u/HonkyTonkBluesYEAH

We always talk about religious, racial, economic and political groups in regards to fertility rates. We know moderates tend to be somewhere in the middle of liberals and conservatives on fertility. However we never hear about apolitical people, nor have I ever seen any data on it. It may not be that important in Europe given higher turnout and political interest (although there's still a good amount of people who don't vote, and those that do aren't necessarily always political). In America 35.7% of eligible voters did not vote in 2024.

Who are these people? What age, income, race, religion and values do they have? What fertility rates do they have compared to the political population? The only groups I know of is the Amish, who are apolitical but personally ultraconservative. They have the highest fertility rate in the country but are a small group, so they make up a very little part of those 35.7% (especially given many Amish are children and not eligible to vote).

Do you think infighting is one of the biggest reasons Monarchism is so marginal and unrealistic? For those unaware of the division, here are many examples below:

In France there are three Houses to choose from. The Bourbonists, the Bonapartists and the Orleanists. The Bourbonist is Spanish, and therefore technically barred from taking the throne according to an old treaty. The Bonapartist claimant is not a descendant of Napoleon I or Napoleon III, and is in a dispute with his father over who is the heir (after his grandfather chose him as his heir, rather than choosing his father). The Bourbons are historically connected to conservatism, Catholicism and they predated nationalism (the key ideology of the modern French right). The Bonapartes are connected to the Revolution, dictatorship, a highly weird mix of progressive policies with reactionary ones. The Orleans were generally moderate and constitutional, the least controversial but also historically insignificant and weak.

In France and other countries there is not just the question of which House to choose, but which form of monarchy. Constitutional, semi-constitutional or absolute? Likewise what primogeniture: absolute primogeniture (eldest child regardless of gender, like in Britain), or male-preferential (sons are always favored but the daughter inherits the throne if there is no son, like in Spain where Leonor is heir), or agnatic (only men can inherit, no exceptions, like in Japan). So there's already three key political divides, although I would say absolutists generally prefer constitutional monarchy over a republic, and many French monarchists would be fine with that as the most realistic starting point.

In Germany there's little dispute over who should be Emperor, likewise in Austria. In countries like Hungary, Czechia and such it's more complicated. Historically they were ruled by the Habsburgs from Austria. I generally think a Habsburg would be fitting but perhaps not the main claimant, because they should aim for the throne in Austria. I should point out these two countries appear a little bit more realistic, because in Hungary the ruling party has a 2/3 majority and can change the system very fast. In Czechia the President said constitutional monarchy seemed perfectly fine to him, mentioning stable democratic examples in Europe.

Italy has a large dispute because the heir wants his daughter to inherit. While a change in primogeniture is completely reasonable within a kingdom (because of the law being passed by the state), it is very volatile when done outside such a system. And opens large disputes that are very difficult to resolve. In Poland it's very hard to choose, because it was an elective monarchy so no House truly cemented themselves. In Russia the Bolsheviks killed the Tsar and his children, and we're left with different claimants with very little connection to the last Romanovs.

Romania is also very difficult. Michael died and changed the succcession to allow his daughter to replace him. She is in a dispute with another claimant. She is very old and has no children. After that it’s her sister who has a son. A monarchy in Romania would actually be quite good because they have high amounts of corruption and instability, Margareta is very connected to royal circles and the state, often visits the castle. A Presidential candidate suggested last year they would make Charles III King, which would save them money, Romania has a problem with debt and such.

In Greece Pavlos is the obvious option, as the son of the former King Constantine II. However some monarchists see them as not fully authentic, and they failed to bring stability. They are not connected to the more ancient Greek historical or mythological tradition, nor their aristocracy. I believe they didn’t use traditional Greek aristocratic names, but rather generic European ones. I would be cool if they sometimes wore more ceremomial Greek clothes, just like Charles III in his coronation. It's very important for a kingdom to have its own aesthetics.

American monarchists have no clue who they want. I suppose the most common suggestion would be the Windsors, but it's just highly absurd. There's also the huge difficulty of uniting people in a highly federalist, multicultural and polarized society. A Holy Roman Empire model? Monarchy in Mexico was generally pathetic, I don't know what House they support. I have no clue who is the primary claimant in China or India. A lot of countries just don't have an obvious option. I think therefore it's smart to borrow from current aristocracy, and ideally in a culturally similar nation (like Haakon VII of Norway, who came from Denmark). A Windsor in America (but not Charles) due to shared heritage. A Spanish royal for South American countries.

(MODEST SPOILERS)

Another soulless cash grab made by the Hollywood elite. It presents itself as new, non-woke and innocent, but when you look inside it's just dull. Not in a smug way like Supergirl but it's still dull. I don't mind a movie like this in-theory. I like Ewan McCregor. I like Anne Hathaway. I like the 80s, and weird sort of Sci-Fi Action / Thriller Dramas. It's just so dull and unoriginal, you can tell J.J Abrams wants to be Steven Spielberg, but I guess he's on the same level as modern Spielberg who makes Disclosure Day.

The characters in this film are stupid. There's probably 7 times a obvious monster sneaks behind them, and they couldn’t hear it. A monster is even stabbed in the back and instead of continuing attacking Target A, it goes after Target B who stabbed it, allowing Target A to attack it. And this was after having plenty of people to go after in much more tight rooms. An idiot brought a hammer to a dinosaur fight. There's a lot of weird jokes about poop, piss and dinosaur sex. There's a awful scene where they leave the house (completely stupid) and see two dinos breeding. And instead of running away, they take a picture of him standing in front of it. So I might take it back that this film isn't smug. It is a smug way to mock the intelligence of the audience. It's a smug way to mock the people who watched it (and maybe I deserved it). I could tell the biggest twist coming from a mile away. And this kind of thing makes the plot lose its importance.

For books I know The Bible and The Lord of the Rings (Dostoevsky on the other hand is Orthodox). For films I am not sure. I know The Passion of the Christ but Mel Gibson is kind of outside the Church, even if he likes old Catholicism.

It feels like every day there's a new post trying to explain why birth rates are falling. "It's feminism", "it's the phones", "it's the pill". "It's the loss of community". Most people have a bad understanding of the fertility rate, and think their ideology or social values could fix the problem.

Social democracy shows that having all of those welfare policies does not lead to a higher fertility rate, and there's no easy fix to housing that I'm aware of. Scandinavia actually has a lower fertility rate than America. This may give more credibility to the culture argument than the economic one, but fertility rates have fallen below replacement level in many culturally conservative countries. Liberalism and conservatism is the status-quo and has failed on birth rates. Right-wing populism maintains the same pension system while reducing younger migrant workers, and spending more money on the problem does not work (just like social democracy).

Fascism is also unlikely to solve the problem, because it still requires a highly urban and educated population to achieve it's military goals. A significantly regressive turn on women’s rights could lead to many women fleeing the country, there is much stronger mobility today. Islamic theocracy has failed in Iran, social media gives everyone new viewpoints, there's a significant mismatch between what the government wants and what its people want. That leads to pessimism which leads to lower fertility. Even in a country like North Korea which is totalitarian and significantly limits access to the global internet, birth rates have been falling and appear to be just high enough for replacement level. And North Korea is probably not a very attractive place for immigrants, and no one wants the mentally ill Marxists in their country.

Natalism should be pragmatic, because it is about the birth rate rather than one specific ideology. It should also be practical. What can we do to encourage people to have children, build an inclusive pro-natal culture, create communities where natalism is normal. And ideally beyond just the typical Church communities, because those are really pro-natal. We should be encouraging Christians and progressives alike to have children. It won't be possible to get the fertility rate back to replacement rate (or a more desirable rate in general like 1.9, which is much easier to handle) without both.

Optimism is also essential, it's one of the reasons religious and conservative people have more children. I myself am pessimistic on virtually everything but believe I can make a great life for myself and my family, and it's through community you find something even better. I consider politics to be important but highly negative in spirit, highly pessimistic. The neoliberal consensus (wealth inequality, mass migration) has created a status-quo nearly everyone hates, and cannot be fixed by a small niche community iike ours. So we need to think as individuals and as a community, and how that can impact other people in a non-political way.