Fatal Flaws of Logic – Part 3

by Randy Mauganswith contributions from Keith Hansen (a/k/a “Vyzygoth”)
Presented in four parts:

Fatal Flaws of Logic – Part 1
Fatal Flaws of Logic – Part 2
Fatal Flaws of Logic – Part 4

Paul Collins, of the Collins Brothers, plays a set-up scenario, and accuses Vyzygoth,Gordon Comstock, and myself of “not checking sources”. To wit we respond—with sources—and some corrections on the dishonest assertions:

Paul Collins’  closing challenge to me was:

“So far as I can tell, though, you have two decisions before you: You can carefully analyze everything that comes across your desk and provide people with info that can be verified, or you can believe it all and get laughed to scorn when the straw men you adopt get knocked over.”

Now, the only thing worse than lying is continuing in the lie when it has been refuted. Again, let me restate this:

To my knowledge, NONE of the participants in the radio show presented ideas even remotely connected to Roger Elvick, the Freemen, the Redemption Process, or any such other “patriot” ideologies or strategies. This is a PRESUMPTION of the top rank:

It PRESUMES that because we discuss the Constitution in terms of its fraudulent qualities, we are thereby involved in attempting to circumvent statutory laws (the presumption made against these redemtion teachers, which include among many, Jack Smith and Victoria Joy, and a bevvy of late 1990s shortwave hosts, where it was a staple in the tax revolt movement.) Of the three hosts on that show, I, alone, am acquainted with the writings of Roger Elvick and the escapades of the Montana Freemen. I read the materials as part of research I was conducting into the IRS during the years 1999-2004. I found many interesting and novel insights, but never embraced the processes or philosophies which underpinned these movements

I will also note that I have a long association with both hosts, and failed to see even remote connections between the information they have provided and the above listed “radical patriot” movements. This is an ideological “tar baby” thrown out by Paul Collins in an unfocused, out-of-context tirade that betrays his stance as a serious researcher and presenter of such materials. That Paul Collins simply groups all who seriously research the roots of  destruction and obfuscation in the application of law in the United States together betrays his biases, and corrupts his journalism profession.Worse, it is an emotional attack, lacking subject matter substance. Who’s listeners need to be apprised?

As to Mr. Collins laying down the gauntlet for me to “analyze everything”: ‘Et tu, Brute.’ You maintain your facade by injecting the buzz word, “strawman” into your closing statement. Thus continues your own dissimulation and dishonest attack. In a closing email to Paul Collins I reitereated my basic objections:

This “scatter shot” approach employed by you in this post does not bear the imprimatur of a “friendly” discourse, but an emotional venting of your own narrow views related to issues already well served by the establishment viewpoint of mainstream media—the mouthpieces of the same “powers” you claim to expose in your work. What the hell is “patriot literature”, anyway? I don’t subscribe to the American Free Press or buy books from shortwave hosts. It seems you have a very limited scope of reference which stops at the doors of academia and the establishment’s own vetted sources!

Continue to: Fatal Flaws of Logic – Part 4