white people tend to have more money than black people. This is likely to be partly because of genetics, a question that would be valid and useful to investigate.
- Black cultural achievements are almost negligible. Western peoples have a superior tendency toward creating “objectively” more “excellent” art and music. Differences in cultural excellence across groups might also have biological roots.
- We should return to the conception of equality held by the Founding Fathers, who thought black people were subhumans. A situation in which white people are politically and economically dominant over black people is natural and acceptable.
Taken together, these three claims show Murray to be bigoted, ignorant, and ignorant of his own bigotry.
From there, Robinson engages in some sleight of hand (starting with discussions regarding The Bell Curve - which is what all the fuss is about, and then bringing in a book he acknowledges even less people are aware of than the few who have read the Bell Curve), special pleading, and denial, with a few good points interspersed, and concludes with a massive strawman to defend point three. Group differences do not mean one group takes up an entire meritocracy. It would mean that groups would be unequally represented depending on the meritocracy in question, and that doesn't mean that it's whites versus blacks, unless Robinson forgot about all the other ethnicities (which conveniently, he pretends to).
Robinson further blames Murray for racism because he quoted the ideas of persons who supported slavery. Obviously all famous white philosophers and politicians are entirely worthless because they were racist. This is standard intersectional boilerplate. So intellectual.
Robinson says Murray is a racist for point 1 and then later shortens it to saying that Murray is racist because he argues that black people are dumber than white people. If one takes
g and the aggregated value as acceptable empirically (which supposedly Robinson does), then this isn't racist, it is simple fact about the aggregate. It makes no claim about individuals, and that alone makes no claim about future changes/ability of the group. I could go on but there's simply too much wrong in that massive screed to bother taking it further point by point.
In short, if Robinson had stopped with a complaint about shoddy arguments against The Bell Curve and said "read Ned Block", I'd have no issue. But he didn't, but instead added to what he was supposedly complaining about. Low intellectual acuity, motivated misunderstanding, however one wants to frame it, it still amounts to the beating of a dead horse.