[2Wycked]

Review Of The Show & Two Main Characters

Castle is a fairly good TV show that perfectly represents blue-pill approaches to human sexuality in American TV.

The show is about a murder-mystery writer Richard Castle (Nathan Fillion) who teams up with NYPD detective Kate Beckett (Stana Katic). They work through a wide variety of murder mysteries. The series has some mythology that relates directly to the murder of Beckett's mother.

The show is fairly well-written and well-acted, but the strength is the plot twists. Although some episodes are fairly predictable, some of them are pretty good at throwing you off the scent of the actual murderer.

Let's review the two pertinent characters for this writeup:



Richard Castle: A wealthy, successful writer who got writers block after killing off the popular main character of his successful murder mysteries in the final novel. NYC's mayor - a friend - twists some arms & gets Castle to team up with a detective - Beckett - and get some inspiration by helping her solve mysteries. Many of this crazy theories turn out to be right. They have a fairly cold relationship at first, but he grows on her.

He is portrayed initially as an immature womanizer, but lays off the womanizing (coinciding with the rising popularity of the show with females) and becomes a little immature and nurses a serious, obvious crush on Beckett. I do really like his character, despite his blue-pill approach to Beckett.



Kate Beckett: A smart, tough-nosed detective who became a cop because of her mother's murder - she attended Stanford & planned on being a lawyer. She is competent at her job and is fairly distant at times. Her dating life happens mostly off screen and she is portrayed as hyper-involved with her job - such a stereotypical portrayal of a female in US TV.

In the earlier seasons, she had short hair & was not attractive. She grew her hair out and - viola! - she turns out to be pretty hot. A key component of the show is both Castle & Beckett's relationship.

Review Of Castle & Beckett's Relationship

The relationship is typical blue-pill fare. A rich playboy reforms his ways and falls in love with a hardened woman who has many issues and he has to claw his way through - all the while waiting patiently for her - in order to get her love. She dates a variety of men - including a biker who also happens to be a rich cardiac surgeon. Can't even make this up.

Castle is a quirky & rich man. One episode featured Castle's ex-GF portrayed by Alyssa Milano. If Castle can date gorgeous women like that, why would he fall hard for a woman who had a haircut like a dyke when they first met?

However, that is the just the beginning. Beckett tearfully tries to talk to Castle about their relationship at the end of Season two, as she clearly is in love with him. However, Castle gets back his ex-wife. Then, the next season opens with Beckett angry as hell with Castle, and for reasons not needed to be explained here, finds reason to arrest Castle in the course of murder investigation. Typical desire to exert control over perceived alphas.

However, this results in Castle becoming more simpy and making known his intentions towards Beckett - usually very obvious and needlessly complimentary, clearly stroking the hamsters of women watching the show identifying with Beckett. Her desire for him cools over time - red-pill right?

Wrong. In season four she begins to warm to his advances, very slowly and eventually they share a kiss, where she claims to give into her strong feelings for Castle. In Season Five, apparently they are dating and in the finale, Castle proposes.

While this sounds vaguely red-pill at times and possibly like a beta relationship situation, when you watch the show it is thoroughly blue-pill. You can tell the show is targeted towards women. I like the mystery aspect of the show and I tend to pay less attention to the non-investigatory aspect of the show.

Just today, when I was watching the episode about a murder at a talent show, two fellow detectives who work with Castle & Beckett share an ignorant exchange. An attractive female they are interviewing is clearly flirting the more confident & better looking detective. The other detective, after the interview ends, comments on why she pretended he didn't exist. The flirted-with detective said it was because of his wedding ring - that makes you invisible to women. The implication is that women don't break up loving relationships.



The Importance Of Red-Pill Cultural Analysis

Of course, you could reasonably ask why I watch this show? It is already common knowledge on this forum that TV shows are biased towards women and their hamster. Well, like I previously said, the murder solving aspect of the is cool - better than most TV shows.



However - and this is important - analyzing cultural and cultural forces (movies, TV shows, books, etc.) is important from a politically conservative perspective & red-pill perspective. Conservatives have historically ignored these sorts of critiques. When Alan Bloom - a gay liberal - penned "The Closing Of The American Mind" in 1987 it caused much consternation, on both the Left and Right.

It is widely misunderstood and it has been some years since I read it, so this will be brief. Essentially, Bloom was arguing current approaches to university education betrays liberal principles. Many conservatives rejoiced at the critique, but understand Bloom was highly critical of family obligations, religion & the free market. Many liberal balked, as they saw the changes to college have been a positive, not a negative.

Is this what conservatives want to rejoice? A liberal telling other liberals they aren't truly supporting liberal causes? I would agree with his assessment, in general, but he isn't doing anything to advance conservative causes. He wanted rationality and scholarship to replace the emerging politically correct approaches to university education. He is right that the current liberal zeitgeist on campus isn't rational nor serves true liberal causes. However, let's move on from this and into red-pill thought. The problem on campus is denial of human sexuality - specifically female sexuality. Consider this piece at Slate by a lesbian who notices even gay women are more passive sexually. Two critically important issues need to be discussed to understand my overall point.

Maybe I should have led with this, I will be critiquing liberals. I do NOT mean any liberal on this forum, as I will be focusing on "victim liberals," i.e. the liberals who need oppression in order to function as humans. Liberals who take control of their own life and do right by themselves are not considered here because they don't have the complexes that "victim liberals" do.

First, is the consternation over biological explanations of female sexuality. As expected, some fools butcher evolutionary psychology in the comments and most people are not comfortable with biological underpinnings of female sexuality. Even a lesbian, speaking from her own experience - as delicate as possible - still seriously ruffles feathers.

If rationality was reigning supreme, the issue wouldn't be whether female sexuality was more passive, the issue would be framed like this: Female sexuality, on average, tends to be more passive than male sexuality. Even when presented with males that they consider sexually attractive, they still are more likely to engage in passive behavior, such as looking away when direct eye contact is made and passive body language.

However, this is demonstrable and provable. The only debatable issue is whether such behavior is socially constructed or biologically determined. Given the vastly different cultures of the world and the history we do know about love and sex, the evidence suggests biology is the stronger determinant here. Socialization matters - just consider the modern American female - but biologically, women are more likely to be passive in the sexual arena. Part of this can be explained that men are more likely to be attracted to a woman than the reverse, but even when controlling for sexual attraction, women are more likely to be passive.

Much more rational and straightforward than current approaches to female passivity. However, part of this putting the cart before the horse with respect to equality. Unable to admit men and women won't be equal because of biology, then need to either silence/down biological science or claim we will never know to what extent biology or socialization matter. The latter claim is ludicrous, as combining biology, anthropology and cultural studies of different societies can give us a good view of human sexuality.



Secondly, we need to discuss feminist insistence of appropriate cultural standards to be in force through the media. As I wrote about here feminists desperately insist on there being strong, feminist females in the media. One analysis is narcissism - feminists don't actually want to be strong and independent, they want to identify with other women doing that. Since we are talking women in real life, they really need fictional women doing all that jazz in movies & TV shows.

Feminist & liberals understand the critical importance of media. Cultural Marxists, back before WW2, took over some schools in Eastern Europe and began to radically alter the curriculum to start teaching young children about sex and oppression of society with respects to women, sexuality, etc. They were run off and eventually took root in America, where they infected this once great society with reality-denying ideology focused on creating victims that are controllable and usable in the greater fight for communism.

Recall that communists were disillusioned after WW1, hoping that the conflict would provide the class impetus for revolution. Many abandoned the class rhetoric and began to focus on cultural issues. It is this reason that ideologies such as feminism exploded during the 1960's. An German American Herbert Marcuse penned a book called "Eros & Civilization" that laid out the Cultural Marxist approach to the coming Sexual Revolution. He drew heavily on Freud and that fueled his analysis. The book caught fire and when the birth control pill was invented, all sexual hell broke lose.

Have you ever noticed how backwards some liberals and most feminists when it comes to psychology? It is because all of their ideas are based on outdated theories advanced by Freud. Unable to change, as it is a narcissistic based theory, they are trapped in the past of false ideas. However, the insistence on the changing of cultural norms reeks of this narcissism. Unable to fundamentally change, they narcissistically demand society change, so they can conform to new social roles. That is why feminist so doggedly insistent society change, instead of individual women. They need new cultural forces to kowtow to.

Which brings me full circle to liberal cultural critiques. The main reason liberals have succeeded in this arena is they outsmarted conservatives. By the time conservatives reacted, it was too late. The massive cultural forces had already not just taken root, but were so entrenched it was too much to counteract. While the demand for cultural change can be narcissistic, it doesn't have to be. Like most psychological issues, there are healthy expressions and unhealthy ones.

The cracks in the narrative have been widening slowly for some times. I recall Roosh predicated 2013 will be a big year for the manosphere. He notices the quickly expanding community & how feminists can't ignore us anymore. Their bankrupt anti-intellectual ideology only knows how to accuse people of being hateful - that is how they gained power, by creating the cultural zeitgeist of not being sexist towards women then threatening accusations of sexism to keep men in line.

Conclusion



It is real late & I am falling asleep while writing this. Let me sum up. Castle is an interesting show with a highly-attractive female lead who at least presents enough difference from modern women to be interesting. It is a blue-pill show primarily marketed towards women. It has the necessary components to ensure female viewership.

It is necessary for us to watch, observe and dissect these shows because they are popular and many people watch them. We need to know what messages are being sent to people via the media. Analyzing books, TV shows & movies is a great way to understand the arc of American society as it devolves.

While conservative critiques are important, red-pill critiques are the most salient as they cut to the heart of ridiculous approaches to sexuality, relationships and human reality. That being said, it might be screaming into the wind. Their is no guarantee of any red-pill analysis going mainstream - I would hedge against it. However, we do what we must to fight against the crushing tide of unreality.

Personally, I will continue to analyze plays, books, TV shows & movies through a red-pill lenses first, then conservative. It may seem like beating a dead horse, but it order to refine red-pill thought, it must be analyzed again & again through different situations. That is a true scientific approach - the constant testing in different situations.

In the end, at the very worst, we will come to peace with the world around us, as we accept it for what it is without any recrimination.

[ryanf]

I've begun looking forward to my daily 2wycked critiques on pop culture.

[freerider]

Another stimulating write up.

Have you watched the Sopranos? Was wondering if you could do one on the character of Tony Soprano, probably the ultimate Alpha on TV in my opinion.

[Lord_Perseus]

+1 excellent write up & fairly insightful piece on the show

[renotime]

You gotta do House of Cards.

[Mekorig]

Yeah, the show is pretty blue-pill, but i admit it, i watch it, and enjoy it, mainly Fillion, it is one of my prefered actors (he makes funny characters, even when they are not suppose to be funny).