Ok, um. This is way too in-jokey. Aside from that, there's no punchline or even any clever bits, or at least nothing discernible from the incoherent esoterica. Then again, maybe I'm completely wrong and for whatever reason other people understand what's going on in this article and find it HILARIOUS, after all most of my -Js started off as goofy in-jokes. But, unlike those this -J seems to be too reliant on the reference material without focusing on any way to make it relatable to a general audience. I'm not exactly sure how you would change that, since I have no idea what's going on in the article itself, but maybe try making it really obvious in the beginning what you're referring to?