Enclavismo is a Spanish word because most of the friends with whom I share the concept speak Spanish, I've gotten used to calling it that, and I really can't easily pronounce the English equivalent, enclavism. An enclave is a niche full of something isolated within a surrounding milieu full of something else. Enclavismo here refers to life within a social enclave of noncitizen realists surrounded by a population of, in my opinion, unrealistic citizens.
   Enclavismo: Speaking for myself, if the political economic social chaos of the existing general human encampment occupied only half the world, I'd rather live alone or as nearly alone as possible on the other half. Denied that option because the misconceived contraptions called countries literally cover up all the available world land-mass, I and a few friends nevertheless reject state and society and the authority of state and society and, to different extents depending on our individual personalities and work situations, the company of state and society, and form a loose enclave of our own, not as hippies in a commune in the woods, but just as a social, philosophical alliance of uniquely sane friends, which we metaphorically call an enclave. We casually call ourselves enclavistas and our casual little social concept enclavismo.
    Speaking again for myself, having turned up on Planet Earth by accident, somewhat like a crash-landed space traveler, I have no reason to be saluting the flags and singing the anthems of any of the battling tribes I find here. Though forced to do some reluctant compromising by my fear of the apes who control the planet (and by my sympathy with the few bearable Earthlings I meet), I'm most logically concerned about the fix I'm personally in, and countries (which can't be escaped because they fill all the space there is) are part of that fix.
   As a realist, I'm necessarily an existentialist, knowing I have the existential right to do whatever I'm physically able to do and to live as I want and am able to live. But history preceded me here and I find my rights tightly hemmed in by the closeness of way too many other humans and their intrusive and pervasive countries, which they've made worse by foolishly turning them into religions.
   I'm not an anarchist. As just one of the blips flitting across a tiny segment of the eternal scroll and infinite screen of time and space, but being here plenty long enough to suffer, I'd be all for organizing with other transitory blips I encounter on this particular planet into a brief but sensibly expedient state for our mutual and equal benefit and self protection. I'm even willing to surrender some of my existential rights to help such a state work, certainly willing to respect the brief illusions of other blips that they own their houses and yards and refrain from stepping on their grass or barging through their doors without an invitation - and certainly willing to participate in an intelligently expedient and intelligently limited social and economic contract between equal blips to organize and maintain without prejudice or privilege a system of equally shared responsibility for production and scrupulously fair distribution of life enhancing goods and services among the participants.
   But the actually existing absurdity of arrogant single blips and small groups of arrogant blips, no less transitory than I, claiming to own vast tracts of the world we all briefly flit through and claiming jurisdiction over all other blips flitting through what they've designated (for purposes I don't share) as private property and countries which are actually private business domains is unacceptable. I say it's unacceptable, because it is unacceptable. But that's what has happened. It's an infuriating nuisance, but dumb blips with guns have been conned into supporting it, and I find myself and some of the existential rights I don't want to surrender threatened by it.
   As a realist, I still claim an existential right to exercise every personal freedom I can exercise that I haven't voluntarily agreed to forfeit as part of my commitment to participate in a state. And since I have never voluntarily agreed to participate in any state, because no sensibly formulated state exists, I claim that all my existential rights remain intact. However, also as a realist, I see that I am circumstantially caught by uncontrollable historical forces under the heel of an existing state I have not volunteered myself into but whose power I can't easily escape.
   Naturally, I simply avoid that power when I can and exercise my rights in quiet defiance. And when I can't do that, I naturally look within that state's own laws for clauses that spare the existential rights I refuse to give up. Of course, I find in the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution of the country/contraption that most directly oppresses me an actually realistic but rusty concession that the country/contraption's powers are not all inclusive but only include a limited range of powers "delegated" by "the people." The people being what they are and not what leftists like to kid themselves they are, that doesn't help stir up the kind of regular rebellion Jefferson vainly promoted. But I also find that the 9th Amendment verifies that "the people" (with no uncharacteristically sensible effort on their part needed) automatically "retain" (simply by not overtly delegating them) all the rights they should retain, which rights (according to its own rules) the country/contraption called America can't mess with. Some of these rights are specifically listed in other sections of the Bill of Rights, and the 9th Amendment implies there are more.
   Unfortunately, the 9th Amendment isn't well written. In fact, the entire Constitution, along with the library sized rat's nest of largely incoherent verbiage that has resulted from trying to explain it, needs to be burned and replaced by a more compact and coherent document. But, since that won't happen, due to a cynical lawyers' preference for a profitable mess and the irrational belief of "the people" that their constitution is holy, I take advantage of the law's occasional coherence and, giving the writers the credit I hope they deserved, assume that the unlisted 9th Amendment rights "retained" by the people were understood and must still be understood to include all rights the exercise of which doesn't impair what little useful functioning the country does and which I'm damned if I'll give up.
   Then, prepared to go to court on those grounds if necessary, still not actually considering myself a citizen of the country (the distorted state which is actually a private business domain) - sort of like Maugham's "old Cronshaw" (but with more love for soap and water), I unilaterally opt to live my life in accordance with all sensible, social-contract based law but otherwise as I want to, "with due regard for the (cop) around the corner." And that's what I and my friends who agree with me call enclavismo.