Note: this article has been featured at

DISCLAIMER 1: What follows is a mixture of speculation and satire therefore the adverb “allegedly” prefaces and applies to the article itself. (go & eat your heart out Chu-boy)

DISCLAIMER 2:I am a proud Neo-Troll & I DO NOT represent #GamerGate. Feel free to disregard everything I say based on my Troll Status. For those who stayed, behold;unnamed


Surprising. For a person so well known for answering questions quick and efficiently in Jeopardy, Arthur Chu never answered the question in the image above (maybe he needs money to answer efficiently?)

In any given case, I sent Arthur Chu said question several times on Twitter, people also retweeted it to him several times but I, for one, never got one of his trademark rage-filled responses (well, after several months he recently did block me so he may have seen it & rage-blocked me) but I would like to explain to you dear reader the reasons (besides my trolling of male feminists who feminists never come to help, see? “Equality”) why I started publicly questioning our dear and regretful Mr Chu.

In short, because of his publicly regretful remarks regarding rape, I, along with others, suspect Arthur Chu may have been involved in an act of rape in his past.

Why? Here is what Arthur Chu has said in regards to rape in writing and also during a CNN interview:

“I have known nerdy male stalkers and yes, nerdy male rapists. I’ve known situations where I knew something was going on but didn’t say anything – because I didn’t want to stick my neck out, because some vile part of me thought that this kind of thing was normal.”

Don’t believe me? Here’s the bizarre video

The referenced piece he wrote was for a certain hard-left site & to avoid giving them traffic here is the archived piece. Upon close inspection, the article reads like a religious mea culpa (mea culpa means “I acknowledge my mistake” in Latin but in plain English it means “yes, I fucked up”) also consider that if Arthur Chu is alluding to a “mea culpa” is because he must have indeed fucked up in regards to rape in the past. Again it reads almost as if it was a confession/testimonial where Chu openly says “I am/we are all guilty for not preventing rape and helping rape victims” and seems to hint he may have been an accessory to a rape. BUT THEN, here is the gigantic contradiction; after pontificating so much for the rights of female victims of rape, all of sudden Chu does a 180 and says that Cytherea’s rape does not count.

Yes Arthur Chu actually showed zero empathy for Cytherea.


In both media instances, it appeared as if Chu was expressing a need to give a public apology of the level “mea maxima culpa” but it seems he got cold feet at the last minute (what else can be expected from a coward like Chu but hypocrisy & cold feet?) then he did his 180 contradiction and attacked the victim of rape he was supposed to protect.

So stark was his contradiction that this second image circulated well enough on Twitter but unfortunately, he never replied to it either:unnamed (1)But before we continue, let’s recap the implication of his media appearances; we have a man in his 30’s who bizarrely gives a half-hearted quasi-confession while he speaks of his own past with intense guilt because he, allegedly, wants to “expose” one of the following:

1) His nature (the part of himself he hates)
2) Male nature AKA “Rape culture” (also the other part of himself he hates)
3)An intense need to atone for his sins
4) All of the above

I do not know about you, but I am going to choose number 4 because of the following simple logic; I have zero guilt and zero need to preemptively apologize on behalf of convicted drivers guilty of hit & run crimes because I have never run someone over (I may be a Troll but I am not fucking demented) likewise, I do not feel any guilt and have zero need to apologize for rape because I have never raped anyone. However, when it comes to Arthur Chu & his bizarre preemptive apologetic behavior, it really makes you wonder; what events took place in his past that led him to so much rape-related guilt? It just does not make sense.

Metaphorically speaking just imagine Chu in broad day light, suddenly walking up to complete strangers, he then desperately grabs them by the shoulders then falls to his knees, hugs their ankles and vehemently says,

“PLEEEEASE! Please! Please forgive hit & run drivers, I AM REALLY REALLY SORRY…for… them…”

**stops embracing the stranger’s ankles, gets up visibly embarrassed and leaves without saying a word**

Kind of desperate and confusing don’t you think? Yes, metaphorically disturbingly guilty behavior. Well, his behavior regarding rape is as perplexing as the one with drivers. As much as an innocent driver does not need to apologize for other drivers, an innocent Arthur Chu would NOT need to apologize for the rapes criminals committed.


Even more so, this bizarre behavior is not unique to Chu, quite the contrary, this is a common trait shared by many other public male feminists who have the bizarre habit of preemptively & profusely apologizing on behalf of the male gender almost as if they were apologizing for having “raped” all women. This male feminist behavior is almost as delusional as when Christians profusely apologize for having “killed” Jesus. Unlike chronologically-implausible delusions by Christians, Arthur Chu’s behavior may imply he might have some very dark, very shameful rape skeletons in his rape closet (wew…that came out darker than the expected) and is not as if people have not found a few online bones of his alleged ownership. Think about it; why would Arthur Chu apologize for a crime he has never committed? It really boils down to two choices, either,

1) Arthur Chu is fucking-honking insane and likes to self-flagellate (in his closet with a bright pink whip in front of a poster of Anita then masturbates then cries, in that specific order; allegedly) and believes he has a brain with an unusually dense mirror neuron array that makes him extremely sympathetic to victims of rape but has never commited any crimes.

2) Arthur Chu is sane but feels intense guilt because he committed/was part of a rape crime in the past.

The problem with number 1, is it makes it just too easy to declare someone “crazy” and allow them to suddenly lose all accountability for all of their actions and, by consequence, those actions immediately lose relevance because somehow they “were not his fault”

By using Occam’s razor the way we did before it would make much more sense to choose option number 2 because the simplest explanation is usually the most likely to be true. I for one, do not think Arthur Chu is insane, quite the opposite, what I do think he is an intensely hypocrite & remorseful human being with a dark past that sooner or later will be exposed not unlikemultiple Roman Catholic priests.

But let’s go back to Chu doing a 180, why is a woman like Cytherea all of sudden “unworthy” of sympathy to feminists and people like Arthur Chu? See, that happens possibly for the same reasons religious people reject women who fornicate “too much” because to the eyes of religion sexuality is “sinful” and “helps” the devil. Conversely, feminism rejects porn starts who publicize their sexuality “too much” because to the eyes of feminism porn is “misogynistic” and “helps” the patriarchy. The parallels between religion and feminism are not an accident because they are based on the same profitable exploitation of predictable aspects of the human condition, just like religion, feminism will try to regulate people’s sexuality because it too easy and too profitable to shame people for having sexual urges, all you have to do is to camouflage your exploitation via shaming tactics as “sins due to sinful human nature” or in the case of feminism “misogyny due to toxic masculinity”. Nothing sells better than guilt or rather, if you shame your audience well enough, your guilt products will sell the fastest. If the only thing your believers in your pink church can breathe is toxic guilt, sell them feminist masks.


In feminism all you have to do is repackage the Judeo-Christian concept of the “Original Sin” where no matter what you do, you will always be sinful BY NATURE, what feminism does after repackaging the original sin in a shinny pink package is to smack a big label called “Toxic Masculinity” where no matter what you do you will always be a misogynist-Rapist-Phallic-Nazi BY NATURE. Despite feminism blatant appropiation of the old worn out “original sin” concept, their guilt imitation product sells pretty well with sorry unfuckable-fucks like Arthur Chu.

In short, Arthur Chu may be so fervent an activist because he is trying to atone for his own past sins by copiously apologizing the way a sinner goes to church and tithes copiously or even worse, perhaps Chu would be more like the priest himself who fervently pontificates against all those sins he privately commits. Again the question just begs to be asked; what were those sins Arthur is desperately trying to atone for? Yet, we hit the same wall of contradiction as before when Arthur Chu is intensely regretful one minute THEN he feels zero sympathy for Cytherea’s case despite the fact that Cytherea did not receive mere “threats” like Anita, not at all, Cytherea was outright raped multiple times after a home invasion.

To top it off, after Cytherea’s rape, a thick massive wave of silent hypocrisy just coated the leftist media; how much media coverage did Cytherea’s very real rape receive in comparison to Anita’s online-only threats?

Cytherea received nearly zero coverage in comparison.

This is how dystopian things get in our reality, one hoaxer like Anita Sarkeesian gets all the sympathy from the left leaning media for mere online threats, but as soon as a porn actress is brutally raped 4 times in her own own invaded house. That? That does not count for the leftist media because for some fucked up reason, authentic assault and rape is somehow less serious than the written threats Anita gets. Not a single feminist news outlet wanted to give Cytherea’s story a shred of the airtime they gave to Anita, to the point Mercedes Carrera had to organize a charity herself to help Cytherea and Mercedes openly expressed her frustration with silent media hypocrisy in a way that has to be seen. The leftist media actively avoids talking about those “indecent” women who are not “equal enough”, Arthur and the feminist-controlled media are a hypocritical snake pit. Especially when Chu, who swears to help all women, but then he, does not care when a woman is raped multiple times? Doesn’t that make him a member of his own concept of the repudiated “rape culture”?

See, few ironies in life are as rich; feminist Arthur Chu opposes “rape culture” by indirectly supporting the rape of Cytherea. Just to rub a fistful of granulated salt inside his wound; by supporting the rejection of a victim of rape, Arthur Chu joined his own brand of “rape culture”. Arthur Chu is a rape apologist/enabler by his own feminist definition.


Even though the mythical feminist version of “rape culture” does not exist in the West Arthur Chu skewered himself in a series of rage-filled, impulsive tweets. See, with SJWs like Chu, low impulse control is a constant, people like him are in a constant internal battle against their “sinful” impulses & it only makes sense that they are gonna let all of their steam off whenever their religion does not dictate they have to control themselves. People like Chu have sn impulsive nature and the resulting lack of discipline manifests itself in bad habits such as compulsive eating, because let’s be honest, for a person with his “intellectual discipline” Chu does not seem to apply any discipline at all when it comes to not murdering twinkies or doing at least some minimal exercise, furthermore, if we ranked Arthur Chu’s masculinity from 1 to 10 we could use the following graph:CHU(5)

In short, Chu is not bed-ridden yet, but is such a fat, unattractive, unmasculine blob that he just looks like an Asian version of Rosie O’Donnell. (perhaps he feels so deeply sinful for being a man he has mind-killed all of his manliness)

It is no wonder why such a sexually frustrated, unfuckable fat-fuck is so prone to emotional outbursts on Twitter. He just has very little sexual satisfaction in his life, simply because a slob fat fuck like him, cannot naturally get laid and can only marry unfuckable women such as his ugly-as-an-infected-cow’s-cunt wife Eliza Blair, who clearly manages his recently won money but doesn’t seem to even dare fuck him more than once a year (ostensibly a true lesbian would be sexually more fulfilling than fake-lesbian Arthur)

It appears the sexual drought got so bad that it resulted in Chu creating a profile on the cheating site Ashley Madison (he even outed himself as an Ashley Madison member in his most recent Freudian slip Twitter meltdownbut all of that was pointless anyway because nobody fucks an Asian Rosie O’Donell impersonator fat-fuck like him for free & since he opposes protitution…) To top it off, he even has this extremely bizarre & heavy-handed rape-guilt vibe that automatically kills any interest from any potential groupies he might have had (way to kill all of your already scarce chances to get laid, you sexually useless waste of jeopardized adipose human meat)


Jokes aside, what is the simple, inconvenient truth about Arthur Chu? He simply is an & obese, unhappily married, sexually frustrated narrow savant desperately & falsely trying to be a feminist activist to artificially raise himself above all other “toxic-sinful” males. Yet he clearly still feels very sinful and guilty himself. Where does Arhur Chu’s seemingly closeted vast guilt come from? See, It is the mark of hypocrites to secretly do exactly what they publicly oppose. A good example of this stark hypocrisy would be priests campaigning against pedophilia while being exposed for secretly being pedos themselves. However in the case of Chu, I so far doubt he is a pedophile and rather I see his intense rape guilt as a public Freudian slip of what he is privately attracted to but feels too guilty to admit. Let’s interpret Chu’s bizarre behavior through the following speculative questions:

1) Is Arthur Chu fervently campaigning against rape because he participated, witnessed or failed to report an act of rape in his past?
2) Did he rape anyone who has not come forward yet?
3) Did he abuse a family member and so far everything is being kept “in the family”?
4) Was a female family member raped by someone other than Chu?
5) All of the above?

See, those who sympathize with Chu immediately throw themselves to option number 4 because the other 3 are just “unthinkable” to them. Not surprisingly, Arthur also finds plenty of things “unthinkable” and has to allegedly cleanse his mind daily, yes, I am not making this up, look:CHU(2)

Cleanse his mind daily from dangerous “unthinkable thoughts”???
It almost seems photoshopped, fortunately all of this Chu-wackadoo is not made up and widely archived at manyreliable places.

However the main question remains; if Chu does indeed have “unthinkable thoughts”…Are some of those “unthinkable thoughts” related to rape? Or do rape urges “invade” his mind regularly?

Just like with religious people, Arthur Chu’s behavior appears to indicate his morals ARE what keeps him from becoming those he hates…let that sink, he might be so close to becoming one of them that he has to “cleanse” his mind… Sounds familiar? We see and hear similar premises from people who desperately cling to an idea to keep themselves from the temptation they intensely desire: Alcohol, sex, drugs…See, the sad truth is that people with a fervent belief system very often do so out of a desperate need to have a fabricated form of discipline because they have failed so many times before that they are deeply and painfully aware their own discipline will ultimately fail, they have to create an external imaginary entity to fabricate their discipline (in other words their discipline is managed by the holy giant invisible man in the sky AKA “God”).

See, inner guilt is essence of worship, it is the fuel the profitable, guilt tripping engine of religion runs on, guilt motivates cult members like Chu because they want to stay away from “sin”, if your “sin” is alcohol you will try to get alcohol banned at all costs because, to you, alcohol is the “devil” and you are secretly attracted to it. Likewise, it would stand to reason Chu feels intense guilt for actions in his past that he considers “immoral” and since he may still be intensely attracted to those activities, the only choice he has is to fervently campaign against them as intensely as possible because his “devil” is what he feels attracted to, failure to do so would turn him into a “toxic male”. Just replace the word “alcohol” with the word “rape” and Arthur Chu seems to make a little bit more sense. Of course Arthur has not yet started a 12 step program for A̶l̶c̶o̶h̶o̶l̶i̶c̶ ̶A̶n̶o̶n̶y̶m̶o̶u̶s̶ erm I mean R̶a̶p̶i̶s̶t̶s̶ ̶A̶n̶o̶n̶y̶m̶o̶u̶s̶ I mean…Anonymous Chus…(that came out wrong) anyway, you get the idea, also, perhaps he has not started his club because he is not into the idea of castrating himself once and for all just yet, you know…just to prevent sexual temptation once and for all, just like Catholic priests never do.


For the sake of argument, let’s say you are secretly as gay as skittles but you are also deeply Christian, therefore you keep your gayness as closeted as possible but even worse, let’s say you HAVE TO be a very public Christian role model, so what option do you have left? You become a very public anti-gay reverend. How can someone publicly campaign against what they secretly enjoy & desire? Isn’t that intensely hypocritical? It is, but again for the sake of argument, let’s say your name isTed Haggard, and you also enjoy a little celestial crystal meth here an there in between deliciously sinful, hardcore, celestial gay sex sessions. (whether latex suits and black leather assless chaps were involved in Reverend Haggard & his escort’s sessions remains to be seen, believe me, I have been searching for those pics…allegedly)

So Haggard is quite a hypocrite right? Leaving aside the blatant unfairness to gay people, (especially when some are so blond glorious and magnificent) Ted Haggard gives us a very important template for dogmatic hypocrisy. My money is on the possibility Arthur Chu follows the same template because hypocrites like Haggard or himself do is to publicly campaign against what they may secretly desire, or as Joe Rogan put it:CHU(3)

So? We know that Arthur Chu is not dumb, that begs the question, does Arthur secretly worry dicks are delicious? Is Arthur Chu as gay as skittles? Probably not, and probably the analogy is not accurate simply because here is where we have to do some word swapping,


“Let’s say you are secretly as gay as Skittles but you are also deeply Christian, therefore you keep your gay fantasies as closeted as possible but even worse, let’s say you HAVE TO be a very public Christian role model, so what option do you have left? You become a very public anti-gay reverend, let’s say your name is Ted Haggard.”

Word Swap:

“Let’s say you are secretly as rapey as Pedobear but you are also deeply Feminist, therefore you keep your rape fantasies as closeted as possible but even worse, let’s say you HAVE TO be a very public Feminist role model, so what option do you have left? You become a very public anti-rape activist, let’s say your name is Arthur Chu.”

Clearly all of the above is just speculation and satire but perhaps, just perhaps Arthur Chu is just like Ted Haggard, perhaps he is just very comfortable publicly portraying a character while concealing his true self because it gives him a sense of publicly yet very privately, very surreptitiously “outsmarting” everyone.

To be fair, If I were as fat & un-fuckable as Arthur Chu perhaps I would also be calling bomb threats to compensate for all the years of repressed romantic explosions…

Thanks for reading.

(Part 1 & Part 2 of this series)


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: