Sindermanns speech, in Horus Rising

[Dark Apostle Thirst]

Did anyone else think it was terrible?

 

He basicly said that the Imperium could not conquer the galaxy because it says its right, but it could because it knew it was right.

 

Maybe Dan Abnett was trying to get across the hypocrisy of the Imperium, even at that stage, but all I was left with was the feeling of "Why is this man the lead iterator? Why?"

[Pulse]

I have to agree - it is a pretty lame speech when Sindermann says:

 

Yet we are. We are right. They are wrong. This simple, clean faith we must undertake to teach them. We are right. They are wrong. Why? Not because we say so. Because we know so! We will not say "i am right and you are wrong" because we bested them in combat. We must proclaim it because we know it is the responsible truth. We cannot, should not, will not promulate that idea for any other reason than we know, without hesitation, without doubt, without prejudice, that is is the truth, and upon that truth we bestow our faith. They are wrong. Their culture was constructed upon lies. We have brought them the keen edge of truth and enlightened them. On that basis, and that bassis alone, go from here and iterate our message

 

I would think Dan Adnett put that speech in their because it is ironic as that sort of speech is a common one throughout history. One culture will preach to their own that another is wrong for all sorts of reasons. Propaganda is a powerful thing to keep people on the right track.

 

Also the speech Sindermann gave was before things were revealed in the book that opened many characters eyes to the fact the Imperium is no different than any other empire that came before it, and that there are sinister things out in the galaxy that were being kept from general populace, for good or bad.

[Billuriye]

What else is he supposed to say ? Humanity expands to meet the needs of expanding humanity. You can't honey that up no matter how much you try. Especially when your Overlord is an anti religion type.

[Dark Apostle Thirst]

I would have instead wrote -

 

"The truth is, we are not right. We are not exemplars of the truth. We are not destined to be a great power. We are not justified by moral righteousness.

 

We are justified by survival. We are pursuers of the truth. We make ourselves this great power. The only thing we need to tell these shattered cultures that have stood in our path is that we can not allow any possible threat to humanity live, that they would have but could not do the same to us. That is the only truth there is - the only truth that should be remembered. The only thing that makes us 'right' is that we have made ourselves powerful enough to survive."

 

- Because that is the truth of the Great Crusade.

[Billuriye]

Every species' life can be justified by survival. Where is the ultimate truth that separates humanity from others ?

[Pulse]

There isn't one. We are destined to die like everything else!

[Khestra the Unbeheld]

Did anyone else think it was terrible?

 

He basicly said that the Imperium could not conquer the galaxy because it says its right, but it could because it knew it was right.

 

Maybe Dan Abnett was trying to get across the hypocrisy of the Imperium, even at that stage, but all I was left with was the feeling of "Why is this man the lead iterator? Why?"

 

I thought it was perfect to establish the depths of naivete that the Imperium was laboring under, no small thanks in part to the Emperor's duplicity. That speech shines as a bright example of how everyone perceived things really were during the Crusade, spoken by someone reputed to be the voice of the Imperium and knowledgable in all the scope and purpose that the Crusade was meant to offer humanity; what a terrible pity he was wrong. :D

[Dark Apostle Thirst]

Every species' life can be justified by survival. Where is the ultimate truth that separates humanity from others ?

There isn't one. We are destined to die like everything else!

My point exactly, the Imperium knew that. Only they really didn't want to die.

 

 

 

Did anyone else think it was terrible?

 

He basicly said that the Imperium could not conquer the galaxy because it says its right, but it could because it knew it was right.

 

Maybe Dan Abnett was trying to get across the hypocrisy of the Imperium, even at that stage, but all I was left with was the feeling of "Why is this man the lead iterator? Why?"

 

I thought it was perfect to establish the depths of naivete that the Imperium was laboring under, no small thanks in part to the Emperor's duplicity. That speech shines as a bright example of how everyone perceived things really were during the Crusade, spoken by someone reputed to be the voice of the Imperium and knowledgable in all the scope and purpose that the Crusade was meant to offer humanity; what a terrible pity he was wrong. :D

Naivette. A better word, more accurate. I didn't realise that the Imperium was that blind, if they honestly believed and accepted speeches like Sindermann's.

[Donkey Kong]

Sindermann's "speech", if you look at the context of it, was actually a lecture, and we only caught the end of it. Given that, what he is saying makes perfect sense because he is telling future iterators their purpose. There is truth behind what he's saying. Humanity is being united under the Imperial Truth. These cultures that have spread out across the galaxy have gods and religion, to the Imperium they are lies. The Imperium is secular during the Great Crusade.

 

Sindermann's speech is actually very good at pushing the point that their goal is not to enforce a policy of "might makes right". You may think that Abnett intended it to be a sort of in joke about Imperial hypocrisy. I think that it was intended to capture the idealistic views of humanity and it's reemergence as a galactic power. The goal was to unify humanity. Horus says in Horus Rising that his attack on the false Terra is made with one handed extended and the other in a fist. The Iterators are, in many cases, the extended hand.

 

Truth be told, Abnett is not particularly good at writing speeches. Need I quote Traitor General and

Lord General Sturm's speech to the Sons of Sek?

 

 

Also the speech Sindermann gave was before things were revealed in the book that opened many characters eyes to the fact the Imperium is no different than any other empire that came before it, and that there are sinister things out in the galaxy that were being kept from general populace, for good or bad.

 

 

The remembrancers only start running when the Crusade is at its turning point. Even then, they're running from Horus right after he purged all of the artists aboard the Vengeful Spirit. Keeler doesn't even become a living saint until after she defeats a daemon that is accidentally summoned on the ship. In short, you're wrong.

 

 

Snip

 

No, it's not. The Great Crusade is the Emperor's goal to unify the galaxy under humanity. The Imperium is claiming worlds. Species are being exterminated as humanity expands. Between the Legions and the Imperial Army, not to mention the elements of the Mechanicum that look towards innovation, the Great Crusade was a real golden age.

[Pulse]

The remembrancers only start running when the Crusade is at its turning point. Even then, they're running from Horus right after he purged all of the artists aboard the Vengeful Spirit. Keeler doesn't even become a living saint until after she defeats a daemon that is accidentally summoned on the ship. In short, you're wrong.

When did i say anything about them running? I said the speech was before the daemons etc started appearing.

[Dark Apostle Thirst]

Sindermann's "speech", if you look at the context of it, was actually a lecture, and we only caught the end of it. Given that, what he is saying makes perfect sense because he is telling future iterators their purpose. There is truth behind what he's saying. Humanity is being united under the Imperial Truth. These cultures that have spread out across the galaxy have gods and religion, to the Imperium they are lies. The Imperium is secular during the Great Crusade.

 

Sindermann's speech is actually very good at pushing the point that their goal is not to enforce a policy of "might makes right". You may think that Abnett intended it to be a sort of in joke about Imperial hypocrisy. I think that it was intended to capture the idealistic views of humanity and it's reemergence as a galactic power. The goal was to unify humanity. Horus says in Horus Rising that his attack on the false Terra is made with one handed extended and the other in a fist. The Iterators are, in many cases, the extended hand.

 

Snip

 

No, it's not. The Great Crusade is the Emperor's goal to unify the galaxy under humanity. The Imperium is claiming worlds. Species are being exterminated as humanity expands. Between the Legions and the Imperial Army, not to mention the elements of the Mechanicum that look towards innovation, the Great Crusade was a real golden age.

Yes and no.

 

I caught that it was at the tail end of a lecture, although Abnett seemed to slightly contradict himself when Sindermann joked about getting on his 'hobby-horse'.

 

I do agree that the iterators are trying to make it more of 're-unifying humanity' as opposed to 'it's necessary to survive' or 'might makes right'. And if Abnett/Sindermann had actually portrayed it like that, it would have been fine. Instead, the speech has a poor, poor justification - the Imperium isn't right because it is powerful, the Imperium is right because it knows it is right. This makes no sense. The Eldar 'know' they are right, and have known for longer than humanity has been around. Should we let the Eldar take over the galaxy? Or the Orks? Or whatever the creatures that dwell in the Warp are?

 

The justification for the Imperium made by Abnett/Sindermann was just dumb. Idealistic, hopeful, and full of naivette - but still dumb.

[Aegnor]

It was a part of the text I thought was interesting, but which didn't deliver on the build up. I have to go back and re-read it, but I took it as "just saying we're right proves nothing, but we are right", which as noted is not a particularly persuasive bit of logic.

 

In being fair to Abnett, it's probably just as hard to depict an absolute genius of rhetoric as it is to depict an absolute genius of tactics and battle. As good an author as he is, he's neither thing and can only give us a representation that sometimes will not bear too close a scrutiny.

 

I think it's enough to take from that that significant parts of the Imperium did care about the morality of what it was doing and had devoted considerable thought to the matter, and thar those elements were in some significant ways naive as to the clarity of their world view and the degree to which the Imperial warmachine didn't care about such distinctions. In that way, I think it achieved it's goal as part of the story arc.

[Yogi]

Honey lies always see to go down better then.

 

You have two choices. Slavery or Death.

 

I always wanted a primarch to say that to a human world in the crusade. But all the Primarchs are deluded or liars.

[Donkey Kong]

When did i say anything about them running? I said the speech was before the daemons etc started appearing.

 

I read this:

 

Also the speech Sindermann gave was before things were revealed in the book that opened many characters eyes to the fact the Imperium is no different than any other empire that came before it, and that there are sinister things out in the galaxy that were being kept from general populace, for good or bad.

 

as referring to Sindermann and the remembrancers having a revelation abut the evils of the Imperium. My point was in response to this thought, and was that they never blamed the Imperium. Apologies if I'm wrong.

 

I caught that it was at the tail end of a lecture, although Abnett seemed to slightly contradict himself when Sindermann joked about getting on his 'hobby-horse'.

 

I do agree that the iterators are trying to make it more of 're-unifying humanity' as opposed to 'it's necessary to survive' or 'might makes right'. And if Abnett/Sindermann had actually portrayed it like that, it would have been fine. Instead, the speech has a poor, poor justification - the Imperium isn't right because it is powerful, the Imperium is right because it knows it is right. This makes no sense. The Eldar 'know' they are right, and have known for longer than humanity has been around. Should we let the Eldar take over the galaxy? Or the Orks? Or whatever the creatures that dwell in the Warp are?

 

The justification for the Imperium made by Abnett/Sindermann was just dumb. Idealistic, hopeful, and full of naivette - but still dumb.

 

They're not trying to make anything. Humanity is uniting under a single body.

 

I went back into Horus Rising to reread Sindermann's lecture again. I'm actually amazed at how long even the bit we find is, and you should be reading into it more than the shallow bit you got out of it.

 

"... The truth we convey is the truth, because we say it is the truth. Is that enough?" [sindermann] shrugged. "I don't believe so. 'My truth is better than your truth' is a school-yard squabble, not the basis of a culture. 'I am right, so you are wrong' is a syllogism that collapses as soon as one applies any number of fundamental ethical tools. I am right, ergo, you are wrong. We can't construct a constitution on that, and we cannot, should not, will not be persuaded to iterate on its basis. It would make us look like what?" He looked out across his audience. A number of hands were raised. "There?" "Liars." ... "I was thinking bullies, or demagogues, Memed, bit 'liars' is apt. In fact, it cuts deeper than my suggestions. Well done. Liars. That is the one thing we iterators can never allow ourselves to become."

 

Sindermann goes on to lecture about religion, although why this would appear at the end of a lecture is beyond me (I guess this part is his hobby horse), the point is still there:

 

"Great actions have shaped our society," ... "But the greatest, intellectually, has been casting off that heavy mantle called religion. Religion damned our species for thousands of years, from the lowest superstition to the highest conclaves of spiritual faith. It drove us to madness, to war, to murder, it hung upon us like a disease, like a shackle ball."

 

The Imperium as it existed during the Great Crusade embraced scientific study and advancement. It shunned religion. It shunned willful ignorance.

 

"We have passed amongst the cosmos now, my friends. We have passed amongst it. We have learned and understood the fabric of reality. We have seen the stars from behind, and found they have no clockwork mechanisms, no golden chariots carrying them abroad. We have realised that there is no need for god, or any gods, and be extension no use any longer for daemons or devils or spirits."

 

In the Warhammer 40,000 universe, we know that Sindermann is wrong. We know that there are gods and daemons, but by embracing a secular state, the Emperor was also shutting away. Emotions still fed them, but there was no direct worship of them. In the context of the understood universe, Sindermann's view on the Imperium is right.

 

As for the Eldar, they're god worshiping xenos who tore their society apart and birthed a god of ecstasy. A fraction continues to exist as space faring nomads. Another lives as landbound prisoners. The majority continues to indulge in self destructive behaviors, shut away in another dimension. If that sounds right to you, then I've nothing more to say.

 

The only thing that's naive and hopeful about it is that humanity will cast off religion.

 

Honey lies always see to go down better then.

 

You have two choices. Slavery or Death.

 

I always wanted a primarch to say that to a human world in the crusade. But all the Primarchs are deluded or liars.

 

Cute. Unfortunately it's wrong. Slavery or Death? I see a society of intellectuals, all working to unite a species under the greatest man to have ever live. Often diplomatically as well. Two attempts were made to speak with this false Emperor. He assassinated ambassadors. There is no slavery here. Then again, perhaps I'm deluded.

[Dark Apostle Thirst]

'snip'

 

And how does that make his justification any less dumb?

 

I know all of what you are saying. I understand that the Imperium was secular at the time and that Sindermann was being representative of the Imperium, by rejecting religion, by promoting secularism, by stating that it was their noble quest to re-unite humanity (although I have a seperate point to make about that). I get that.

 

My main issue is that he ends by stating the Imperium is justified because it 'knows' it is right. Each species 'knows' it is right. Simply 'knowing' that you are right doesn't make you the special inheritors of the galaxy. Especially if you're secular.

 

Also, on the quest to re-unite humanity. This may be just me interpretting things, but it was generally viewed by the Imperium that humanity was to become the dominant and eventually only power in the galaxy. Loken and Sigismund debated on this, even, and both agreed that the Imperium is bound to do things beyond the simple re-unification of humanity. It does want to conquer the galaxy completely, and the Great Crusade is intended to do that as much as it is to re-unite humanity.

 

That may simply be my interpretation, take it or leave it. Perhaps the people and majority of the Imperium don't see it that way, because of iterators.

[Khestra the Unbeheld]

My main issue is that he ends by stating the Imperium is justified because it 'knows' it is right. Each species 'knows' it is right. Simply 'knowing' that you are right doesn't make you the special inheritors of the galaxy. Especially if you're secular.

 

That's what makes it ironic: Sindermann is justifying the secular Crusade using the same argument that religion(s) used to justify its purpose(s), and the proof of "right" in Sindermann's case is by force of arms, which humanity was winning one system at a time with the Legions, the Imperial Army, and the Mechanicus. The "casting off of willful ignorance" was replaced by another willful ignorance entirely, but an ignorance that had empirical evidence of "might makes right" to back it up, which gave it all the justification necessary to make it "right".

 

But "right" isn't always "truth", as humanity and Sindermann both come to discover. :tu:

[Donkey Kong]

I know all of what you are saying. I understand that the Imperium was secular at the time and that Sindermann was being representative of the Imperium, by rejecting religion, by promoting secularism, by stating that it was their noble quest to re-unite humanity (although I have a seperate point to make about that). I get that.

 

My main issue is that he ends by stating the Imperium is justified because it 'knows' it is right. Each species 'knows' it is right. Simply 'knowing' that you are right doesn't make you the special inheritors of the galaxy. Especially if you're secular.

 

Also, on the quest to re-unite humanity. This may be just me interpretting things, but it was generally viewed by the Imperium that humanity was to become the dominant and eventually only power in the galaxy. Loken and Sigismund debated on this, even, and both agreed that the Imperium is bound to do things beyond the simple re-unification of humanity. It does want to conquer the galaxy completely, and the Great Crusade is intended to do that as much as it is to re-unite humanity.

 

That may simply be my interpretation, take it or leave it. Perhaps the people and majority of the Imperium don't see it that way, because of iterators.

 

That's how you make a conclusion. You don't restate all of your evidence again, because then you're just restating your speech, and that starts an infinite loop. The Imperium knows that it is right. It knows it's right because it has done away with religion and embraced the scientific and intellectual minds. It is spreading that mindset to more ignorant people who have been separated from Terra.

 

Yes, the Imperium wants to conquer the Milky Way for humanity. The Imperium's bias against xenos is never denied. The Great Crusade probably had millions of genocidal campaigns. Fulgrim shows Ferrus Manus hunting down a xeno fleet, with the xeno leader even asking Ferrus

with his dying breath, why didn't the Imperium just leave them alone

. This doesn't change anything.

 

Maybe it's my personal bias against religion, but I believe that, given the context of Sindermann's lecture, he was sharing the Imperial mindset. I don't see how this makes sense:

 

Simply 'knowing' that you are right doesn't make you the special inheritors of the galaxy. Especially if you're secular.

 

The only conclusion that I can come to, and I have no intention of being offensive, is that you don't get it.

 

That's what makes it ironic: Sindermann is justifying the secular Crusade using the same argument that religion(s) used to justify its purpose(s), and the proof of "right" in Sindermann's case is by force of arms, which humanity was winning one system at a time with the Legions, the Imperial Army, and the Mechanicus. The "casting off of willful ignorance" was replaced by another willful ignorance entirely, but an ignorance that had empirical evidence of "might makes right" to back it up, which gave it all the justification necessary to make it "right".

 

But "right" isn't always "truth", as humanity and Sindermann both come to discover. :P

 

Because empirical evidence has just as much weight as religious evidence :whistling: . Sindermann's final point reinforces the Imperial ideal that might does not make right. The truth in Warhammer is that gods do exist, however it is no more truth than radiation was to the testers of the first atomic bombs. I would not call the Emperor's dirty little secret, the true nature of the Warp, willful ignorance, so much as a way to protect humanity as it was rebuilding, and render it unnecessary when his work was done.

 

"... The truth we convey is the truth, because we say it is the truth. Is that enough?" [sindermann] shrugged. "I don't believe so. 'My truth is better than your truth' is a school-yard squabble, not the basis of a culture. 'I am right, so you are wrong' is a syllogism that collapses as soon as one applies any number of fundamental ethical tools. I am right, ergo, you are wrong. We can't construct a constitution on that, and we cannot, should not, will not be persuaded to iterate on its basis. It would make us look like what?" He looked out across his audience. A number of hands were raised. "There?" "Liars." ... "I was thinking bullies, or demagogues, Memed, but 'liars' is apt. In fact, it cuts deeper than my suggestions. Well done. Liars. That is the one thing we iterators can never allow ourselves to become."

 

Yes, the Imperium's will is supported by it's war machine. However, it is not above diplomacy. Horus sent negotiators to this world twice. I repeat, the Warmaster sent diplomats to this world, and even when the first was assassinated, he sent a second, hoping to avoid war. Horus Rising mentions that massacring people was one of the greatest regrets in the Great Crusade.

 

The greatest parallel I can think of off the top of my head is the first episode of Full Metal Alchemist.

That's a lie. The actual greatest is my own country, the United States of America, and right or wrong, I love her still.

 

[Khestra the Unbeheld]

Yes, the Imperium's will is supported by it's war machine. However, it is not above diplomacy. Horus sent negotiators to this world twice. I repeat, the Warmaster sent diplomats to this world, and even when the first was assassinated, he sent a second, hoping to avoid war. Horus Rising mentions that massacring people was one of the greatest regrets in the Great Crusade.

 

You just shot your own argument in the foot. If the Crusade wasn't granted its "rightness" by force of arms, then after the diplomats were rejected there should have been no war. Diplomacy is ultimately a facade; the concept of "They said no, let's move on" didn't exist: when diplomacy failed, force of arms was brought into play. The only exceptions were the worlds where the threat of force of arms was enough to persuade them, because refusal was war. "Comply or be destroyed" is not a diplomatic stance, no matter how it's delivered.

[Donkey Kong]

You just shot your own argument in the foot. If the Crusade wasn't granted its "rightness" by force of arms, then after the diplomats were rejected there should have been no war. Diplomacy is ultimately a facade; the concept of "They said no, let's move on" didn't exist: when diplomacy failed, force of arms was brought into play. The only exceptions were the worlds where the threat of force of arms was enough to persuade them, because refusal was war. "Comply or be destroyed" is not a diplomatic stance, no matter how it's delivered.

 

The false Emperor on false Terra assassinated Imperial diplomats on two occasions. There is a large difference between saying no and striking out before anything can be said. "Talk or M.A.D." was almost the entire basis of all negotiations between the United States and the Soviet Union following the end of the Second World War. False Terra just didn't have the bite to match its bark.

 

The list of benefits of being a part of the Imperium is neigh endless:

- Join an intergalactic market

- Gain the military support of every world in the Imperium

- Gain the technology of every world in the Imperium, studied by a technologically adept society, at the time also supportive of innovation

- Gain the knowledge of the greatest minds in the Imperium, artistic and scientific

 

The Imperial Truth is right by merit of it's empirical worth. 2 + 2 = 4, objects exert gravity with gravitational force varying on the size of the objects and the distance between them, and Na⁺ + Cl^- = NaCl. The Emperor is capable of forming the Imperium due to its military might. It's not necessarily the only way worlds were claimed. Sindermann's closing had an entire segment on how "might makes right" should not define the Imperial Truth.

 

The Primarch's worlds willingly joined the Imperium, so you're wrong in saying that the mentality was always comply or be destroyed. Even then, there must have been worlds that were glad to be reunited with Terra.

 

No, my argument still stands.

[Dark Apostle Thirst]

You just shot your own argument in the foot. If the Crusade wasn't granted its "rightness" by force of arms, then after the diplomats were rejected there should have been no war. Diplomacy is ultimately a facade; the concept of "They said no, let's move on" didn't exist: when diplomacy failed, force of arms was brought into play. The only exceptions were the worlds where the threat of force of arms was enough to persuade them, because refusal was war. "Comply or be destroyed" is not a diplomatic stance, no matter how it's delivered.

 

The false Emperor on false Terra assassinated Imperial diplomats on two occasions. There is a large difference between saying no and striking out before anything can be said. "Talk or M.A.D." was almost the entire basis of all negotiations between the United States and the Soviet Union following the end of the Second World War. False Terra just didn't have the bite to match its bark.

 

The list of benefits of being a part of the Imperium is neigh endless:

- Join an intergalactic market

- Gain the military support of every world in the Imperium

- Gain the technology of every world in the Imperium, studied by a technologically adept society, at the time also supportive of innovation

- Gain the knowledge of the greatest minds in the Imperium, artistic and scientific

 

The Imperial Truth is right by merit of it's empirical worth. 2 + 2 = 4, objects exert gravity with gravitational force varying on the size of the objects and the distance between them, and Na⁺ + Cl^- = NaCl. The Emperor is capable of forming the Imperium due to its military might. It's not necessarily the only way worlds were claimed. Sindermann's closing had an entire segment on how "might makes right" should not define the Imperial Truth.

 

The Primarch's worlds willingly joined the Imperium, so you're wrong in saying that the mentality was always comply or be destroyed. Even then, there must have been worlds that were glad to be reunited with Terra.

 

No, my argument still stands.

I didn't take offence, and I seek to cause none :cuss

 

Actually, you did shoot your argument in the foot.

 

There is two choices with the Imperium - join or die. Xenos just get die.

 

Diplomacy is there for humans. Diplomacy is there so that the Imperium doesn't to waste it's resources on destroying and rebuilding that world, or to qualm some military element's morals. After all, do not some factions, like the Diasporex, just ask to be left alone? Too bad the Imperium didn't let them.

 

It was actually Solomon Demeter, by the way, not Ferrus.

 

 

Now, back to the one thing you have yet to explain. Why Sindermann's justification is not dumb.

 

Again, he justifies it by stating that Humanity 'knows' it is right. Empirical evidence holds just as little basis as religious evidence does, because even in 40k empires rise and fall. Simply being in an empire - even an incredible successful one like the Imperium - doesn't make your evidence any more 'right' than a non-empiracal. Just look at Orks, their little empire is pretty successful and unkillable. Does that mean that red vehicles inherently travel faster? Based on their empire's evidence, it does, but there is no law of physics that states the color red causing vehicles to travel faster.

[Donkey Kong]

I didn't take offence, and I seek to cause none

 

Glad to hear DAT. Nothing bad about a friendly debate :D .

 

There is two choices with the Imperium - join or die. Xenos just get die.

 

Diplomacy is there for humans. Diplomacy is there so that the Imperium doesn't to waste it's resources on destroying and rebuilding that world, or to qualm some military element's morals. After all, do not some factions, like the Diasporex, just ask to be left alone? Too bad the Imperium didn't let them.

 

It was actually Solomon Demeter, by the way, not Ferrus.

 

The Diasporex was a faction of humans and xenos. Was Ferrus heavy handed (no pun intended)? He was, but this was the desire of the Imperium. This does all root back to the inherent human bias against xenos. Ferrus offered to allow the humans in the Diasporex into the Imperium, they refused, and were exterminated for it. This goes back to my belief that the Imperial mentality here fits well with the one shown in the first episode of Full Metal Alchemist. Edward enters the city and removes the leader, an eloquent speaker who gave hope to an otherwise lifeless place. When asked why, Edward says he did it to show the truth. While this was a true example of disillusion, and the Diasporex may have had a fine relationship between xenos and humans, the Imperium did not see it as such.

 

Similarly, there were worlds that willingly joined the Imperium. Chemos and Deliverance, hive worlds, undoubtedly with military capabilities, submitted themselves to the Emperor. I do not believe I have the right to say that Baal, Caliban, or Fenris submitted willingly since they lacked any planetary unification due to their own situations. However, when the Primarchs joined the Imperium, their worlds did too (okay, not Caliban). Sanguinius submitted himself to the Emperor without a question, and Leman Russ accepted the Emperor after competing with him.

 

In that way, yes, it is right to say that the Imperial Truth was hand in hand with the Imperial military. However, that was not an absolute, and does not devalue the empirical side of the Imperial Truth.

 

And, yes, it was Solomon Demeter, my bad :) .

 

Now, back to the one thing you have yet to explain. Why Sindermann's justification is not dumb.

 

Again, he justifies it by stating that Humanity 'knows' it is right. Empirical evidence holds just as little basis as religious evidence does, because even in 40k empires rise and fall. Simply being in an empire - even an incredible successful one like the Imperium - doesn't make your evidence any more 'right' than a non-empiracal. Just look at Orks, their little empire is pretty successful and unkillable. Does that mean that red vehicles inherently travel faster? Based on their empire's evidence, it does, but there is no law of physics that states the color red causing vehicles to travel faster.

 

That's the one thing I've explained well, I think.

 

The part of the speech originally quoted by Pulse is the very last thing he says. It is his conclusion. It is the point that his entire lecture supported. Empirical value and religious value have nothing to do with the rise and fall of empires. Sindermann says himself that the Imperial Truth is not the truth by its military alone. I cannot argue that it reinforces its claim, but it is not the basis of it, and that is true.

 

The Imperium in this era is based around the spread of knowledge and the removal of disillusionment. It is getting rid of the "heavy mantle called religion". This is the thing that the Emperor wants to remove, the thing holding mankind back. Sindermann rightfully accuses religion of driving humanity "to madness, to war, to murder." Even the Mechanicum, based on the Machine Cult, is headed towards innovation instead of strictly adhering to STC technology.

 

What the Imperium knows is that religion cannot help it, and unity will. There is nothing wrong with Sindermann's justification for what he knows to be true, because what he knows is right, because there is tangible evidence to back his claim. The Imperium was intrusive and heavy handed, but it's intentions, the unification of man and strengthening the species, were all noble goals.

[Dark Apostle Thirst]

Perhaps it should be clearer, then. What I got was the Imperium could justify its actions because it knew it was right. If what you say - that unity justifies the Imperium's actions - is what Sindermann meant, then he didn't explain it very well.

 

But I do agree unity is a feasible an workable justification :D

[jaxom]

Sindermann's speech is a good example, I think, of how the fledgling Imperium transcends the concept of truth through faith in the Imperial Creed:

"And a code is really a type of myth — an artificial construction that gives order to how we view our lives. Codes don't arise inevitably, but it's by sticking to them that we shape our responses to the world and how the world responds to us; and I'd even go so far as to say that it's only with some type of code to provide structure that a human being can build the sort of life that transcends time and space.

The affirmation that the Imperium is right, and the continued actions "without hesitation, without doubt, without prejudice, that is is the truth," creates the Imperium where it is truth.

[Deus de Mortalis]

Yeah, I completely agree that the speech wasn't all that great. After reading about how awesome and amazing Sindermann was supposed to be, the speech felt quite underwhelming. If Sindermann wasn't so hyped up but was just some random guy giving a speech, it would not have been so bad. Dan Abnett is a good writer, but he is no Sindermann who is practically superhuman in his speaking abilities.

[Candleshoes]

At the OP:

 

Sindermann makes the speech with the full understanding that science gives gravity to meaning, far more to mortals than hope.

 

The speech makes perfect sense as it conveys the science vs. religon debate in a satirical "pre-unity" fashion, much akin to our own past, but the meaning is consistent. You can almost replace the words, which is one of the main reasons the speech was so cleverly written. It was also written in concert to his audience, as much as (we) the audience, and (we) are meant to read it as a second audience.

 

Reading or talking about the scene without context, like in any higher learning, yields confusion and misunderstanding.