Becoming the Beast, Part 3: How to Act and Look Like a Beast | Girls Chase

Becoming the Beast, Part 3: How to Act and Look Like a Beast

Chase Amante

Hey! Chase Amante here.

You've read all the free articles I can offer you for this month.

If you'd like to read more, I've got to ask for your help keeping the lights on at Girls Chase.

Click a plan below to sign up now and get right back to reading. It's only 99¢ the first month.

Already a GirlsChase.com subscriber? Log in here.

act like a beast
In Part 3, we get into the details of beasthood. How does a man become a beast? By uncivilizing himself, and primalizing himself.

This is Part 3 of a series (Part 1, Part 2).

We live in a primal world.

We know that we have to cultivate a ferocity through pain and asceticism.

But how do we actually act like a beast?

If you'd like, you can rewire the entire way you exist to be more primal. Women will love and respect you for it. And men will respect and fear you for it.

There are many passive and active behaviors you can embrace to unleash the inner beast.

Hector CastilloAbout the Author: Hector Castillo

Hector Castillo is the web’s top expert on getting laid in college. In his small town university, he went from World of Warcraft nerd to president of his fraternity in 4 years... And on the way, he bedded close to 50 women. His book King of College is due out soon. Listen to the 40-minute interview with Hector on his story and some of his prized tech... and sign up for a 12-week coaching course with him, here:

LISTEN TO WEBINAR & SIGN UP FOR COACHING

Comments

Bond's picture

Hector,

This is by far my favorite series.

Bond,

Author
Hector Castillo's picture

Glad you're digging it, man!!

Want to make her wet? I'll show you how.

Omar Mo's picture

How do you balance your inner beast with feminine energy that is spoken about on this site as well? If I go full beast mode, i turn into a brute who doesnt say much, and seems very intimidating. If i go on the feminine side, i seem a bit too daffodilly and seem to be the exact opposite of a beast

Author
Hector Castillo's picture

In the end, it's practice.

When you find yourself being too non-sexual, non-combative, non-confrontational, then bring out the savagery.

When you find yourself being too disagreeable, rude, impolite, or aggressive, bring some feminine civilized energy.

I will go more into this in the next article :)

Want to make her wet? I'll show you how.

Jimbo's picture

"We think that the solution to our problems is to think, and to some extent, good thinking can repair the effects of bad thinking, but I think an even better solution, in many cases, is to stop thinking and return to listening to instinct."

Good thinking doesn't just repair the effects of bad thinking, it created everything you enjoy about a modern society. Anything that's more sophisticated than a bird's nest is the result of thinking. If instinct alone were great, then jungles would be terrific places to live in. They'd be having illegal immigration and so on.

Instincts give you the drive search for food, eliminate competition, and mate. That's it. They're not great. They're just necessary, especially to organisms that can't figure out other easier, more effective ways to obtain those things without inflicting so much harm and suffering to themselves and others.

-----------------

"If they [instincts] can help a savage, stupid animal survive in a world much harsher than the one you live in, then I imagine it can help you survive in the (comparatively) safe life of civilization."

But survival is much less of a problem in a civilization. In a civilized society, people are more concerned with making a good living than with surviving. Actually just following your instincts is even more dangerous in a modern society because it's more likely to land you in jail than at the top of the hierarchy.

You sound like you'd much rather live in a jungle than in civilization, but something tells me you wouldn't trade your cushy life in the city for as much as living in a farm.

Which begs the question, if you're not really fighting for survival, why act as if you were? Because you're not really hunting for food or hacking competition with a battle-axe. So you're just acting, wearing a costume so to speak. Lions and other animals do that stuff for one and only one reason: they have to. They're born with a less developed to nonexistent neo-cortex, so instincts are pretty much all they got to survive. You think if lions figured out a way to store food and build huts they'd be running around the savanna all day doing all that bullshit?

Now does that mean that men would have to, and indeed have, sacrificed some aspects of masculinity to make that happen? Yes. I'm sure when the first guy starting hunting animals with a spear instead of his hands or a rock, he looked like a sissy to the rest, throwing stuff from afar instead of smashing them head-on. The hunter who first used the spear may not have been manlier than his peers, but he sure ended up having more food and getting less killed by zebras and increasing his chances of survival. And the other guys probably laughed a little less when they saw how much more effective gutting a buffalo from afar was, and wanted to learn how to craft them and sat nicely to listen to the master talk and teach them how.

And if you look around, it's people living in more primitive, darwinistic environments (where I'm sure the men are more "beastly") that are fleeing to cushier, more civilized ones (where the laws and societies don't allow for too much display of beastliness), not the other way around. And that is telling. It's telling that for all the macho smack talk, people don't really like the primal life and behavior all that much.

Even women flock to rich and powerful men in the higher strata of societies who tend to be more civilized than the lower classes. That's because strength and power and badassery don't solely come from brutality and beastly behavior.

Most humans are more civilized than most animals, yet we could obliterate the whole animal kingdom if we wanted to. That superior power was not enabled by burping in public and posing for rawness and beastly behavior in general, but by a more developed neocortex.

And that's basically been the case all throughout history. Homo sapiens exterminated bigger and badder (but dumber) Neanderthals. The Vikings may have been badass, but they weren't fit enough to endure more than a few centuries, and ended up getting their asses kicked repeatedly by other European kingdoms following their transgressions before dispersing and having their lands easily taken over by their own Christianized fellow norsemen. Not to mention they didn't build anything remotely close to impressive civilization-wise. The Confederates and Southerners may have been more badass and rougher than their more urbanized Northern counterparts, but they still got their asses handed to them. Same with Nazis.

I mean look at that Vegas shooter. The guy was a retired accountant, as vanilla as it gets by all accounts. Yet look at how much damage he did: he shot almost 600 people all by himself. The motherfucker calculated the wind and trajectory to hit as many people as possible. And that's usually the profile of those who do the most damage in those mass shootings. You think the douchebag who walks around like he has thigh irritation could've shot this many in ten minutes? Rhetorical.

Many point to Trump, but the guy would've never done much in his life if he hadn't inherited 400 million dollars worth of assets from Pops. And I'm basing this on the fact that he really didn't add that much to it, given the capital he inherited, and lost many of his business endeavors. As to the elections, he won them on a razor's edge.

And that's the whole irony, isn't it? The alphas (hierarchically) are barely the most alpha (behaviorally). That's even been tested actually. There was this study that measured testosterone levels of men across social and corporate strata, and what they found was that high-testosterone men were 2.5x more likely to be low-status as high. As an explanation for that, the researchers posited that lower- and average-testosterone men had a greater docility and patience towards authority and to learning the subtleties of acquiring social power.

Another paradox they found was that while the fact of rising in status itself gave men a temporary boost in testerone levels (men who were just awarded their M.D. degrees saw their testosterone increase), those guys who find themselves in positions of leadership tend to have lower-testosterone to begin with than those who don't. (NYT article: "Aggression in Men: Hormone Levels are a Key")

So yeah, I guess, often times, you either want to win/get what you want, or you want to be a beast/alpha. Because animals don't win. For all their beastliness and primitiveness, they still end up on my plate.

Chase Amante's picture

Jimbo-

Great, deep overall comment. I'm a huge fan of civilization and am in large agreement. I think Hector will give a conditional explanation of his article (be a savage in appearance/behavior, but possibly not while waiting in line at the DMV). But I'll leave that to him to expand upon.

Couple of quick corrections.

Present theory on Neanderthals is that we did not wipe them out. We mixed with them. Light-skinned peoples have strong Neanderthal ancestry. Present numbers are 1.5-2% Neanderthal DNA in European-descent individuals, and 2-4% Neanderthal DNA in East Asian-descent. However, these percentages also leave out shared DNA; we can assume Homo sapiens has a large amount of shared DNA with Homo neanderthalensis, which means the Neanderthal's true genetic contribution to Europeans and East Asians is likely much higher. At present, we know Neanderthals contributed immune genes, diseases, skin color, hair color, fat metabolism, height, sleep patterns, mood, schizophrenia resistance, and inclination to smoke. There's little evidence of violent conflict, so leading theories are we either intermingled with some of them and the rest went into a slow decline... or we intermingled with them all (Homo sapiens had much larger populations, so could've absorbed all of Homo neanderthalensis and still remained significantly more Homo sapiens).

(other races in other parts of the world absorbed other human populations; Pacific Islanders carry Denisovan DNA, and sub-Saharan Africans carry DNA from an as-yet-unnamed human species different from Neanderthals or Denisovans)

Bankruptcy is a risk management strategy in business. Business bankruptcy is very different from personal bankruptcy. I've filed for business bankruptcy myself, for a separate business. It is a sign that particular business is not doing well, but is far from a sign the businessman himself lacks business acumen. Trump's number is 4 bankruptcies out of 515 business ventures, which is quite impressive. 9 out of 10 new businesses die within the first 10 years - he's bucking the trend in a pretty significant way. Snopes (certainly no friend to Donald Trump) has an article on this here:

http://www.snopes.com/2016/08/01/donald-trumps-bankruptcies/

Estimates of Trump's 1974 starting money from his father range from $1 million to $40 million; here's an article from Politifact, another site not friendly to Trump:

http://www.politifact.com/florida/article/2016/mar/07/did-donald-trump-i...

The remainder of his inheritance (unclear how much it was worth) he received after his father's passing in 1999, at which point his career (and billions) were well established.

I'd attribute his success more to his training from pops + whatever natural inclinations got passed down more than inheritance. His first major deal - the Commodore Hotel - involved no money down from him; he took out a loan with no collateral (i.e., could've bankrupted had the deal gone bust, and would've been out nothing but street cred) to buy the hotel on the condition he could secure a major hotel operator to run it, then bluffed Hyatt into agreeing. The deal cost him $0 and made him $142 million.

Chase

Jimbo's picture

Right. But even if they didn't confront each other violently, the homo sapiens still won the evolutionary competition. You had two human species in the wild: one that had conquered the African and Eurasian continents, and one that got absorbed into no more than 3% of homo sapien genetic material outside of Africa. Modern humans were more fit, much more fit actually, to outlive and overwhelm the Neanderthals in such greater numbers, despite the Neanderthals being comparatively more primitive. I mean these guys couldn't even speak, whereas the hominids we're descended from started speaking around 100,000 years ago. There's also not proof that they figured out the fire, there was no notion of trade between their members or communities, and their tools were more basic than the sapiens'. They were also bigger in size. In sum, they were more beast-like than we were, yet we drowned them out.

And that's what has been going on ever since, until recently. Technologically superior populations have been wiping out and absorbing more primitive peoples throughout the ages. The Indo-Europeans rolled into the far West Eurasian lands and South Asia in the Neolithic to take over and replace culture, religion, and language. The Bantus expanded out of West Africa to displace and decimate many of the pre-existing Pygmies and the Koi-San peoples in their way. Europeans expanded in the New World at the expense of more primitive Amerindians. And guess what, all of these conquering populations were comparatively more civilized and less savage than the ones they were conquering. Empires known for their barbarity and savagery don't last long and fall quickly. I gave the example of Vikings, but there's also the Mongols whose empire lasted no more than 150 years, which is very short in the usual lifetime of empires.

Re: Trump, I just checked that Politico article. It says that when the father died, there remained an inheritance of around $200 million, which was then split up in the family. I don't know how much he got from that, and I don't know if the 200 million include property. Other than that, there seem to be conflicting accounts on whether the guy was a savvy business guy or not. Because that Newsbeek piece on him said the following:

The son of wealthy developer Fred Trump, he went to work for his father’s real estate business immediately after graduating from Wharton and found some success by taking advantage of his father’s riches and close ties to the power brokers in the New York Democratic Party, particularly his decades-long friend Abe Beame, the former mayor of the city.

(...)

Despite the outward signs of success, Trump’s personal finances were a disaster. In 1978, the year his father set up that sweet credit line at Chase, Donald’s tax returns showed personal losses of $406,386—$1.5 million in present-day dollars. Things grew worse in 1979, when he reported an income of negative $3.4 million, $11.2 million in constant dollars. All of this traced back to big losses in three real estate partnerships and interest he owed Chase. With Trump sucking wind and rapidly drawing down his line of credit, he turned again to Daddy, who in 1980 agreed to lend him $7.5 million.

On the Hyatt deal, it said:

"This deal was once again largely attributable to Daddy, who co-guaranteed with Hyatt a construction loan for $70 million and arranged a credit line for his boy with Chase Manhattan Bank. The credit line was a favor to the Trump family, which had brought huge profits to the bank; according to regulatory records, the revolving loan was set up without even requiring a written agreement. Topping off the freebies and special deals that flowed Trump’s way, the city tossed in a 40-year tax abatement. Trump’s “success” with the Hyatt was simply the result of money from his dad, his dad’s bank, Hyatt and the taxpayers of New York City."

http://www.newsweek.com/2016/08/12/donald-trumps-business-failures-elect...

Perhaps the article only focused on failures and glossed over his successes, I don't know. Everybody seems to have a bias for or against Trump these days. Though between what you mentioned (bankruptcy:ventures ratio) and what was mentioned here, and for lack of more thorough research, I'd say he was a little of both.

Jimbo's picture

*rarely the most alpha

Author
Hector Castillo's picture

Jimbo,

Remember, this is a 5-part series. There is one more article and I cover all of this.

In the first article, I gave credit to our thinking and ingenuity for all of our technological and cultural advancements.

"You sound like you'd much rather live in a jungle than in civilization, but something tells me you wouldn't trade your cushy life in the city for as much as living in a farm."

You're taking my statements too far. I never said I'd rather live in the jungle or on a farm (though I have and if I had to live there, I would and probably would grow to enjoy it). I said get in touch with your primal side. Nothing more, nothing less. If some time in the wild helps (it does), then do it. Then come back.

" So you're just acting, wearing a costume so to speak. Lions and other animals do that stuff for one and only one reason: they have to. They're born with a less developed to nonexistent neo-cortex, so instincts are pretty much all they got to survive. You think if lions figured out a way to store food and build huts they'd be running around the savanna all day doing all that bullshit?"

I've addressed all of this in previous articles, including this one - http://www.girlschase.com/content/divine-comedy-can-you-see-past-perform...

This article is not a vacuum. It must be understood in the context of all of my articles.

"And if you look around, it's people living in more primitive, darwinistic environments (where I'm sure the men are more "beastly") that are fleeing to cushier, more civilized ones (where the laws and societies don't allow for too much display of beastliness), not the other way around. And that is telling. It's telling that for all the macho smack talk, people don't really like the primal life and behavior all that much."

Yes, but who created these civilizations? Hard men.

Who conquers the soft countries? Hard men. Bestial men.

And these men seem to adjust quite quickly to civilized culture after they've had their fill of death and destruction. The Mameluk Empire lasted as long as any other empire and it was run by child soldiers.

Read The Fate of Empires by John Glubb. Empires fall when man loses touch with his animal spirit.

That these animistic men chase pleasure isn't a criticism of being a primal man; you're simply arguing that they chase pleasure. That was also settled in the first article. If anything, you're helping my argument. Men chase pleasures like destruction and sex, but now in civilized forms. Instead of beating each other senseless, we play video games. Instead of fucking, we watch porn (and some of us fuck). Still pleasure. Still base. Still bestial.

You should wait until the next article.

This isn't a "turn into a complete animal" article series. If that's what you got from it, read again. It's a "get back in touch with your inner animal if you've lost contact."

Hector

Want to make her wet? I'll show you how.

Jimbo's picture

Actually I did read John Glubb's Fate of Empires. You know who referred me to it? Hector Castillo! In the "To Be a Fuckboy" comment section. I saved that link, downloaded it, and opened it back and read it a couple of months later.

According to Glubb, one of the main things associated with the end of empires are selfishness, materialism, and hedonism. He says men become more interested in making money and pleasuring themselves than in being honorable and defending their country and so on. Basically that the masculinity shifts from being one of "my honor, my God, my tribe" to one of "me, myself, and I" (or alternatively, "me, muh-dick, lol-so-much-fun"). You're right in that new empires have been established by a burst of hard men. That's what that historian noted. And that's true. But that burst of savagery is not enough for it to be maintained, for it to endure, and actually ends up being counterproductive.

The Mamluks you mentioned were another example of that. First of all, keep in mind that they were part of the Ottoman empire. All of Egypt was, at least nominally. So they didn't defend themselves all by themselves. And a more accurate description of their initial status "soldiers/slaves". But yes, they were badass and hard men. But then when you look at the ease with which the French took over that country, all of that fades away.

In the decisive battle known as the Battle of Pyramids, the Mamluks went out there by their thousands, proudly waving swords "encrusted with gold and silver" and riding their horses. That's when Napoleon with his highly organized army introduced them to a new toy: "Sword, meet Rifle and Cannon. Enchanté." In something like half an hour his men decimated the entire army of the bey. Just to have an idea of the bloodbath that took place, in that short span of time, the Egyptian side lost somewhere around 20,000 men while the French side lost 30.

Now as to reading this in the context of your series, I'll admit I've only this one article of it. My reading of GC is pretty sporadic, and if I inferred more than what you meant, then my bad.

Mischief's picture

I respect the GC crew for their work. Their writing has lead me to some life-changing decisions, and some day soon I intend to make literal proof of this declaration. As it now stands, my life and
mind are indeed in better shape than they have ever been, thanks to this site.

All that said, you ring compelling counter arguments that spin my imagination! The last thing I want to do is queer this up, but all this back and forth has stimulated my neocortex. :)

-M

She enters your world… not the other way around.

Add new comment

The Latest from GirlsChase.com