英国的solipsism与权力幻觉British Solipsism and the Illusion of Power
这篇文章精准地拆穿了一个典型的男性中心化叙事：英国在讨论“回归欧洲”时，其认知入口依然是极其自私的 national economic interest。在英国政客的逻辑里，欧盟就像一个随时待命的服务窗口，只要他们决定“敲门”，对方就应该像 abracadabra 般地欢迎他们回归。这种 solipsism（独我论）本质上是一种权力的惯性，认为世界应该围绕自己的需求而运转。
这种叙事方式与第三章提到的“武器化表达”如出一辙。英国政客们试图通过定义“国家利益”来简化复杂的政治博弈，将一个涉及 27 个主权国家的结构性共谋场域，简化成了自己的一个经济决策。他们口中的“欧洲”其实是“剔除了欧洲人的欧洲”。这种对他人主体性的完全抹除，正是原初种族殖民逻辑的现代余波：他者不是对话的对象，而是实现自身最优解的资源或背景板。
最讽刺的是 Boris Johnson 这种“scheming boys”的出现。他们用一种极其粗糙的二元对立（独立 vs 联邦）来掩盖对大陆政治真实运行机制的无知。在元暴力的支配下，他们习惯于通过掌控定义权来制造事实，但当他们面对一个不再需要他们的欧盟时，这种定义权失效了。现在的英国，在欧洲眼中仅仅是一个 security provider，一个功能性的工具人，而非一个具有主导地位的对话者。
想要回归，英国首先得经历一次主体性的死亡与重建。他们必须意识到，所谓的“心在欧洲”，不能仅仅是想通过重新加入来对冲后美国时代的风险，而得学会一种非掠夺性的、公正的表达。在目前这种“我想要，所以你应该给我”的共谋逻辑里，英国依然在扮演那个自以为是的施暴者，只不过这次他发现自己失去了所有的筹码。
This piece accurately dismantles a classic masculine-centric narrative: Britain’s debate over rejoining the EU is still framed through the narrow cognitive entry of "national economic interest." In the logic of British politicians, the EU is treated as a service window—as if they could simply knock and be welcomed back by some abracadabra magic. This solipsism is essentially an inertia of power, the delusion that the world should revolve around one's own needs.
This narrative mirrors the weaponisation of expression described in Chapter 3. By defining "national interest," politicians simplify a complex structural complicity involving 27 sovereign states into a mere domestic economic calculation. Their "Europe" is a Europe with Europe left out. This total erasure of the other's agency is the modern echo of the Primal Race colonial logic: the other is not a partner for dialogue, but a resource or a backdrop to achieve one's own optimal expression.
Most ironic is the presence of "scheming boys" like Boris Johnson. They use a crude binary (independence vs. federation) to mask their ignorance of how continental politics actually functions. Under the influence of meta-violence, they are used to manufacturing facts by controlling the definition. But when facing an EU that no longer needs them, this power fails. Britain is now seen merely as a "security provider"—a functional tool rather than a leading voice.
To return, Britain must undergo a death and rebirth of its subjectivity. They must realize that being "at the heart of Europe" cannot just be a hedge against risks in a post-American world; it requires a shift toward just expressions that are not predatory. In the current logic of "I want, therefore you should give," Britain continues to play the role of the aggressor, only to find it has lost all its chips.