The Art of Ambiguity (new glossary entry)

6a00e54ef4f376883401bb092241aa970d-600wiI recently coined the phrase “the Art of Ambiguity” to describe everything from Obama’s nebulous “Hope & Change” slogan to Trump’s “and some, I assume, are good people.” In the former case, no information is given, so you can project what you want. In the latter case, all options are thrown out there so you can pick and choose what you want to hear. Either way, some people will read it one way, and others another, and then the games begin.

The Art of Ambiguity is also being employed in the Black v Blue psyop…When a white cop shoots a black guy you can be sure either the black guy may or may not have been doing something very wrong or the video will be cut off, blurred, far away, interfered with or out of context. Clear cut videos or wrongful deaths don’t get much airtime. (Don’t believe it? Check out this officer shooting Andrew Thomas who just had an accident, or this story about David Powell killed by a wrong-address 9-1-1 response. These are the cases that would unite us against police overreach or wrongful action yet they don’t get the time of day.)

If there’s no ambiguity, the issue can’t be read two ways and there won’t be any conflict. No conflict, no crisis. No crisis, no way to move the ball forward on the agenda. The Art of Ambiguity keeps a good crisis from going to waste!

This entry was posted in glossary, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to The Art of Ambiguity (new glossary entry)

  1. Anonymous says:

    I believe the police are being thrown under the bus. Trying to hire good police officers across the board is not an easy task. I thought the movie “Crash” personified that. However, the police aren’t the ones who should be put on trial here. The politicians who have been part of this social engineering are the criminals. Over the last 50 years or so we have created (or re-created) a new society that is far different from the society that has been America’s greatness. Over this time, our politician l have engineered a society that will live under our carpet at our expense hoping they can accept this standard. Guess what, they don’t. How do you fix it? Well, ask your politicians who let the police do their dirty work. The welfare state is our evil mini-me.

    • Tony says:

      I have first hand experience to back up your theory. My son served a full tour in the Marines, sharp kid. When he applied to Cobb County ( Police ) he was denied from even testing. They didn’t like the dog tag tattoo on his forearm. His roommate was killed in Afghanastan so his roommates dog tags are tattooed on his right forearm. To prove that my son would have made a fine police officer, he put himself through flight school and is now flying helicopters. I have countless clients who are veteran police who are saying the same thing. If a candidate is smart ( IQ above 130) , the system doesn’t want him/ her. In the 60’s and 70’s it was common to have police that were downright sharp, and had common sense.

      • Anonymous says:

        Their are a lot of police I have respect for and many I don’t. NYPD are the best and should be a model for police etiquette. Go 20 miles to the east and you have the other side. Note: I’m 30 years removed. Maybe they’ve changed. Police should not become millionaires, but should be afforded some privileges. Our politicians have lost their way. IMO …

  2. Tony says:

    Monica my dear lady, as always you find that trigger point that so few of us see. My question is this and something tells me you know the answer. Is what we’re seeing by human design (power elite), or is society just moving that way?
    I’ll stay in the race as long as you do.
    P.S. I haven’t been engaged much lately as I’ve been finding it hard lately getting around..

  3. johndjasper says:

    OK, I give. What’s with the drawing? It’s the first I’ve seen of it.

    • austrogirl says:

      I have absolutely no idea! I searched for “ambiguity” in google images & voila! I thought it fit 🙂

    • Johnny Blastoff says:

      It’s an ambiguous picture, optical illusion. The picture can be interpreted multiple ways depending on where the eyes focus. There’s the face. And then there are the trees, branches, what appears to be a woman walking with her head tilted towards the ground, and the buildings in the background that together make up the face.

      • johndjasper says:

        Thanks. My question was apparently too ambiguous! I was curious about its provenance and as Monica has replied, it appears to reside anonymously on the internet whereby innocents can stumble upon it in amazement and bewilderment! :o)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s