There is no we. The ‘we’ you often hear in sentences that refer to us as a collective are as fictional as the ‘they’ and the ‘them’. It is crucial to recognize and remember this. This is true in nearly every case, including those of the marginalized or segregated. We do not enact collectives. The mutuality of our complaint is as passively insufficient as our arrogant objections to injustice become when we are involved in generating it.

And most of our actual experience of ‘membership’ is nonsensical or a matter of concept or fashion.

Bluntly, there is no ‘we’. And »that IS THE THEM.

The absence of »actual purposive coherence and cohesion in relation »demands the them. An omnicidal relationship with nature reframes us as them. Then humans simply helm the monsters that result, rather naturally.

The conspiracy is one more of failure and inhibition than agency. ‘We’ each bear individual and collective responsibility to establish and become … intelligent communities. As we never did this, and took, instead, the fictional replacements on offer, we should not be terribly surprised about the severe and factual results.

If we are not we, ‘they’ are the organic result. And once established, the repercussions rather naturally defend and sustain themselves at our (and the planet’s) expense. In and as the opposites of actually meaningful community, ecology, intelligence, and relational coherence.