"Trying to change the world for the better is usually more easily accomplished if people to hate you, than love you so much they try to make you the king of it."
Are you saying that I should initiate my hostile take over of the world? Dictatorships rule! absolutely
he who stands on tiptoe doesnt stand firm he who rushes ahead doesnt go far he who tries to shine dims his own light he who defines himself cant know who he really is he who has power over others cant empower himself he who clings to his work will create nothing that endures if you want to accord with the tao just do your work , then let go
Actually I wish that were mine, but i did not say it...but you make a point; dictators often have more freedom in which to work than kings.
really? Yes, there is one word, 'to', that should not be there. But most would be capable of reading that and realizing a typo, instead of being stumped by it. As far as the rest goes, as I am no expert in the original language, that is the best translation of the phrase we can offer...
Oh, but not all kings are so skilled. But, does one hated but unstoppable have a need to manipulate for favoritism if he/she can dominate?
ok, so what i think it means is that is easier to change the world if people hate you, instead of love you. yes? we talking about already powerful people, such as a king or a president, or just any situation?
you do something good then think "i really did good right there with that , good on me" get rid of the second part
How do you know if we do this? Perhaps, we do nothing good. Wouldn't it then seem that perhaps a person should get rid of both parts?
Perhaps any...like Jesus for example. Crowds loved Him and followed Him, took from Him and took some more from Him....yet it was not until the crowd hated Him enough to kill Him that He really changed the world. Or perhaps juyst powerful people to start with, whichever you prefer to discuss that you think adds to the topic..
You asked if it was true, I said no it wasn't in all cases (as one would assume your question isn't so simplified). Sure not all kings are "skilled in manipulation" but one would surmise that with the resources they have at their disposal and the "traditional grooming" they endure(d) that most would be in a position to execute such acts if they really want to. With that said most kings are likely "comfortable" enough not to necessitate such action; after all it was their ancestors that put them there. As for your second question, and to comment in a manner mirroring your initial indulging; not all people who are "unstoppable" can simply dominate as they like, not even Hitler and Stalin could do certain things without some degree (albeit a small one) of consensus coming from their right handed men. With that said, it depends on the situation, maybe one dictator may want to manipulate such to minimize the amount of resistance that could occur if they simply "force their" way towards a certain goal or act. On the other hand many would simply disregard manipulation while others might combine "forceful/blunt" acts with "manipulation." Can the statement you presented be true - sure, but one would imagine there would be a variety of responses to it. Life isn't black and white and neither is addressing your question.
You remind me a lot of someone else we know yet I am not yet sure who it is you remind us of. As for the rest, may all our indulgences be forgiven us.....if they need to be forgiven, indeed, as well as in intent.