He first not only presents --- he tries to overwhelm you with factual detail in order to establish his credibility. This always includes irrelevant and unnecessary information: witness the long list of our airplanes. Like a child, he tries to impress adults: "Look, I read the sentence to the very end; I know ALL of our airplanes."
Having lulled the reader, he then plugs in, in one short sentence, an idea that requires a great deal of justification and refinement. When justifying crusades, for instance, he lists some detailed information, and then says, "It was a just war. So was WWII" --- and moves on! I'd think any parallels between crusades and WWII are far from obvious.
His knowledge of history is like an uncooked stew: plenty of ingredients that have not come together. And his writing style reveals him for what he is -- a cheap, hateful provocateur.