You don't think I might have mentioned it if he was?
He says that people who are loyal, hardworking, and not too bright are best suited to being slaves, and it stands to reason that some races are more inclined towards those traits than others, and that probably includes Africans.
Of course, this is a nice way of saying that slavery doesn't make rational sense - that it's a case of pure "might makes right", exactly as common sense would suggest. Think about it - if your slaves are "loyal and hardworking", do you even need to enslave them by coercion? Of course not - they'll work for you voluntarily as long as you treat them in a way that they accept as fair! (And oftentimes - perhaps even most of the time - they turn out to be a lot brighter than you gave them credit for while treating them as mere slaves.) And if this is the best case, what about everyone else? No, what the slaveowner really dreams of is that he's going to control his slaves purely by their fear. And Moldbug is saying: "nah, that's not going to work. Deal with it."
Way to miss the actual argument he's making, dude. You were not even on the same wavelength.
Of course I have - that's why I wrote the above. Moldbug may acknowledge that slavery seems to arise "naturally" in some circumstances, but he's not laboring under any delusion that what's "natural" - be it slavery or marriage - is per se good or desirable.
> see if he was misrepresented
Did you find out whether or not he was misrepresented?