@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.
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.”