![tenshi_anna's tweet photo. Carl Schmitt on the Christian agapeic orientation of Spanish Catholics like Francisco de Vitoria and Bartolomé de las Casas towards New World colonization in contrast to the Aristotelian de facto neopagan brutishness of Protestants like Francis Bacon, as well as other Spanish “Catholics” (“humanists”) who merely invoked the agonistic doctrines of Aristotle without consideration of genuine Christian duty:
“A contemporary reader’s first impression of Vitoria’s relectiones is of extraordinary impartiality, objectivity, and neutrality. Consequently, the argumentation no longer appears medieval, but “modern.” Seven tituli non idonei nec legitimi [titles neither suitable nor legitimate] and the same number of tituli idonei ac legitimi are discussed in varying detail and with equal objectivity. Accordingly, all legal titles of the pope and the emperor deriving from claims to world domination are rejected unconditionally as inappropriate and illegitimate. This impression of total objectivity and neutrality also is sustained elsewhere. In particular, it is emphasized repeatedly that native Americans, though they may be barbarians, are not animals, and are no less human than are the European land-appropriators. Though not stated explicitly, this amounted to a rejection of a particular type of argument, especially in various justifications of the conquista by the humanist Juan Gines Sepúlveda (1490-1573), historiographer of Charles V and teacher of Philip II, for whom Las Casas was an hombre enemigo [inimical man] and a sembrador de discordias [purveyor of discord].
Sepúlveda presented the natives as savages and barbarians (with reference to Aristotle), in order to place them outside the law and to make their land free for appropriation. At the beginning of the conquista, it had been argued that the Indians worshiped idols, sacrificed humans, and were cannibals and criminals of every sort. Aristotle’s statement in the first book of his Politics that a barbarian is “by nature a slave” often was cited, and Sepúlveda even is reported to have said: “Spaniards stand above barbarians as men above the apes.” Thus, to deny the Indians human qualities on such grounds had the practical aim of obtaining a legal title for the great land-appropriation and of subjugating the Indians which, incidentally, even Sepúlveda considered to be only servitude (servidumbre), not slavery (esclavitud).
This Aristotelian argument was inhuman in its outcome. But it derived from a particular concept of humanity: the higher humanity of the conqueror. It has an interesting history. The classic formulation is found first in the writings of the English philosopher Francis Bacon, whose tenets were adopted by Barbeyrac in his commentary on Pufendorf’s concept of natural law. Bacon said the Indians were “proscribed by nature itself” as cannibals. They stood outside humanity (hors l’humanité) and had no rights. By no means is it paradoxical that none other than humanists and humanitarians put forward such inhuman arguments, because the idea of humanity is two-sided and often lends itself to a surprising dialectic. Given the coherence of this two-sided aspect of the idea of humanity, it should be remembered that Bacon also opposed the axiom homo homini deus to that of homo homini lupus.”](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HBX1PkEXUAATF4z.jpg)
![tenshi_anna's tweet photo. Carl Schmitt on the Christian agapeic orientation of Spanish Catholics like Francisco de Vitoria and Bartolomé de las Casas towards New World colonization in contrast to the Aristotelian de facto neopagan brutishness of Protestants like Francis Bacon, as well as other Spanish “Catholics” (“humanists”) who merely invoked the agonistic doctrines of Aristotle without consideration of genuine Christian duty:
“A contemporary reader’s first impression of Vitoria’s relectiones is of extraordinary impartiality, objectivity, and neutrality. Consequently, the argumentation no longer appears medieval, but “modern.” Seven tituli non idonei nec legitimi [titles neither suitable nor legitimate] and the same number of tituli idonei ac legitimi are discussed in varying detail and with equal objectivity. Accordingly, all legal titles of the pope and the emperor deriving from claims to world domination are rejected unconditionally as inappropriate and illegitimate. This impression of total objectivity and neutrality also is sustained elsewhere. In particular, it is emphasized repeatedly that native Americans, though they may be barbarians, are not animals, and are no less human than are the European land-appropriators. Though not stated explicitly, this amounted to a rejection of a particular type of argument, especially in various justifications of the conquista by the humanist Juan Gines Sepúlveda (1490-1573), historiographer of Charles V and teacher of Philip II, for whom Las Casas was an hombre enemigo [inimical man] and a sembrador de discordias [purveyor of discord].
Sepúlveda presented the natives as savages and barbarians (with reference to Aristotle), in order to place them outside the law and to make their land free for appropriation. At the beginning of the conquista, it had been argued that the Indians worshiped idols, sacrificed humans, and were cannibals and criminals of every sort. Aristotle’s statement in the first book of his Politics that a barbarian is “by nature a slave” often was cited, and Sepúlveda even is reported to have said: “Spaniards stand above barbarians as men above the apes.” Thus, to deny the Indians human qualities on such grounds had the practical aim of obtaining a legal title for the great land-appropriation and of subjugating the Indians which, incidentally, even Sepúlveda considered to be only servitude (servidumbre), not slavery (esclavitud).
This Aristotelian argument was inhuman in its outcome. But it derived from a particular concept of humanity: the higher humanity of the conqueror. It has an interesting history. The classic formulation is found first in the writings of the English philosopher Francis Bacon, whose tenets were adopted by Barbeyrac in his commentary on Pufendorf’s concept of natural law. Bacon said the Indians were “proscribed by nature itself” as cannibals. They stood outside humanity (hors l’humanité) and had no rights. By no means is it paradoxical that none other than humanists and humanitarians put forward such inhuman arguments, because the idea of humanity is two-sided and often lends itself to a surprising dialectic. Given the coherence of this two-sided aspect of the idea of humanity, it should be remembered that Bacon also opposed the axiom homo homini deus to that of homo homini lupus.”](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HBX1Pj6WsAAYa_H.jpg)
![tenshi_anna's tweet photo. Carl Schmitt on the Christian agapeic orientation of Spanish Catholics like Francisco de Vitoria and Bartolomé de las Casas towards New World colonization in contrast to the Aristotelian de facto neopagan brutishness of Protestants like Francis Bacon, as well as other Spanish “Catholics” (“humanists”) who merely invoked the agonistic doctrines of Aristotle without consideration of genuine Christian duty:
“A contemporary reader’s first impression of Vitoria’s relectiones is of extraordinary impartiality, objectivity, and neutrality. Consequently, the argumentation no longer appears medieval, but “modern.” Seven tituli non idonei nec legitimi [titles neither suitable nor legitimate] and the same number of tituli idonei ac legitimi are discussed in varying detail and with equal objectivity. Accordingly, all legal titles of the pope and the emperor deriving from claims to world domination are rejected unconditionally as inappropriate and illegitimate. This impression of total objectivity and neutrality also is sustained elsewhere. In particular, it is emphasized repeatedly that native Americans, though they may be barbarians, are not animals, and are no less human than are the European land-appropriators. Though not stated explicitly, this amounted to a rejection of a particular type of argument, especially in various justifications of the conquista by the humanist Juan Gines Sepúlveda (1490-1573), historiographer of Charles V and teacher of Philip II, for whom Las Casas was an hombre enemigo [inimical man] and a sembrador de discordias [purveyor of discord].
Sepúlveda presented the natives as savages and barbarians (with reference to Aristotle), in order to place them outside the law and to make their land free for appropriation. At the beginning of the conquista, it had been argued that the Indians worshiped idols, sacrificed humans, and were cannibals and criminals of every sort. Aristotle’s statement in the first book of his Politics that a barbarian is “by nature a slave” often was cited, and Sepúlveda even is reported to have said: “Spaniards stand above barbarians as men above the apes.” Thus, to deny the Indians human qualities on such grounds had the practical aim of obtaining a legal title for the great land-appropriation and of subjugating the Indians which, incidentally, even Sepúlveda considered to be only servitude (servidumbre), not slavery (esclavitud).
This Aristotelian argument was inhuman in its outcome. But it derived from a particular concept of humanity: the higher humanity of the conqueror. It has an interesting history. The classic formulation is found first in the writings of the English philosopher Francis Bacon, whose tenets were adopted by Barbeyrac in his commentary on Pufendorf’s concept of natural law. Bacon said the Indians were “proscribed by nature itself” as cannibals. They stood outside humanity (hors l’humanité) and had no rights. By no means is it paradoxical that none other than humanists and humanitarians put forward such inhuman arguments, because the idea of humanity is two-sided and often lends itself to a surprising dialectic. Given the coherence of this two-sided aspect of the idea of humanity, it should be remembered that Bacon also opposed the axiom homo homini deus to that of homo homini lupus.”](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HBX1Pj4XIAAXldS.jpg)
Olivia
Online
unheimlich
@creationsubject
idiot savant
🇪🇸🇬🇧🇩🇪🇷🇺
Joined June 2024
378 Following
32 Followers
597 Posts
@mebidick Unemployed final boss behaviour
Generational debt speedrun any%
@el_pais Me cago en vuestra putísima madre. Sois una caterva de maricones sin patria.
If I’m killed, please use my death to push for mass deportations and colonialism, even if it’s completely unrelated.
@DogDickDaniel @AlfonsoHegao What is the tactical advantage of rocking a stiffy while performing cover ops??
@Tatmskw Pero este tío no era sastre??
"Un peu plus qu'un an maintenant"
@valleloboso Entiendo que eso es un "no".
Chilled weekend
Coñac sí, pero pornografía no, que dice el Caudillo que te pudre el alma.
España, señoras y señores, antaño era un país.
@GraduatedBen Could it be???
@boscovne @47Tolkien No. El nazismo es una corriente política PARAfascista, soportada principalmente por la convicción de la superioridad racial del pueblo alemán (puaj) y del movimiento obrerista (doblemente puaj). Poco tiene que ver con lo propuesto por Benito, o Il Vate.
@Santi_ABASCAL Dilo en Arameo.
Fenicio.
"Brindo por ustedes, los burgueses, y por el deseo de que su vida cómoda sea enterrada en un océano de mierda". Gabriele D'Annunzio.
Unsere Seele ist für etwas Höheres da, als bloß den uniformen Takt der Maschine zu halten.
▪️Friedrich von Schiller
Carl Schmitt on the Christian agapeic orientation of Spanish Catholics like Francisco de Vitoria and Bartolomé de las Casas towards New World colonization in contrast to the Aristotelian de facto neopagan brutishness of Protestants like Francis Bacon, as well as other Spanish “Catholics” (“humanists”) who merely invoked the agonistic doctrines of Aristotle without consideration of genuine Christian duty:
“A contemporary reader’s first impression of Vitoria’s relectiones is of extraordinary impartiality, objectivity, and neutrality. Consequently, the argumentation no longer appears medieval, but “modern.” Seven tituli non idonei nec legitimi [titles neither suitable nor legitimate] and the same number of tituli idonei ac legitimi are discussed in varying detail and with equal objectivity. Accordingly, all legal titles of the pope and the emperor deriving from claims to world domination are rejected unconditionally as inappropriate and illegitimate. This impression of total objectivity and neutrality also is sustained elsewhere. In particular, it is emphasized repeatedly that native Americans, though they may be barbarians, are not animals, and are no less human than are the European land-appropriators. Though not stated explicitly, this amounted to a rejection of a particular type of argument, especially in various justifications of the conquista by the humanist Juan Gines Sepúlveda (1490-1573), historiographer of Charles V and teacher of Philip II, for whom Las Casas was an hombre enemigo [inimical man] and a sembrador de discordias [purveyor of discord].
Sepúlveda presented the natives as savages and barbarians (with reference to Aristotle), in order to place them outside the law and to make their land free for appropriation. At the beginning of the conquista, it had been argued that the Indians worshiped idols, sacrificed humans, and were cannibals and criminals of every sort. Aristotle’s statement in the first book of his Politics that a barbarian is “by nature a slave” often was cited, and Sepúlveda even is reported to have said: “Spaniards stand above barbarians as men above the apes.” Thus, to deny the Indians human qualities on such grounds had the practical aim of obtaining a legal title for the great land-appropriation and of subjugating the Indians which, incidentally, even Sepúlveda considered to be only servitude (servidumbre), not slavery (esclavitud).
This Aristotelian argument was inhuman in its outcome. But it derived from a particular concept of humanity: the higher humanity of the conqueror. It has an interesting history. The classic formulation is found first in the writings of the English philosopher Francis Bacon, whose tenets were adopted by Barbeyrac in his commentary on Pufendorf’s concept of natural law. Bacon said the Indians were “proscribed by nature itself” as cannibals. They stood outside humanity (hors l’humanité) and had no rights. By no means is it paradoxical that none other than humanists and humanitarians put forward such inhuman arguments, because the idea of humanity is two-sided and often lends itself to a surprising dialectic. Given the coherence of this two-sided aspect of the idea of humanity, it should be remembered that Bacon also opposed the axiom homo homini deus to that of homo homini lupus.”
![tenshi_anna's tweet photo. Carl Schmitt on the Christian agapeic orientation of Spanish Catholics like Francisco de Vitoria and Bartolomé de las Casas towards New World colonization in contrast to the Aristotelian de facto neopagan brutishness of Protestants like Francis Bacon, as well as other Spanish “Catholics” (“humanists”) who merely invoked the agonistic doctrines of Aristotle without consideration of genuine Christian duty:
“A contemporary reader’s first impression of Vitoria’s relectiones is of extraordinary impartiality, objectivity, and neutrality. Consequently, the argumentation no longer appears medieval, but “modern.” Seven tituli non idonei nec legitimi [titles neither suitable nor legitimate] and the same number of tituli idonei ac legitimi are discussed in varying detail and with equal objectivity. Accordingly, all legal titles of the pope and the emperor deriving from claims to world domination are rejected unconditionally as inappropriate and illegitimate. This impression of total objectivity and neutrality also is sustained elsewhere. In particular, it is emphasized repeatedly that native Americans, though they may be barbarians, are not animals, and are no less human than are the European land-appropriators. Though not stated explicitly, this amounted to a rejection of a particular type of argument, especially in various justifications of the conquista by the humanist Juan Gines Sepúlveda (1490-1573), historiographer of Charles V and teacher of Philip II, for whom Las Casas was an hombre enemigo [inimical man] and a sembrador de discordias [purveyor of discord].
Sepúlveda presented the natives as savages and barbarians (with reference to Aristotle), in order to place them outside the law and to make their land free for appropriation. At the beginning of the conquista, it had been argued that the Indians worshiped idols, sacrificed humans, and were cannibals and criminals of every sort. Aristotle’s statement in the first book of his Politics that a barbarian is “by nature a slave” often was cited, and Sepúlveda even is reported to have said: “Spaniards stand above barbarians as men above the apes.” Thus, to deny the Indians human qualities on such grounds had the practical aim of obtaining a legal title for the great land-appropriation and of subjugating the Indians which, incidentally, even Sepúlveda considered to be only servitude (servidumbre), not slavery (esclavitud).
This Aristotelian argument was inhuman in its outcome. But it derived from a particular concept of humanity: the higher humanity of the conqueror. It has an interesting history. The classic formulation is found first in the writings of the English philosopher Francis Bacon, whose tenets were adopted by Barbeyrac in his commentary on Pufendorf’s concept of natural law. Bacon said the Indians were “proscribed by nature itself” as cannibals. They stood outside humanity (hors l’humanité) and had no rights. By no means is it paradoxical that none other than humanists and humanitarians put forward such inhuman arguments, because the idea of humanity is two-sided and often lends itself to a surprising dialectic. Given the coherence of this two-sided aspect of the idea of humanity, it should be remembered that Bacon also opposed the axiom homo homini deus to that of homo homini lupus.”](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HBX1PkabkAAR3EC.jpg)
Last Seen Users on Sotwe
مرزیا کوهی
Seen from Singapore
Sleeping girls pic 🔥 Voyeur 🔥 Candid 🔥 Nipslip
Seen from Turkey
Serkan
Seen from Turkey
🥷🏾
Seen from United States
badboy
Seen from Malaysia
大器收集器 
Seen from United States
gavat🫎
Seen from Italy
Obedient Snowbunnies
Seen from Turkey
Jerem!@h
Seen from France
Dredd Mann
Seen from Turkey
Most Popular Users
Elon Musk
@elonmusk
240.6M followers
Barack Obama
@barackobama
119.2M followers
Donald J. Trump
@realdonaldtrump
111.7M followers
Cristiano Ronaldo
@cristiano
110.7M followers
Narendra Modi
@narendramodi
107M followers
Rihanna
@rihanna
97.7M followers
NASA
@nasa
92.2M followers
Justin Bieber
@justinbieber
90.9M followers
KATY PERRY
@katyperry
87.7M followers
Taylor Swift
@taylorswift13
81.6M followers
Lady Gaga
@ladygaga
73.1M followers
Virat Kohli
@imvkohli
70M followers
Kim Kardashian
@kimkardashian
69.8M followers
YouTube
@youtube
68.7M followers
Bill Gates
@billgates
63.9M followers
Neymar Jr
@neymarjr
62.7M followers
The Ellen Show
@theellenshow
62.4M followers
CNN
@cnn
61.9M followers
X
@x
60.8M followers
Selena Gomez
@selenagomez
60.8M followers