Its better to kill 100 people in 1 day than 100 people in 100 days

>its better to kill 100 people in 1 day than 100 people in 100 days

what did he mean by this

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Maximilien_Robespierre
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

The first option gives you 99 free days to do other things.

>When shit has to be done, just fucking do the shit.

100 people in 1 day for 100 days is best.

That book is satire. You wont understand it unless you read some of his other works.

If you're going to do a violent thing it should be done with full conviction in one instant. It shouldn't drag on.

If you kill your enemies in one swoop, it'll be seen as a one time context sensitive event (night of the long knives) as opposed to a very regular regime of fear and tyranny (Stalin regularly purging his own government) .

In my experience, people who say it's satire have never actually read it and only gave the wikipedia article a quick glance.

There is plausible deniability if you kill 100 people in one day. If you do 1 for 100 days it is clearly pre-meditated.

People will remember the 100 kills in 100 days more than just one day of killing 100 people.

For example, people have pretty much already forgotten about the school shooting in Florida, had that guy been killing one person a day he'd be a well-known serial killer for the rest of eternity like Ted Bundy or some shit.

ps the Prince is not satire.

literally the opposite is implied.

Fuck you cunts and your wog books, if you want something in life just smash a cunt I’m thr face and take it.

learn to read fag

FUCK MERCENARIES

basically you can be forgiven if you only do it once, instead of doing it again and again 100 times.

also if you kill 100 of your least favorite people in 1 day, then you will have less detractors from your message and more people will fall in line.
if you draw it out then that gives your enemies time to hurl insults at you, or plan an attack

You r bad at read friend

It's not satire, but it surely doesn't hold so much relevance as something like Art of War, given its focus on feudal etiquette and hierarchies.
> haven't read it either

People will start thinking the ruler will eventually come after them, as happened to robespierre:

Although he only accused three deputies by name (Pierre-Joseph Cambon, François René Mallarmé, and Dominique-Vincent Ramel-Nogaret), his speech seemed to also incriminate several other.[1] Moreover, it was precisely because he failed to name the condemned that terror spread through the Convention as the deputies started thinking that Robespierre was planning yet another purge like that of the Dantonist and Herbertist.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Maximilien_Robespierre

>prince is not satire
Then why is it like 10 pages and his magnum opus is a textbook sized tome on republics?

don't leave for tomorrow what you can do today

Art of War is a total meme. Nothing in that book is relevant.

Because it was designed as a pamphlet for Princes.

(((people)))

What does reading have to do with it? 100 kills in 1 day is more memorable. Faggots.

This. Plus killing 1 at a time leaves enemies and allows them to gather against you. I remember the main point of the book being that. Kill don't wound, leave no enemies.

He meant that people will forget an evil deed if you don't repeat it, on the condition it does not affect them personally.
In general he advocates the use of extreme measures only when the future of the state is at stake, because being extreme is a bad thing to be associated with extremities is never good.
But when extremities are necessary they should be done all at once.

It means you're reading a meme political pamphlet low key talking shit about people it was adressed to, shouldn't be taken at face value and has very little relevance to any situation you might encounter in your life.

Reading "The Prince" as a self help book is a laughable late 80's Yuppie meme, use your fucking brain and read something relevant like "Understanding Media" or "Politics of Experience".

A tooth should be pulled quickly

It's very relevant - you just have to know how to imply the art in modern situations.

This is a political board, we're talking about politics.

Seriously, don't take the prince so seriously. It was written in the context of 16th century italy. The political situation was so dire, the only way machiavelli could have saw it getting sorted out was for a prince to unify italy.

Came here to post something similar. Good work Sven.

Exactly this

You're talking about things you have very little grasp on. Unless you're a student in the history of Italian Republicanism in the 16th Century, "The Prince" is an irrelevant waste of time.

Read "Culture of Critique".

the whole book is a guide for kings.

Same lesson from the Art of War.

Sieges suck. Blitzkrieg or else. Hit hard, hit fast, end the war as quick as possible.

>implying kangz read books

>violating the NAP
You would not make it