I don’t like to run down individual writers very often— it’s rude— but article after article, I have NO IDEA what his point is. All of his articles are several paragraphs long, and rarely say ANYTHING. I’ve already been de-blacked for complaining on his blog that his articles are nonsensical (I know, RUDE!), but I keep going back to see if they’ll ever start making sense, as if I’ll lock on to his “style” of writing and it will act as a key to finding the point.

Today, he’s written an article about “Why” the Charleston massacre isn’t terrorism. I can make neither heads nor tails of a reason why it’s not terrorism. The gist of the article seems to be that it shouldn’t be called terrorism because he doesn’t want it to be.

Am I alone here? Does anyone understand this man?