Mr. J, a Former Professor Series – Entry 43: Why Does It Sound Like a War Metaphor?
This Wasn’t a Love Poem — It Was Symbolic Control
Some people mistake poetry for affection.
But what happens when symbolic language is used not to honor someone — but to override them?
This post is a forensic unpacking of one such case. It’s not about taste. It’s about power.
Written without consent. Screenshot retained for documentation purposes. Originally authored by Pat Johnston.
“Crafty peasant” and “always watchful” — why does it sound like a war metaphor?
At first glance, these phrases may seem like compliments — describing someone clever, perceptive, and resilient. But in context, when spoken by an older Western man about a young Asian woman he once dated, the implications shift.
Let’s decode:
“Crafty” isn’t just clever — it carries undertones of slyness or cunning, often used with a hint of condescension.
“Peasant” evokes rural poverty and wartime imagery — especially in Western representations of Asian.
“Always watchful” might sound poetic, but it echoes descriptions of guerrilla fighters, mountain dwellers, or survivors — not modern women.
→ Together, these terms subtly frame her not as an equal, but as a figure shaped by hardship, war, and suspicion — someone exotic, vigilant, and ultimately distant.
This is symbolic framing, not affection.
“Froggy face” — is that an insult or affection?
Let’s be blunt: it’s a veiled insult.
“Froggy” is not a term of beauty. It’s animalizing — it reduces the subject to a caricature: wide eyes, awkwardness, something odd or comical.
Would the author call a white woman “froggy face”?
Unlikely. Because this is racialized de-aestheticizing — stripping someone of perceived attractiveness through language.
And no amount of poetic flourish changes that.
So… was the whole piece an attack?
Not explicitly. But here’s the trick:
He didn’t insult directly.
He didn’t name himself as harmful.
He didn’t say she was wrong.
Instead, he wrote a grief opera in which she became a tool — an image, a metaphor, a memory — but never a person with autonomy.
She didn’t get a voice.
She didn’t get dignity.
She got transformed — into a trigger, a lesson, a device in his emotional world.
That’s not love.
That’s erasure by elevation.
Was this really a love letter — or a form of emotional possession?
This is a textbook case of using language as post-breakup symbolic control.
He didn’t:
Ask how she feels
Respect the no-contact boundary
Offer accountability
Instead, he wrote a self-styled myth, redefining the relationship and redefining her — on his terms.
The core issue: Narrative Theft
This isn’t just bad writing ethics. It’s deeper.
It’s about the right to self-definition — a fundamental human right.
When someone uses poetic or academic language to:
Recast your identity
Stylize your culture
Narrate your silence
…without your consent — that’s not literature. That’s emotional colonization.
And it’s dangerous because it:
Disorients the subject
Hijacks the memory
Blocks your ability to tell your own story
This wasn’t a poem.
It was a mechanism of recontrol — dressed in metaphor, deployed after being asked for silence.
And that’s exactly what the ethics of higher education needs to reckon with.
Update (June 10, 2025): Counter-Takedown Filed — Fair Use & Survivor-Led Documentation
On June 9, I received a formal DMCA notice from Google informing me that Patrick Johnston had submitted a copyright takedown request targeting my publicly accessible survivor evidence folders documentation already submitted to QPS as part of police evidence.
This content, previously submitted to law enforcement in the context of unwanted contact and coercive behavior, cannot retroactively be reframed as protected intellectual property for the purpose of silencing survivor documentation.
Any takedown request targeting such material constitutes a strategic misuse of copyright law, not a legitimate rights claim.
These files were published strictly under academic Fair Use and Fair Dealing protections, as part of an ethics-based documentation series. This takedown is not a valid copyright dispute, but a coercive response to institutional criticism.
Attempts to assert copyright over police-submitted evidence constitute a serious ethical and potentially legal breach. Such actions may be interpreted as obstruction of justice and retaliation against protected reporting
This is not copyright protection. This is reputational panic, disguised as a takedown notice.
The content was non-commercial, already submitted to Queensland Police (QPS) and regulators under official case IDs. Its removal constitutes an attempt to suppress documented harms rather than enforce legitimate rights. Misusing copyright mechanisms in this manner may qualify as a form of strategic litigation against public participation (SLAPP).
My publication falls squarely within the thresholds of:
Australian Copyright Act 1968 – Sections 41 & 42 (Fair Dealing)
U.S. Copyright Law – §107 (Fair Use)
International norms protecting public interest commentary and trauma documentation.
I have submitted a formal counter-notice. As per standard procedure, Google has forwarded the takedown request to the Lumen Database, where it is now publicly visible as part of platform transparency archives.
View takedown request on Lumen
If harassment persists, I reserve the right to escalate this matter to ethics boards, international legal monitors, and public interest watchdogs tracking strategic censorship and retaliatory misuse of institutional tools.
Any misuse of personal information obtained via counter-notice or takedown responses will be treated as further coercive harassment and may be reported to law enforcement under digital harm and privacy abuse frameworks.
No individual has the right to suppress survivor-led documentation solely on the basis of personal discomfort — especially when such material pertains to evidence already submitted to law enforcement.
Note on Naming:
The individual named in this piece is referenced due to the public nature and severity of their documented behavior, including threats and retaliatory writings.
The purpose of naming is not humiliation, but record integrity. When public responses fail to address the core evidence presented, transparency remains necessary.
Naming in this context reflects a duty to document — not to defame. Selective rebuttal does not equate to accountability.
Full evidence archive submitted to QPS, TEQSA, AHRC and Ethics Australia: View here.
Read the full series
- Entry 1: The Man Who Taught Me Ethics by Failing All of Them
- Entry 2: The Disappearance of the Public Poet
- Entry 3: The Hanging Tree Case Study
- Entry 4: Hidden Like Accountability
- Entry 5: The Collapse of Assumptions
- Entry 6: The Ethics of a Tinder Bio
- Entry 7: How He Ate Told Me Everything
- Entry 8: What Makes a Scholar Dangerous
- Entry 9: Fragment of Life, Fragment of Accountability
- Entry 10: Anatomy of Disappointment
- Entry 11: Legal Defense Challenges: A Framing Statement
- Entry 12: Six Years After Ronell – What Academia Still Doesn’t Get
- Entry 13: QUT and The Man Who Raped Me
- Entry 14: Why Sarcasm Toward Institutions Can Backfire
- Entry 15: P*ssy or Toxic Masculinity?
- Entry 16: Who is Your Favorite Comedian?
- Entry 17: And What is Your Favorite Song?
- Entry 18: Grant Proposal — Narrative Ethics as Survivor-Led Forensics
- Entry 19: The Coward Behind the Clone
- Entry 20: [URGENT HIRE] CRISIS COMMUNICATIONS SPECIALIST
- Entry 21: [URGENT] Legal Counsel Needed for Complex Reputation Rehabilitation
- Entry 22: YOU’RE AN ABUSER. STOP CONTACTING ME
- Entry 23: Seeking Counsel for a Fallen Academic
- Entry 24: Internal Legal-PR Briefing
- Entry 25: For Journalists – Legal & Ethical Clearance Summary
- Entry 26: Symbolic Prostitution, Transactional Intimacy, or Just a “Loan”?
- Entry 28: Why He Simply Cannot Shut Up
- Entry 29: Forensic Commentary on “LARGE Language Muddle”
- Entry 30: Don’t Just Threaten My Future. Because I’m Going To Archive Your Present
- Entry 31: Open Letter to the Person Who Tried to Break Me with Defamation
- Entry 32: Defamation, Harassment, Doxxing Class 101
- Entry 33: Confidential Crisis Recovery Proposal
- Entry 34: Forensic Behavioral-Somatic Report
- Entry 35: Forensic Commentary on the Tattoos
- Entry 36: QUT and the Abuser They Once Had
- Entry 38: When Poetry Becomes Revenge Porn
- Entry 40: A Man Built for Applause, Not Accountability
- Entry 41: Neurobehavioral Addendum
- Entry 43: Why Does It Sound Like a War Metaphor? (You are here)
- Entry 44: Forensic Commentary on Racialized and Fetishizing Language in “Hidden Like Rice”
- Entry 45: Public Misuse of Former Academic Affiliation
- Entry 46: The Two Things That Didn’t Leave a Bad Impression
- Entry 47: When Affection is Just an Alibi (A Bundy-Inspired Reflection)
- Entry 48: Humbert, Lolita, and the Fetish of Fragility
- Entry 49: The Fetish of Smallness as Symbolic Violence
- Entry 50: Motif Risk Analysis
- Entry 52: Can an Abuser Be a Good Father?
- Entry 53: Who Protects the Children?
- Entry 54: From Blackmail to Children
- Reflection: The Miscalculation
(More entries coming soon)
→ [Back to Start: Introducing Mr. J, a Former Professor Series]
© 2025 Linh Ng. All rights reserved.
This publication is intended for educational and reflective purposes only.
Sharing the original link is welcomed and encouraged.
Please do not reproduce, redistribute, or translate this content — in whole or in part — without written permission.
This piece reflects both lived experience and critical analysis. It is not meant to be detached from its author or reframed without context.
Misuse or decontextualization may lead to formal clarification or takedown requests.
This work has been reviewed and quietly followed by scholars, educators, and ethics professionals across multiple sectors.
If your institution is engaging in critical discourse around narrative justice, symbolic coercion, or representational ethics, feel free to connect via Substack DMs or formal channels.
A regulatory case regarding this matter has already been classified under a protected status within national education integrity systems.
Should any reputational countermeasures or distortions arise, I reserve the right to publish the documented timeline, behavioral patterns, and contextual metadata.
All relevant documentation has been submitted through formal legal and regulatory pathways.
Photo cover by Nicolas Spehler via Unsplash