The neo reactionary types tend to draw specific conclusions from the idea of human biodiversity, like that racial disparities in IQ are inherent and not environmental. That's a conclusion I don't think is in line with Scott's views.

Furthermore, I suggest you read the linked emails in more detail. He likes the emphasis reactionaries put on social class, and dislikes ... pretty much everything else. He explicitly states that becoming a reactionary is stupid - I'm not sure how that's meant to be read as sympathetic.

This is another case where praising even a small component of a particular movement, even when paired with explicit condemnation of the movement as a whole, is taken as an endorsement.