AfD electoral success entirely overlaps with the political borders of the former East German state, suggesting its overperformance there is caused by different 20th century sociopolitical experiences and their aftereffects rather than early medieval population history. This can simply be tested by looking at a) parts of former East Germany which didn't have a Slavic population in the early Middle Ages (Western Thuringia, Western Saxony-Anhalt) - AfD does just as as well there as in the rest of East Germany b) parts of West Germany where Slavs did live in the past (East Holstein, Wendland in Lower Saxony, parts of Bavaria along the Czech border) - no particular AfD overperformance there.
States tend to be formed along genetic lines in the first place. If you superimpose a genetic map over most recent wars, you'll see the conflicts tend to be between clusters over territories inhabited by clusters (ISIS, Ukraine etc.)
I'd be interested in more genetic data for a deeper analysis of German voting patterns, as the Global25 dataset only had a general East German entry. Weimar Republic elections were broadly along genetic lines, with Bavarians, East Germans, West Germans, Hamburgers, Kashubians/Pomeranians and Silesians voting differently.
IllustrativeDNA uses the T25 coordinate system. Be careful with these coordinate systems, they use anchors which causes inaccuracies and you need to use qpADM to figure out the exact admixture of populations.
If you superimpose a PCA graph of Europe over a geographic map of Europe (With bodies of water tactically removed and landmasses smooshed together), you will see we all settled in regions of Europe where we genetically belonged.
I think indigenousness should be redefined to genetic-make-up only. Ashkenazi Jews genetically belong in Italy, Greece, and SW Asia (Israel will do the trick). They are 40% iron age italian, 10% turkic and 50% Judean on average. They are on the fringes of the European genetic cluster, which gives them components in their admixture that differ from most europeans which in this case is extra iranian neolithic farmer and natufian hunter gather. But Finns are obviously European, and are on the fringes of the European genetic cluster and have siberian ancestry in their admixture.
Boers/Afrikaners are not indigenous to South Africa even if they settled their first. They are indigenous to NW europe. Nativeness cannot be defined based on time spent living on the land, but rather the regions of eurasia + Africa + Oceania which we can scry from seeing how your greatest genetic differences stack up against other populations in a genetic map.
Ashkenazi are a weird case. They can be modeled as 33% corded ware ancestry which is the same as North Italians, but their extra Natufian hunter gatherer and INF drags them to south Italians.
Someone who is 1/2 English and 1/2 Christian background Lebanese is genetically central Italian-like.
Someone who is 1/2 English and 1/2 Ashkenazi Jew would cluster near North Italians and some balkan populations (although their genetic quality would be different from balkaners, namely more light features and higher avg IQ)... But really since their corded ware culture ancestry would be like 45%, they would fit in central europe/Switzerland really.
We can see how racially confused Nazi Germany's politics was, and how that confusion helped lead to a political disaster. They had no right invading into their neighbors backyard, and the Ashkenazis (whose secular leadership did not handle the enlightment well and pursued dangerous radicalism) should have been moved to Italy, Greece, Israel or the Americas.
Ultimately, racial outsiders see WW2 as a bunch of confused light-skin caucasians/west eurasians killing each other. And they are right sadly.
Also, when estimating the degree of "Slavicness" of East Germans by comparing them with Czechs it's important to keep in mind that the latter are far more Western-European like genetically compared to other Slavic peoples to the prehistorical and historical population history of the Czech lands. The genetic distance between East Germans and Poles would be considerably larger.
Not really. Slavics are the most heterogenous out of the celtic-germanic-slavic Trio (The Trio where western steppe herder ancestry peaks the highest).
East Germans are really close to western Poles... Western Germans are very close to Dutch, Northern French, lots of regions of England. East Germans are very close to Western Germans, it's all close-knitted continuum.
South Italians cluster next to central Italians, who cluster next to North Italians, who cluster next to some SW, SE and central european populations. SW Europeans cluster next to Western Europeans and so on and so forth. We all ended up in regions of europe where we genetically belonged. Xenophobia between a region's natives in the same nation is justified as it protects their part of the European genetic cluster. That's the real underlying reason behind it.
La Tene culture once inhabited central and eastern europe. Then the germanics and slavics kicked them to western europe... The La Tene culture is genetically closest to western europeans.
These events aren't flukes. The gene flow events of the ice age, neolithic, bronze age, iron age and classical times weren't flukes. The Finns getting some SIberian in them was not a fluke. Modern Europeans the finished product of the melting pot. The current invasion of europe is not the divine will, it is the human will. It is motivated by economics, religion, ideology and vengeful politics.
Dug too far back to attribute AfD support in Eastern Germany. Being part of a separate country with a different political reality and interests for 45 years is sufficient to explain the phenomenon, without going centuries back.
Before then, voting was broadly along genetic lines. The Bavarians, East Germans, West Germans, Hamburgers, Kashubians/Pomeranians and Silesians voted differently during the Weimar Republic for example.
I believe a technocratic government is a better path, especially when racial or ethnic divisions create obstacles. Having the smartest elites in charge, as seen in places like China or Singapore, seems more effective. A technocratic system could manage multi-ethnic societies, like Singapore does, by focusing on long-term, rational policies rather than short-term emotional ones. Unfortunately, my country, Bangladesh, is deeply attached to socialism, and I don’t understand why. I’ve seen firsthand the issues democracy can cause when I visited. A technocratic system could make any country prosperous quickly, even if genetic differences lead to varied life outcomes in terms of capital accumulation. With smarter-than-average elites guiding the nation, short-term emotional policies could be avoided, fostering long-term growth.
My question is: Why do countries in love with socialism fail to connect the dots and see that it’s harming their economy? I don’t buy the usual explanations.
AfD electoral success entirely overlaps with the political borders of the former East German state, suggesting its overperformance there is caused by different 20th century sociopolitical experiences and their aftereffects rather than early medieval population history. This can simply be tested by looking at a) parts of former East Germany which didn't have a Slavic population in the early Middle Ages (Western Thuringia, Western Saxony-Anhalt) - AfD does just as as well there as in the rest of East Germany b) parts of West Germany where Slavs did live in the past (East Holstein, Wendland in Lower Saxony, parts of Bavaria along the Czech border) - no particular AfD overperformance there.
States tend to be formed along genetic lines in the first place. If you superimpose a genetic map over most recent wars, you'll see the conflicts tend to be between clusters over territories inhabited by clusters (ISIS, Ukraine etc.)
I'd be interested in more genetic data for a deeper analysis of German voting patterns, as the Global25 dataset only had a general East German entry. Weimar Republic elections were broadly along genetic lines, with Bavarians, East Germans, West Germans, Hamburgers, Kashubians/Pomeranians and Silesians voting differently.
IllustrativeDNA uses the T25 coordinate system. Be careful with these coordinate systems, they use anchors which causes inaccuracies and you need to use qpADM to figure out the exact admixture of populations.
If you superimpose a PCA graph of Europe over a geographic map of Europe (With bodies of water tactically removed and landmasses smooshed together), you will see we all settled in regions of Europe where we genetically belonged.
I think indigenousness should be redefined to genetic-make-up only. Ashkenazi Jews genetically belong in Italy, Greece, and SW Asia (Israel will do the trick). They are 40% iron age italian, 10% turkic and 50% Judean on average. They are on the fringes of the European genetic cluster, which gives them components in their admixture that differ from most europeans which in this case is extra iranian neolithic farmer and natufian hunter gather. But Finns are obviously European, and are on the fringes of the European genetic cluster and have siberian ancestry in their admixture.
Boers/Afrikaners are not indigenous to South Africa even if they settled their first. They are indigenous to NW europe. Nativeness cannot be defined based on time spent living on the land, but rather the regions of eurasia + Africa + Oceania which we can scry from seeing how your greatest genetic differences stack up against other populations in a genetic map.
Ashkenazi are a weird case. They can be modeled as 33% corded ware ancestry which is the same as North Italians, but their extra Natufian hunter gatherer and INF drags them to south Italians.
Someone who is 1/2 English and 1/2 Christian background Lebanese is genetically central Italian-like.
Someone who is 1/2 English and 1/2 Ashkenazi Jew would cluster near North Italians and some balkan populations (although their genetic quality would be different from balkaners, namely more light features and higher avg IQ)... But really since their corded ware culture ancestry would be like 45%, they would fit in central europe/Switzerland really.
We can see how racially confused Nazi Germany's politics was, and how that confusion helped lead to a political disaster. They had no right invading into their neighbors backyard, and the Ashkenazis (whose secular leadership did not handle the enlightment well and pursued dangerous radicalism) should have been moved to Italy, Greece, Israel or the Americas.
Ultimately, racial outsiders see WW2 as a bunch of confused light-skin caucasians/west eurasians killing each other. And they are right sadly.
Also, when estimating the degree of "Slavicness" of East Germans by comparing them with Czechs it's important to keep in mind that the latter are far more Western-European like genetically compared to other Slavic peoples to the prehistorical and historical population history of the Czech lands. The genetic distance between East Germans and Poles would be considerably larger.
Not really. Slavics are the most heterogenous out of the celtic-germanic-slavic Trio (The Trio where western steppe herder ancestry peaks the highest).
East Germans are really close to western Poles... Western Germans are very close to Dutch, Northern French, lots of regions of England. East Germans are very close to Western Germans, it's all close-knitted continuum.
South Italians cluster next to central Italians, who cluster next to North Italians, who cluster next to some SW, SE and central european populations. SW Europeans cluster next to Western Europeans and so on and so forth. We all ended up in regions of europe where we genetically belonged. Xenophobia between a region's natives in the same nation is justified as it protects their part of the European genetic cluster. That's the real underlying reason behind it.
La Tene culture once inhabited central and eastern europe. Then the germanics and slavics kicked them to western europe... The La Tene culture is genetically closest to western europeans.
These events aren't flukes. The gene flow events of the ice age, neolithic, bronze age, iron age and classical times weren't flukes. The Finns getting some SIberian in them was not a fluke. Modern Europeans the finished product of the melting pot. The current invasion of europe is not the divine will, it is the human will. It is motivated by economics, religion, ideology and vengeful politics.
Dug too far back to attribute AfD support in Eastern Germany. Being part of a separate country with a different political reality and interests for 45 years is sufficient to explain the phenomenon, without going centuries back.
Before then, voting was broadly along genetic lines. The Bavarians, East Germans, West Germans, Hamburgers, Kashubians/Pomeranians and Silesians voted differently during the Weimar Republic for example.
The biggest effect in how Scotland votes is about geography: densely populated lowland areas verses sparsely populated rural and highland areas.
I believe a technocratic government is a better path, especially when racial or ethnic divisions create obstacles. Having the smartest elites in charge, as seen in places like China or Singapore, seems more effective. A technocratic system could manage multi-ethnic societies, like Singapore does, by focusing on long-term, rational policies rather than short-term emotional ones. Unfortunately, my country, Bangladesh, is deeply attached to socialism, and I don’t understand why. I’ve seen firsthand the issues democracy can cause when I visited. A technocratic system could make any country prosperous quickly, even if genetic differences lead to varied life outcomes in terms of capital accumulation. With smarter-than-average elites guiding the nation, short-term emotional policies could be avoided, fostering long-term growth.
My question is: Why do countries in love with socialism fail to connect the dots and see that it’s harming their economy? I don’t buy the usual explanations.