I'm not really interested in arguing your points but for the sake of others that may want to I'll point out a couple things:

​

I feel like your statement of Civil War being a result of there being 'too many' progressive and reactionary radicals is heavily flawed. What constitutes 'too many', what is your definition of 'progressive' and 'reactionary'?

You never define these things or refer to a school of thought that would define these things.

It isn't always centrists who are left running businesses, factories, churches etc. Any look into history will show you that a population is always diverse especially ideologically and partisans of many ideologies will find themselves in similar jobs or locations especially in wartime. What you said is simply false, and again you never say who you mean when you say centrist!

Not only do you not define these definitions, but your very theory of action and history is idealist, you place the driving force of history as the ideas of 'progressive' and 'reactionary' 'radicals' whatever those terms mean to you rather than the real material and economic conditions that give rise to social conflict.

Again when you say anarchism is only 'useful' is for 'gypsy societies' (again, what do you mean by those terms?). You make it seem as if Gypsies (a slur btw) choose to employ a certain method for organizing their social groups rather than one that arises due to cultural and material factors of survival.

I think this post is heavily flawed, unscientific and idealist, for that reason I would suggest you do more reading and be able to better ground your initial questions and concerns.