... why you insist on clinging to your position. Even the links you provide do not support your position. Those links support my position.
The primary statement you made (way back upthread), that I disagree with, was that feudalism was essentially the same as anarchism. This is just not true.
The fact that a person can buy property in the USA and rent it to a tenant is not evidence that the United States does not have government. It is simply an economic agreement within the society. Whether or not that society has a government is a different question.
I have used England as an example of a society that had both (a) feudalism and (b) a government. The fact that you don't like that example is irrelevant. It proves that feudalism is NOT NECESSARILY akin to anarchy.
I then asked you to provide an example in Europe, complete with evidence that not only was their feudalism but also that there was no government. You chose not to do so. Likewise, you have chosen not to flesh out your claims that anarchic societies previously existed that were inferior to government societies.
All you have done is toss out some vague references to Israel, Ireland, and the Bushmen. Making vague references, and expecting the reader to go on wild goose chases to flesh out your argument, does not prove anything. It is your responsibility to flesh out your argument, not to make vague, meaningless references.
Regarding the links you provided above, both of those articles give hints that governments existed at the same time as feudalism.
Your second link says:
In an ideal feudal society ... the ownership of all land was vested in the king. Beneath him was a hierarchy of nobles, the most important nobles holding land directly from the king, and the lesser from them, down to the seigneur who held a single manor.
This is your link, not mine. This is my position, not yours.
Furthermore, your first link says that feudalism started in Frankish 9th and 10th centuries. Looking up the history of the Franks, it is clear that kings (i.e. governments) existed all throughout the era:
When the Soviet Union fell, the society did not move into anarchy. The Russian government and neighboring governments were established. There were disputes, and we are seeing the continuation of that in Ukraine right now -- but no anarchy, only governments.
The same was true in Europe when the Roman Empire fell. Feudalism was an economic system. It did not exist within "anarchic Europe" because such a place did not exist at the time. Kings were fighting for control of governments, and feudalism happens to have also existed at that time. Feudalism existed within the context of government, not no government.
In summary, the idea that feudalism is basically the same thing as anarchy is like saying a homeowners' association is the same thing as anarchy. Such a notion has no relation to reality.