I don't think all his writing is like this. Some of it is clear and cogent. This was specifically an indict of his writing on race-related writing. When MM's writing goes wrong, it almost always follows this pattern (highly specific missing-forest-for-the-trees with the explicit central thesis carefully scoped and the actual central thesis left unstated). But it doesn't always go wrong.
In any case, I think your interpretation is an interesting one, even if it doesn't ring true for me, have an upvote.