Say what you will but it is actions that tells much more.
I have always been astonished by how much is said to convince a person, group of folks or citizens of the country when little is required. Platforms are graced, meetings are held and interviews are conducted to convince people of various agenda.
The most perceptive among the audience will not require the rhetoric to understand the actions that are subsequently undertaken. They will derive the agenda through understanding of those very actions.
When an organization espouses that it believes in such and such values and expects every one to hold them in high esteem. Such messages are received only by the most in-attentive among the audience who will lap up what ever is offered to him. The attentive folks derive their conclusion from what is rewarded by the company, what is not rewarded and what is appreciated.
The rhetoric is almost always aimed to win the least perceptive among the audience and it is the hope of the speaker that they are in majority. For without that, their effort would not derive maximum mileage that it attends to achieve.
The opinion that I offer here is extreme.
I feel that most rhetoric are driven by this agenda in varying degrees. At most, such voices can be called intentions. In a age, where there are covert intentions and various kind of ulterior motives, the intention as expressed, do not mean much. They are packaged for consumption.
How are we to discern among the noise, the real intention, motive and agenda?
Alas, it is difficult to tell. For if an action does not achieve it’s goal, there are two reasons.
- It either achieved it’s ulterior agenda and intention or
- it was a failure of knowledge.
Only cynical will resort to belief that every failure is due to presence of an ulterior motive which is masqueraded with the messages that are so profusely offered in it’s defense.
How are we to get out from such dilemma?