This is a real thing in economics. Applied to “provocative” (not my term) essays, the rule is this: When you read: “the relationship between Nietzsche and the free-market right…is thus one of elective affinity rather than direct influence, at the level of idiom rather than policy,”
…you can safely stop, and turn to something else. Absolutely nothing good will come of it. The writer can insinuate the most absurd things, and yet always claim, “I never said that!” if you object. Just move on with your life.
You still don’t get my point? Okay, as I put it to Daniel Kuehn (who, needless to say, thought the Nietzche/Austrian article was “fascinating”):
I skimmed a lot of the article. I’m not even being snarky; I have no idea what the guy’s point is. It’s like talking about the connection between Ronald Reagan and Star Wars, since they both were popular in the same cultural era, except SDI was actually nicknamed Star Wars, so it makes more sense than this article.