Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I think a bigger issue is the side of the fandom that cries "grimderp" each time the IoM is shown to be inefficient and/or insane.

 Tyran wrote:
I think a bigger issue is the side of the fandom that cries "grimderp" each time the IoM is shown to be inefficient and/or insane.

+1

The fact that some fans throw the label 'grimderp' at any instance of Imperials being irrational implies that they expect the Imperium to be composed of rational actors behaving in reasonable ways, ie not remotely satire.

I take that as evidence that the writing is too subtle, if it's meant to be satirical at all. You don't see people calling Verhoeven a hack because the Klendathu assault is strategic idiocy.

Um yeah, you definitely do see that. Verhoeven himself even said:
"I want to make a movie so painfully obvious in its satire that everyone who understands it lives in perpetual psychological torment inflicted on them by all the people who don't."
The amount of people who don't understand the Starship Troopers movie is satire is as the man himself said, painful and they also perfectly intersect with the type of people who unironically think the Imperium is the good guys in 40k.

The satirical edge is easier to maintain when it's a detached third person "history book" style like in the game books themselves. When you write a novel, you need to have some relatable and likeable characters, and they need to behave in ways the reader will accept. So that inevitably means that Imperial characters will be written in a sympathetic light, and soft retcons will abound to make the stuff they do less stupid and more sensible.

The solution imo is to write the Imperium as an outside force. Have the protagonists not arms of the Imperial machine but either worlds outside the Imperium (there should be a lot more of those) or people technically in the Imperium but who don't really have much to do with it.

If I was gonna run an RPG in the 40K universe, I'd absolutely set it in non-Imperial space, and the characters would not have even heard of the Imperium. Then at some point the crusade fleet shows up and the gak hits the fan.

Edit: To an extent the problem I outlined above has always existed tbf. A lot of game background is the personal background of studio members armies or whatever. And people tend to cheer for "their dudes". So that trend has always been there. I think it's accelerated and especially now that the setting is more focused than ever on special characters and what they're getting up to.

And I'm not that bothered by it myself tbh. Anything I don't like I feel free to ignore or change.

 Gert wrote:
Um yeah, you definitely do see that.

You see only a vanishingly tiny minority of idiots not getting it. You do not see communities equally divided on whether the Federation is meant to be satirical, or half the Starship Troopers fanbase talking about how they love the franchise but decry the Federation's stupid policies as bad writing.

SST is also, to Da Boss's point, a pretty clear example of narrative written around characters who are presented as likable and relatable but still end up Triumph Of The Will'd into authoritarian nutjobs. Even that likability isn't strictly necessary; Judge Dredd is a fun read even though the character himself is absolutely bugfuck insane. It's entirely possible to write overtly critical satire where you can still cheer for your dudes, GW just... isn't doing that.

 catbarf wrote:

 Gert wrote:
Um yeah, you definitely do see that.

You see only a vanishingly tiny minority of idiots not getting it. You do not see communities equally divided on whether the Federation is meant to be satirical, or half the Starship Troopers fanbase talking about how they love the franchise but decry the Federation's stupid policies as bad writing.

We don't because the movie that it's so well known for came out in 1997. Had the internet been back then what it was today, I'm sure we would have seen that kind of full blown idiocy. It would still be a minority, just as I think it is a minority in 40k, but the internet makes those minorities far louder and seem far bigger than they would otherwise be.

I've never met a single person in all the time I've been in the hobby that doesn't think 40k is satire (and who was old enough to understand what satire is), but we see them all the time online because that's how the internet works.

I mean it comes up almost yearly at this point usually when some other franchise like 40k or this year Helldivers makes a point about genocidal regimes being bad.
Maybe it's the effect of the Internet but we're closing in on the film being almost 30 years old and people still don't get that it's satirical and that fascism is bad.
Just my 2 pennies.

This is a satire gaming aid:

 Da Boss wrote:
The satirical edge is easier to maintain when it's a detached third person "history book" style like in the game books themselves. When you write a novel, you need to have some relatable and likeable characters, and they need to behave in ways the reader will accept. So that inevitably means that Imperial characters will be written in a sympathetic light, and soft retcons will abound to make the stuff they do less stupid and more sensible.

This just isn't true. Tom Sharpe wrote 2 books satirising the South African police during apartheid. They are not likeable in any way. Of the three main characters, one is a rapist and murderer, another is a sexually repressed psychopathic secret policeman, and the last is a moron who dreams of nobility while being just as racist and hateful as the other two.

They are never depicted as competent, nor are they ever given the dignity of their actions being framed as sensible.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
This just isn't true. Tom Sharpe wrote 2 books satirising the South African police during apartheid. They are not likeable in any way. Of the three main characters, one is a rapist and murderer, another is a sexually repressed psychopathic secret policeman, and the last is a moron who dreams of nobility while being just as racist and hateful as the other two.

They are never depicted as competent, nor are they ever given the dignity of their actions being framed as sensible.

But are those books actually readable?

Not familiar with them, so that's a genuine question, as someone who struggles to read books where the protagonist isn't likeable, or at least relatable in some way. And I'm not the only one who has that problem, by any means... which is why the early Black Library novels focused on a lot of characters who were described as being different from the norm - Eisenhorn was a very 'human' face on the Inquisition, Gaunt was a less extreme Commissar who was staunchly against wasting the lives of those in his command, Uriel Ventris eschewed the normal Ultramarine ways of war... They were all there to provide a relatable, 'everyman' view into the Imperium's insanity.

It's certainly possible to write good stories with insane or unlikeable protagonists (see the aforementioned Dredd)... but a lot of the time it just doesn't make for an enjoyable (CoughThomasCovenantCough) story.

The unlikability of characters is the reason I never read past the first book of Song of Ice and Fire.

By the end of the first book we were following I think 3 different characters (Danaerys, Tyrion and John Snow iirc) and they were all insufferable in different ways.

I had no interest in continuing to read about them.


And those were fantastical characters. I don't think I'd even pick up a book about the realworld, satirical or not. I find it far too depressing.

I like my escapism to actually escape earth, pointing a lens on our terribleness from a distance so I'm not constantly reminded of reality....

A Town Called Malus: Poor wording on my part - I should have said "If you want to have mass market appeal for your genre fiction based on a toy soldier game, you need likeable protagonists".

I've read plenty of books with no likeable people in them, but unless the prose is absolutely beautiful and the book is saying something really interesting about the human condition, people don't tend to suffer through stories with unlikeable protagonists. Black Library writes bang bang war books aimed at teenagers and the stable of writers they have on the whole are not good enough to carry off something like A Secret History or The Grass is Singing because their prose is poor, as is their dialogue.

 catbarf wrote:

 Gert wrote:
Um yeah, you definitely do see that.

You see only a vanishingly tiny minority of idiots not getting it. You do not see communities equally divided on whether the Federation is meant to be satirical, or half the Starship Troopers fanbase talking about how they love the franchise but decry the Federation's stupid policies as bad writing.

it is even more funny when you add in that SST was on the Index in Germany (until 2017) and only allowed to be aired as a cut and toned down version that removed most of the fascist satire because they did not got the joke

 kodos wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

 Gert wrote:
Um yeah, you definitely do see that.

You see only a vanishingly tiny minority of idiots not getting it. You do not see communities equally divided on whether the Federation is meant to be satirical, or half the Starship Troopers fanbase talking about how they love the franchise but decry the Federation's stupid policies as bad writing.

it is even more funny when you add in that SST was on the Index in Germany (until 2017) and only allowed to be aired as a cut and toned down version that removed most of the fascist satire because they did not got the joke

...cue stereotype about Germany and jokes...

 insaniak wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
This just isn't true. Tom Sharpe wrote 2 books satirising the South African police during apartheid. They are not likeable in any way. Of the three main characters, one is a rapist and murderer, another is a sexually repressed psychopathic secret policeman, and the last is a moron who dreams of nobility while being just as racist and hateful as the other two.

They are never depicted as competent, nor are they ever given the dignity of their actions being framed as sensible.

But are those books actually readable?

Not familiar with them, so that's a genuine question, as someone who struggles to read books where the protagonist isn't likeable, or at least relatable in some way. And I'm not the only one who has that problem, by any means... which is why the early Black Library novels focused on a lot of characters who were described as being different from the norm - Eisenhorn was a very 'human' face on the Inquisition, Gaunt was a less extreme Commissar who was staunchly against wasting the lives of those in his command, Uriel Ventris eschewed the normal Ultramarine ways of war... They were all there to provide a relatable, 'everyman' view into the Imperium's insanity.

It's certainly possible to write good stories with insane or unlikeable protagonists (see the aforementioned Dredd)... but a lot of the time it just doesn't make for an enjoyable (CoughThomasCovenantCough) story.

I think so, because I find reading about fascists failing and completely fething themselves over due to their ignorance and hatred funny.

 kodos wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

 Gert wrote:
Um yeah, you definitely do see that.

You see only a vanishingly tiny minority of idiots not getting it. You do not see communities equally divided on whether the Federation is meant to be satirical, or half the Starship Troopers fanbase talking about how they love the franchise but decry the Federation's stupid policies as bad writing.

it is even more funny when you add in that SST was on the Index in Germany (until 2017) and only allowed to be aired as a cut and toned down version that removed most of the fascist satire because they did not got the joke

Didn't they also remove the Swastika from Wolfenstein? You know, that game where you kill Nazis.
German censorship laws are silly.

well, that was because it is a forbidden symbol that is not allowed to be shown outside of educational purpose and historical context
problem with laws from the 1950ies not accounting for computer games and it is not allowed to be shown in any games

the censorship of movies and books is something different as this is decided by a commission who also adjust the rating which is controversial in general as games are still treated as if only kids are playing (like Fallout 3 was only allowed to be sold at adults in addition of having violence removed)

 Da Boss wrote:
The satirical edge is easier to maintain when it's a detached third person "history book" style like in the game books themselves. When you write a novel, you need to have some relatable and likeable characters, and they need to behave in ways the reader will accept. So that inevitably means that Imperial characters will be written in a sympathetic light, and soft retcons will abound to make the stuff they do less stupid and more sensible.

The solution imo is to write the Imperium as an outside force. Have the protagonists not arms of the Imperial machine but either worlds outside the Imperium (there should be a lot more of those) or people technically in the Imperium but who don't really have much to do with it.

If I was gonna run an RPG in the 40K universe, I'd absolutely set it in non-Imperial space, and the characters would not have even heard of the Imperium. Then at some point the crusade fleet shows up and the gak hits the fan.

I wish there was some sort of "mercenary" or "rebels" faction that could represent humans that are not directly Imperial or even oppose it without being some chaos or xenos cultists.

But I think you can write sympathetic imperials without losing the ability to satirise. You just need to write about people who are not in positions of supreme power, but instead are some sort of low or middle ranking somewhat decent people trying to deal with the terrible situation and their psychotic overlords. The issue is that BL seems to want to write about Primarchs and other super important people who are practicably calling the shots in this hellstate, and once you make those sympathetic or even vaguely sane you're killing the satire.

Yeah, I actually want there to be more non-Imperial human factions.
Technically the Votann fall under that as they are abhuman rather than xenos, but they really should have kept the Interex around to some degree.

I wonder if it would have been better to make the T'au a human faction rather than alien. Perhaps actually commit to the whole commy meme and make them an over the top parody of the Soviet Union, kind of like what AT-43 did with the Red Blok, thereby keeping with 40k's overall theme of a 2000AD-esque parody of human politics.

In retrospect, GW did actually have a chance to do that; by having the Imperium split down the middle they could have very well done a sort of Eastern / Western Roman Empire split with one half of the Imperium developing in one way and the other developing in another way, having been cut off from Terra and the high lords.
Of course, that would take effort, and we can't have that.

I'd certainly like to see human auxillaries as part of Tau forces being more normal. Planning on making some with some Stargrave Mercs.

And yeah, the split seems underutilised. I quite enjoyed the Spears of the Emperor book set in Imperium Nihilus, and it felt very 40K to me. Though on the topic of the thread, the Spears are obvious "Good Guy Marines".

I think the Tau potential mind control, empire building and brutal treatment of dissident compared to it's utopian greater good promises is probably better satire than a straight take on soviets myself.

Dai wrote:
I think the Tau potential mind control, empire building and brutal treatment of dissident compared to it's utopian greater good promises is probably better satire than a straight take on soviets myself.

Probably, but apparently it's not overt enough. Just as there are those who think the Imperium are heroes, there are those who think that the Tau are the good guys and take their Greater Good message and "cleaner" aesthetic at face value.

I guess GW is just really bad at writing effective satire, no matter who they are mocking.

Was the mind control aspect confirmed? I know it's been heavily implied, but I don't think it's been outright stated that's how the Ethereals control their subjects?

 Crimson wrote:
Chaos was always way better in Fantasy Battle, and it seems this has at least somewhat carried to AOS as well. Chaos barbarians in those seem pretty understandable and relatable; they're just people living brutal lives worshipping brutal gods.

Given how horrible Imperium is it shouldn't be terribly hard to depict those who decide to oppose it and choose to pray for dark gods for aid as sympathetic, but GW practically never does it. Chaos in 40K is usually just silly cartoon evil for evil's sake.

The most ineresting read on chaos I have is that chaos is incapable of being anything but a dark reflection of materium societies. Since the imperium is by far the dominant galactic society, chaos is helpless to be anything but the imperium taken to an even more extreme degree. The imperium engages in pointless sacrifices? Then chaos does to at an even more extreme and arbitrary scale. The imperium is fragmented between competing ordos and adeptus and such? Chaos is even more fractured into warbands. Et cetera et cetera. Everything bad about chaos is just what is bad about the imperium, but more so.

ccs wrote:

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

Tree_Beard wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:
The setting was designed as a self aware satire of totalitarianism, thatcherism and many other isms.

According to who?

Well, the designers for one, but there are a ton of references to events and people that are entirely forgotten today and trying to bring people up to speed involves long, tedious explanations that invariably end with: "I guess you had to be there."

You could be helpful & list thise references so that those who're curious enough can do thier own research.

This would be falling into the trap of expending WAY more effort and energy to prove the fash wrong then the fash spends in making mockery of the discussion

 Crimson wrote:

 tauist wrote:
This reminds me, the writers of "The Boys" should start doing BL books. That series has the type of satire I personally find appetizing to the degree the old 40K lore gave me

Yes! That's actual satire!

A heroic space Caesar is emo about genocide but still does it because he is a hard man making hard choices is not satire, it is accidental fascism apologia.

Guilliman managed to make the imperium more fascist, yes.

 kodos wrote:
came across a similar discussion on reddit recently and the intresting part here is that for people to understand the satire of 40k one need to understand Britain of the 80/90ies, need to read the old books and read some old novels

Like a big part of that discussion was what are Orks in 40k
if one only know the gaming material and some novels, they are the comic relief of the setting (meaning everything else is serious), some see them as symbol of the African communities (opressed by imperialism) and others as the true fascist of the setting (as there is some german WW2 style in the art and models).

The internet will tell you that the original Orks were modeled after Hooligans, but without knowing the details of the british football hooligans this does not mean much and the connections are not made


If one needs to read certain novels to relise that 40k is satire and the rulebook is not enough to make that point than 40k has already lost that aspect

I mean there are times orcs in fantasy were absolutely standins of a british person's perspective of Africans living in Africa.

The game designers were heavily influenced by anti establishment punk culture. But, uh, sometimes that's still got plenty of yikes parts of it.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
It’s about how power corrupts. That The Imperium is so far gone, short of The Emperor stepping of his throne and putting his house in order, there’s no going back to the heady days of relative enlightenment that was the Great Crusade.

Satire needn’t be comedic, it can be irony on its own. And Guilliman, the single most powerful entity with The Imperium, who played a massive part in its initial Founding, is powerless to save it from itself, and has instead stooped to its level? That is irony.

Corrupts what?

Guilliman was doing the same gak at the emperor's behest in 30k that he does in 40k

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Orks are also a pastiche of the “Barbarians at the Gate” trope.

As the now infamous musings of that Eldar point out, they’re seen as crude, when their society is incredibly robust, and evidently immensely successful.

When Ancient Rome was sacked by barbarians, were not talking Ooga Booga Me Hit With Rock primitives. At all. Were they less regimented than Rome? Sure. Yet….they still sacked Rome, and all Rome’s art, philosophy and social order went up in flames all the same.

The Football ‘Ooligan thing is likely a deliberate filter. A cipher for how the rich and powerful ultimately fear the poor, because there’s more of them, and they’re quite willing to fight for what they do have.

To quote “Common People” by Pulp?

You will never understand how it feels to live your life with no meaning of control and with nowhere left to go. You are amazed that they exist yet they burn so bright whilst you can only wonder why.

Now, that is of course a somewhat romantic take on things, but the message holds true.

They were also part of roman society emplyed by roman emperors with leaders raised in roman capitals.

The barbarians weren't at the gates. They were living inside the city already and only sacked rome because the romans were staggeringly racist towards the people they were filling their armies with. And that's Oedecar. Theoderic was literally sent to the western empire (to kill Oedecar) by the eastern emperor to conquer it and only split because theoderic wanted to be emperor and Zeno was, again, staggeringly racist towards him (Which is funny since he was Isaurian and, uh, the population of constantinople would drive his successor off the throne for insufficient romaness)

 Da Boss wrote:
Yeah Orks and even more so WFB Orcs are influenced by the cultures that fought with the romans and eventually brought down the western empire. The checks and bright colours, boars as a symbol of strength are very celtic, and you've got woad warpaint and even just the Goffs lifted wholesale. But not much african about any of that.

WFB Savage Orcs are a whole other kettle of fish though, definitely african coded and not in a very thoughtful or pleasant way.

The western empire brought itself down.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
Yeah Orks and even more so WFB Orcs are influenced by the cultures that fought with the romans and eventually brought down the western empire. The checks and bright colours, boars as a symbol of strength are very celtic, and you've got woad warpaint and even just the Goffs lifted wholesale. But not much african about any of that.

WFB Savage Orcs are a whole other kettle of fish though, definitely african coded and not in a very thoughtful or pleasant way.

Dunno. Savage Orcs are just…primitives. The Picts and Celts used to go into battle “Skyclad” as a sign of bravery. And trust, coming from that area of the world, going nuddy in that weather is brave enough. And there’s plenty of solid archaeological evidence for Antler being used as tools and weapons in pre-Roman Scotland.

So I don’t agree Savage Orcs are inherently African coded.

The naked Celt is Roman and Greek propagandizing of a foreign people. If the celts ever did this, and they probably DIDN'T, it was one group of wierdos in one battle during the early republic era (this is the only historic reference we have of it)

If Caesar had fought the prototypical naked celts, you'd better believe he'd have never shut up about it in his chronicles (And indeed he did write about how he sent celts fleeing bare arsed after ambushing them in their camp).

 Da Boss wrote:
Yeah, people used to just be more chill about this stuff. It was okay to like fictional bad guys. I dunno what it is about the current zeitgeist, some people seem to really need the fiction they are into to be morally bulletproof. I wonder if it has something to do with the increase in consumerism, and therefore ascribing more importance to the things you "consume" (urgh) along with the social media age requiring everyone to broadcast their virtue to others for brownie points.

Is it because we spend so much time and money and passion on this trivial crap that we need to convince ourselves it's somehow meaningful, a commentary on society, rather than a bunch of stuff slapped together because the people making it thought it would be funny or cool?

It's because fascism is on the rise again.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Thing is? What’s considered a hate crime now was….language and attitudes freely aired on TV as part of entertainment.

And psychos shooting up schools and malls and churches at increasing rates.

Like there is a measurable acknowledged increase of political violence, and ESPECIALLY right wing political violence.

Laughing Man wrote:

Tyel wrote:
The internet serves to magnify the level of nutters.

I'm pretty sure there was a lot more casual violence in society in the 1980s. But the US might be moving that way, versus a relatively quiet 90s/2000s. (Terrorism, both domestic and foreign aside.)

US crime stats say otherwise, being down considerably from 2010 levels for both violent and property crime, let alone the levels we had in the 80s and 90s.

But the incidents of mass shootings are very much UP from those years.

There's less other crimes being committed, but more of this.

 Bobthehero wrote:

 Gert wrote:

Ultranationalist - Check
Dictatorial leader - Immortal God Emperor and also his Demi-God Son who cannot be impeached
Centralised autocracy - Nominally in the idea of the Emperor but technically ruled by the High Lords who claim to be the chosen voice of the Emperor. Authority is derived from the Emperor in all cases.
Militarism - Check
Forcible suppression of opposition - Check
Belief in natural social hierarchy - In the sense that the strong rule the weak, yes
Subordination of individualism - Check
Strong regimentation of society and economy - Check

Communism checks just about all of these, for that matter. Bit of a general list.

Authoritarianism has many similar methodologies. There's only so many ways to be totalitarian.

But communists believe in the opposite of a natural hierarchy, are not inherently militarist, and really they should be anti nationalist. But interestingly, communist states are defined largely by their failures to live up to the ideology. Fascist states do exactly what they say they will. Kill people.

Tyel wrote:
I think this is probably splitting hairs to the 9th degree, but I'd argue the Imperium is insufficiently developed to be fascist.

I mean a fundamental issue of the Imperium is that it isn't centralised. You could argue its more centralised in the most recent lore (cos Guilliman etc) - but not really.

Its social organisation is far closer to high middle ages feudalism (and I realise all those terms are contested) than the office politics of modern bureaucracies.

I would describe the imperium as decayed fascism. In reality, all fascist regimes were highly fractious and internally competitive and backstabby. The imperium's disunified nature is just a natural result of all the backbiting fascists naturally get up to lasting 10 thousand years (without somehow collapsing, because fascist regimes ALSO have never survived the death of their leader in reality)

 dadx6 wrote:
As someone who's been in the hobby since 1989, I don't think there's any satire in it.

I think perhaps a lot of you who think it's satire need to read some of the mid 1900's sci-fi. Try Larry Niven's "A Gift From Earth" or "A World Out of Time", just as two examples. Science Fiction for most of the 20th century foresaw the inevitable future of humanity as being an impersonal communist state that would grind any independent thinker to dust.

WH40K came along at the end of the Cold War, when those of us living at the time had the specter of global thermonuclear war looming over us in a much more ever-present way than do modern generations. It seems natural to me that Britishers in the 80's would read sci-fi and speculate on what the galaxy might look like in 38000 years and come up with this.

Come to think of it, you can also read John Scalzi's MUCH more recent "Old Man's War" to find source material that has as its underlying ethos "anything to preserve humanity."

Personally, I think all the "WH40K is satire" stuff is nonsense created by the younger generations who can't handle the fact that a fictional universe doesn't have people behaving in an ideal fashion (to them).

It's not satire, it's meant to convey how high the stakes are for every battle. And if you read the novels and the material with that in mind, it all makes perfect sense. Especially if you have any experience with bureaucracy.

This is a lot of words to say "I think the imperium is actually good"

Tyel wrote:

 morganfreeman wrote:
Worth noting that fascism is not a system of government, it’s more of an ideology. Basically fascism is the idea that we (whomever ‘we’ constitutes can vary) are strong and we do not just deserve to rule, but we are a combination of genetically disposed and divinely selected. And while we are so chosen, they (again, they can vary and continues to once each ‘they’ are dealt with) have subversively toppled us from our chosen position been intentionally undermining us to keep us down.

It’s key hallmarks are militarism (so we can regain our rightful place), intolerance (finding your ‘they’), and an obsession with a near mythical and perfect past when we were strong and ontop before they conspired to drag us down (we will be great again).

To this end fascism can apply to any form of government in the same way that capitalism can. While it’s most suited to forms of dictatorship, it’s theoretically possible to see stuff like fascist democracies or even fascist communisms.

So the imperium is undeniably fascist, and quibbling over what form or structure the government takes is beside the point.

But if your concept applies to essentially every government on earth, its surely meaningless?

Fascism is a 20th century ideology, rooted in the concepts and ideas of that specific era.
if you can go:
Napoleon? Fascist.
Louis XIV? Fascist.
England and France in the 12th century? Absolutely Fascist, look at how they tick through my list.

Then maybe your list isn't all that useful.

If to be a non-fascist state you need a happy go-l

ucky liberalism, then the number of historical examples is few, and essentially none when under any degree of duress.

I mean how many of these does say the US in WW2 tick? Most of them by my count. But its not a fascist state (cue twitter hipsters arguing otherwise).

Fascism is also a populist ideology. It limits the populism to the elect, but it absolutely is populist. The whole of the people (as defined by their race) are given to strive with a singular will to their natural greatness (embodied and guided by the great leader).

Fascism was invented as a reaction, primarily, to socialism. In that Mussolini was a racist gak and thought that good things should only go to the right group of people. Mussolini started as a socialist and was disillusioned by the globalist perspective of the socialist movements during ww1 (Italian socialists were, generally, VERY against fighting in the war. Mussolini was very very into the war and italy claiming its place in the sun). This broadened to hating pretty much the rest of the liberal west when he saw that italy wasn't compensated enough in his view for fighting on their side in the war. Throughout this his views continuously curdled and grew more sour and discarded any sense of progressiveness they once held.

Funny in a way, he'd probably be way more sympatico with what stalin did ('Socialism' in one state).

 totalfailure wrote:
So what’s the end game of all this ranting? If 40K doesn’t conform 100% to your current political beliefs, it is fascist, and anyone that likes the game is a Tory, Trumper, or fascist by default? Maybe you would be happier if we instituted a plan where you can only write or work for GW by showing a party membership card from your ‘approved’ list? Maybe we should do it at the register for anyone buying any 40K stuff as well…the game ain’t what it used to be, in a lot of ways. My take is that it is game has certainly gotten blander over the years? Know why? So GW can sell more junk to the skeptical parents of kids. But I guess for some, it can only be the vast fascist conspiracy in action.

Do you think the imperium is good and should be emulated in some way in real life?

 Crimson wrote:
Chaos was always way better in Fantasy Battle, and it seems this has at least somewhat carried to AOS as well. Chaos barbarians in those seem pretty understandable and relatable; they're just people living brutal lives worshipping brutal gods.

Given how horrible Imperium is it shouldn't be terribly hard to depict those who decide to oppose it and choose to pray for dark gods for aid as sympathetic, but GW practically never does it. Chaos in 40K is usually just silly cartoon evil for evil's sake.

The most ineresting read on chaos I have is that chaos is incapable of being anything but a dark reflection of materium societies. Since the imperium is by far the dominant galactic society, chaos is helpless to be anything but the imperium taken to an even more extreme degree. The imperium engages in pointless sacrifices? Then chaos does to at an even more extreme and arbitrary scale. The imperium is fragmented between competing ordos and adeptus and such? Chaos is even more fractured into warbands. Et cetera et cetera. Everything bad about chaos is just what is bad about the imperium, but more so.

ccs wrote:

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

Tree_Beard wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:
The setting was designed as a self aware satire of totalitarianism, thatcherism and many other isms.

According to who?

Well, the designers for one, but there are a ton of references to events and people that are entirely forgotten today and trying to bring people up to speed involves long, tedious explanations that invariably end with: "I guess you had to be there."

You could be helpful & list thise references so that those who're curious enough can do thier own research.

This would be falling into the trap of expending WAY more effort and energy to prove the fash wrong then the fash spends in making mockery of the discussion

 Crimson wrote:

 tauist wrote:
This reminds me, the writers of "The Boys" should start doing BL books. That series has the type of satire I personally find appetizing to the degree the old 40K lore gave me

Yes! That's actual satire!

A heroic space Caesar is emo about genocide but still does it because he is a hard man making hard choices is not satire, it is accidental fascism apologia.

Guilliman managed to make the imperium more fascist, yes.

 kodos wrote:
came across a similar discussion on reddit recently and the intresting part here is that for people to understand the satire of 40k one need to understand Britain of the 80/90ies, need to read the old books and read some old novels

Like a big part of that discussion was what are Orks in 40k
if one only know the gaming material and some novels, they are the comic relief of the setting (meaning everything else is serious), some see them as symbol of the African communities (opressed by imperialism) and others as the true fascist of the setting (as there is some german WW2 style in the art and models).

The internet will tell you that the original Orks were modeled after Hooligans, but without knowing the details of the british football hooligans this does not mean much and the connections are not made


If one needs to read certain novels to relise that 40k is satire and the rulebook is not enough to make that point than 40k has already lost that aspect

I mean there are times orcs in fantasy were absolutely standins of a british person's perspective of Africans living in Africa.

The game designers were heavily influenced by anti establishment punk culture. But, uh, sometimes that's still got plenty of yikes parts of it.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
It’s about how power corrupts. That The Imperium is so far gone, short of The Emperor stepping of his throne and putting his house in order, there’s no going back to the heady days of relative enlightenment that was the Great Crusade.

Satire needn’t be comedic, it can be irony on its own. And Guilliman, the single most powerful entity with The Imperium, who played a massive part in its initial Founding, is powerless to save it from itself, and has instead stooped to its level? That is irony.

Corrupts what?

Guilliman was doing the same gak at the emperor's behest in 30k that he does in 40k

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Orks are also a pastiche of the “Barbarians at the Gate” trope.

As the now infamous musings of that Eldar point out, they’re seen as crude, when their society is incredibly robust, and evidently immensely successful.

When Ancient Rome was sacked by barbarians, were not talking Ooga Booga Me Hit With Rock primitives. At all. Were they less regimented than Rome? Sure. Yet….they still sacked Rome, and all Rome’s art, philosophy and social order went up in flames all the same.

The Football ‘Ooligan thing is likely a deliberate filter. A cipher for how the rich and powerful ultimately fear the poor, because there’s more of them, and they’re quite willing to fight for what they do have.

To quote “Common People” by Pulp?

You will never understand how it feels to live your life with no meaning of control and with nowhere left to go. You are amazed that they exist yet they burn so bright whilst you can only wonder why.

Now, that is of course a somewhat romantic take on things, but the message holds true.

They were also part of roman society emplyed by roman emperors with leaders raised in roman capitals.

The barbarians weren't at the gates. They were living inside the city already and only sacked rome because the romans were staggeringly racist towards the people they were filling their armies with. And that's Oedecar. Theoderic was literally sent to the western empire (to kill Oedecar) by the eastern emperor to conquer it and only split because theoderic wanted to be emperor and Zeno was, again, staggeringly racist towards him (Which is funny since he was Isaurian and, uh, the population of constantinople would drive his successor off the throne for insufficient romaness)

 Da Boss wrote:
Yeah Orks and even more so WFB Orcs are influenced by the cultures that fought with the romans and eventually brought down the western empire. The checks and bright colours, boars as a symbol of strength are very celtic, and you've got woad warpaint and even just the Goffs lifted wholesale. But not much african about any of that.

WFB Savage Orcs are a whole other kettle of fish though, definitely african coded and not in a very thoughtful or pleasant way.

The western empire brought itself down.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
Yeah Orks and even more so WFB Orcs are influenced by the cultures that fought with the romans and eventually brought down the western empire. The checks and bright colours, boars as a symbol of strength are very celtic, and you've got woad warpaint and even just the Goffs lifted wholesale. But not much african about any of that.

WFB Savage Orcs are a whole other kettle of fish though, definitely african coded and not in a very thoughtful or pleasant way.

Dunno. Savage Orcs are just…primitives. The Picts and Celts used to go into battle “Skyclad” as a sign of bravery. And trust, coming from that area of the world, going nuddy in that weather is brave enough. And there’s plenty of solid archaeological evidence for Antler being used as tools and weapons in pre-Roman Scotland.

So I don’t agree Savage Orcs are inherently African coded.

The naked Celt is Roman and Greek propagandizing of a foreign people. If the celts ever did this, and they probably DIDN'T, it was one group of wierdos in one battle during the early republic era (this is the only historic reference we have of it)

If Caesar had fought the prototypical naked celts, you'd better believe he'd have never shut up about it in his chronicles (And indeed he did write about how he sent celts fleeing bare arsed after ambushing them in their camp).

 Da Boss wrote:
Yeah, people used to just be more chill about this stuff. It was okay to like fictional bad guys. I dunno what it is about the current zeitgeist, some people seem to really need the fiction they are into to be morally bulletproof. I wonder if it has something to do with the increase in consumerism, and therefore ascribing more importance to the things you "consume" (urgh) along with the social media age requiring everyone to broadcast their virtue to others for brownie points.

Is it because we spend so much time and money and passion on this trivial crap that we need to convince ourselves it's somehow meaningful, a commentary on society, rather than a bunch of stuff slapped together because the people making it thought it would be funny or cool?

It's because fascism is on the rise again.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Thing is? What’s considered a hate crime now was….language and attitudes freely aired on TV as part of entertainment.

And psychos shooting up schools and malls and churches at increasing rates.

Like there is a measurable acknowledged increase of political violence, and ESPECIALLY right wing political violence.

Laughing Man wrote:

Tyel wrote:
The internet serves to magnify the level of nutters.

I'm pretty sure there was a lot more casual violence in society in the 1980s. But the US might be moving that way, versus a relatively quiet 90s/2000s. (Terrorism, both domestic and foreign aside.)

US crime stats say otherwise, being down considerably from 2010 levels for both violent and property crime, let alone the levels we had in the 80s and 90s.

But the incidents of mass shootings are very much UP from those years.

There's less other crimes being committed, but more of this.

 Bobthehero wrote:

 Gert wrote:

Ultranationalist - Check
Dictatorial leader - Immortal God Emperor and also his Demi-God Son who cannot be impeached
Centralised autocracy - Nominally in the idea of the Emperor but technically ruled by the High Lords who claim to be the chosen voice of the Emperor. Authority is derived from the Emperor in all cases.
Militarism - Check
Forcible suppression of opposition - Check
Belief in natural social hierarchy - In the sense that the strong rule the weak, yes
Subordination of individualism - Check
Strong regimentation of society and economy - Check

Communism checks just about all of these, for that matter. Bit of a general list.

Authoritarianism has many similar methodologies. There's only so many ways to be totalitarian.

But communists believe in the opposite of a natural hierarchy, are not inherently militarist, and really they should be anti nationalist. But interestingly, communist states are defined largely by their failures to live up to the ideology. Fascist states do exactly what they say they will. Kill people.

Tyel wrote:
I think this is probably splitting hairs to the 9th degree, but I'd argue the Imperium is insufficiently developed to be fascist.

I mean a fundamental issue of the Imperium is that it isn't centralised. You could argue its more centralised in the most recent lore (cos Guilliman etc) - but not really.

Its social organisation is far closer to high middle ages feudalism (and I realise all those terms are contested) than the office politics of modern bureaucracies.

I would describe the imperium as decayed fascism. In reality, all fascist regimes were highly fractious and internally competitive and backstabby. The imperium's disunified nature is just a natural result of all the backbiting fascists naturally get up to lasting 10 thousand years (without somehow collapsing, because fascist regimes ALSO have never survived the death of their leader in reality)

 dadx6 wrote:
As someone who's been in the hobby since 1989, I don't think there's any satire in it.

I think perhaps a lot of you who think it's satire need to read some of the mid 1900's sci-fi. Try Larry Niven's "A Gift From Earth" or "A World Out of Time", just as two examples. Science Fiction for most of the 20th century foresaw the inevitable future of humanity as being an impersonal communist state that would grind any independent thinker to dust.

WH40K came along at the end of the Cold War, when those of us living at the time had the specter of global thermonuclear war looming over us in a much more ever-present way than do modern generations. It seems natural to me that Britishers in the 80's would read sci-fi and speculate on what the galaxy might look like in 38000 years and come up with this.

Come to think of it, you can also read John Scalzi's MUCH more recent "Old Man's War" to find source material that has as its underlying ethos "anything to preserve humanity."

Personally, I think all the "WH40K is satire" stuff is nonsense created by the younger generations who can't handle the fact that a fictional universe doesn't have people behaving in an ideal fashion (to them).

It's not satire, it's meant to convey how high the stakes are for every battle. And if you read the novels and the material with that in mind, it all makes perfect sense. Especially if you have any experience with bureaucracy.

This is a lot of words to say "I think the imperium is actually good"

Tyel wrote:

 morganfreeman wrote:
Worth noting that fascism is not a system of government, it’s more of an ideology. Basically fascism is the idea that we (whomever ‘we’ constitutes can vary) are strong and we do not just deserve to rule, but we are a combination of genetically disposed and divinely selected. And while we are so chosen, they (again, they can vary and continues to once each ‘they’ are dealt with) have subversively toppled us from our chosen position been intentionally undermining us to keep us down.

It’s key hallmarks are militarism (so we can regain our rightful place), intolerance (finding your ‘they’), and an obsession with a near mythical and perfect past when we were strong and ontop before they conspired to drag us down (we will be great again).

To this end fascism can apply to any form of government in the same way that capitalism can. While it’s most suited to forms of dictatorship, it’s theoretically possible to see stuff like fascist democracies or even fascist communisms.

So the imperium is undeniably fascist, and quibbling over what form or structure the government takes is beside the point.

But if your concept applies to essentially every government on earth, its surely meaningless?

Fascism is a 20th century ideology, rooted in the concepts and ideas of that specific era.
if you can go:
Napoleon? Fascist.
Louis XIV? Fascist.
England and France in the 12th century? Absolutely Fascist, look at how they tick through my list.

Then maybe your list isn't all that useful.

If to be a non-fascist state you need a happy go-l

ucky liberalism, then the number of historical examples is few, and essentially none when under any degree of duress.

I mean how many of these does say the US in WW2 tick? Most of them by my count. But its not a fascist state (cue twitter hipsters arguing otherwise).

Fascism is also a populist ideology. It limits the populism to the elect, but it absolutely is populist. The whole of the people (as defined by their race) are given to strive with a singular will to their natural greatness (embodied and guided by the great leader).

Fascism was invented as a reaction, primarily, to socialism. In that Mussolini was a racist gak and thought that good things should only go to the right group of people. Mussolini started as a socialist and was disillusioned by the globalist perspective of the socialist movements during ww1 (Italian socialists were, generally, VERY against fighting in the war. Mussolini was very very into the war and italy claiming its place in the sun). This broadened to hating pretty much the rest of the liberal west when he saw that italy wasn't compensated enough in his view for fighting on their side in the war. Throughout this his views continuously curdled and grew more sour and discarded any sense of progressiveness they once held.

Funny in a way, he'd probably be way more sympatico with what stalin did ('Socialism' in one state).

 totalfailure wrote:
So what’s the end game of all this ranting? If 40K doesn’t conform 100% to your current political beliefs, it is fascist, and anyone that likes the game is a Tory, Trumper, or fascist by default? Maybe you would be happier if we instituted a plan where you can only write or work for GW by showing a party membership card from your ‘approved’ list? Maybe we should do it at the register for anyone buying any 40K stuff as well…the game ain’t what it used to be, in a lot of ways. My take is that it is game has certainly gotten blander over the years? Know why? So GW can sell more junk to the skeptical parents of kids. But I guess for some, it can only be the vast fascist conspiracy in action.

Do you think the imperium is good and should be emulated in some way in real life?

 Haighus wrote:

 morganfreeman wrote:

Tyel wrote:

 Gert wrote:

Let's test that shall we?

Wow, how did you manage to be so completely wrong?

Authoritarian -

<snip>

What?

You keep using these words, and then clearly showing that you don’t know what they mean

A government utilizing power is not authoritarian in and of itself. Likewise, growing popular dislike/ distaste / even hatred for those a country I’d at war with is not nationalism; let alone ultranationalism.

There are MANY valid criticisms which can be laid at the feet of US, especially WW2 era US. However these aren’t some of them.

Authoritarianism is a spectrum, and arguably exerting state power is authoritarian to varying extents (with the other end of that spectrum being libertarianism/anarchism with minimised state power). Plus, a lot of countries are more authoritarian than they try to present as. WWII era USA would be one of these IMO, given large swathes were experiencing segregation at the time. I agree it wasn't fascist though.

\

Different definitions muddle things, but generally authoritarian vs not is based largely on where the legitimacy for the use of state power rests.

That said, I very much do not think you can have a democratic fascist state. You can elect fascists, but they will strive to dismantle and hobble the democratic levers of the state to render them vestigal at best and will never willingly surrender power. If a fascist falls out of power, it is because he simply had not the ability or time to dismantle checks on himself or arm a sympathetic mob thoroughly enough to ensure he stays in power. A fascist never willingly leaves power.

Indeed one of the easiest ways to recognize a fascist is their unwillingness to surrender power and their willingness to resort to violence to keep it

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Dai wrote:
I think the Tau potential mind control, empire building and brutal treatment of dissident compared to it's utopian greater good promises is probably better satire than a straight take on soviets myself.

Probably, but apparently it's not overt enough. Just as there are those who think the Imperium are heroes, there are those who think that the Tau are the good guys and take their Greater Good message and "cleaner" aesthetic at face value.

I guess GW is just really bad at writing effective satire, no matter who they are mocking.

Was the mind control aspect confirmed? I know it's been heavily implied, but I don't think it's been outright stated that's how the Ethereals control their subjects?

Those people used to write the tau for GW.

The tau as they are now are the result of pressure to ensure that the tau are not, in fact, better than the imperium.

The tau were once a tool to underline the satire of the imperium, but alas we cannot have the blue aliens be ACTUALLY better then the imperium because space marines are cool

stratigo wrote:


Those people used to write the tau for GW.

The tau as they are now are the result of pressure to ensure that the tau are not, in fact, better than the imperium.

The tau were once a tool to underline the satire of the imperium, but alas we cannot have the blue aliens be ACTUALLY better then the imperium because space marines are cool

Well, there's that, but also because it undermined a core part of the setting's tragic nature, where no matter how terrible the Imperium is, it's still the better option for humanity's survival.
Which isn't meant to be a compliment mind you; that's meant to be dire. It's meant to hammer in just how terrible humanity's situation is in the setting.
Having a bright eyed, altruistic alternative with more plot armour than even the Wardiest of Ultramarines undermines that aspect, which is why they moved to make them a little more grey and not quite the defacto best option in the setting.

 Crimson wrote:

But I think you can write sympathetic imperials without losing the ability to satirise. You just need to write about people who are not in positions of supreme power, but instead are some sort of low or middle ranking somewhat decent people trying to deal with the terrible situation and their psychotic overlords. The issue is that BL seems to want to write about Primarchs and other super important people who are practicably calling the shots in this hellstate, and once you make those sympathetic or even vaguely sane you're killing the satire.

This is one of the main reasons why the Gaunt's Ghosts and Ciaphas Cain books are so popular.

I'd say Gaunt's Ghosts, much as I enjoy the books, are prime culprits in softening the Imperium. Especially all the faith stuff that comes up. And Gaunt is still a total bastard to anyone who transgresses against the Imperium.

Ciaphas Cain works better, not only because it's knowingly humorous but also because Cain is very cynical and detached. I do get tired of reading the same descriptions of Jurgen's smell in every book though!

 Da Boss wrote:
I'd say Gaunt's Ghosts, much as I enjoy the books, are prime culprits in softening the Imperium. Especially all the faith stuff that comes up. And Gaunt is still a total bastard to anyone who transgresses against the Imperium.

Ciaphas Cain works better, not only because it's knowingly humorous but also because Cain is very cynical and detached. I do get tired of reading the same descriptions of Jurgen's smell in every book though!

Cain also highlights how brutal the Imperium is by default. Lenient punishments still typically involve corporal punishment and the xenophobia and closed-mindedness of the Imperium is on full display. It is quite clear that even if Cain is a good guy personally (somewhat debatable), he is working for a brutal and cruel regime and can only do so much within that without becoming a victim of it himself.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Dai wrote:
I think the Tau potential mind control, empire building and brutal treatment of dissident compared to it's utopian greater good promises is probably better satire than a straight take on soviets myself.

Probably, but apparently it's not overt enough. Just as there are those who think the Imperium are heroes, there are those who think that the Tau are the good guys and take their Greater Good message and "cleaner" aesthetic at face value.

I guess GW is just really bad at writing effective satire, no matter who they are mocking.

Was the mind control aspect confirmed? I know it's been heavily implied, but I don't think it's been outright stated that's how the Ethereals control their subjects?

This is kinda the problem of so little overall Tau lore and most of what we have coming from the Farsight books which are off in their own corner away from the Ethereals for the most part.

From what I recall, (and it's been a long time, so correct me if I'm wrong) the Tau started out as the straight up "good guys" in the setting and were meant to be a foil to all the madness, decent people just trying to get the galaxy off the genocidal madness train, but being to small to do anything functional about it. But then there was all this outcry over having a non grimdark faction in the game, so the lore shifted a little to that being only the surface take and the Etherals being this mysterious group that put up a noble façade, but were secretly all on power trips themselves. When the pendulum swung the other way and all the people who liked the original lore didn't like that, they just tossed their hands in the air and wrote a bunch of Farsight books. Not that those are bad, they just don't really represent the Tau Empire as a whole very well. We only get snippets of what life is like there, not a full picture.

Personally I think that either of these takes works as part of the satire. You can run the true good guy angle as a foil to everyone else, but their size and morality keeps them from ever being able to topple the insane super powers. Or you can run them as the façade of good, but just being another version of a corrupt and twisted system. I just wish they'd pick one, stick with it, and actually give us some more lore books. (Personally I prefer the former take though).

It was more-less confirmed. While there are some scenes that could be taken as extreme reverence, there is one where Aun'Va tells another Tau to kill themselves and the read is that without really understanding what is going on, they are subconsciously compelled to obey.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
it undermined a core part of the setting's tragic nature, where no matter how terrible the Imperium is, it's still the better option for humanity's survival.

[citation needed]

The Tau were meant to be the 'reasonable man' foil to the Imperium's insanity. It's explicitly stated in White Dwarf as the reason they were chosen as the POV for a major videogame, Fire Warrior.

I don't think 'actually fascism is necessary to survive so being a space nazi is the right choice' is what the writers are going for because I don't think they're actively trying to produce fascist apologia.

 Da Boss wrote:
I'd say Gaunt's Ghosts, much as I enjoy the books, are prime culprits in softening the Imperium. Especially all the faith stuff that comes up. And Gaunt is still a total bastard to anyone who transgresses against the Imperium.

Ciaphas Cain works better, not only because it's knowingly humorous but also because Cain is very cynical and detached. I do get tired of reading the same descriptions of Jurgen's smell in every book though!

That's fair, I guess despite being the title character, he's one of the last people I think of when I think of that series.

I think of Agun Sorric's story, I think of Caffran, Cridd, Dalin, and Yoncy, I think of Larkin and Bragg, Gol Kolea and Ban Daur, Dorden and Curth. Those are the stories that always sold the series to me, people just trying to live their lives and do the best they can in a universe of madness. (And okay, seeing Mkoll be a likeable badass is pretty fun too.)

Yeah, I feel you there. The Cain books are great and I love him as a character in the setting, but it's the same general formula over and over of fight an enemy, fight a bigger enemy, trick the enemies into fighting each other, win.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 catbarf wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
it undermined a core part of the setting's tragic nature, where no matter how terrible the Imperium is, it's still the better option for humanity's survival.

[citation needed]

The Tau were meant to be the 'reasonable man' foil to the Imperium's insanity. It's explicitly stated in White Dwarf as the reason they were chosen as the POV for a major videogame, Fire Warrior.

I don't think 'actually fascism is necessary to survive so being a space nazi is the right choice' is what the writers are going for because I don't think they're actively trying to produce fascist apologia.

And this thing is, that's really only the case in a vacuum anyway. Sure, between the options of Imperium and Choas, Imperium is objectively the less terrible, but they are both terrible. Just because they are the only two superpowers in he Galaxy doesn't mean there isn't a third option. This is why the Tau as the "reasonable man" foil worked so well. Even without them though, just because a faction doesn't have a specific ideology in the setting, doesn't prevent it from existing. Just because in contecxt, the Imperium is the lesser of two gigantic evils doesn't mean that's something to embrace or aspire to, and I think that's what some people tend to miss.