By EBERVAL GADELHA FIGUEIREDO JÚNIOR*
Cangaço is not the only form of plundering that has come back into fashion
In recent years, with the increase in the relative economic importance of medium-sized cities in Brazil, there has been much talk about the phenomenon of the New Cangaço, a type of robbery in which a gang, like the cangaceiros of yesteryear, takes control of small and medium-sized cities with the intention of looting them. The cangaço, however, is not the only form of plundering that has come back into fashion. Recent events also point to a much more serious resurgence of filibustering, and the name of the neo-filibuster in chief is Elon Musk.
The term “filibuster” and its English cognate, filibuster, has its origins in Spanish filibuster, which in turn comes from Dutch freebooter, meaning pirate, corsair or, simply, thief.[I] Despite this, it is possible to state, at serious risk of incurring in undeserved flattery to figures of the likes of Elon Mosca (sic), that the historical prototype of the filibusters of the 19th century were not the English pirates and corsairs of the 16th and 17th centuries, but rather figures such as Julius Caesar and Hernán Cortés, conquerors whose respective actions in Gaul and Mexico were received in their times ambivalently by the Senate of Rome, in the case of Caesar, and by the Spanish Crown, then headed by the House of Austria, in the figure of the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, in the case of Cortés.
In a similar way to Caesar and Cortés, and unlike the English corsairs and pirates of the early modern period (for whom the Spanish term filibuster was initially conceived[II]), the filibusters of the twentieth century and their descendants of the twenty-first century have much greater ambitions, and much more ambivalent relations with the official powers of the State. It is important to emphasize that conquest and plunder alone do not constitute a filibuster, so that heads of state such as Marcus Aurelius and Philip II could never be classified as such, not even with the freedom of anachronism.
Strict sensu, the most infamous example was the American William Walker, a man with a gaunt body and prepubescent face who made several attempts to establish, with the help of private militias, a private colony in the Central American region. Thus, the accuracy of the name of the digital militias survey, in which Elon Musk began to be investigated, since the historical filibusters were nothing more than militiamen.
There are many who criticize the romanticization of the past, but few of them think that they may be wrong, and that human history, in fact, loses gravitas as it progresses, becoming more and more ridiculous and outrageous. Cortés was not Caesar, but he and his likes, such as Pizarro and Alvarado, are still somewhat more respectable figures, so to speak, than William Walker.
What we have today is a kind of fourth-rate filtered coffee. Our neo-philibusters have no charisma. They are faceless corpocrats concerned with ensuring the continuous flow of commodities, supposedly magnanimous suits who move expensive actions financed by obscure investment funds, or worse, spiritually unemployed billionaires with too much time and money on their hands, who spend their days copying and pasting ready-made phrases under users' posts on their own social networks (if one day automation and structural unemployment reach them, nothing of value will be lost).
With five decades of life behind them, they share memes that they don't even understand, in a vain attempt to appeal to the aesthetic sensibilities of younger generations. At least Hernán Cortés' costume was stylish.
As time went on, these figures also became increasingly apologetic. In conquering Gaul before becoming dictator of Rome, Julius Caesar treated the enterprise, in a sense, as an end in itself (after all, conquest was the telos Roman Aristotelian), but also as a way to solve their own financial problems.
There was no great concern in forging a legitimizing discourse that escaped a Realpolitik regarding the security of the Roman borders. In his conquest of Mexico, Hernán Cortés supposedly acted on behalf of the Spanish Crown, but it is widely known that his private ambitions for fame and fortune placed him on several occasions in opposition to royal orders (contrary to what today's Hispanists say, intoxicated as they are by a moralizing and completely anachronistic neoconservative imaginary, the humanitarian concern with human sacrifices was at most a mere detail).
William Walker legitimized his ventures with the feverish daydreams of a Manifest Destiny, very much in vogue at the time. Today, Elon Musk is kicking up a fuss about Brazilian court decisions[III] using the rhetoric of defending “freedom of expression”, presenting himself as a friend and liberator of the Brazilian masses who he believes are oppressed by the folkloric “dictatorship of the judiciary”.
The fact is that we live in very apologetic times. Any and all imperialist action today requires what the Israelis call hasbara,[IV] “explanation”, that is, you have to do something stupid first and explain yourself later, not necessarily in that order. This is because the powers that be of the current status quo They always see themselves as good guys. Their eventual conflicts always have a paternalistic, pedagogical and/or humanitarian tone.[IN]
Everyone knows, for example, that the US invasion of Afghanistan was carried out with the sole and exclusive purpose of ensuring the rights of poor Afghan girls and women. If these girls and women are sometimes hit by bullets, bombs, or even unwanted sexual advances from these charitable military intervention forces, this is simply an unfortunate coincidence.[YOU] Any Schmittian enmities[VII] that the West may have are readily disguised by the Popperian veil of the “Paradox of Intolerance”: one cannot tolerate the intolerant. But of course, the intolerant is always the other.
Despite his bravado,[VIII] Not even erratic figures like Elon Musk escape this pattern, and must always keep any hidden private interests hidden. For this very reason, in his speech, disobedience to the orders of the Brazilian judiciary is not motivated by disdain and greed, but by courage and compassion. Neophilibusters love to present themselves as saviors of countries that are not even theirs. Thus, VMusk does not declare the Brazilian people as his enemy, but the gesture should not be reciprocal. Against certain enemies, the path to victory does not pass through conciliation.
William Walker's end was quite tragic. Or not. It depends on your point of view. After a final failed attempt to conquer Central America, William Walker was captured and shot by the British navy in Honduras. Years earlier, he had been defeated by the forces of Honduran general Florencio Xatruch, a lawyer by training, a man with a full, striking beard and hair.
Elon Musk should learn from William Walker’s example. Just as Deleuze imagines “a philosophically bearded Hegel, a philosophically hairless Marx, as well as a mustachioed Mona Lisa,”[IX] It is not difficult to imagine a new Xatruch, Brazilian, literally without beard and hair, by which Elon Musk has been defeated.[X]
*Eberval Gadelha Figueiredo Jr. Bachelor's Degree in Law from USP.
Notes
[I] Such is the etymology offered by Oxford English Dictionary: https://www.oed.com/dictionary/filibuster_n
[II] The original relationship of the term filibuster with the English corsairs, especially the famous Francis Drake, is explored in: Alan Axelrod (2013). Mercenaries: A Guide to Private Armies and Private Military Companies. Sage. p. 206..
[III] Despite this current tantrum, Musk has already complied with orders to remove content from X in other countries, such as India and Turkey, without the same accusations of censorship that he has leveled against the Brazilian judiciary: https://www.msn.com/pt-br/noticias/brasil/musk-cumpriu-centenas-de-ordens-de-remo%C3%A7%C3%A3o-de-conte%C3%BAdo-do-x-fora-do-brasil-sem-acusar-censura/ar-BB1ltgnK; https://edition.cnn.com/2023/05/29/tech/elon-musk-twitter-government-takedown/index.html; https://english.elpais.com/international/2023-05-24/under-elon-musk-twitter-has-approved-83-of-censorship-requests-by-authoritarian-governments.html. Not to mention Elon Musk's blatant Zionist bias (the claim that Alexandre de Moraes is holding Lula by a leash is apparently a clear case of projection, since Musk appears to be on Netanyahu's leash), a strange contrast with the anti-Semitism that runs rampant on his platform: https://www.timesofisrael.com/elon-musk-in-chat-with-right-leaning-jews-says-antisemitism-isnt-a-problem-on-x/; https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/11/anti-semitism-netanyahu-zionism-elon-musk/676180/; https://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2024/02/10/719833/how-elon-musk-caved-in-zionist-lobby-allowed-palestine-censorship-x; https://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2023/12/19/716650/Elon-Musk-and-Israel-imposed-Palestine-censorship-on-X.
[IV] The propagandistic concept of hasbara is elaborated in: Kouts, Gideon (2016). “From Sokolow to 'Explaining Israel': The Zionist “Hasbara” First “Campaign Strategy Paper” and Its Applications”. Revue Européenne des Études Hébraïques (
[V] The phenomenon of the “pedagogical” content of Western conflicts was explored by Bruno Latour in: LATOUR, Bruno. War of the Worlds: What about Peace?, p. 26. Chicago: Prickly Paradigm Press, 2002.
[VI] Note here the obvious irony of these statements.
[VII] By Schmitt's enemy we mean one with whom there is no possibility of reconciliation, that is, an inveterate and absolute enemy, whose defeat presupposes his annihilation. Popperians would vehemently deny this, but his paradoxical “intolerance of the intolerant” is nothing more than a veiled Schmittian declaration of war. Regarding Schmitt's notion of enemy, see: SCHMITT, C. The concept of the politician. Translated by Alvaro LM Valls. Petropolis: Vozes, 1992.
[VIII] For those with short memories, it is worth recalling the inelegant insinuations made by Musk at the time of the coup that overthrew Evo Morales in Bolivia in 2019: https://exame.com/negocios/daremos-golpe-onde-quisermos-diz-musk-apos-insinuacoes-sobre-a-bolivia/.
[IX] This Deleuzian passage, quite curious and caricatured, included here for merely poetic and illustrative purposes, can be found in: DELEUZE, G. Difference and repetition. Translated by Luiz Orlandi and Roberto Machado. p. 10. New York: Routledge, 2018.
[X] Recently, X's defense in Brazil contradicted Elon Musk's bravado, stating to the STF that it will follow the court's determinations: https://www.opovo.com.br/noticias/politica/2024/04/16/defesa-do-x-contraria-musk-e-diz-que-seguira-ordens-do-stf.html; https://valor.globo.com/politica/noticia/2024/04/15/x-diz-a-moraes-que-continuar-cumprindo-decises-do-supremo.ghtml; https://www.infomoney.com.br/politica/x-continuara-a-cumprir-ordens-judiciais-no-brasil-diz-defesa-da-rede-social-ao-stf/.
the earth is round there is thanks to our readers and supporters.
Help us keep this idea going.
CONTRIBUTE
