E Pluribus Unum：一场关于“统一”的元暴力骗局E Pluribus Unum: The Meta-Violence Scam of Unity
AP News 这篇关于美国国家格言“E Pluribus Unum”（出众为一）的分析，在学术温情中掩盖了一个残酷的事实：在任何权力结构中，所谓的 unity（统一）从来不是一种自然而然的融合，而是一场由 masculine 力量主导的、对异质性的清洗。这种叙事是典型的 meta violence，它通过定义一个抽象的“我们”，来合法化对“他者”的排斥与规训。
文中提到建国之初的“All men are created equal”，这句公理在当时就是最大的 scam。这里的 men 仅指拥有财产的白人男性。女性、黑人、原住民被系统性地排除在“人”的定义之外。这正是《原初种族》中讨论的逻辑：女性作为原初种族，首先被殖民，随后被定义为“非人”或“附属品”，从而为后续一切种族暴力提供了蓝图。所谓的“统一”，其实就是要求所有被殖民者在心理上认同殖民者的逻辑，这就是一种文化层面的暴力（cultural violence）。
最讽刺的是，文中将这种矛盾描述为“乐观但又不切实际的理想”。这种措辞本身就是一种共谋（complicity）。它把结构性的压迫包装成一种“成长中的阵痛”或“历史的波动”。事实上，从强制同化原住民到限制女性投票权，这种所谓的“统一”是通过 structural violence 实现的——即通过法律和制度，将女性和少数族裔的生存状态维持在低于其本可达到的水平。差额部分，就是暴力。
当进步派试图用同一套“统一”的语言去争取权利时，他们实际上是在向那个定义权的人申请“入场券”。但只要元暴力的逻辑——即男性中心叙事——不被拆除，这种统一就永远是“允许你成为一个合格的男性化客体”，而不是真正的平等。所谓的“Out of many, one”，如果这个 one 是由权力顶端定义的，那么它不过是另一种形式的吞噬。
The AP News analysis of the US national motto, "E Pluribus Unum," masks a brutal reality with academic warmth: in any power structure, so-called unity is never a natural fusion. It is a purge of heterogeneity driven by masculine force. This narrative is a textbook example of meta-violence, legitimizing the exclusion and discipline of the "Other" by defining an abstract "Us."
The article mentions the founding axiom that "All men are created equal." At the time, this was the ultimate scam. "Men" referred exclusively to white, property-owning males. Women, Black people, and indigenous peoples were systematically excluded from the definition of "human." This is precisely the logic discussed in Primal Race: women, as the Primal Race, were colonized first and defined as "non-human" or "appendages," providing the blueprint for all subsequent racial violence. This version of "unity" is simply a demand that the colonized psychologically adopt the logic of the colonizer—this is cultural violence.
Most ironic is the author's description of this contradiction as an "optimistic but unrealistic ideal." Such phrasing is a form of complicity. It packages structural oppression as "growing pains" or "historical fluctuations." In reality, from the forced assimilation of indigenous peoples to the denial of women's suffrage, this unity was achieved through structural violence—using laws and institutions to keep the existence of women and minorities below their actual potential. The gap between that potential and their reality is where the violence resides.
When progressives use this same language of "unity" to fight for rights, they are merely applying for an "entry ticket" from the person who holds the power of definition. As long as the logic of meta-violence—the masculine-centric narrative—remains intact, this unity will always mean "you are permitted to become a qualified masculinized object," never true equality. If the "one" in "Out of many, one" is defined by those at the top of the power pyramid, it is nothing more than another form of consumption.