Inspired by this comment. I will resolve this market to the best of my ability based on evidence provided to me before the end of February.

If Jamie (or anyone else) can provide any instance (or extremely strong yet indirect evidence of the existance of such an instance) of Scott, at any point of their life, clearly attempting to normalize or encourage white supremacy (defined as the belief that white people should be treated better than people of other races simply due to their race), this market resolves YES. If that hasn't happened by the end of February, it resolves NO.

If they've argued for supremacy of a quality that is extremely closely correlated with race to the point where it would make an effective proxy measure, that also counts as racial supremacy. If the quality is only moderetly correlated, that does not count as racial supremacy.

The actual arguments provided in favor of white supremacy are irrelevant; if Scott wrote an article in favor white supremacy, this market resolves to YES, even if that article provided many compelling arguments for why white supremacy would be a good thing.

Retractions are irrelevant. If Scott said something 10 years ago that was white supremacist, then later changed their mind and no longer agrees with their earlier statement, this still resolves YES.

I will not bet in this market.