"What's logical to you isn't logical to others. I see UFOs flying in bizarre, inefficient patterns and I think "illogical", but I know I am dead wrong. We think Newton's Three Laws are sacrosanct, and then we observe these craft defy them. There are no certainties here, just educated guesses and assumptions."

Okay, so let's start at the beginning.

First, if you don't know why I'm talking about logic and why it is so important: The reason is that logic and having logical thinking skills enables you to defend yourself against mental manipulation and psychic attacks. If you know how to reason correctly, your consciousness is in a higher state of frequency that cannot be confused so easily. Understanding logic is a requirement for every psychic defense ability there is.

1. What is Logic?

Logic is a discipline that consists of a methodology of *how* to think, NOT *what* to think. Essentially, it's how the intellectual part of your brain works. It's the tool to get things analyzed, which means to take to pieces, and then sorted.

This is very important for your psychological defense skills, because if you are not able to identify an attacker, you've already lost. You need to be able to sort out truth from falsehood through deductive reasoning. In other words: Taking the lies and impossibilities apart. That way, the attacker cannot use lies and impossibilities anymore to attack you, forcing him to become openly violent – and it's much easier to defend yourself against overt violence than to defend yourself against a covert attack.

But how does it work?

You need to understand one thing: Thoughts are HARMLESS as long as you don't believe them to be true.

Imagine a psychic attacker approaching you in your head. What does he do first? As every attacker will go the path of least resistance, the first thing he will try is to convince you that he is not there. He will mask his thoughts as your own. This works only if you believe that what you think is always true, which is what most people believe, especially when they are young.

You avoid running into that trap by not believing any thought, no matter where it comes from. Don't see them as truths (conclusions), but possibilities (premises) instead. Thoughts are there to play with. If they were true ab initio, you wouldn't need to think them, as truth can be seen without thinking.

2. When to use logic?

If you know Mark Passio's teachings, you've come across the methodology called "Trivium". The Trivium consists of three steps, wherein logic is the 2nd step. Here is a video explaining what the Trivium is and how it works:

If you want to defend yourself against a psychic attacker, what you need to do is to force them to go through the Trivium by arguing with your own thoughts.

3. How to use logic?

I'll just provide some videos explaining the basics:

So, let's imagine a psychic attack and play it through such that you can understand how logic is helping you.

Imagine you are collecting data, for example as part of an RV session, or any other scientific study. The attacker doesn't want you to get to the truth, so he will try to poison the well first by interjecting his thoughts into yours.

Step 1: You force every thought to withstand deductive reasoning. In other words: You need to become a critical thinker. That way, the attacker would need to provide answers he doesn't want to provide or cannot provide. Critical thinking will upset the attacker, because it's not the path of least resistance anymore, and you can pick up on this emotion, making the attacker visible (because you are not upset, you're just asking questions).

Step 2: Saying No. In terms of thinking, this means to mark thoughts as premises even though they could be conclusions. Just say: I don't have enough data, or, I'm not sure yet. Assert your right to not make a judgement now. This will upset the attacker even more, because he wants you to come to his conclusions, not yours.

Step 3: Put the ideas to the test. This is step 3 of the Trivium. This is also the step that requires the most courage, because putting it to the test either reveals that you are incorrect, and most people don't want to be incorrect, or it reveals that you are correct, meaning that your opponent could choose open violence as the next step, and most people fear that.

But the thing about most psychic attackers is: They want to go the path of least resistance, that's why they became psychic manipulators in the first place. There's a high chance they won't attack you physically, because it makes them visible to others, and they fear that. Confront the attacker with that fear. It's like confronting a stalker in front of other people.

Step 4: You've identified and confronted the attacker, and now he tries to intimidate you. Use logic again: This means he knows your weak spots, because he still sees a way to get what he wants. There's a fear he's taking advantage of. Do you know yourself well enough? You need to see that as an opportunity to confront your own fears. Don't do this if you know nothing about it! Do the shadow work first. If you choose to remain in fear and ignorance, the attacker will intimidate you until you learn what needs to be known to overcome the fear.

At this point, ask yourself: Will God / the universe confront you with violence that can't be overcome? This boils down to the question wether you believe in damnation or not. Are you damned? Will the attacker always be stronger? How could it be that I'm stronger than the attacker? I'm just a little human on a prison planet on the periphery of the galaxy.

Are you?

"We think Newton's Three Laws are sacrosanct, and then we observe these craft defy them."

Use logic to look at the premises:

What are the premises Newton's Laws are built on? What is a Law? What do you believe when it comes to Law?

You'll find your answer within the word "sacrosanct", which is another word for untouchable or taboo. Why is touching Newton's Laws a taboo for you? Because you think that these laws are all there is to know when it comes to gravity. Who taught you that? And why?

I want to add one more thing:

When remote viewers identify a "deduction" while remote viewing, as far as I'm concerned it's not even a deduction in most cases, but an assumption or conjecture instead. It's correct to put those aside because the remote viewers can't know wether the premises are true or false. In other words: They are trying to avoid an assumption becoming a premise of a deduction, because that would interfere with the data collection process. That's why viewing blind is so important.

But looking at the premises after the target has been revealed and making deductions that could be true is totally valid. We just have to keep in mind that it's speculation until a premise has been proven true.

For example, in the Jeffrey Epstein project, the viewer saw a pattern that could be iron bars in a prison, but coming to that conclusion while still blind to the target would be incorrect. When the target is revealed and the viewer knows that it's Epstein, it's reasonable to assume that the pattern is iron bars of a prison cell – that deduction would be both valid and very probably correct.

This should be a standard when it comes to communication in general. If someone wants you to believe something, avoid the deduction, even though the premises are convincing. That's essentially step 2 from my explanation above. Just don't believe it (until you've put it to the test yourself).

But in contrast to remote viewing, communication is a two way process. You can throw in own deductions that speak against the conclusions of others, depending on your knowledge. Having more than one deduction strengthens the argument that the premises are not clear enough, making it easier to say No.

In short: Bad people just don't like to argue and debate.

@Rey M

"I skimmed through your post and unfortunately there are too many issues with it that I won't have the time and energy to address. The bottom line is that you have missed the point about what logic is."

The point is that logic is not a subjective opinion, but an objective methodology. If to you an UFO flying in a bizarre pattern is illogical, it means that your premises must be incorrect, as the evidence is there. So you have to adjust. For example, the premise that it's a real UFO could be incorrect, our the premise that gravity is limited to our understanding of Newton's Laws could be incorrect, or...

So you start asking questions in order to analyze (take apart) the premises. Wanting a certain premise to be true while the evidence is speaking against it would be illogical. But that's exactly what bad people want: They want incorrect premises to be true, and they are willing to use psychic manipulation and violence to get what they want.

Unfortunately the modern mainstream approach to logic is a dumb version of what it was understood to be circa 1800. Logicians study modal logic amongst other forms, and that is demanding of discipline much the way calculus is. Few have the patience for it and therefore the typical publications on genuine formal logic are collecting dust somewhere.

I still cringe at the popularization of how the Stat Trek Vulcans parroted tge word logic logic logic without ever actually demonstrating a formal use of logic, or so I didn't see one example.

Unfortunately, I think it's too late for us to even try to pick up the walk from where the study trailed off. We are the global victim of an intentional dumbing down, Fortunately, the awakening of the masses no longer needs deep critical thinking.

Something like: "look up, idiot" is becoming more like a salutation than an insult. I for one am cheerful when I hear such a phrase even directed at me.

I think this piece about disclosure and ET presence needs front and centre attention, and close second the militarization of ourselves as independent but well networked nations. To pursue such a thing unfortunately looks a little bit cultish. Because not too long ago we tried the logic and reason and philosophy route. Meanwhile the real powers basically raped and pillaged to their heart's content. They don't care, it takes us too long to understand.

We now need the crucial truth in short bite sizes that a lemming might comprehend. We are the stupid masses that we once feared becoming. But it's ok. No more time to try and fundamentally change that. Our ally is the shear boredom that kids experience in our loser official his-story lies. The hatred for societal norms, and the basic planetary chlostrophobia will be enough.