How to Use Beliefs to Subvert Thinking

Rintu BasuCase StudyLeave a Comment

This article is about getting inside someone’s head and using their beliefs for or against them. This article isn’t for the faint hearted and contains a strategy I used to increase paranoia amongst other things.

Tales from the Dark Side – Subverting Thinking using Beliefs

For a limited time the Dark Side 2 shopping cart is open. Here is the link where you can find out and buy the course now.

Pacing Belief Systems

I am learning a lot from Kenrick Cleveland’s new programme Dark Side 2. One thing he talks about is pacing people’s beliefs and then using that as the route for change. This was such a great concept that I was just looking for ways practicing and using this to increase my understanding when a brilliant opportunity appeared.

Remember we have a webinar this evening where you can directly ask Kenrick questions about the Dark Side 2 programme. Book your place here.

Facebook – Playground of Opportunity

I am blessed with the ability to attract all sorts of crazies both in the real and the virtual world. One of my favourite sorts is the hard core conspiracy theorist. I find them great fun to practice with because they often come packaged with no discernable critical think facilities and a whole bunch of wild beliefs that are great fun. I highly recommend cultivating a few for the fun and practice you can have with them.

My only caveat is do this with joy in your heart and don’t break them. A lot of conspiracy theorist live in a dark, paranoid and fearful place. When you have these fragile personalities I tend to suggest you might just be a little careful and see if you can move them to a better place than you found them.

Code Name Jane

I’ve known Jane for a number of years. We are connected via mutual friends and have met face to face as well as being connected in the virtual world of Facebook. She is stereotypically a conspiracy theorist in that almost anything that is anti-establishment or counter culture is believed with no attempt at applying logic or evidence based criteria. She spends a lot of time on the internet shouting about the fear and paranoia that her powerfully imagined New World Order, One World Government and alien Greys are trying to create whilst getting increasingly paranoid and fearful.

I’ve often wondered if getting a job and contributing directly to society might help these people let go of some of their fear and paranoia. The trouble is if they had a job they would be tracable they usually inform me; although I am not sure why they can’t be traced through the welfare or benefit programmes they seem to claim.

Anyway, Jane is difficult to argue with on a logical level because she automatically trots out the idea that this mysterious world spanning organisation has been controlling and lying to us for centuries. It is a little difficult to support any evidence if it is being rejected as faked and fraudulent before you have even presented it. Jane also has an incredible ability to present a wild and extravagant idea as evidence by take random pieces of information and combining them.

For example she posted a video on Facebook that started with a report of increased levels of Barium Strontium in the air. This would make holograms easier to project and therefore governments are planning to fake alien invasions as a method of increasing the fear in populations to make them easier to control. This is a typical logic string for these types of conspiracy theorists. As you might imagine with that level of applied logic it would be quite difficult to present a logical counter argument.

Enter Their Model of the World

My normal approach would be to see if I can subvert the logic from inside their model of the world. In the above example I made a statement about this was not being done by government agencies but by actual alien invaders. My logic was that a great place to hide an alien invasion would be behind a fake alien invasion. As you can see this is just taking their original premise and stretching it to the point of lunacy. This is quite good fun and on occasions creates some startling effects including being believed. But listening to Kenrick’s Dark Side 2 gave me a much better idea.

Counter Arguments at the Same Logical Level

In the above example I am pacing their current idea and stretching it. What would happen if you applied their belief system in a way that it discredits the original thought? Here is an example.

Jane posted a video she had found about SWAT team activity in America. The video was put together like a news report but gave you no information and it really tried to pull at emotional heart strings by talking about dogs that are shot as a result of SWAT led incursions. Jane used this as evidence of a police state, abuse of terror legislation and generally heaped on the terror and paranoia being created by the American government.

I initially went in and pointed out that if the SWAT Teams were going in to arrest violent criminals it would be different from SWAT deliberately targeting innocent members of the public. In either case the “report” crucially left out any information about why the SWAT teams were entering the buildings or what arrests and prosecutions were being made as a result. This was being met by the usual resistance from Jane because I am only applying a counter argument at the same logical level. And then some of the learning I took from the Dark Side 2 hit me.

Pace and Apply their Beliefs

It suddenly occurred to me the Jane is anti-establishment, counter culture and is extremely paranoid about government intervention, particularly if it is covert. This gave me a way for her to be able to examine this report with a new pair of eyes.

I pointed out that the video offered only a small part of the information and that it was meaningless without the rest. It was as if this was sent out to deliberately misinform the viewer. I then pointed out that instead of giving you facts the report deliberately played on your emotions. I then suggested this, including the slopping reporting is everything that government agencies are being criticised for. Therefore this must be a video sent out by government agencies to deliberately discredit legitimate reporting of problems in the criminal justice system.

I suggested that people that believe this sort of video have just become easier to lead because they are being desensitised to thinking. And the people that can see through the tissue of lies and deceit would become more cynical and therefore will treat legitimate reports a lot harsher than they might have. Either way the New World Order benefits from this sort of report and therefore they must have released it. I then suggested that it would be worth investigating the people who made the video for their connections with government agencies.

I guess you can see how wonderfully paranoid this and how easily this slips into Jane’s natural frame of reference. She may not believe everything I am saying but it inevitably has to result in taking a closer look at the video. Hopefully this might result in Jane’s critical thinking to kick in and she might see this video for the manipulative lunacy that it is.

Seeing the Difference

Compare the two examples and notice how this second approach is far more powerful because it operates on a completely different level. I got the idea of pacing current beliefs and applying them back from Kenrick’s Dark Side 2. Consider the possibilities when you can simply find out a person’s beliefs you can apply them to move that person in any direction you want. Incidentally there are easier and more powerful ways of inducing paranoia. Kenrick takes you through that on the Dark Side 2 course.


For a limited time the Dark Side 2 shopping cart is open. Here is the link where you can find out and buy the course now.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *