Paul Graham might be guilty of the latter, but there's certainly little evidence to judge him guilty of the former.

I wasn't aware we were a courtroom and we were holding our opinions to a level of 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. I was pointing out that silence is often consent & agreement (which it certainly is), that PG has expressed quite a few opinions a neoreactionary might also hold (consistent with holding neoreactionary views, albeit weak evidence), and he has been silent on the article (weak evidence, to be sure, but again, consistent).