Pamphlet 1

When we are children, a family is our model for what a country is; we are members of a group, ruled over by a parent who takes care of us and keeps us safe. So many imperials love the emperor like a father because they grew up with the empire as an extension of their home.
The empire wishes for us to believe this, to love the emperor as our father. But the emperor is no head of the family. He is more of a farmer raising cattle for slaughter and shares less regard for our lives than any cattle herder.
It is not enough that he throws our bodies into an endless war against other kingdoms to subjugate them, but non-humans are treated sub-human, even those who are citizens of his empire. The excuse for why people are treated this way always comes down to the fact that humans come from the same species as the goddess. But that turns this into an argument about history, which I refute with a question; if the races outside of humanity go back further than humanity - there are records of a world without us in it in the hands of the dwarves, the Orcs and the elves - why are they seen as unequal to us?
The emperor rules by force over the world, establishing the idea that might makes right. He takes over countries through the might of his arms. He uses his strength to drag other kingdoms into the empire. Members of the Imperial Court argue that we take over countries because we are strong enough to protect them. If that is the case, if we grow strong enough is it not our duty by his own logic to rebel and break away, given that he cannot protect us as well as we can protect ourselves? Is that not legitimate?
If a robber holds you up to take your wallet, telling you it is because he is stronger than you and wishes to protect you from the sin of capitalism, and you manage through guile to keep it from him, are you still obliged to give him your wallet because he has the advantage of force? No? So why do you allow yourself to be ruled through right of might?