Author has updated the submission to version #2

My overall impression of this text is negative:

1. All too often, you use a plaintive, strident, and sometimes taunting tone: 

"But unless researchers toe the line"

"Bird et al. paint “hereditarians” as ham-fisted incompetents who may also be accessories to mass murder"

"Take Bird et al.’s use of selective citation and strawman to “debunk ...”

“Systemic Racism” (however measured), or “White Privilege” (however measured)"

"persons who claim to be scientists."

It doesn't matter whether the above statements are true. You're not preaching to the choir here. You're speaking to a largely hostile audience, and you have to convince them that you don't correspond at all to the negative prejudices they may have. If you must use strident rhetoric, please leave it to the end, at which point the reader has (hopefully) realized you're not such a terrible person.

2. "Disparities in human well-being are ubiquitous and correlate strongly with skin color." I would simply drop this sentence, since it's difficult to explain the chain of causation that goes from cold environments to higher levels of cognitive ability. A naïve reader will think you're arguing that melanin has a direct impact on intelligence. Moreover, high cognitive ability can develop in tropical populations, like the Igbo of Nigeria.

The use of the word "well-being" is also problematic. "Well-being" is a subjective mental state; it's possible to be materially poor while being happy. The reverse is also possible. Yes, I should know what you mean by that word. But I don't sit on the Editorial Board of The American Psychologist. In these things, it's important to be situationally aware. You should put yourself in the shoes of someone who has heard a lot of negative things about you. It's your job to overcome that bad image.