Yes, I’m feeling that. If people want it/them enough, they’ll find away. Something organic can intuitively creep between private spheres – and it can be inter-generational. Doug Stanhope, the comedian, lives in a town called Bisbee, Arizona. From what I can tell, they’ve created their own libertarian symapthetic-quirky-artists community. Not quite Hutterite self-determinacy, but organic none-the-less. If everything is too gloomy (and this a persistent nag I have with the neoreactionaries), it’s because you’re asking/hoping/dreaming for too much. State secession might just end up being too ‘general': would you want to throw all-in with the chaff of the Tea-Party movement? It would just re-engage misanthropic leanings.

I will certainly agree that a healthy dose of realism is needed to ground the conversation. The most imagined and far fetched community, however, is the utopia that the Cathedral promises will one day be available to all. Regardless of whether you imagine it through “conservative” or “liberal” ideology, the basic dynamic is the same: in the future life will be better than it has ever been.

Why do I want to have a via negativa with respect to this conversation? To keep myself honest about what can be expected and worked for. In that vein of thought, another way for me to express thesis 3 (in a negative manner) would be, “A neoreactionary cannot completely abandon the polity to which he already belongs.” As much as I would love to see a massive reset occur, I doubt I will see it. Accordingly, I have to come to grips that some remnant of Cathedral thought will be around for a long time even in the best scenarios that I can imagine truthfully. Moreover, I have to admit that I will likely be a vector for Cathedral belief if I am not careful with my words. Admitting these sad truths certainly leads me to desire a shot of scotch.