That said, I find the technical arguments against NHST to be just as necessary (and I also find them just as convincing).
I'm curious what your actual objections are to this?
Eugenics is like a strange attractor for scientists: over and over again, smart quantitative people who learn about genetics, selective breeding, and human phenotypes all end up converging on the idea of using selective breeding humans to "improve the phenotype" in their biased and preconceived notion of what "improve" and "phenotype" mean. It's not at all surprising that Galton (one of my personal heros for his statistical work; I made a Galton board) and Fisher (not one of my favorites) both explored these ideas alongside their scientific efforts.
If you consider the context, I think the author's position that the confusing aspects of it are very likely because of the desire to (falsely) profess that we have removed all aspects of judgemental decisions from a particular procedure which was driven by the desire to convince people that it wasn't their opinion, but fact, that they were genetically superior beings.