In 1864, Joly wrote his best-known book, The Dialogue in Hell, a satirical attack on Bonaparte’s authoritarianism, and a defense of republicanism. The piece uses the literary device of a dialogue of the dead, invented by ancient Roman writer Lucian and introduced into the French belles-lettres by Bernard de Fontenelle in the 18th century. Shades of the historical figures, Niccolò Machiavelli and Charles-Louis de Secondat, Baron de La Brède et de Montesquieu meet in Hell in the year 1864 and dispute on politics. In this way, Joly tried to conceal a direct, and then illegal, criticism of Louis-Napoleon’s rule.
Joly relates, in his 1870 autobiography, that one evening thinking of Abbé Galiani’s treatise Dialogues sur le commerce des bleds and walking by the Pont Royal, he was inspired to write a dialogue between Montesquieu and Machiavelli. The noble baron Montesquieu (whom Joly consigned to Hell in his book because of Montesquieu’s support of republics/democracies) would make the case for liberalism; the Florentine politician Machiavelli would present the case for despotism.
In the Dialogue, Machiavelli claims that
He “… wouldn’t even need twenty years to transform utterly the most indomitable European character and render it as a docile under tyranny as the debased people of Asia.” Montesquieu insists that the liberal spirit of the peoples is invincible. In 25 dialogues, step by step, Machiavelli, who by Joly’s plot covertly represents Napoleon III, explains how he would replace freedom with despotism in any given European country: “…Absolute power will no longer be an accident of fortune but will become a need” of the modern society. At the end, Machiavelli prevails. In the curtain-line Montesquieu exclaims “Eternal God, what have you permitted!…”
Karl Marx, in The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon, famously mocked Napoleon III by saying “Hegel remarks somewhere that all great world-historical facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce.”
The Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu  (in the original French Dialogue aux enfers entre Machiavel et Montesquieu ou la politique de Machiavel au XIXe siècle) is a political satire written by French attorney Maurice Joly in protest against the regime of Napoleon III, a.k.a. Louis-Napoléon Bonaparte who ruled France from 1848-1870. It was translated into English in 2002. Small portions were translated in 1967 as an appendix to Norman Cohn’s Warrant for Genocide, which identifies it as the main source of the later Protocols of the Elders of Zion, though The Dialogue itself makes no mention of Jews.
The piece uses the literary device of a dialogue of the dead, invented by ancient Roman writer Lucian and introduced into the French belles-lettres by Bernard de Fontenelle in the 18th century. Shadows of the historical characters of Niccolò Machiavelli and Charles Montesquieu meet in Hell in the year 1864 and dispute on politics. In this way Joly tried to cover up a direct, and then illegal, criticism of Louis-Napoleon’s rule.
I think Jordan Peterson has had a rough ride with his mental health, the spotlight he attracted I think singled him out for special cancellation treatment.
Noam Chomsky seems to have had a good response to the threats, in that he seems a totally different person these days, perhaps he is the biggest example of the “Left” embracing Big Pharma’s medical tyranny.
I get the feeling that the story has run out of steam on Covid, and Climate change
I have been following some of what this guy Dr. John Cambpell says. He has been scrupulously fair in giving the benefit of the doubt to the powers that be.
New Pfizer drug and ivermectin
I listened to this the other day and found it quite useful.
James Kunstler: There Will Be Revolt Against the Neo-Jacobin Program, We’ll See the End of This
Then There was this,
The True Nature Of The Conspiracy
Max Igan, made some comments in his chat with Jeff Berwick about being accused of being a Nazi he has links to some of Ryan Dawson’s work but also a film called Hell Storm which is on Ryans’s channel ( https://altcensored.com/watch?v=Bl8QLVg7CLo) Alt censored is a new one on me.
I also watched this yesterday.
is there a British constitution?
There are so many strands hanging out of the Covid19/Global”Heating”/Great Reset narratives now that a small tug on any one of them will unravel the whole shebang.
Australia , Canada and Newzealand seem to get more attention presently than the US or South Africa, very little on France or Germany. I wondered the other if the Antipodean fall to Jackboot rule has something to do with cutting them loose to Eurasia away from Oceana? hard to tell.
put the google translation of this on my blog the other day mike
There has not been a Pandemic, end of.
DEBUNKING MONEY – THE WAY THE WORLD REALLY WORKS – FULL LENGTH – DAMON VRABEL
The coming of the Roman Empire destroyed the community-based economy that God had provided for the children of Israel.
The Sadducees and the priestly families that collaborated with the Romans were rewarded with large land holdings. Many accumulated large blocks of land. The people who had previously owned them were turned into tenant farmers, who had to hand over at least half of their crops to their landlords.
The empire imposed exorbitant taxes on the ordinary people. This pushed most families into poverty. If taxes could not be paid, their property would be confiscated. The tax collectors got rich and the rest became tenant farmers or day labourers. Jesus saw the tax collectors as “sick” (Luke 5:31).
For ordinary people, storing up wealth was impossible. If the Roman soldiers found coins or grain hidden in a house, they would smash the house.
Debt was used to impoverish people and to steal their land. A person who was poor would be lent money at very high interest rates (50 percent) using their land as security. When they were unable to pay the interest or repay the loan, the interest would be added to the loan. In a few years, a small loan could grow to be worth more than the land given as security. The lender would demand the land to settle the debt.
Herod built a Greek-styled temple in Jerusalem. His son Antipas built the new Roman cities at Deopolis and Tiberius. The governor of Judea built a new city of Caesar Philip in honour of Caesar. To pay for these building projects, the people had to pay tribute.
People were hungry all the time.
During those days another large crowd gathered. Since they had nothing to eat, Jesus called his disciples to him and said, “I have compassion for these people; they have already been with me three days and have nothing to eat. If I send them home hungry, they will collapse on the way (Mark 8:1-3).
The state of people’s health was so bad that going without food was debilitating.
By Jesus time, most families in Israel had no land. Most of the land was controlled by a few powerful families and moneylenders. Tax collectors and soldiers would grab most of the crops that were grown and most money that was earned. The people were left with very little to live on. Most people were hungry most of the time. Many would have to find some work each day as a day labourer to buy their food for the day. That is why Jesus knew the people had followed him around the lake to listen to his teaching all day would be hungry. If they had not worked, they would have no food, and not be able to buy any.
For the people of Israel, the Roman Empire was a terrible place to live. Land was concentrated in the hands of a few. Capital was no longer distributed evenly. The people did not have money to lend to others, because all surpluses were taken by the Romans and the temple system. Life was brutal and extreme poverty was normal. No wonder people were looking for a Messiah who would break the shackles of Rome and free them from the burden of debt, tax and tribute.