> Unless the author wanted to demonstrate that by playing with words one can prove anything.

I think that roughly is what Scott is going for here. It's not one of his more interesting pieces, I ended up skipping the latter half, but my understanding is he's angling to show that given some fuzzy descriptor, with enough imagination and wordplay you can take an idea pretty far. He's written before about esoteric numerology and gematria, I think it's just something he finds fascinating, from a secular POV.

This is Scott's sense of humor, it's not meant to be taken seriously.