“Meanwhile Edward busied himself with schemes for establishing settled government in the conquered territories. To a man of his training and temperament, this meant the establishment of English law and administration. He could see no merits in the archaic Welsh customs which regarded all crimes as capable of atonement by a money payment, treated a wrecked ship as the lawful perquisite of the local proprietor, and hardly distinguished legitimate from illegitimate children in determining the descent of property.”

Excerpt From
The History of England
Thomas Frederick Tout

It doesn’t require much digging to discover the influence of religion in our daily political activity captured in the overall and repeated aspiration of “May God bless America!” This is however somewhat specious because throughout the history of human development is the noticeable separation of church and state. And while that association did at one time – and no doubt may even today – represent a resource of capital and votes for the willing accomplices, the more popular persuasion currently is the advancement of equality between the sexes and the races. This has embraced the meaning of person, child and marriage. A person includes a corporation; child includes one born out of wedlock; and marriage is not limited only to the union of a man and woman. These so-called legal fictions do in fact form the basis of legal reality. They do in turn represent a removal from fictitious advantages surrounding sex (male) and inheritance (legal and predominantly related to the first born male aka primogeniture). The religious trappings of circumcision, baptism and marriage were progressively set afloat although the evolution has been slow and hesitant.  Many people continue to subscribe to a religious-based wedding or funeral for legitimacy of the whole in spite of their well-known infrequency of involvement with their church or temple. Certain attempts at doing so are considered incongruous, far-left or terribly modern. The only thing that spares those misguided efforts from complete ruin and disregard is the further social fiction of tolerance and advancement.

The feudal system of government was based upon leagues of separation between people, what we might popularly call a class system.The hierarchies were formed up of 4 main parts: Monarchs, Lords/Ladies (Nobles), Knights, and Peasants/Serfs. Each of the levels depended on each other on their everyday lives.

Feudalism was a way of structuring society during the Middle Ages, which created a set of rules for who could do what in day-to-day life. This affected everyone’s interaction with the legal, economic, and military systems in Medieval Europe from the 9th to the 15th centuries.Feudalism was a system in which people were given land and protection by people of higher rank, and worked and fought for them in return.

The basic idea of feudalism was that it was a system for structuring society around relationships derived from the holding of land in return for services. Under the feudal system land was granted to people for service. It started at the top with the king granting his land to a baron for soldiers all the way down to a peasant getting land to grow crops. The center of life in the Middle Ages was the manor. The manor was run by the local lord.

The unwritten themes underlying the feudal system are war and paramountcy. Medieval history is but a collection of stories surrounding petty marshalling and preposterous crusades which were covertly designed to improve one’s social status or land holdings.

The Crusades were a series of religious wars between Christians and Muslims started primarily to secure control of holy sites considered sacred by both groups. In all, eight major Crusade expeditions—varying in size, strength and degree of success—occurred between 1096 and 1291.

Many people struggle with the recognizable inclination of politicians to say or do whatever is required to win votes and to sustain their lead in the polls. Attempts to dismiss this subversive ambition are normally discounted. It is however a small compliment to the politicians. By contrast, the current Republican bent for whatever it takes to subdue conflict (both at home and abroad) and improve the economy is understandably digestible in spite of its toxic limitations (prohibition of abortion, limitation of entitlement for military service, alteration of election boundaries).

If one were to set a right and a left together, they would undoubtedly both argue for what is best to improve society. The objective is always the same.  There is however an element of the ancient fictions of control and capital which pollute the otherwise sustainable alliance. As long as winning and paramountcy are the critical measures of achievement we persist to allow the interruption of more fluid transition to unity and compromise.