Successfully insulated from critical evaluation

Apparently Hamid Dabashi has written a book on the Arab Spring. If this excerpt is any indication, he has succeeded in writing so unclearly it's impossible to determine whether there's anything to criticize in it.

The spectre of that emerging state will keep the democratic muscles of these revolutionary uprisings flexing - for a very long time, and for a very simple reason. The world we have inherited is mystified (Marx's term) by the force fields of power that have at once held it together and distorted it. Fighting the military and economic might of counter-revolutionaries goes hand in hand with deciphering the transformed consciousness that must promise and deliver the emerging world. The colonial subject (now revolting beyond the mirage of the postcolonial state) was formed, forced, and framed as the object of European imperial domination, with multivariate modes of governmentality that extended from the heart of "the West" to the edges of "the Rest". Europe colonised the Arab and Muslim world from one end to the other precisely according to the model of power by which it was itself being colonised by the self-fetishising logic of capital. It was, by way of partaking in the making of the fetishised commodity, being alienated from itself as it was forcing that massive alienation on the colonial world. Postcolonialism was instrumental in conceptually fetishising colonialism as something other than the abuse of labour by capital writ large. It is not, and never has been.

The postcolonial subject, which was none other than the colonial subject multiplied by the illusion of emancipation, was thus released into the force field of that very same colonial history on a wild goose chase of ideological certainty before and after political convictions. For more than two hundred years - the 19th and 20th centuries - colonialism begat postcolonial ideological formations: socialism, nationalism, nativism (Islamism); one metanarrative after another, ostensibly to combat, but effectively to embrace and exacerbate, its consequences. As these postcolonial ideological formations began epistemically to exhaust themselves, the position of "subalternity" travelled from South Asia and became a North American academic fanfare, before it was politically neutered and soon turned into the literary trope of a "native informant". Thus colonialism and postcoloniality combined to place the Arab and the Muslim (as its supreme and absolute other) outside the self-universalising tropes of European metaphysics, where the non-Western (thus branded) was never in the purview of full subjection, of full historical agency.

Where to even begin?

1. Is it really necessary to paranthetically note 'mystified' as "Marx's term"?
2. "Multivariate modes of governmentality". I see.
3. I appreciate the attempt to link the logic of capitalism to colonial domination, but equating colonialism with "the abuse of labour by capital writ large" seems a bit overambitious. Also I don't think commodity fetishism is a sufficiently sturdy concept to bear quite that much weight.
4. How exactly is a 'subject' 'multiplied' by an 'illusion'?
5. As for the last 2 or 3 sentences, it's actually possible I agree with them (what passes for radicalism in "post-colonial" and "subaltern" is decidedly not, which is what he might be saying here), but I just can't be sure.