I haven’t read the whole thread yet, but so far the choice line is:
I like how you just dropped the “Vance is interested in right authoritarianism” like it’s a known fact to base your entire point on. Vance is the clearest demonstration of a libertarian the republicans have in high office. It’s an absurd ad hominem that you try to mask in your wall of text.
Or people could take away different things, especially since post-2014 (?) Scott approaches controversial issues much more cautiously and deliberately made known (Kolmogorov) that he was never going to fully honest around certain topics, inviting (deliberately or not, accurate or not) Straussian readings.
Ugh. These people seem sad and they make me sad.
I’m pretty sure they’re referencing an old ssc post on “kolmogorov complicity” - referencing the Soviet scientist who either spoke out against the purges and got gulag’d or who realized that they were bad but didn’t say anything to avoid getting gulag’d and tried to protect his peers from the same fate. I forget if he was the example to follow or the counterexample, and I can’t be arsed to look it up.
Now imagine if instead of a Soviet citizen trying to steer your people away from stalinism you were a fascist living in a broadly progressive culture looking to steer the world away from liberalism and towards Yarvin and friends. I try not to go down the conspiracy rabbit hole, but I’m not sure how Scott’s output meaningfully differs from what such a person would write. Honestly if he hasn’t written the kolmogorov complicity post outlining the whole concept I don’t know if I’d be more or less inclined to think he’s doing it actively.
Self-reply because a few hours later I could be arsed after all, and what I found was confusing.
To start with, this wasn’t a scooter original; it was a response to a post by a different Scott A, and according to a very brief examination (I read both the Wikipedia article and the talk page) it looks like it’s based on some questionable history. The story is that Andrey Kolmogorov kept quiet and used his influence to shelter Jewish academics and others from persecution under the purges. However, the most noteworthy example of his actions during the purges were his active testimony in the prosecution of his doctoral advisor, Nikolas Luzin. There’s some ambiguity about why he participated but the two theories appear to be that the cops forced him to do it by blackmailing him about a (historically disputed/unconfirmed) gay relationship he was in or that the whole thing was driven by personal animosity between Luzin and his students. Notably after being convicted it seems like Luzin wasn’t enough of a threat to Stalin to actually be properly disappeared or even fully removed from academia.
I don’t know enough about the relevant history to make a reasonable determination as to who’s right, but it’s telling that neither story meaningfully supports the idea that the Scotts seem to be pitching of keeping your head down and muddling through to protect you and yours under authoritarianism. If that “Kolmogorov Option” exists it’s only because you’re in a decently liberal society. Otherwise the authoritarian power of the state will be used against you either for their own purpose or as a tool by whoever can catch their ear and doesn’t like you, and all your attempts to avoid being the nail that sticks out will have been pointless.
