Becoming the Beast, Part 2: Unchain the Conqueror | Girls Chase

Becoming the Beast, Part 2: Unchain the Conqueror

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.

Hector Castillo's picture

the conqueror
To rekindle your own raw masculinity, you must become comfortable with those most familiar of masculine friends: struggle and pain.

We live in the most perfect of all existences.

Our good deeds are always rewarded, even if we don't notice. If we truly did someone a kindness – including ourselves – it will be rewarded in that moment or in the future.

Likewise, justice is always doled out in perfect unity, even if we do not always see its consequences.

The fruits we sow always come to fruition, no matter how far we run. Even if we isolate ourselves atop a remote mountain, away from any external, hostile threat, the most dangerous judge of them all, the one within ourselves, will crawl its way out from the depths of our being and ravage us as ruthlessly as we have others.

Existence is perfect.

But it isn’t always pretty.

Comments

James H.'s picture

Good thing guys like you are in the minority, and have been for the last centuries, or else we wouldn't have had anything close to a justice system or a civilization. When murder was first made illegal, I'm sure there were some folks around that opposed that, arguing how else can a man show his true savagery and raw masculinity if he could no longer kill and pillage, or that high crime rates (that have been steadily decreasing for twenty years now) are inevitable. Thankfully your kind didn't get their way. It just goes to show that what's standing between us and chaos is a numbers game between those who are more repulsed than impressed by violence, and those who are the opposite of that.

By the way, none of the four men I most admire (Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, Richard Francis Burton, and John Rockefeller) were violent. And I don't take any enjoyment whatsoever from pain, I just power through it like most people.

Author
Hector Castillo's picture

Yeah, writing and signing the Declaration of Independence and telling the strongest nation on Earth to go fuck itself didn't cause any violence at all. We just shook hands with England and, boom, independence.

Rockefeller, no, he was a kind, gentle man. That's how he became the wealthiest American of all time through the oil market. He just asked his competitors to play nice. He was a kind businessman and didn't dominate others Also, he didn't often quote social Darwinist things like, "The growth of a large business is merely a survival of the fittest." A very gentle man.

Of course guys like me, Jefferson, Rockefeller, and the rest of the conquerers in history are in the minority. Men like you are too self-righteous and weak to ever be honest about your nature and take what you want.

James H.'s picture

If by "take what you want" you mean engage in healthy competition, then that's fine. When competition is directed towards constructive endeavors like nation-building, business, creativity, and arts, and is regulated, then it does more good than bad, and that's why it's accepted by most people.

If you stretch the definition wide enough, I guess business competition and political dissent could be seen as violent. But that's not the kind of violence I was referring to. And even if it was, there's a difference between doing it in a "swallow the pill" fashion, because you have to, because it's a last resort, and doing it because you think it's great.

You basically wrote a piece extolling the virtue of violence in and of itself. That's not how any civilized society should view it. Limb amputation may be necessary, but I wouldn't want to be around people, and especially doctors, who view it as this cool thing, who gather around and pat each other on the back on how badass and macho it was for each of them to chop off legs, because something tells me with those guys around, there would be a lot of legs that "would necessitate amputation" for "medical reasons". No, I'd want the medical personel to hate it, to do it because they very much have to and because every other option has been exhausted. Same for violence in general.

Business competition, though it could be considered as a form of mild violence, has the redeeming quality of great things being created and produced in the process. Praising violence just because it's "alpha" or manly or because women like it has no such legitimacy in my view. It's gratuitously destructive, produces unnecessary suffering, and should be shunned.

Author
Hector Castillo's picture

"If you stretch the definition wide enough, I guess business competition and political dissent could be seen as violent. But that's not the kind of violence I was referring to. And even if it was, there's a difference between doing it in a "swallow the pill" fashion, because you have to, because it's a last resort, and doing it because you think it's great."

I made it very clear to practice violence in healthy, controlled environments. However, anything outside of that, short of self-defense, is purely based on personal desire. No one does something because they think it will help humanity - neither Rockerfeller nor Jefferson did what they did for humanity. They did it primarily for themselves. Yes, it helped humanity, but it came at a great cost and they were made great for it. It was primarily pride that drove them, no matter how glorious they or someone else paints their desires - and that's not a bad thing.

Also, nation-building = does more good than bad, thus it's okay?

Sorry, but you just conceded the argument to me and lost all moral highground. This argument gives legitimacy to me praising Genghis Kahn or Alexander the Great. The former built a massive trade network that paved the way for many different cultures to interact with each other, was one of the most religiously tolerant monarchs in history, and carved out the greatest swath of land the world has ever seen - this is inspirational. Alexander the Great also connected many different cultures, created one of the greatest libraries in human history, and even helped Aristotle with his biological studies. He also served as a great inspirational figure.

But do not think for a moment that they did any of that for humanity - they did it for themselves. Self-interest trumps everything. And you agree. The only difference is I accept the dark truth of my desires and don't mask it behind pathological altruism. Yes, I will help people with my writing and my works, but my primary interest in it all is myself. All other concerns are secondary or tertiary.

"You basically wrote a piece extolling the virtue of violence in and of itself. That's not how any civilized society should view it."

We're not civilized. We pretend to be. That thesis has been made clear. I guarantee you would be as rabidly violent as the next guy if some dude was jockin' on your girl in front of you (and she liked it). Or if they stood between you and a meal. You can't hide from that fact - I know you very well. I've known you for centuries.

What separates the Alpha and the Beta, using the Manosphere connotations, is that the Beta buys into the societal values. The Alpha....actually, no, he does buy into them as well. What we're describing here is the Sigma Male. He's an Alpha (leader) when he needs or wants to, but he lives for himself above all. He knows that society's value are only there as dams against our violent natures - safeguards. He knows they're just as hollow as any other value we have.

And if all values are meaningless in and of themselves, that means we have infinite space by which to give value to whatever we want.

Will this get anyone into trouble? Sure, Alexander was assassinated. His desire for conquest and violence hit its peak and his wax wings were burned by the sun. He knew violence was shunned, but he enjoyed it and knew that it was necessary for his goals. He did what he wanted and did not apologize for it. If anyone chooses to be violent for its own sake, society will eventually put them down. Society would be chaotic without the safeguards of collective morality, but that's, again, what separates the great from the pack. The former knows it's all a joke, while the latter takes it seriously.

Don't worry about anyone taking my advice to any extreme - very few will, and if they do, it's on them. You're ultimately responsible for everything that you do. No blaming anyone else or deferring to society. I will go into this in the rest of my articles. Remember, this is a series, so until you read the whole thing, you're missing the full picture.

WilliamBlake's picture

Fuck Hector I just partially tore my shoulder labrum (ligament) from bench press. Due to a triceps weakness muscle imbalance. This article really makes me wish I could go lift some weights now but I can't.

Author
Hector Castillo's picture

That sucks, man. I remember tearing a ligament in my hip-area from kicking and for years it fucked with me until some exercise science major friend taught me how to stretch the right part. Made working out so shitty for so long.

Eat well, recover, and maybe get some girls to take care of you ;) Gals love a wounded warrior.

Hector

FiguringItOut's picture

Nice series so far, Hector! Curious about a couple of things, from your perspective...

Not sure about whether I come across as intimidating or not but i think I might. I'm 6-3, 190 lbs, fit, head shaved bald and have light stubble for facial hair. (And a friend tells me I look like an mma fighter.) Anyway, what do you think would be the best cold approach strategy for someone like myself to take? Direct (sexualise quickly), direct (compliment), indirect, something else? And i'm definitely not looking to be a boyfriend any time soon.

Also curious, do usually put on music during sex, and what bands/songs do you prefer?

Thanks!

Author
Hector Castillo's picture

Yeah, man, own your sexuality. Your intimidation will make girls wet and make other men more submissive around you. Be direct.

What I'd do to avoid scaring the gals, however, is to approach with a little more distance than you normally would and flash a friendly smile, instead of the normal sexual one. Try this out for a while and see how it works. Also, be super nice and don't tease them until she seems quite friendly (and not unless you have to).

That should balance sexuality and safety.

I fuck chicks to nasty hip hop or EDM. Mostly hip hop, though. Occasionally, I'll put on death metal, because it freaks her out but also because I love it and feel like a savage.

Cameron Pearl's picture

There’s this girl I had a thing with over the summer. We both go to school in different states and we’ve been talking about meeting up over Columba’s day weekend for over a month. Then when I text her trying to book tickets she’s like I might be planning a mini trip with my friends because it’s her 21st birthday and I can’t commit right now. We also had a 20 day snapstreak till my phone broke and I broke the streak. While yes I have another date with another girl this weekend, we were really sexually compatible and compatible in general.

Author
Hector Castillo's picture

You probably talked to her too much and she got all the emotional validation she needed. Setting up tickets with a gal goes like this

1. Either while you two are talking and emotions are high, you book them (then she's financially invested in it).

or

2. If you push for it, and she shows LMR, then back off and stop talking to her. Either she'll miss you enough and make it happen or it was all game to keep you hooked on her so she has a backpocket option.

So, pull back. Don't talk to her until she hits you up and if she doesn't bring up the trip quickly, ignore and move on.

drvipul@outlook.com's picture

Hey Hector, you told become a hulk like intimidating personality (in your article-becoming beast part 2) to attract women and get respect from other men around but Chase in his article- lovers vs. fighters- says that women don't much like overly muscular fighter kind of guys like Arnold Schwarzenegger and women feel lusted for lover kind of personality like that of- Marlon Brando and Marlon just have lean and fit body and not the intimidating overly muscular- fighter type. Can you please explain this contrast between you and Chase ? what should one become to attract women ?

Anonym's picture

Hi Hector,

a thought provoking article.

I have two points:

1) You do not mention enough the negative aspects of the savageness. While you need to be some kind of conqueror to achieve something, the problem is that the worst things happens because of the savageness (wars, killing, murdering, bullying, raping, torturing...). Just because some people are unwilling or unable to control themselves. Violence for self-defence is OK. But otherwise usually not. If you think about it, the Nazi regime was based on those values of hypermasculine savageness (strength, power, aggresivity, taking action, violence, superiority, dominance, discipline, courage, leadership/Fuhrerprinzip) and lack (or maybe disdain for) of others (respect to others, tolerance, empathy, solidarity, freedom, democracy, vulnerability). The difference is that your position is closer to individualist social Darwinism, while Nazis added nationalist collectivism, racism and anti-Semitism. While you are right that people and society suppress their savageness, I believe that generally it is more good than bad (although some men, including me, need a bit more masculinity). After all, the reason why women can wear revealing clothes in many countries is because by far most men are cultivated enough not to attack/rape/molest them just because they see part of her body (there are exceptions, though).

2) Can you give more tips on reading (more authors/works etc.)?

Thanks.

Anonym

Author
Hector Castillo's picture

If I have to go into the negative consequences of violence enough for someone, that person was not mentally stable in the first place. If they're triggered into a violent act because of an internet article, that's on them. It's like blaming violence on video games. The violence was always there.

You're right about the Nazis, but I can't think of one other nation on Earth who initiated conquest for any other reason than pride. The Incas, the Mayans, the Chinese Dynastys, the Damyos and Shoguns of Japan, the Romans - they were all hypermasculine assholes who conquered and pillaged. There was no glorious reason behind their conquests, despite what they told themselves or anyone. It was all vanity. All is vanity. So while the Nazis did hide behind racial supremacy, they weren't better or worse than anyone in history. You think people gave a fuck what Genghis Khan's reasons were for killing all those people? No, they were too worried about getting an arrow in the throat to care for people's reasons.

People are going to come up with whatever reason they want for violence, but in the end, it's all vanity.

But for legal purposes, yes, you should only be violent for self-defense. I 100% agree. This is simply a historical analysis and a treatise on human nature.

Joshram1's picture

Im surprised you did not mention young thug https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dwWs7ZnGekc

Joshram1's picture

Omar Mo's picture

Continuing on what he said, how does one balance feminine and masculine energies? so that hes a beast, but at the same time a lover. Chase recently came out with an article that portrayed how a lover has feminine energy as well, because he is not out there to intimidate men but rather get women. I can understand both sides of this, one part of me wants to go full brutal beast mode while the other a lover with balanced feminine energy. Any way to do both?

drvipul@outlook.com's picture

Hey Hector,
clear this out for us! Becoming a beast like heavy muscular body will do intimidate men around but I believe that this will scare away women too, as Chase mentioned in his article- lovers vs. fighters. Kindly explain this dichotomy?

somedude's picture

Hi Hector,

"Women tell me often that I’m very intimidating. My eye contact makes them nervous. I’ve been told I sometimes look like a serial killer and that I am like a thunderstorm – scary but also calming."

Excuse me if I find this statement a bit hard to believe, considering that I've seen your videos lol

Anyway, i really liked the article. And as far as relevant music goes, you could never go wrong with some speedcore

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_bkogHh7tk

Author
Hector Castillo's picture

"Excuse me if I find this statement a bit hard to believe, considering that I've seen your videos lol."

I wasn't aware I was trying to sexually excite people in my videos.

Speedcore. Like Hardstyle for metal. That's cool.

Leave a Comment

One Date girl next to the number one

Get The Girl In Just One Date

It only takes one date to get the girl you want. Best of all, the date's easy to get… and girls love it.

Inside One Date, You'll Learn

  • How to build instant chemistry
  • Ways to easily create arousal
  • How to get girls to do what you want
  • The secret to a devoted girlfriend

…and more great Girls Chase Tech