It is odd that you're demonizing Malcolm X and Steve Sailer, while refusing to address their arguments. Apparently they are "clumsy," "racist," and "grotesque," producing "simplifications" and a "non-sequitur." But in the time it took you to tell me all about the hypothetical explanations for the data you refuse to believe but even more ardently refuse to check ("My dog didn't bite you, it's not my dog, and what do you have against bulldogs, mister?"), you could have, well, fact-checked Sailer's claims.
It is striking that you've mustered so much rhetoric about conclusions in order to avoid looking at the facts behind those conclusions. It is a little like preachers talking up hellfire when someone questions the 6,000-year-old-earth thing.
He didn't demonize Malcolm X, he simply ignored your random introduction of him into the discussion, and he didn't demonize Steve Sailer, just accused him of having an agenda and as evidence made an observation that Sailer had different explanations for the lower performance of Europeans in Austria as opposed to ethnic minorities in the US.
You, however, accused him of being intentionally obtuse then compared him to a young earth creationist.
It is striking that you've mustered so much rhetoric about conclusions in order to avoid looking at the facts behind those conclusions. It is a little like preachers talking up hellfire when someone questions the 6,000-year-old-earth thing.