So - as it is, We are Them is not anything.
A diffusion out from and into the doubtful nature of the Artchurch. Though, there is really no direct connection between the two. What is one is not always the other. As the Artchurch produces Metaschizophrenic Science, Metaschizophrenic Science produces We are Them. (We are Them produces dada-ananda, which produces the Artchurch - in sequences of Nonlinear Propulsion.... We do not understand this either.)

With We are Them, there is no connection of acknowledgment, as there was in the Artchurch. No one knows who anyone else is. There are not even the cells, as there were at times in the Artchurch. We are Them is the realization that one may be entirely alone, for all one knows. The group collective is completely disassociated. We are Them, in a sense, is a state of mind and being. It is "existential" in its purest form. It may be existential to the point of solipsism. Yet, it may be the solipsism of the many, not the one.
We are Them is nothing. It does not exist - except as an imagined conceptuality devised in one's mind and imagination - from and into the mind and imagination of others. As the Artchurch was founded on doubt, We are Them is founded on certainty - which, in a way, is a reflection and function of doubt, just as doubt is a reflection and function of faith. And, with certainty, of course, there is uncertainty - again, just as with doubt, there is faith.
We are Them are no one for certain. Yet no one can be certain that it might not be anyone. We might be a stranger walking by on the street, an occasional acquaintance, a co-worker, a friend, a lover, a family member. One can only be certain that We are Them is Oneself. We are Them balance on the certain, yet artificial nature between Us and Them - and those who believe in Us and Them. Basically and fundamentally, when and where there is Us and Them, We are Them. And, when and where is there not Us and Them?
Us and Them is defined by the Others, We are Us. We are Us decide who is Us and who is Them. How We are Us distinguish Us from Them is infinitely varied. It does not matter to We are Them what these distinctions are, or whether they have any real basis or not. We are Them do not believe in Us and Them. We may, however, believe in Me and Them - Them being the Others who believe in Us and Them, and Me being Oneself who does not. As such, at the core of We are Them is, I am Them. And, it would follow that the core of I am Them is, I am I (because my little dog knows me).
This is purposefully confusing. We are Them is the most elitist of the elite of the elites. It tolerates no one who cannot follow its reasoning and excuses for itself. It will not accept anyone as Us to itself, if, that Us is dependent on there being a corresponding and excluded Them. If there is to be an excluded Them, everyone is excluded. If there is to be an inclusive Us, everyone is included. The only terms of Them that We are Them recognize is in terms of Me and Them. Yet, We are Them do not really believe in that (only as a last resort). Obviously, to We are Them, Them can only be Us, as to We are Them there is nothing but Us. And, to We are Them, Us means Us, not Us and Them. Yet, Us does mean what We are Us call Us and Them - both Us and Them - since what We are Us really mean by Us and Them is, Us or Them. To We are Us, Us and Them are always distinguished as being different and divided. To We are Us, One is either one of Us, or one of Them. To We are Them, One is both Us and Them. That is what We are Them means. It is We are Us who refer to Us as being Them.
This is confusing because, to describe We are Them, one is forced to use the language of those who believe in Us and Them (and/or, believe in Us and Them because they learn and use the language of Us and Them) - and the pronouns of that language. This language, and pronouns must be twisted out of their usual form and meaning in order to attempt to convey the idea of We are Them. The idea of We are Them is actually very simple. It is the language that makes it complex - and seemingly obscure.
However, as simple as it is, it is very often misunderstood by many who believe that they have reached a state of We are Them. These are the universalists. They believe that they no longer make distinctions among people. They believe that they have transcended Us and Them. Ha! Listen to them closely and one will hear the remaining distinction that they make. The distinction that they make is between those who are like themselves, having become universalists - Us - and those who are not like themselves - Them. In this case, as in all cases of distinction between Us and Them - We are Them.
When we say that We are Them, it is not We who would say this - it is We are Us who say this. We are Us pride themselves as being Us, as distinguished from Them. We are Us are the ones who say who Them is. Them is not Us. It is to We are Us who do this that We say, We are not Us (one among you as being Us distinguished from Them), We are Them.
We are Us are and can be anyone. All it takes is two. We are Us can be a couple or an international organization, and every collective group between. All it takes is at least two people saying, We are Us, the rest are Them. We are Them are the rest who are excluded from Us. For We are Them, Us is all and/or nothing. For We are Them, recognizing Us as all is all inclusive - even including those among Us who distinguish between Us and Them. There is no Them - except We are Them. And, We who are Them may be no one other than Oneself. All the Others are in question.
Yet, although We are Them might be no one other than Oneself, Us is always all. That is why We are Them use the first person plural when referring to oneself. Because Us is always all is why We are Them also use the third person plural when referring to oneself. To We are Them, there is no contradiction, since We are Them do not distinguish between Us and Them. Them does not actually exist, except in the minds of We are Us - those of Us who believe in the distinction between Us and Them. The Them of We are Us can only be referring to those of Us who are We are Them.
It should not be mistaken or misunderstood that We are Them do not make any distinction between people - between those who are all of Us. Yet, for We are Them, the distinctions are individual and unique, not collective, and, as distinctive as the Other is from Oneself, Oneself is from the Other. And, each are distinctive from all Others. Also, there is no anyone who We are Them do not distinguish Oneself from, nor, anyone We are Them do not distinguish from all Others. What is missing from this sort of distinction is the collective distinctions of Us and Them - except for the collective distinction of all. There is no collective Us less than all. Nor, is there any collective Them less than all. Us and Them are one and the same - all. And, all are distinctive each from all - not Us being distinctive from Them.
Even when We are Them refer to "We are Us", We are Them are referring to those who are among all of Us. It is We are Us who distinguish themselves as Us separate from the rest, who are Them. We are Them, in referring to these as "We are Us", are merely making note of their self defined distinction as being an exclusive Us. It is because of We are Us that We are Them refer to ourselves as "We are Them". Who else are We?
Of course, as we stated above, this is all imaginary. We are Them does not really exist. We are Them cannot really exist. It goes against human nature. As humans, we divide ourselves into Us and Them groups. It is the way it has always been. It is is the way it will always be. It has served us well. It is who and what we are. As such, this is really all unnecessary and quite useless. Nevermind...