TGWTG Kyle Kallgren / Oancitizen / Brows Held High - Afraid of the Eggnog Ninjas, "Male Feminist" that Abuses Women, 2nd-rate Cinema Snob, Hugh Hefner A-Log, Fat Creepy Incel Cuck

[Y2K Baby]

We should cyberbully him for being a faggot.

That really was the last straw for me tbh. Doxxed.

 

[Gordon Cole]

Like that cocksucker had any right to judge her in the first place. She actually fucjking did something with her life, and was making a success of it. What the fuck has this smug, dime store Cinema Snob got to be so fucking proud of in comparison?

...Election Cycle?

 

[RodgerDodger]

I'll sit through it. What I don't get about "needs more gay" guy is why everything he looks at needs to be more gay. How would adding homo to a movie improve it? Why is homosexuality a criteria to a movie's quality?

So this review starts off as cringey as you'd expect from these two super losers. Both of them try their hardest to come off as charismatic and it falls short of being at the high end of awkward. Kyle does the intro of his show and gay dude cuts in to declare the episode's title. Then Kyle holds out his index finger and says "wait" and about five seconds pass before he shouts "CROSSOVER!" with his head flung back, nose pointed at the ceiling, like a Peanuts character.

They then talk about the research they did to "prove" that Shakespeare liked butt sex over vagina sex and the only thing they found were his early sonnets. They explain that Sonnet 18 "Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?" was addressed to a man known as the "Fair Youth". Kyle then recites Sonnet 20 to prove that Sonnet 18 is totes homo sex you guise.

They then start calling Shakespeare sexist because he complained about women's fashion being a revolving door of change.

It's at this point I have to note they have yet to live up to the episode's namesake of "adding more gay to Shakespeare" considering all they've done is point out things in his writing that hint at the idea of him wanting to buttfuck a malchick, further pointing out that editors have for centuries erased hints of him wanting to spear the chocolate starfish. They then bring up Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick as a source to prove their claim of edits being made to replace "him"s with "her"s in Shakespeare's work. Her work cites that Shakespeare never really made a distinction of male on male love being inferior to male on female love.

Hey progressives, you wanna know what's really bigoted towards gay people? Constantly trying to diagnose someone with a case of the gays at the slightest wiff of not-straight to prove that the biggest heroes of history caught the homo brain at birth the way you idiots do makes it look like an abnormal tumor to be removed.

Then the derpy duo point out Shakespeare In Love as "heteronormative fanfiction" like their interpretation of him sucking dick isn't equally fanfictionish. Their not wrong in calling it fanfiction since it's alternate history, but it's just as much of a what-if as they're positing in this video.

They then admit that it's practically impossible to prove his sexuality one way or another, to which Rantasmo states "That's why I'm not all that interested in speculating about what Shakespear's sexuality might have been."

After you spent five minutes in an eleven minute video doing just exactly that.

They then decide to speculate about the sexuality of his work instead. That's sorta backwards when you examine it for two seconds. You failed to prove Shakespeare himself is gay, so you fall back on trying to prove his work had themes of homoerotica instead? Usually you point out the author's attributes when you want to prove something about their work, not the other way around.

But it gets better, they both admit that it's going to be just as tricky trying to pin down the sexual preferences displayed in his work as it was trying to prove the author's own sexuality because, and get a load of this...

View attachment 486068

This is just a few sentences away from when they admit that sexual standards today have been a thing since 450 years ago.

Homosexuality has been a concept since the Ancient Greeks and before. Fun fact I learned from Kyle himself, they were totes cool with men having reach around sessions, but were non-too fond of lesbian sex. Homosexual behaviors are observable in motherfucking animals for fuck's sake. It was the Ancient Greeks themselves who invented the very concept of a fucking hermaphrodite. They even created a God around the concept called "Hermaphroditus", how the fucking fuck could a wannabe scholar like you be this fucking ignorant on human Goddamn history, Kyle?!

Oh but this is beautiful, they have the balls to then turn around and say that the behaviors and sexual preferences themselves have always been around but it's the perception that's modern.

No nigger, that's literally not what you said. You said that the difference of homosexuality and heterosexuality is new in and of itself, you weasel wording troglodytes.

They then pull out another source from their ass, much unlike they have done with their heads, to prove their dumbass claim by citing "Shakes Queer", where the opening statement of the book states that it's damn near impossible to get a working definition of what counts as queer for all of human history and culture. Why is that?

Because "if queerness can be defined, then it is no longer queer"

~Modhavi Menon, "Shakesqueer: A Queer Companion to the Complete Works of Shakespear"​

Do these idiots not realize that "queer" is a slur to mean "abnormal"? That's why defining something as queer makes it cease to be queer, because it ceases to be an abnormality. Synonymizing it with homosexuality is as bad an insult to gay people as calling them a faggot, retards, which is the point being made by every homo"phobe" when they use the word you titanic morons.

The closest they come to "proving" Shakespeare's work has homosexual themes in it are when characters speak using trochees rather than iambs, such as the bearded witches from Macbeth or the fairies from A Midsummer Night's Dream. They call this idea "queer coding". This whole concept is such a desperate strawgrasp, as everyone expected it would be, that it should be disregarded altogether, much like this video.

They then jump to a tangent about when homosexuals first started being called fairies. I don't have the exact answer but I do know that the Irish believed that fairies were evil fuckers who would take your loved ones to some nether realm and impersonate them, using their image as a way to walk the Earth and any abnormal behavior was a way of telling if someone you knew was really just a fairy in disguise. So it probably stands to reason that eventually homosexual behavior = demonic fucking possession.

The retarded rabble then pontificate that the fairies from Midsummer Night's Dream are coded homosexual because they act fanciful and campy.

Maybe that's because they're a fucking mythical Goddamn creature? They then point out that Puck is "a sassy gay friend who delights in the foibles of the drama around him"

Puck is supposed to undermine the drama, you 'tards. He is designed as comic relief. The whole point of that entire play is to be subversive of Shakespeare's other works because no one dies at the end. Fuck, the Fairy king Oberon in the play has a wife named Titania. Gee, I wonder what sort of subtext there might be in a female character who's named Titania.

Look at how much they have to stretch meanings and definitions and obfuscate truths to prove that there's something somewhere about Shakespeare that's actually gay. This is so fucking pathetic, just stop.

Then they point out that modern mythical characters are played by androgynous people on purpose. Because, no shit? They're not supposed to look typical of an average person, they're supposed to look otherworldly, because they're not human. What the Hell sort of purpose does this serve in proving that Shakespeare's work is gay? That the existence of weirdo genderbent characters in today's fiction somehow retroactively changes the nature of a dead man's work? What a repugnant thought, then again, Kyle is a faggot for the death of the author.

Oh God, now I'm up to a part where they start talking about Shakespeare writing genderfluidity into his plays. I can't wait to see how easily disprovable this turns out to be.

So we're talking about Twelfth Night now? Never heard of it so maybe there's a point to be made here. It'd be the first solid thing they'd have since they started this diatribe seven minutes and thirty seconds ago.

Jesus fuck I'm still a whole four minutes away from reaching the end.

So their reasoning for Twelfth Night being genderqueer is that Viola dresses up as a man to hide her identity and uses the name Cesario, the name of her dead brother, the memory of whom she is keeping alive by impersonating him. Cesario acts as a go-between for two people of the opposite sex and they both end up fawning over Viola. The beautiful part about this is that they straight up admit that both couples in this story are straight because Olivia fell for Viola's alternate identity, Cesario, & the two couples never collide to form a threesome. lol, that was pointless.

This entire video is more like an examination of how Shakespeare kinda, sorta, maybe brushes up against these concepts but in reality comes nowhere close.

Then they complain that "what could have been" some freaky threeway between one man and two women (which is absolutely the reality of such a triangle) was instead two straight couples, even though the woman presenting as male to Olivia is in truth a woman much to the absence of Olivia's knowledge. Here you have a quasi-gay couple, actual plausible evidence of homosexuality in a Shakespeare play, and that suddenly isn't good enough when compared to the totes totally-not-heterosexual-wish-fulfillment fantasy of pimp-daddy and his two bottom bitches.

Then Rantasmo (Should be called "Fagtasmo" instead) makes the remark "Yeah, queerness is an obstacle and happily-ever-after is always cis-hetero"

Fuck off, faggot. Shakespeare lived in an oppressive post-medieval monarchy state where women weren't allowed to act in plays. They would've lynched him in the fucking streets if he dared to be so Goddamn bold. He'd have cojones of solid stone, sure, but he'd be brutal-ass rape dead. They probably would've killed him with a Judas cradle.

They then point out other possibilities. By far the strongest case they have is As You Like It, where two women share a bed together and one woman longs for the other, very blatantly hinting at the idea of lesbo sex. By the by, Kyle, fantasizing about homosex between two people of the sex opposite to yourself does not a homo of yourself make. If anything, the woman on woman angle makes Shakespeare straight as an arrow.

Oh but it gets better, this is the best part and it's by far the most retarded. We're near to the end folks, it's a bumpy ride out of Hell, strap yourself in for this one motherfucker's!

Shakespeare's plays and he himself by extension of them are gay...

Spoiler

because the characters could only be played by men when he wrote them.

Smegheads, the reason why men played in Shakespeare's plays is because no woman wanted to end up at the end of the noose for breaking the law. This is so fucking retarded I can feel the braincells in my head die in legions as I write this.

Then Fagtasmo decides to spout off at the mouth that "Seeing Shakespeare though a queer lens makes sense. If we're going to continue this narrative that Shakespeare is the greatest writer in the English language, that all forms of humanity can be found in his works-- / that he "invented the human" / --right, wouldn't that mean all forms of humanity? All genders? All sexes? All identities? all forms of love?"

Yes, including all the ones of actual recent invention that the author had no working concept of whatsoever. Don't you just love that their narrative of Shakespeare's alleged homosexuality/genderqueerdom/bestiality hinges on the public's opinion of Shakespeare's importance to the world of literature and not by anything substantial like his actual work or the man himself? Get bent, you historical revisionist clownshoes.

And with that, the review of the review is done.

Ugh! I can never understand this constant quest at self validation to find historical figures and somehow retcon them into being something that they were not. Or that there is no even marginally reasonable evidence of, in order to perform some sort of ritual of capture and self validation. Shakespeare, Lincoln, etc. (and in case anyone puts it out there I've actually hand my hands on the first person historical records and documents regarding George Washington. According to the Widow Blydenberg he was most definitely NOT Gay. I see no reason to question her reports in this regard seeing as they were most definitely first person. As a counter point I can also 100% confirm that the same does not hold true of famous poet Walt Witman. WHo was both gay, and a fucking pedophile according to the government documents from when they fired him as schoolteacher.) Anyway can we please judge historical figures on the actual footprints they left in the world, and not some weird fan fiction shipping of them into whatever the observer wants?

Possibly fftopic:, but Linkara's fantasies are either relatively common or so dumb that they become almost endearing in their stupidity. And crucially, to the best of our knowledge he's never tried to make any of them reality - no hiring futa hookers to dress up as dead Muppets molesting green M And Ms that we know about. His sexual urges are daft but harmless. Whatever else, he doesn't appear to be a serial creeper or rapist, which puts him above most of CA's producers/ex-producers in terms of basic human decency. Except for his splitting up with Liz, I suppose.

Hey now! Whatever goes on between Linkara and his wife in the privacy of their own bedroom are no concern of ours, so long as they have the rented Muppet Suit dry cleaned and returned to the store by Monday. Ok make that Dry Cleaned twice! It really does say something when the guy with the weird fetishes for sex with the Green M&M, Muppets and Girlcocks has become so absolutely normal in his tastes and behaviors compared to everyone around him. 'Yeah Linky's a little weird in his kinks... but at least he is exclusively into fully concensual muppet sex with exlusively adult aged muppets! Which really makes him one of the good guys!" Yeah this is exactly why we are likely doomed as a species.

Needs More Gay is sort of a misnomer joke title. The dude's videos are predominantly about gay media and/or media popular w/lgbtq audiences anyway, and most of his content is just, like, "here's how the queer content is handled in this movie, etc". There's rarely a genuine push for "more" gay; his videos seem to advocate for better representation rather than more of it. Not that that makes his content any more engaging - it's pretty dull and not very inflammatory.

Rantasmo is amazingly one of the least lolcowy of the entire CA/Chez Apocalypse crowd. In spite of the inflamatory title most of his stuff is criticizing media that depicts gay people as bad caricatures instead of simply people. His stuff while from a very gay point of view is at least generally well presented, respectful to both the viewers and the subject matter and sane. Which similarly makes him really stand out among the crowd that he hangs out in.

 

[MarvinTheParanoidAndroid]

"cuck" has "replaced" fag as the insult towards non-masculine men.

No it fucking hasn't. They mean two completely different things. Being a faggot means you're the antithesis of cool, being a cuck means you watch while your wife fucks another man.

"slutshaming"

Don't. He is absolutely being a piece of shit in that video.

 

[Magnum Dong]

With all the talk about The Gays in this thread, it seems relevant to mention that Kyle's next video is centered on the phenomenon of "bisexual lighting" - cinematography with prominent use of colors which resemble the bi pride flag. And frankly I think that, if he's ever going to come out as queer to his viewers, now would be the right time.

Otherwise he would risk sounding like a straight man trying to speak over queer people (similarly to the way he's constantly risked sounding like a white man speaking over black people in the content he's made since he got a black girlfriend...)

 

[Y2K Baby]

With all the talk about The Gays in this thread, it seems relevant to mention that Kyle's next video is centered on the phenomenon of "bisexual lighting" - cinematography with prominent use of colors which resemble the bi pride flag. And frankly I think that, if he's ever going to come out as queer to his viewers, now would be the right time.

He came out as queer when he showed his pudgy face.

 

[MarvinTheParanoidAndroid]

So last year he had Shakespeare Month during Pride Month (June) which is why in the video linked by @Harlon Wick and analyzed by @MarvinTheParanoidAndroid he had the Rantasmo crossover. Well, this thing popped up in the related videos so I watched it because I like Shakespeare insults and dirty jokes and wanted to see what Kyle had to say on the subject.

Well halfway through he starts talking about how fag isn't something people in polite society say any more because its killed people (no, people calling people fags while killing them, have killed people, Kyle) and how "cuck" as "replaced" fag as the insult towards non-masculine men.

Basically straight boy Kyle "The Cuck" Kallgren is trying to syphon his own oppression points away from LGBT people because his woke feelings are hurt that people keep calling him a fat, sweaty cuck.

Holy shit he actually came up with a funny joke. At 2:15, right when he explains that the King of England told the King of France he was gonna kick him the balls, he showed a clip of "Ow, My Balls!" from Idiocracy and layered "Shakespeare" over it in glimmering shining fucking text with serene music paired with the guy's screaming (the one with his nards kicked into his stomach and flying off a balcony) in slow motion.

How long has it been since he did something genuinely funny? I'm guessing about a full decade.

 

[iafiv]

I have a feeling Kyle is not an actual SJW.He seems more like a guy who is angry that other reviewers are more popular than him and he's trying to pander to what he thinks will bring him credibility.Kyle would probably be willing to come out as a gay bi trans asexual cis man as long as that makes some morons donate to his Patreon.These days you can declare yourself to be pretty much anything you want its not like you actually have to do something to be part of a certain group.So yeah he can come out as gay its not like he has to prove he is or anything.

 

[Country Matters]

I have a feeling Kyle is not an actual SJW.He seems more like a guy who is angry that other reviewers are more popular than him and he's trying to pander to what he thinks will bring him credibility.Kyle would probably be willing to come out as a gay bi trans asexual cis man as long as that makes some morons donate to his Patreon.These days you can declare yourself to be pretty much anything you want its not like you actually have to do something to be part of a certain group.So yeah he can come out as gay its not like he has to prove he is or anything.

Speaking as a theatre-fag, you see his type quite often. The rare male who alludes to bisexuality for attention.

He's probs straight as an arrow, but he's still a faggot in my heart

 

[MarvinTheParanoidAndroid]

Speaking as a theatre-fag, you see his type quite often. The rare male who alludes to bisexuality for attention.

He's probs straight as an arrow, but he's still a faggot in my heart

It also helps to note that he's flipped flopped on his political positions before, most notably his view on women. Believe it or not, he actually formed his misogynistic views from his own reviews. Allow me to explain. It goes all the way back to his first review. Allow me to go over his evolution from indifference to blackpill to feminist.

In his very first review, episode 0 of Brows Held High, he discusses the themes of women being the harbinger of evil (he references Adam and Eve) the movie presents as though it serves as evidence to support his own view on women, as if this movie is itself his first ever exposure to women and thus the basis of his opinion. By itself, his review of Antichrist is largely innocuous but it matters when doing a retrospective on his perspective of the opposite sex, because this review would be the first building block leading up to his open women bashing in his review of the Girlfriend Experience.

Now for much juicier meat. Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you a lost episode of Brows Held High, his second review, the Anatomy of Hell. This second building block is significant in that it appears to be the most important formation of Kyle's opinions regarding the opposite sex, rather than simply forming the beginnings of such an outlook, it drives said outlook forward by eliciting a response in Kyle equal in opposite to the hateful message delivered by the movie itself.

Sure, by the end of the movie he makes a caricature of misogyny by pretend-calling his mom on the phone to fake-yell at her for the crime of being female. While this apparent self parody is indeed hyperbole, seemingly done to imply the contrary, in reality it only exaggerates that which he is already concordant to. The otherwise scenario would require Kyle to be smarter than the atmosphere he is playing into (by himself with man-hating propaganda), which he obviously thought he was. My best benefit of the doubt is to guess these less than objective feelings were forming as a result of analyzing these movies without his active knowing.

Hilariously enough, he mocks Rocco's character for being awkward and socially retarded when it comes to women & how he crawls on the sleeping naked female protagonist while fully clothed like someone who's never seen a woman before, coming from a guy who would eventually crawl into bed with a sleeping woman while fully clothed in her hotel room at a convention. Talk about prophetic. And ironic. And hypocritical. And pathetic.

So did you get all that? His misogyny is motivated as a reaction to a crappy art film that features a "war of the genders" and a shitty French arthouse film made by a hardcore radfem. That's it, some hateful women exist, therefore the appropriate response is to react in kind to not just radical feminists, but to all women, because all women are equally responsible for the creation of these two movies.

Now that the stage is set for woman hating, let's explore more of it with his review of 9 Songs, episode 8 of Brows Held High, making it the third cornerstone of his abject woman hate. Take note that when mentioning the amount of gratuitous sex in the movie, Kyle mentions that the female lead asked the director to credit her with an alias, just before announcing the actress' real name with big bold letters burned in across the screen while putting a shitty echo effect on his own voice, expositing that "no one forced you to be in this movie Margo Stilly".

He gives no such negative attention or disrespect to the male actor who also had an equal amount of participation in making these sex scenes as though he were blameless for an act the female participant is being vilified for.

Since Kyle himself brings up both the Antichrist and Anatomy of Hell in this review of 9 Songs, proclaiming that all three movies could be grouped together into their own film genre, it really does frame it as though these four reviews go together regardless of the surrounding episodes, like a mini-series and a microcosm of Kyle's journey from (seeming) indifference toward women to the public gaffe that would emerge in the form of the Girlfriend Experience.

Thus we now come up to the fourth cornerstone, the climax of Kyle's open misogyny, The Girlfriend Experience.

Kyle would continue like this for some time. Originally, Kyle was not part of That Guy With The Glasses but instead, he just uploaded his videos straight onto Blip and wouldn't be recruited to TGWTG until his episode count reached the twenties. When that happened, he started uploading new episodes hand in hand with old ones, by which I mean he started by uploading a special review not counted in the chronology of Brows Held High, followed by eight new episodes of Brows Held High, followed by a trend of uploading like three to five episodes from his back catalog for every new episode he actually made.

Eventually he would upload the Girlfriend Experience to TGWTG. Fun fact you may not know about, the comments for the video were not a unanimous "FUCK YOU" from the site's users, but rather a split down the middle of people calling Kyle sexist and the other half being all like "I don't get it, what's the big deal?"

Now, we don't have a way of knowing when Kyle released the Girlfriend Experience on Blip or where it falls into his series chronologically, we do know, however, it had to be before episode 26, Exterminating Angels, because in that episode he drills into a French Harvey Weinstein instead of the women who masturbated in front of him, on film, at his request for the chance of getting parts in his movies, completely opposite to how pre-TGWTG Kyle would've handled the same movie when reviewing it.

Now you might think he was playing up the misogyny for a character but be aware, Kyle would eventually create a commentary track in which he profusely apologizes for the way he carried himself in his review of the Girlfriend Experience, which implies he meant everything said in the review in absolute earnest. Since we still have the original review, notice that he mostly uses his review of Sasha Grey's film as a vehicle to criticize her personally and not the movie she's in. Also be aware that he did not give the same treatment to fellow pornstar, Rocco Siffredi, in his review of Anatomy of Hell, only briefly mentioning his occupation in the pornographic industry. Everything he said up till this point was spoken in full sincerity, if made hyperbole by the portrayal of the "character" of Oancitizen.

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=272245779523113&id=223981750949188
http://blip.tv/brows-held-high/the-girlfriend-experience-commentary-6027207
https://web.archive.org/web/2015022.../the-girlfriend-experience-commentary-6027207
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2012155/episodes?season=2&ref_=ttep_ep_sn_nx

Unfortunately I myself don't have the video on hand and I cannot get the video to load from the Wayback Machine, but I can prove that it at least existed & in that Facebook post he admits that the commentary describes why he lanced the video from both his TGWTG account and the Blip account.

Spoiler

In the Wayback archive, you can see that he uploaded it right after his 38th episode, Ghost Dog. According to IMDB, which accounts for his TGWTG publications and not his Blip account (it lists his review of Zardoz, episode 23, as his second video just after a special non-episode he did on Shakespeare that he uploaded as his first video to TGWTG. Zardoz would've been a new episode at the time since he started uploading his new episodes in chronological order before mixing them up with his old ones, his first reissue of an old episode, Naked Lunch (in reality his ninth review) just after releasing the then-new review of Twilight of the Ice Nymphs, episode 28) he uploaded the actual episode of the Girlfriend Experience to TGWTG on the 12th of February a few days before he published Ghost Dog on the 17th both to Blip and TGWTG (a new episode at the time) after which he released the Girlfriend Experience commentary in March 16th of 2012. So he went on hiatus for a whole month before releasing a commentary of a video he made in 2011, published on TGWTG in Feb 2012 and removed who know's when exactly after facing a vitriolic response from TGWTG regulars.

The interesting thing is that despite popular belief that Kyle 180'd in his view of women over the Girlfriend Experience debacle, his review of Exterminating Angels proves that wrong since he uploaded it to TGWTG a year before showcasing The Girlfriend Experience, so by the time he actually showed it off to Channel Awesome audiences, he had already assimilated to the site culture and probably just threw it on the site having totally forgotten what he actually said in it or did remember, but simply zoned out on how it would've been received despite being on the site for nearly a full year.

 

[Zaryiu]

Kyle is obviously gay and wants everything to pander to his degeneracy

 

[omble]

Kyle saying/not saying he's bi.

 

[Krokodil Overdose]

Just looking at that video thumbnail, I don't think "bi pride," I think "police lights."

 

[omble]

The stupidest part is when he talks about film stock being designed for white skin then showing a clip of Cassablanca. Isn't this purely a matter of lighting not the film itself? Black and white particularly film noir brings up contrasts (chiaroscuro). It's the nature of the technology back then. But there were also black directors and black actors in black and white films then. Even after the advent of colour there were independent black directors who used 'racist' b&w film.

 

[Zaryiu]

Also, he shit-talked Evangelion in Sage's review. What a DICK.

I personally think Evangelion is overrated (I just think their are better show with Mechas that address the issues brought up in it) but I wouldn't ever do that shit. What bullshit did he say?

 

[Gordon Cole]

Even after the advent of colour there were independent black directors who used 'racist' b&w film.

Can't wait for his video about how Charles Burnett is an Uncle Tom.

 

[Y2K Baby]

I personally think Evangelion is overrated (I just think their are better show with Mechas that address the issues brought up in it) but I wouldn't ever do that shit. What bullshit did he say?

You're going to Hell too.

 

[Water-T]

Kyle is obviously gay and wants everything to pander to his degeneracy

UGH. You straights can have him. Homos like me already have enough faggots like Perez Hilton making us look bad without adding an uber fag like Kyle to the mix.

 

[Y2K Baby]

UGH. You straights can have him. Homos like me already have enough faggots like Perez Hilton making us look bad without adding an uber fag like Kyle to the mix.

Ur one of them.

 

[Harlan Wick]

We should cyberbully him for being a faggot.

So strap him into a chair and make him watch every review and vlog he has ever made?