No.6265
The ultimate affront to all ideologies is being an imperialist.
They all hate the legacy of empires.
This is not the imperialism of colonial empire, but the long-spanning imperial domain of ancient civilizations and the imperial domain of holy ranks and great emperors. Emperors were once a strong symbol.
Monarchies are not only afraid of going extinct. Empires are. True empires. I am not referencing "pseudo-empire" and those who point to Zionist hegemony or the current state of the Commonwealth. What the nationalists refer to "globalism" is not the imperialism I love. The glory of imperialism could be as national and local as it is powerful. Emperor is the rank above king. It is the ultimate status.
Before anyone whines about colonialism, I'm going to point out that an anti-imperialist is basically an anti-monarchist. Look no further the 20th century and the most prestigious monarchies were empires. The British Empire. The Austro-Hungarian Empire. The German Empire. The Russian Empire. The Brazilian Empire & 2nd Mexican Empire. The whole basket of great imperial regimes. The only Emperor left in this world is in Japan.
____________________________
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.6266
>>6265
There might be a case to be made fore the decidedly monarchical Austria-Hungary and Russia, but
>but the long-spanning imperial domain of ancient civilizations
Why Rome? It was quite literally the birthplace of the republic; a central tenet of their cultural myth is the casting out of Tarquin and permanently ending the kingly rule of Rome. The emperors that supplanted the republic were little better, populares in the vein of Caesar. They pandered to the mob like republicans, and rather than the stable institution of a long-running dynasty, the Imperial throne was plagued by wars of succession. And in the end, Rome was crushed to death by the weight of its own bureaucracy, as republics are wont to do given time.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.6267
>>6266
There were empires before and after Rome.
>Why Rome?
Rome left a lasting legacy on Western Civilization.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.6268
>>6267
But the question wasn't about Rome's legacy, it was about Rome itself. I can also appreciate Rome's legacy, but as an example of a monarchy it's not a very good one.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.6269
>>6268
>as an example of a monarchy it's not a very good one
These monarchies bear the name resembling Rome. We are talking centuries of imperial rule and influential figures like in the OP, Emp Constantine the Great. Sure, you could debate whether throughout those centuries whether they were an effective monarchy. Maybe the administration wasn't very good, but the military accomplishments and Roman engineering are a marvel. Nearly everything is crushed under the weight of time.
>It was quite literally the birthplace of the republic; a central tenet of their cultural myth is the casting out of Tarquin and permanently ending the kingly rule of Rome.
That's not why I care about Rome. If anything, monarchists have been discontent with republicans bringing up the legacy of the Roman Republic. However, many of us are Medievalists and opening up that chapter in history doesn't begin without Rome. There are many Western monarchical traditions and attitudes originating with Rome.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.6270
>> I'm going to point out that an anti-imperialist is basically an anti-monarchist.
first of all, fuck you filthy peasant, if this is how you have to make your point, chances are your point is invalid.
secondly, i 'll have to point out that an empire doesn't belong to an emperor like a kingdom belongs to a king;
>> Emperor is the rank above king.
>> The German Empire.
The Germans had a kaiser, aka chosen one. this kaiser was chosen by the princes(kings in their own countries/provinces) this is why emperors are supposedly above kings. in the 19th century this system had been replacement by a monarchy in Germany.
(i m not aware of any other emperor being "above" kings, though iirc the Polish had a similar system but called it the nobility choosing the king)
An empire is bigger then it's nation-state, aka it has colonies that it exploits for it's (economic) benefits.
the British kept having a king despite ruling an empire.
so did the french(although they thought it healthier if they chopped off his head)
(the Austrians also had a kaiser, chances are this had to do with them speaking german, i have my doubts about this empire's greatness, but i do accept their monarch being called an emperor, because he was trying to rule multiple racially-different nation-states)
>> Look no further
also fuck you
>> The only Emperor left in this world is in Japan.
probably because he was one of the first to cede his power.
The only empire left in the world is the USA, btw, they don't have colonies but they have clear satelite-states(or proxies to sound modern)
sorry about going all linguistics, btw, but yeah, you should 've made a thread about the difference between an empire/emperor and a kingdom/king first.
and yes, imperialist is an "affront" emperor is generally used as a negative and king as a positive, even though they re often interchangable.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.6271
>>6270
>all this vulgarity and monarchomachism
I never spoke about electoral monarchy, but the electoral monarchist vermin comes out. All I said was we need empires back.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.6272
>>6270
>so did the french(although they thought it healthier if they chopped off his head)
Two can play this game.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.7018
Anti-imperialists get out.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.7570
>>6265
>The glory of imperialism could be as national and local as it is powerful.
An empire, by definition, rules over multiple nations of people. So no, imperialism cannot be national. The Austrio-Hungarian empire was an abomination. Anyone willing to defend it either doesn't understand it, or is a crypto-globalist.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.7572
>>6265
>anti-imperialist is basically an anti-monarchist.
<cherrypicking
<ignoring facts that there were monarchs struggling to resist other imperialist monarchs
Let me guess, your next response will be
>b-but those monarchs were subhumans
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.7573
>>7570
imperialism can co-exist with large levels of regional autonomy and cultural independence.
small cultures, which cannot flourish on their own, are best served by seeking an *empire* to rule them instead of incorporation into a nation-state.
the *empire* is less globalist than the nation-state, for the nation-state tries to create a single culture with a single education system, the empire never does so, creating a unity which transcends each of the states, a government above governments.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.7578
>>7573
>imperialism can co-exist with large levels of regional autonomy and cultural independence.
I'll admit there can be some gray area when you're talking about something similar to a federation. Either way though, full sovereignty is preferable.
>small cultures, which cannot flourish on their own, are best served by seeking an *empire* to rule them instead of incorporation into a nation-state.
That's for them to decide.
>the *empire* is less globalist than the nation-state, for the nation-state tries to create a single culture with a single education system, the empire never does so,
A nation state, by definition, is already a single nation. There is no need to unify multiple cultures. Also, Hellenization was a thing.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.7670
>>7572
>cherrypicking
What kind of excuse is that?
>ignoring facts that there were monarchs struggling to resist other imperialist monarchs
There are conquerors and the conquered.
Anti-imperialists are usually the ideologue throng of Marxists and other subhumans.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.7699
>>6270
we only had Liberia
>bbbbut what about Israel
Israel controls us, not the other way around you absolute mong.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.7700
>>7670
sooooo…..Jewish supremacy is a good thing?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.7709
I prefer small independent kingdoms.
Imperialism often leads to unnecessary fuckery.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.7710
>>7700
>sooooo…..Jewish supremacy is a good thing?
Irrelevant.
I'm thinking along the lines of benevolent emperors and imperial reigns of Holy Roman Empire, Japan, Roman Empire, and the Tsardom of Russia. It doesn't appear to always be a dichotomy of colonialism vs. nativism these people keep setting up.
>I prefer small independent kingdoms.
Boring.
As for independence, there are no such things as nations being independent of their neighbors and diplomacy. There is a constant game to play with an aim to secure peace.
If we were to convert the current US into a monarchy, it would be an empire. Whether it would be hereditary or elective – you autists could sperg about – but for a monarchist such as me it doesn't always mean conquest to have an emperor.
So many filthy anti-imperialists here getting between me and my imperial dynasty.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.7711
Also >>7709
to
>>7710
>BORING
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.7712
Anti-imperialism is gay and it's these hardcore capitalist and socialist types always. This terrible view of imperialism as an objective of conquest only, without the benediction and supremacy of emperors, comes to mind. There were empires such as the German Empire and Japan that unified mostly ethnic peoples and some as the Holy Roman Empire that others champion. Imperial regimes also mean greater autocrats (which, I'm not suggesting most of you don't already dislike) and ascending to a greater cause. I am not speaking for colonialism, but I also don't mind colonialism. My imperial vision is having a great imperial dynasty with great benedictions and great magnitude. Emperors have always played a greater religious role such as Constantine and Justinian I of the Byzantine Empire. And such Emperors are also sacred as the hereditary line in Japan. Only in the modern era that the likes of pansies go around squawking about empires – in an age where there are hardly any interesting empires. I don't see any of your rulers being emperors, only ideological hegemony and boring proxy wars you keep referring to us. These ideological charlatans don't deserve to even be called empires. Pfffffffff.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.7713
Now we need to tell the communists how all these capitalists tend to be anti-imperialists like them. Would it surprise them? No. They'll go into denial mode about this. Commies don't know a real imperialist.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.7761
>>7712
The empires that united nascent nations isn't really what people are talking about when they talk about imperialism.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.7765
>>7761
Then they need to mend their speech a little. They refer to colonialism.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.7770
All society bigger than a small tribe depends on imperialism.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.7776
>>7765
The Austria-Hungary was imperialism, not colonialism, and there was most definitely no nascent nation being unified there.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.7779
>>7776
Eh, I thought most of this board was for Austria-Hungary and the Habsburgs.
>there was most definitely no nascent nation being unified there.
It was a multi-national empire. Yeah, I don't support all nations having an equal place under the Sun. Only the nations I like. The thing is there's a huge conflict of interest between nationalists, libertarians, and lefties about why they don't like imperialism. I don't always lend my ear. My view is that no nation exists without their royal bee and dynastic patriotism. These nationalists obviously reject the large-spanning empires that gobbled up territory and made many peoples their subordinates.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.7789
>>7779
During it's time, Austria-Hungary was probably the most cancerous thing to have ever existed in Europe.
Every nation has the right to determine its own future. If this isn't the case, the nations people generally circlejerk to, like Germany and Russia, are the first that should be put on the chopping block.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.7796
For once, I must agree with the animefag. At least 50%.
>>7779
>>7789
Austria-Hungary was gud and dindu nuffin. Multinational empires are fine, one of the great perks of monarchism is that it enables multiculturalism in its pure and non-cancerous sense, of many cultures and nations peacefully coexisting. In a democracy, you invariably end up with hegemonial or genocidal sentiments on all sides. A monarch is a foreigner to his entire country, in a sense, as monarchy was an international institution, and so he is not likely to just join the majority and fuck everyone else over.
Not to say all is fine and dandy as long as you have a monarch. Clearly, Austria-Hungary saw some problems, although a lot of that was the Slavs, the Germans and everyone else buying into this bullshit of "self-determination". But we also had legitimate cultural struggles much earlier. National tension can never be fully eliminated, and it shouldn't be, to preserve the diversity of nations, but its negative effects can be mitigated, and the best way to do that is by having a monarchy.
I really suggest reading Lord Actons essay on "Nationality", it's the best read I had on this question since Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.7808
>>7789
>During it's time, Austria-Hungary was probably the most cancerous thing to have ever existed in Europe.
Eh, I don't really care for the Austro-Hungarian Empire either. Too many Habsburg fanboys around this board praising it and HRE already. Not that I really hate it either. My stance on Austria-Hungary is pretty apathetic. Maybe I'm biased because I'm a Serbophile and part of the Bourbon Defense Force.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.7817
>>7796
>one of the great perks of monarchism is that it enables multiculturalism in its pure and non-cancerous sense, of many cultures and nations peacefully coexisting.
>Laughs in Balkan
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.7818
>>7808
I dislike it because it was a multi-kulti hell hole and the Habsburgs were the sole reason Germany couldn't fully unify. A freed Hungary would have been a much better ally in WWI than the Austro-Hungarians who were basically a German partner state by the end of the war.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.7823
>>7818
Too bad Bismarck didn't annex Austria and Sudetenland after the Austro-Prussian War and that Deák continued his retarded "passive resistance" instead of starting an independence war the moment the Austro-Prussian War began.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.7860
>>7823
>flag
Not sure if that's sarcasm but I agree nevertheless, though many Austrians would have been all for annexation into the Kaiserreich (Prussia maybe not, but that might just have kicked off an early unification) I wonder if the other powers would have allowed the dissolution of such a large Empire. I'm sure the Russians and Ottomens would have been all for it since they would now have free access to Balkan expansion. Though I imagine the British and for certain the French would raise a fuss about it, though if they would go as far as to declare war I can't say. I'd imagine Napoleon III would still declare a war and fund Austrian Nobles to rebel, I doubt the war would go any different, unless of course Britain did join. However German access to both the Baltic/North sea and now the Adriatic sea would be interesting.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.7861
>>7860
>Not sure if that's sarcasm
I'm a Hungarian so this flag is the closest to my taste.
>I wonder if the other powers would have allowed the dissolution of such a large Empire
Well I think that depends on how much territory the German Empire decides to annex. I doubt that Russia and Britain would had go tp war over the Kaiserreich annexing Austria (especially after Austria betrayed Russia during the Crimean War) although the annexation of Sudetenland might cause tensions with the slavophile Tsardom. On the other hand, the annexation of the entire Austrian Empire (including Hungary, Czechia, Croatia etc.) could easily become a war with both Russia (because of the high Slavic populance) and Britain (Germany effectively doubling its size would change the stability of Europe too much in favor of a continetal Empire for the Brits to tolerate).
>I'm sure the Russians and Ottomens would have been all for it since they would now have free access to Balkan expansion.
The Russians conquering the Balkan is plausible but I doubt the Turkish sick man of Europe would be able to do anything past losing whatever territories they still had in Europe.
>German access to both the Baltic/North sea and now the Adriatic sea would be interesting.
I think thats only possible by Germany annexing Istria since German conquest of Dalmatia and the Croatian seashore could very easily anger both Russia and the Italians.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.7862
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.7867
>>7861
> I doubt that Russia and Britain would had go tp war over the Kaiserreich annexing Austria (especially after Austria betrayed Russia during the Crimean War) although the annexation of Sudetenland might cause tensions with the slavophile Tsardom.
How so? It was an ethnically German region despite it's Czech history, and at the time most Germans still considered Bohemia to be a slavified German land. Though I hadn't cosndered the Russians option in regards to the Crimean War.
>On the other hand, the annexation of the entire Austrian Empire
Not what I meant, pardon for not clarifying. I doubt anyone would be for the integration of such a large amount of people, let alone non-Germans into the Prussia, at that time or for any reason.
>The Russians conquering the Balkan is plausible but I doubt the Turkish sick man of Europe would be able to do anything past losing whatever territories they still had in Europe.
My understanding is that Russia viewed all slavs under her sphere so annexing the balkans seems like the most direct implementation of that.
>I think thats only possible by Germany annexing Istria since German conquest of Dalmatia and the Croatian seashore could very easily anger both Russia and the Italians.
That is what I meant, Istria had quite a large amount of Germans so it could be argued to be part of Austria due to population, if nothing else.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.7869
>>7867
>How so? It was an ethnically German region despite it's Czech history, and at the time most Germans still considered Bohemia to be a slavified German land.
Yes, but following the Prussian/German annexation of the Sudetenland, the Russians might argue that there are still a lot of Czechs who got under German rulership. A population swap of Germans stuck in this new "Sudetenland-less" Czechia in exchange for Czechs suddenly being under German authority might solve the problem though.
>My understanding is that Russia viewed all slavs under her sphere so annexing the balkans seems like the most direct implementation of that.
Indeed but for that the Russians would have to conquer either Romania or the Ottoman Empire (and I think it goes without saying that none of these countries are majority Slavs, conquering any of them bears the seeds of a future rebellion/uprising).
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.7917
>>7823
there is no such thing as sudetenland
all of bohemia is a german kingdom
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.7936
>>7917
Well I mean I'd be the last to mourn those expansionist mountaneers, I just pointed out a possibility, Tsarist friend.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.7939
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.7946
>>7939
I was posting from phone.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.7951
>>7917
Are Czechs slavified Germans?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.7975
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.7976
>>7975
You are Germans in denial, Karel. Just admit it.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.7988
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.8019
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.8022
>>7951
Boiheim
Boiern
Boiuwaren
all the same
the germans of bohemia are the natives, it's just that after the czechs settled in the central lowlands they only made up the majority at the mountainous regions
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.8031
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.8038
>>8022 czech'd
>it's just that after the czechs settled in the central lowlands they only made up the majority at the mountainous regions
So Czechs only moved to Bohemia during the Slavic migration when all the Western and Balkan Slavs moved in, but modern czechs aren't ethnically German because they replaced the Germans in the region? Interesting, thanks HRE anon.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.