Setanta, I agree the term "mysticism" has been historically used both dualistically aand non-dualistically.
But if you read JLNs post he starts off referring to those mystics he
is familiar with.He then proceeds to a point about "mystics which are non-dualistic by definition", which I think he might have better phrased as "Those mystics to whom I refer who consider mysticism to be exclusively non-dualistic..."
Now of course you are free to classify my response as part of a JLN+fresco double act. That is your choice
(or indeed is it ? ...which is a point I have suggested elsewhere).
Finally I note now you have refered to "political" threads which this ostensibly is not. Indeed, it is a thread where the medium of linguistic exchange has been deemed to be unable to do justice to some of the counter-intuitive ideas being suggested. The point was made earlier that the mystic non-dualistic has no requirement to communicate..he and the receiver are one and the same.