I didin't know that Hitler personnally disliked Fraktur, must have helped.

Fraktur needs some eye adaptation to read it fluently because we are not used to some ligatures anymore and the typographic conventions can be different in the late 18th / early 19th century (for instance the Grimm brothers advocated against the captitalization of German common names), but I find it quite legible.

The wolf population development has been known to exceed every prediction in Western Europe, and while it's fairly inoffensive for humans the economic consequences are much higher than most anticipated, for economic/ecologic benefits that are hard to defend. And the wolf population are still fairly low.

In my opinion maybe the money spent protecting wolves (hundreds of millions per year in Europe) would be better spent on homeless shelters and similar policies.

Still this article should remind every European of the Nazis comparing the Jewish diaspora dispersal with the historical dissemination of black and brown rats.

I think the gypsies he's referring to might be a particular set of organised beggar gangs exploiting gypsies from Romania, Bulgaria and generally central Europe in European cities since the early 2000s, and not the usual seasonal workers from these and other gypsy communities. But I haven't been to Copenhagen in a while.

But as you say, the rapid transformation of the societies of the groups that migrated at the time is very hard to comprehend, but also the changes of those where they migrated, in cases where it was more of a fusion than an invasion / displacement.

I think it is a very interesting point to offer to those in Europe minimizing the current migration waves (often for noble reasons of reducing racism and countering far right ideologies). It's no use denying that welcoming tens of millions of people from other cultures over a few decades has and will have very deep social and political effects.

Well no one really knows because most of this comes from the writing ruling classes. If we're talking Middle Ages and the Modern Age, France offers an interesting example : absolute monarchy by divine right came very late (17th cent) and was almost never fully accepted. The system relied greatly on religion (which kept one's standing within a social class), weak origin stories (the Franks came and conquered the Gallo-Romans/ my ancestor fought in the crusades, which is why you're a serf), and a very strong system of local rights and privileges (I'm a legitimate ruler because I keep your right to hold poultry markets on Sundays, which the next village doesn't have).

The divine dimension you refer to was a constant effort in France and England (where the king was not a religious ruler) well described in "The Royal Touch" by Marc Bloch.

I know other examples of relative ethnic stability: most of Northern Europe broadly has the same ethnic geographic boundaries as 1500 years ago (excepting the slavic / proto slavic things), the Basque, the Sardinians, Bretons and Bearnese, Tirolians, Kabyles, Laz "Greeks" (vanishing since WWII).

By some measures also Egypt (coastal cities excepted) and Iran.

But on this topic the concept of German ethnogenesis is very interesting. The formation of Gothic identity and communities even more, though sources are extremely scarce and it's more of a mystery.

Some people in my family got a "zone blanche" subscription from SFR, i.e. LTE with a big antenna, possibly a higher Cat. than regular LTE, because they live too far from any DSL/fiber option.