The Belmod Theory: What It Is and Why You Should Care

The Belmod Theory

Some prior related articles as a primer:

I’ve become increasingly interested in belief modification (BelMod) as of late. We’ve seen this occurring on a massive and international scale recently with the covid shenanigans. The ruling class of many countries are doing their best to modify the beliefs of their residents through various mechanisms.

But this occurs naturally between people, too.

I find this important because this modification plays a role in how people inevitably come to our side. Or how they inevitably go full-blown leftist loon.

I think people discredit this modification process far too much, because the more I’ve been researching and thinking about this, the more I am seeing it play out every day.

What do I mean by Belmod Theory?

The basics are that different IQ groupings are going to respond differently to certain belief modification attempts on average.

This is something that can be observed daily and should be common sense, but for some reason has never been quantified or conceptualized appropriately. We see how much the g factor has an impact on everything else in our life; it certainly has a factor in modifying our beliefs.

An intelligent person will not change his beliefs in the same manner that a low IQ person will. Both may share similar philosophies, but it is usually from a different procedure to reach them. A lawyer (which selects for somewhat higher IQ, on average) will not necessarily be “harder” to convince, but will require different approaches to that of someone of average intelligence.

Some will not care if “so and so” authority said something, they will want other factors or evidence. While others will care and use that as evidence.

I’ve written this theory breakdown before, so I’m not going to rehash it again in new terms. I’ll repost it here for those who haven’t read it yet:

There are three “buckets” (I am sure they could be refined better, but this is my starting point for this theory)

Above-average IQ (think high IQ, perhaps around greater than 120)
Average IQ (think average and slightly higher/lower, perhaps 80-120)
Low IQ (think low IQ, perhaps anything lower than 80)

The idea is that they either learn or acquire knowledge through different means, based on their IQ bucket.

The theorized manners of learning, in order, are followed:

Above average: scientific method; first-hand sources; investigative analysis
Average: Authority figures; journalistic reporting; colleagues; social pressures
Low: Community sources; trusted personal relationships; anecdotes

We could separate the average group into two, an upper and a lower. With the following distinctions, but some overlap:

Upper average (the “hivemind” group): journalistic reporting; colleagues; social pressures
Lower average: authority figures; social pressures

Imagine that each of these factors has a “high”, “medium”, and “low” likelihood of impacting a certain IQ group. For instance, repeated chanting (like at a protest) may have a medium impact on the low IQ group, and no-low impact on the medium or high group. Authority or credential status may have a high impact on the average IQ group, with waning influence based on how much further you move to the other ends of the IQ curve (so less for both low and high IQ).

There are also likely inverses of these trends. I just haven’t got that far yet. For example, the low bucket is usually distrusting of authority figures (a staple of the average bucket). Meanwhile, above average is often averse to anecdotes and colleagues. The buckets are not mutually exclusive, often they intertwine through inversion.

There are different functions that likely offset these trends, as well. For instance, I know for certain that religion impacts the average-high IQ group to make them more susceptible to community sources, specifically religious community sources. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, it’s just a consideration that other external factors could shift this base.

Why the buckets learn the way they do (theorized):

High – Generally know that they are higher IQ, know that other high IQ are possibly malicious, and know the personal limitations of their (and others) intelligence/knowledge gathering. Therefore, they only trust what they can somewhat verify.
Above average – Generally know they are “above average” but are not high enough to know the limitation of their own knowledge/intelligence. God-complex and hivemind category. Think that they, and their colleagues, must know everything so easily cave to social pressure and other “experts” in different fields.
Lower average – Generally know the limitation of their knowledge, but think that people more intelligent than them are working in a benevolent manner to help everyone else. Trust that higher intelligence people are solving things in an ethical and correct manner without verifying. Generally fall for social pressures from upper average because they want to be seen like those “authorities” someday (which could include anyone they consider an authority). Desire “virtuous compliance” for the same reason.
Low – Generally know the limitation of their knowledge, but tend to have an instinctual distrust of others, including high intelligence individuals. Likely survival/evolutionary based. Only trust those who they personally know, are community-based and accountable, or related.

Remember that all of these are averages. An individual in any bucket could differ greatly from their specific bucket. We can’t necessarily trend a single person using this theory, but we can trend the overall bucket population. So some may have sliding scales higher, some lower. But these should be consistent across the groups in total.

There is no “good” or “bad” way to modify beliefs. Only the way that works. If you know your method(s), you will be more resistant to hostile indoctrination through them.

There are numerous cultural ways this idea works. This list is definitely not all-encompassing, but meant to get some thoughts going for how the theory works in practice:

• Virtue signaling/”righteousness” (social pressures – average IQ bucket). Portray their positions as virtuous and other positions as lacking virtue. Once one buys into the notion that a position is virtuous, then the ‘good person’ feeling comes from agreeing with that right belief, making it impossible to separate one’s self-identity from the political positions one’s hold.
• Trusting the “experts” or the “people smarter than you” (authority figures – average IQ bucket). Trusting people blindly if they are deemed of higher authority than the individual.
• Fear (community sources, journalistic reporting, etc – low and average IQ buckets). Fear is a large driver of changing people’s beliefs and covers numerous buckets through different methods.
• Dependency (trusted personal relationships – low IQ bucket). Individuals have a hard time of separating from beliefs of those whom they are coercively dependent toward. This dependence can appear in the arena of financial, territorial, or even “moral” dependency (they hold the only way for them to feel righteous).
• Socialization (social pressures – average IQ bucket). Fear of ostracization. Familial/fitting-in belief.
• Censorship (investigative analysis, scientific method – high IQ bucket). Do not allow the understanding, research, and so on of opposing beliefs.
• Repetition/Chanting (community sources – low IQ bucket).
• Closeness repetition theorem/”Parroting” (trusted personal relationships – low IQ bucket). Repeat it enough and then others close to an individual will repeat it in person. Taking it away from just a “media” or “external” phenomenon and instead making it a reality in their life which lends toward a much stronger repetition. Useful way to use the average to infect the lower.
• Other perception modification tricks (investigative analysis – high IQ bucket). Make it seem as though certain other agents perceive something in such a manner as to make it appear that is the prevailing wisdom or truth. Nefariously change investigations, studies, data, and the like to be led to a different outcome. Overwhelm individuals with too much data so it cannot be processed efficiently.
• Language (social pressures – average IQ bucket). Differing subtle wording changes lend itself toward a subversive change in basic nature of the phrase (“anti”-abortion, pro-“choice”).
• News/Media (Journalistic reporting – average bucket). Obvious.

The Belmod Theory is essential for understanding the grey masses, understanding why the covid takeover was so successful, why the leftists think the way they do, and why people join us. It covers pretty much everyone. Perhaps most importantly, it shows the precursor step before any of these beliefs are solidified. It shows the modification step.

This is useful in getting people to our side. In fact, it may be essential in the steps of successful organization of a political resistance movement. We need to convince people, but before we can do that, we have to understand how we can convince people. And I believe IQ deviation plays a massive role in belief modification. It makes little sense to try authority conversion with those in the high IQ bucket, while it would make little sense to try community modification with the lower buckets.

It also means we have to do what the ruling class did with covid: a mixture of all of these approaches to secure the whole population. We can’t just use data and facts, that doesn’t impact the majority (it’s actually a very tiny minority). We can’t just use a community-based approach, either. What we need is a mixture of all of them to get the whole. To cast the widest net.

Which is hard to do if you’re not the ruling class, because you don’t have the same tools at your disposal to get the “average” bucket. Which seems the most challenging, at least for dissidents.

In many ways, if you have the ability to impact the “authorities” and news, you have a method to impact nearly all buckets, albeit only indirectly (authorities can skew the data needed for high IQ, and average can parrot things in the community to infect the low IQ).

I want to expand on this theory in the future. I’ve found some journal articles studying similar things and I’m going to dig into this when I have a bit more free time.

But like I said in my last article on it: Understand what was said here and then pay attention to this effect. You will start to see it everywhere.

I’ve been thinking about this for a few years, and especially after covid I notice it every single day now. The power of Belmod is extensive, and it impacts every single person you deal with, including yourself.

The Political Prisoners Of America: A Letter From The DC Gulag

If you enjoyed this article, bookmark the website and check back often for new content. New articles most weekdays.

You can also keep up with my writing by joining my monthly newsletter.

Help fight the censorship – Share this article!