Rather than repeat myself, I'll go in depth on why your argument of "it depends" is unpersuasive to me.
First and for most is the dearth of evidence on your part. Not only is "books I've read" a vague and small sample out of the million worlds of the Imperium, that by their nature would not give much details on the subject, but you have not to my knowledge posted a single excerpt of these books to allow me or anyone else to come to an independent conclusion.
Because I would have to quote the entire books, then. Which, aside from being impractical, is also somewhat illegal. It is not something I can argue just on a basis of an excerpt. Best I can do is point you to the books that I have read and let you read them yourself.
I will try to quote a few excerpts to illustrate specific points... if I manage to find them... but again: that will be hardly the whole picture. Or 10% of the picture, for that matter.
This is compounded by you quite vauge and evasive with your claims. Claiming for instance Imperium worlds are like modern day Earth even though Earth covers a wide range of goverment types and corruption from Western-style representative to communist dictatorships. Some of those I would very much not want to live under.
I was talking about standards of living in that particular post.
Further this is your tendency to make specific claims such as the Imperium being less oppressive than Western style governments then pull a motte and Bailey defense when shown contrary evidence claiming the Imperium is variable and that example is not representative.
You don't get it.
The very fact that Imperium is variable proves my claim.
European Union is very strict in enforcing (by persuasion or not) its ideals onto its member states, up to and including entirely rewriting their internal laws, settling hostile foreign populations, and so on.
Imperium does none of that. It lets worlds develop at their own pace, so long as they pay tithe (which, fair enough, can be
crushing if Administration screws up somewhere) and obey those very basic requirements I have outlined. Whether world develops as a dystopian tyranny or an Elven utopia...
Imperium doesn't give a shit.
Please cite the relevant excerpt and criteria by which you are judging the governor's.
Again: I
generally cannot cite the excerpt because it is something you have to read the entire book to understand. Best is few excerpts that show a governor showing interest in shit:
Kasteen seemed to have hit it off with her at once, which meant that Her Excellency Milady Clothilde Striebgriebling had an unnerving tendency to wander into strategy meetings with little or no warning, and it would have been discourteous to present things in a manner she'd find difficult to follow. Besides, I'd never been averse to a bit of makework which would keep me away from the fighting, and the bitter cold up on the surface.
'And which of those would be your guess, commissar?' the Nusquan colonel asked, clearly addressing the question to me. Which, given that I'd seen more action against the greenskins than anyone else in the room by a considerable margin, should have been obvious. But before I could reply, Forres cut in, no doubt assuming that as the question had come from the commander of the regiment she'd been attached to, she was the one whose advice had been sought.
'They're obviously running away,' she said, as though there couldn't be the slightest doubt in the matter. 'Greenskins never have the stomach for a protracted fight against a well-armed foe.'
'On the contrary,' I interjected, more amused by her precocity than annoyed at the interruption, 'orks live for combat. They will retreat if they take sufficient casualties, but only in order to regroup; which, given the nature of the species, can often take some time, while they sort out the new pecking order. If they're avoiding our patrols instead of engaging them, and harrying fewer outposts, they're almost certainly gathering somewhere in the Spinal Range, getting ready for a full-scale invasion of the Barrens.'
'Then we must strengthen our defences in readiness,' Clothilde said decisively, which was to save countless lives in the weeks ahead, although hardly in the manner which she envisaged at the time.
But generally, criteria is handling the threat in as appropriate manner as can be arranged, or at least leaving it to people who know how to do it and not getting in the way.
Which basically means, if governor is nowhere to be seen and PDF is reasonably functional, then you are dealing with a reasonably competent governor. Kinda like this:
We'd all agreed to present the most united front possible, backing each other up wherever the conversation led, in order to underline our experience of such matters, and the fact that we could function smoothly as a team. Of course even if we succeeded in freezing out the PDF commanders everything we did would still be under the Governor's nominal jurisdiction, but he seemed sensible enough to just let us get on with the business of saving his world with minimal interference.
Somebody like Clothilde will have been way above the norm... for Imperium and for modern societies alike. Especially since Imperial Guard tends to insulate themselves from planetary governors on the off chance a governor in question
may be a Chaos cultist:
'I'll give the instructions,' Trevellyan said, leaning back in his chair. 'Is there anything else I should know?'
'Not at this stage, your excellency,' Rorkins said tactfully. We still couldn't rule out a hidden cabal of Chaotic sympathisers gnawing away at the roots of government, don't forget, which was why we'd decided to take over the defence of Perlia ourselves: unlikely as it seemed that the Governor was a member of such a conspiracy, there was no telling who he might talk to. 'I'll send you a full report at the earliest opportunity.'
Another problem is one that is typical of history: best places to live are ones you hear the least about, which means that every historical place or era
will appear far worse than it really was. Hence the curse "may you live in the interesting times".
As for the medicore simpleton, no I disagree. That seems on par with career politicians like Biden and Rommey. I'd rather have leaders who care and serve there fellow man than see them as sheep to be fleeced.
Then you need to build a magical portal to Middle Earth. Because in the real world, such leaders are nearly nonexistent nowadays. And those who try, tend to get assassinated or otherwise removed.
Your own link you cited as evidence disagrees with you listing fealty to the Terra Lords as one of the requirements. So your own evidence is disagreeing with you.
Further by your own claim you have to pray per Imperial practice so they will alter and dictate the religious teaches to their whims.
Basically you are obsession over surface detail. That one cult has the trappings of Norse mythology and one has a dung beetle Ra.
I'm focusing on what's under the hood and how these religions have been cooped by the Imperium to serve the Imperium own ends like indoctrinating obedience.
My point wasn't that Imperium is more tolerant than some idealized never-existing-society you have dreamed up.
My point was that Imperium is more tolerant than 90% of historical societies. Which it is.
As for this:
I'm focusing on what's under the hood and how these religions have been cooped by the Imperium to serve the Imperium own ends like indoctrinating obedience.
Literally every historical society does this, including the modern-day West. Modern Christianity was
created when Constantine coopted it for Roman Empire's purposes. So that is hardly evidence of Imperium being extremely tyrannical.
Its only a little thing to you because you don't believe your own religion. To those that do, Rome asked the impossible.
So no, Rome was not tolerant of other religions. It oppressed Christian and non-christian alike. It's just such oppression was more tolerable for polytheists.
You don't even know what my religion is.
Rome didn't opress polytheists
at all, and even Christians were not oppressed for some 80% of the Roman history.
In fact, between Nero (68) and Decius (250), actual Imperial persecution was basically
nonexistent, even for Christians. That was nearly two centuries of purely local persecution. And it was in fact only Diocletian (285) that introduced specifically anti-Christian laws; previously, persecution such as it did occur was carried out purely on the basis of civil law.
And as I have already pointed out before: Rome outright integrated foreign religions into Rome's official religion. If you see that as "oppression", then your standards for "oppression" are frankly ridiculous.
You've argued it's less oppressive than many real world nation's and select dystopia's from fiction.
That requires we compare it to real world standards.
Now if you want to say it's oppressive but needs to be that's a complete different argument. One unfounded in Canon but you are free to make it.
Just concede the Imperium is religiously oppressive and we can move on.
I have and I still do. Just not in terms of formal religion.
But once you realize that progressivism and LGBTQ agenda are in fact an unofficial religion of modern globalist West, then Imperium truly is less oppressive than modern West is. But that
technically has to do with politics as opposed to "strictly religion".
In fact, progressives are far more aggressive about Christianity etc. accepting their ideals than Imperium is. And for far less reason, seeing how there are no reactionary gods of alternative dimension waiting to turn the entire world into new Holy Roman Empire... not that such an outcome would be bad at all.
Let's play a game. Swap out "Xeno" and "heretic" for "White" and "Republican/right-wing". Now, how would the Imperium be any better than the Left?
Simple. Unlike the Left,
Imperium is not delusional. Heretics and Xenos
truly are out to get them.
Come again? The worst attributed to the Tau is suspicion they use population control methods like sterilization on annexed races and theroies the Etheralls use chemical mind control to keep the the other caste in check.
Neither of which have been proven to my knowledge.
So what great evil do you think they perform that compares to the charnel house the Imperium inflicts on it's own citizens?
Difference is that life in Imperium sucks generally regardless of what Imperium itself does.
When life in the Tau sphere sucks, it is a direct result of Tau's actions. Not to mention that Tau themselves are deliberately ignorant of the reality of galaxy. The only reason they still exist is, basically, authorial fiat and the Imperium - ironically - serving as an insulator protecting them from greater threats.
Erebus stole a daemon sword inciting the conflict between Horus and the Interex but chaos played no real involvement. Erebus could have stolen any high value item and the result would have been the same.
Everyone but Horus was chomping at the bit to destroy the Interex from the instant they realized they were a federation of races.
The Interex in turn believed the Imperium we're chaos worshippers due to their "corrupted" ie loyalist nature.
Which wasn't far off since chaos needed to use the Imperium to further it's own end. Notice it took Erebus to steal the sword? Because apparently the Interex lacked cults to the dark gods despite their more open nature.
In both the Interex and Diasporex, it was not openness that destroyed then but Imperium's close-mindedness.
The Diasporex incidentally showcase how little freedom you have in the Imperium. One of their transgressions was a refusal to give up their nomadic way of life and settle on a planet under an Imperium chosen government. So yes, under the Imperium your entire way of life will be dictated by the Emperor or one of his proxies under penalty of violence.
Interex was never going to survive to begin with. Their way of handling Chaos only works at low level, and as I said,
they were keeping a highly corruptive Chaos item in a museum (Daemon sword). That shows they were likely well on the way of getting corrupted anyway - and even if they weren't, they could never survive the current 40k. Internal Chaos corruption is not the only threat out there.
If you ever make Interex as large as Imperium, what you end up with is a giant galaxy-spanning Chaos polity. What has Interex
ever shown to actually counter Chaos? I don't recall anything. They are just there, existing because they are literally beneath notice for most of the powers, and then they go and commit mass suicide by Imperium the moment they suspect that Luna Wolves may be aligned with Chaos. And it was Interex that started shooting, BTW.
FFS, a polity that was supposedly incorruptible by Chaos was leaving Chaos artifacts on open display.
A Chaos artifact made by its own member species, which itself had deep links to Chaos.
I call bullshit. If Interex was truly so knowledgeable about Chaos, how didn't they notice corruption in their own ranks? For all its flaws, Imperial Inquisition will have wiped out the Kinebrach pronto.
TL;DR: Interex had some good ideas (such as teaching populace about Chaos) but their own open-mindedness and tolerance was used by Chaos to infiltrate and destroy them.
Now, Diasporex, you may have a point - I don't know that much about them. But were they forced to settle, or merely required to separate from their alien allies?
So it means that it is unrealistic to expect a literally post-apocalyptic polity to develop the same principle.
Oh, I'm not arguing the Imperium can manage that level on every world. I stating that the Imperium *Wants* to instigate that level and will attempt to do so to the best of its ability.
That, like the Soviet Union, you would always have to be on guard on what you say. Otherwise a goon squad will appear and drag you off for a off-color joke you made about the Planetary Governor's lineage.
That the Imperium is more oppressive and desires to be than Western countries.
Nope.
Every government ever WANTS to instigate that level. Every. Government. Ever.
Including the so-called democratic governments. Do you really think you don't need to be on guard on what you say in modern democratic societies? Sure, there are no death squads, but there are less obvious ways of ruining person's life.
Then the Imperium owns the failure of it's worlds. That it is not a nice place to live even for 40k.
Government that can lift you out of a shithole at will can also throw you into it.
Another point of disagreement. You seem to argue or view fedualism as limited government.
It isn't. There is no "states rights" under fedualism. No inalienable rights.
If the High Lord's of Terra rock up to your planet and order you to eat dirt you have to eat. If your Planetary Governor decides your hometown would be a great Epstein island hang out for him and his elite friends, well too bad for you.
Any government that doesn't restrain it's power and put limits on itself is too oppressive for my taste. I don't enjoy our current politicians playing fedual Lord, I'm not going to make it official.
"Inalienable rights" are only inalienable so long as populace is willing and ready to defend them with weapons, or else government doesn't see the need to alienate them.
Even European Union has made a joke out of "states rights" and "inalienable rights". The entire concept was a joke to begin with, in fact.
Fact is, average world in the Imperium of Man likely has more rights and freedoms than average country in EU. Average city in feudalism
definitely had more rights and freedoms than that.
There is a reason why High Lords of Terra are something of a joke within the fandom.
Come again? The US has always employed some variation of Federalism since it's founding separating and delegating powers to the States.
This has been weakened since the Civil War but it's still the best means to govern a vast array of territory and why the US could expand without breaking up from sea to sea.
The Federalists, led by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, believed it was necessary to establish a large national government. Anti-Federalists believed a republic could only function if it was small and localized.
billofrightsinstitute.org
The Anti-Federalists were not as organized as the Federalists. They did not share one unified position on the proper form of government. However, they did unite in their objection to the Constitution as it was proposed for ratification in 1787. The Anti-Federalists argued against the expansion of national power. They favored small localized governments with limited national authority as was exercised under the Articles of Confederation. They generally believed a republican government was only possible on the state level and would not work on the national level. Therefore, only a confederacy of the individual states could protect the nation's liberty and freedom. Another, and perhaps their most well-known concern, was over the lack of a bill of rights. Most Anti-Federalists feared that without a bill of rights, the Constitution would not be able to sufficiently protect the rights of individuals and the states. Perhaps the strongest voice for this concern was that of George Mason. He believed that state bills of right would be trumped by the new constitution, and not stand as adequate protections for citizens' rights. It was this concern that ultimately led to the passing of the bill of rights as a condition for ratification in New York, Virginia, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and North Carolina.
You are conflating religion with government. The Founders explicitly knew that was a bad idea.
As such you are coming to flawed conclusion because of flawed starting assumptions. Especially if you think 18th century America was as or more atheistic than current day.
What is required is a separation, to some degree, of the State and religion so no one is discriminated against and religion is allowed to be a personal matter.
Outside of extreme issues like Aztec blood sacrifice in which case the issue isn't religious but the sacrifice which is equally illegal for all parties not Aztecs alone.
So yeah. Part of the reason we can't agree if the Imperium is "good" is because we have diametrically opposed views of good and bad.
Try having Islam in your country and then tell me that.
The reason why Founders could afford to separate religion from government in the first place is simply because the only "religions" in the US were various denominations of Christianity.
But so long as religion is actual belief and not merely a charade, what you propose will never work.
