The Tangle Fallacy

Accreting falsehoods creating false narrative realities

We shall heretofore refer to a phenomenon called Tangle Fallacy.

When a premise of reasoning is built upon a lie, i.e. that the Republican Party had nothing to do with 9/11 or that the premises of the invasion of Iraq were anything less than false, it creates not just fallacious logic, but a kind of blow back phenomenon wherein people believe aspects of the untruth, then build their false claims on that shifting sand, with the final partition being force of some kind- a slamming of a door, a shutting down of a conversation, etc.

I assure you, as someone who was alive and not a total fool, almost every American believed the official narrative of 9/11 in the immediate aftermath. The educated, the uneducated, on both coasts, rich and poor.

Read this article about False Premise fallacy in logic.

If the original premise was false, then all of the subsequent claims are also false. Here we see Republican President Trump doubting the official narrative of 9/11, and Bush’s response. Therefore, Republicans, the same party as Bush and Trump, have no ethical or moral stance whatsoever, but merely exist as a frosting with no cake of free market gains, and jingoistic sabre-rattling ‘patriots’.

There is NO question that Bush and the Republican Party repeatedly lied about the premises for invasion of Iraq.

Therefore, there are now two kinds of Americans: ones who use some level of force or wilfull ignorance to avoid that 9/11 was an inside job, and those who know it and act accordingly. There is no in between.

Watch more of Bush lying:

Though lying is not a partisan issue, the American government has consistently lied regardless of the incumbent party. The Gulf of Tonkin incident started America’s involvement in the Vietnam War. It was also based on a lie:

So, if someone starts with the premise, the government lies, Bush had a hand in 9/11, and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are abjectly criminal false operations, and that the Republican Party is responsible, one would be making a correct claim. If someone deviates from that first truth, they are committing the Tangle Fallacy.

Similarly, if you know something to be obviously true, like that Facebook is actually a part of intelligence organizations or at least in collaboration with the government, but 99% of the world isn’t there yet, you live in a Wall of Swords environment on which other’s premises are based on falsehoods or half truths, in which case, no matter how ‘backed up’ they are by consensus reality, you are still being subjected to the Tangle Fallacy, and they are perpetrating it. This renders their arguments fallacious, no matter how in-numerated they are.

Example: George Bush is an ex-cocaine addict and alcoholic, and former President. If a room full of Republicans say, “Hunter Biden is a cocaine addict, look at how far we’ve fallen into disgrace of the office! Democrats are a disgrace” It should be satisfactory to show that Bush was a cocaine addict and he was actually President, so their arguments are invalid. But, being that they are Republicans, they will commit whataboutism until it looks like only the left does things the right have historically done at least once, if not many, times. You have not stated your argument as to whether democrats or republicans are good or bad, merely pointed out the hypocrisy of the right, yet you are scorned or an ad hominem attack ensues. Tangled in superstition and erroneous, fallacious points until emotions become the central theme rather than discourse, you have been engaged by a Tangle Fallacy.