Are There Many Civil Wars Already Underway ?

The UK and the US being two of them. And it can be sensibly argued that while taxation of earned incomes persists, civil war is the norm and always present to some extent.

Lately, people are regularly talking about a potential civil war as the pillars of state ramp up their neglect and stupidity in leadership to levels which are deeply unjust. 

But if you look at the Levellers and the Diggers during the English civil wars of the 17th century, their movements were a kind of civil war within a civil war. The idiot yet extremely brave King was already executed and dealt with. But the New Model Army was now the new and unjust leader. 

Not much had changed, largely because the fundamentals which had brought about the regicide had not yet been attended to by the new leadership as is quite typical with hypnotic power when the next tranch of planet savers finally get hold of it.

And there doesn't need to be actual fighting for a nation to be at war with itself. The fighting is just the extreme end of an undecided conflict and system wide disagreement. Nobody wants to fight if it can be avoided. 

Fighting starts only when the oppressed have a force strong enough to take things into their own hands directly by physically removing the crooked and neglectful leadership and replacing it with their own form of the same kind of thing. 

Until then the people will try to use the pillars of state to remove unjust leadership. If it can be done for 'free' then so much the better. And the state who are already by implication using the pillars to attack the people, will also already be using direct force to suppress them to a lesser or greater extent. 

The state can only get away with this for so long because the very people being attacked are tacitly supporting it by trying to get a coup for free - they do not really mean it yet. 

So the people, always, wiilingly and freely accept the attacks at first. Then they rebel against what they already accepted. If the Rebellion succeeds and power is transferred, they start to attack the people themselves as the new leaders. So this is by no means a Marxist idiot speech where the oppressor rules over the oppressed. It's saying that the people are responsible every time, not wealth and power. An inversion to Marxism.

Its all relative. Until the people flip into fighting action, direct force by the people will be avoided. The people will only use force when leadership have taken things to the hilt in their stupidity. But a de facto civil war will already have been well under way for some time anyway. Perhaps this is what paid influencers really mean and are hoping for when they talk about a civil war in the offing.

For a civil war to be happening it:

• can only happen within a single national boundary, though it is possible with nationalist sectarianism for people to switch sides neurotically to maintain a cults power structure,  which might mean requesting support from a foreign nation
• must be represented by two sides, usually 1) the attacked group 2) the attacker group, where things have run beyond a critical breakpoint for one or both sides
• must have leadership attacking its own people in some obvious way and often using a foreign 'army' or 'help' of some kind in support of the attack. Nationalism is not limited to local borders. Patriotism tends to be.
• must show the people have started to actively resist this attack with an organised structure

It will always be leadership who start the civil war, else it would never happen. If the people are unilaterally attacking leadership you just get new leadership if they succeed. Of course as mentioned elsewhere, this might just mean the victims have become perpetrators. All wars are about a transfer of wealth and power to the 'enlightened new ones'. Justice is never transferred wholesale by a war in itself. A transfer of justice can only come about when the people on the whole have decided on justice rather than wealth and power. And then war is obviated already.

On the semi permanent state of civil war in every nation, you can make a sensible arguement quickly that civil war is always present - while the state collects its revenue from earned incomes(taxation). The intensity of the civil war being measured by the extent of the amount of tax being confiscated. That is, attacking the people, with force and punishment for non payment. Because by confiscating what does not belong to the state, by force and on pain of punishment, the state is to all intents and purposes 'attacking' its own people. Though this is an unanswerable observation, it is rarely legalised obviously - the law is not inherently justice, it's just a set of rules on a piece of paper someone decided on. The attacker has started a civil war by implication and counter to justice, against it's own people. 

Taxation is a historic aberration, it is not the usual form of revenue and is only used when the people are by implication under attack by the state. Even if it's a veiled form of attack, it's still an attack on the people by attackers. Even if the people being attacked, acquiesce, waiting for a cheaper solution, it is still an attack on them, in the eyes of nature.

Further, in the final analysis, taxation is very likely always found to be root cause of every civil war - the theft by the state of private property from those who have earned it, and it's redistribution to those who have not, for whatever reason the attacker deems is right, that is to say, the law, which is not inherently justice.