This is not a criticism of third position ideas from the right, it is a criticism of third position ideas from the first position (liberalism). This is more or less to be expected, because the writer may be an anti-egalitarian, but he's definitely a materialist.

I honestly don't see where the liberalism comes in. Stevens has written extensively about how he considers liberalism to be leftist.

He has also written about how, despite being a nihilist, he can "[reject] solely material existence, including social control, to discover that reality has qualitative dimension".

We know that mainstream conservatives are irritating cucks because they cannot accept that equality is nonsense.

Is this why conservatives are irritating? Most criticism I see of conservatism seems to revolve around its inability to defend its own interests, not its stance on equality. This type of presentation trick is used throughout the entire article.

I personally think conservatives are irritating because they refuse to acknowledge biological difference, yes. For example, a common criticism is that they blame black dysfunction on "lack of fathers" and deny any racial component, leading to civic nationalist-type positions. I do agree that a lot of criticism is not along these lines, but then, this statement by Stevens does strike me as simply opinionated for his particular audience; after all, there's a lot of people who don't consider mainstream conservatives to be "irritating cucks."

Leftism is egalitarianism.

No? Egalitarianism is an important concept within leftism. It is not leftism itself.

He expands on why he thinks this is the case here.

ethnic equality (joining together all Whites as one, ignoring ethnic differences)

Who does this? People who promote cooperation between ethnic groups do not reject biological reality, they acknowledge political reality. Intersectional criticism applies just as well to Americans as it does to Russians. It's obvious that different ethnic groups are different, otherwise they wouldn't be different ethnic groups. Does that difference also mean they have to be disunited? Furthermore, this point of view is highly materialist. It considers reality in purely biological terms, leaving no room for cultural, political, intellectual, moral and emotional factors. Is any nationalist more attached to the IQ score of his demographic group rather than its history and traditions?

Yeah, this was one of my criticisms as well. I think he misunderstands the third position to claim that anyone really claims different ethnic groups are equal. But I don't think he's an IQ nationalist.

socialism (denying class and caste, wanting subsidies like free healthcare, welfare, retirement, and public schooling), unions (reward the bad workers as well as the good)

19th century liberal thinking. Socialism and trade unionism are products of the capitalist system and its excessive exploitation and abuse of the traditional loyalty owed by the masses to authority. You can't roll history back. You can only go forward and resolve the problems that have created these movements. The only way to fix that is a sense of solidarity that can only exist in a just society where everyone has his needs met.

As a reactionary, he really does want to roll history back. He expands on this here - "Humanity went wrong, and we can fix this wrong turn by reversing, going back to where we were before we made this mistake, and then zooming forward along that path. Around here, we tend to suggest the four pillars: aristocracy, pan-nationalism, social hierarchy, and transcendence." He places the blame on the enlightenment.

I do tend to agree that rolling history back is a pipe dream; like piecing together a broken vase, or un-cooking a steak. But I can't prove it's impossible - to be honest, most proposed solutions to our predicament look equally implausible.

democracy (the vote of an insane moron is the same as that of a morally-lucid genius),

Later in the article it becomes apparent that the critique of democracy is not a right wing one, but a liberal one instead.

It's also worth mentioning what was left out from the list of "egalitarianism that has to be rejected". For example, universal taxation, the equal right to engage in commerce, amongst other privileges established by liberals in order to destroy the aristocracy. In other words, the intention here is to reject every form of equality that doesn't explicitly benefit the rich.

Maybe it's a little confused, but I'm pretty sure the author is in favor of aristocracy. I don't know if he does actually support those particular liberal privileges.

For too long the far-Right audience has favored anyone who praises all Whites as equal, both among ethnic groups and between social classes, without noticing obvious hatefacts like some “white” ethnic groups being actually highly mixed with Other, and lower classes being dumber than upper classes. Too much of the far-Right is caught up in the Revolutionary narrative of “the rich people are the bad elites and they are our problem.”

Here again there's this conflation of political unity and "egalitarianism". Every ethnic group is different. This is obvious to everyone, including leftists and liberals. This does not mean that cooperation and unity is impossible. It seems to me that the author of this article just wants more useless IQ nationalism whining. If people from Normandy can be politically united with people from Toulouse as Bavarians can be with Brandenburgers, then why should Frenchmen and Germans be in strict opposition?

At the same time, the correlation between low IQ and working class status is 0.49, which is a weak correlation. If you are working class, it's actually slightly more likely that you're "too smart" for your class rather than not.

Are rich people "bad"? As an anti-egalitarian, the author of the article should know that the upper classes always hold the power. Who, then, ushered in this period of political turbulence and cultural and economic decline? Why did they do that? Is Jeff Bezos the model American?

Here, again, I find myself agreeing with you and disagreeing with Stevens. He simply misrepresents the "far-Right audience" in my view. I don't think many people on the right really think all white people are equal.

As for

At the same time, the correlation between low IQ and working class status is 0.49, which is a weak correlation. If you are working class, it's actually slightly more likely that you're "too smart" for your class rather than not.

I don't think this is actually true. Here's an example - 400 people, 200 are "lower class" (class=0) and 200 are "upper class" (class=1). 200 are "low IQ" (int=0) and 200 are "high IQ" (int=1).

The correlation between class and int here is 0.49, but if you're lower class you're way less likely to be "too smart for your class rather than not".