The problem is that none of these deep societal observations are deep. Hell, I think you're probably even right about a lot of this stuff in the specifics. But God damn it's just some cheap masturbatory bullshit in the meta. Richly detailed sophistry -- which is not entirely an insult if you consider this to be an artistic work. It is some mild praise for art.
Have you ever read battlefield earth? I'd recommend it to anyone. No sarcasm, that book is fucking amazing. I don't know that I would say it's good, but it IS a masterpiece and worth reading. This story and the presentation of this story remind me of it in a definite but abstract way. I guess philosophically they are similar, and seem to have been drawn from the same well.
Well to be fair this is one aspect of a mult-faceted approach he's taken. I even saw a bunch of people intensely arguing over whether Ned Stark was a villain because he didn't want to pre-emptively murder the Targaryen children, thereby potentially saving lives. Then there's the challenge to chivalry, which might have always been quite hypocritical due to noblemen doing some pretty terrible things to people who were in the lower social classes. Then there's his take on religion, which is pretty heavy handed, but also pretty similar to real life. Finally, there's how we interpret prophecy, which in the end is usually just a form of manipulation.
Put together, it's going to end up one of the better books of the modern era, because of the amount of self inflection it calls for. All of the actions of his characters are entirely believable, and pretty similar to how humans have behaved in the past, and yet we see the Seven Kingdoms destroying themselves without the help of some mysterious evil species. It'd be like Tthe Hobbit's final act, the Battle of the Five Armies, before the "super evil orcs" showed up. All of the "good" races (men, elves, and dwarves) were all ready to kill one another another over a petty squabble.
Make no mistake, I think Eddard is a good man and definitely not a villain. The Red Wedding, even if you argue that it saved lives, is still a utilitarian approach. People killed on a battlefield are participants. Killing people to pre-empt war, or while they're eating or under safe conduct is still murder. Ned followed a code, but also granted mercy to Cersei. He usually always made the morally correct decision, and is an exceptionally good person for the Middle Ages. Stannis is almost exactly like Ned, but corrupted by religion and false belief to the point that he kills his own daughter. Then they're constantly challenging the notion that war itself is honorable. "They don't tell you how they all shit themselves before they die. They leave that part out of the songs." Then the visceral scenes in Battle of the Bastards were pretty intensional as they were trying to show just how random war really is, and how there's really no such thing as honor, or chivalry on a battlefield.
This isn't the fairytale people think it is, yet even after Ned's head is removed, Robb dies, and so on we still go on believing it is. We keep finding another hero to rally behind. Stannis had a huge fanbase, and he was basically murdering innocent people from the get-go. We just don't care until he murders his own daughter. Just like in history, when peasants were killed it was "Ok" and whitewashed.
I may read Battlefield Earth, but my God that movie...
Remember that there's been many winters. But there's been no white walkers for thousands of years.
Wtf? Where were they then? In outer space? In purgatory? In your mom's basement?