I think the purpose of the inscrutability serves is to "idea launder" obvious falsehoods into something believable, much like the convoluted path one takes to convert stolen money into believably-legal money.
Well to be fair there are two arguments, one is that you can't use normal commonplace phrasing to describe something that's at odds with the 'normal'; the other is that in a publish-or-perish academic world each new generation of thinkers invents a new jargon to differentiate themselves from their predecessors (and keep their jobs). Not that both couldn't be simultaneously true, but I think it's a little too cheeky to say they're making it up for no reason at all.
"Idea laundering". You've neatly summarized what I believe Curtis Yarvin to have been doing, both with his political writing and his computational silliness like Urbit.
