Category: history

The Senate, People, and Genes of Rome

Der Movement is right about the existence of change over time, but is wrong about mostly everything else.

See here. Abstract, emphasis added:

Ancient Rome was the capital of an empire of ~70 million inhabitants, but little is known about the genetics of ancient Romans. Here we present 127 genomes from 29 archaeological sites in and around Rome, spanning the past 12,000 years. We observe two major prehistoric ancestry transitions: one with the introduction of farming and another prior to the Iron Age. By the founding of Rome, the genetic composition of the region approximated that of modern Mediterranean populations. During the Imperial period, Rome’s population received net immigration from the Near East, followed by an increase in genetic contributions from Europe. These ancestry shifts mirrored the geopolitical affiliations of Rome and were accompanied by marked interindividual diversity, reflecting gene flow from across the Mediterranean, Europe, and North Africa.

Note: By the founding of Rome, the genetic composition of the region approximated that of modern Mediterranean populations.

That’s a key finding, and at odds with “movement” dogma.

Overall, the findings are somewhat similar to what I previously reported.  Some highlights (emphasis added):

We generated whole-genome data for 127 ancient individuals from 29 archaeological sites in Rome and central Italy (Fig. 1 and table S1). 

The oldest genomes in our dataset are from three Mesolithic hunter-gatherers (10,000 to 7,000 BCE) from Grotta Continenza, a cave in the Apennine Mountains. In PCA, these individuals project close to Western hunter-gatherers (WHG) from elsewhere in Europe, including those from the Villabruna cave in northern Italy and from Grotta d’Oriente in Sicily (12–15) (fig. S17).

As reported previously for WHG groups (12, 14), these individuals show particularly low heterozygosity, ~30% lower than that of early modern central Italians (7). After this period, we see a sharp increase in heterozygosity in the Neolithic Age and smaller increases afterwards, reaching modern levels by around 2000 years before present (fig. S6).

The first major ancestry shift in the time series occurred between 7000 and 6000 BCE, coinciding with the transition to farming and introduction of domesticates including wheat, barley, pulses, sheep, and cattle into Italy (Fig. 2) (6, 16).

Similar to early farmers from other parts of Europe, Neolithic individuals from central Italy project near Anatolian farmers in PCA (13, 14, 17–19) (Fig. 2A). However, ADMIXTURE reveals that, in addition to ancestry from northwestern Anatolia farmers, all of the Neolithic individuals that we studied carry a small amount of another component that is found at high levels in Neolithic Iranian farmers and Caucasus hunter-gatherers (CHG) (Fig. 2B and fig. S9). This contrasts with contemporaneous central European and Iberian populations who carry farmer ancestry predominantly from northwestern Anatolia (fig. S12). Furthermore, qpAdm modeling suggests that Neolithic Italian farmers can be modeled as a two-way mixture of ~5% local hunter-gatherer ancestry and ~95% ancestry of Neolithic farmers from central Anatolia or northern Greece (table S7), who also carry additional CHG (or Neolithic Iranian) ancestry (fig. S12) (14). These findings point to different or additional source populations involved in the Neolithic transition in Italy compared to central and western Europe.

Note: Different or additional source populations. Genetic differences in Europe were established at least as far back as the Neolithic.

During the late Neolithic and Copper Age, there is a small, gradual rebound of WHG ancestry (Fig. 2B and fig. S24), mirroring findings from ancient DNA studies of other European populations from these periods (10, 13, 18, 20). This may reflect admixture with communities that had high levels of WHG ancestry persisting into the Neolithic, locally or in neighboring regions (tables S9 to S11).

The Iron Age and the origins of Rome

The second major ancestry shift occurred in the Bronze Age, between ~2900 and 900 BCE (Figs. 2 and 3, A and B, and tables S13 and S14). We cannot pinpoint the exact time of this shift because of a gap in our time series.

We collected data from 11 Iron Age individuals dating from 900 to 200 BCE (including the Republican period). This group shows a clear ancestry shift from the Copper Age, interpreted by ADMIXTURE as the addition of a Steppe-related ancestry component and an increase in the Neolithic Iranian component (Figs. 2B and 3B). Using qpAdm, we modeled the genetic shift by an introduction of ~30 to 40% ancestry from Bronze and Iron Age nomadic populations from the Pontic-Caspian Steppe (table S15), similar to many Bronze Age populations in Europe (10, 13, 14, 19, 22). The presence of Steppe-related ancestry in Iron Age Italy could have happened through genetic exchange with intermediary populations (5, 23). Additionally, multiple source populations could have contributed, simultaneously or subsequently, to the ancestry transition before Iron Age. By 900 BCE at the latest, the inhabitants of central Italy had begun to approximate the genetics of modern Mediterranean populations.

That last part is the authors’ broad conclusion from their data.

The Iron Age individuals exhibit highly variable ancestries, hinting at multiple sources of migration into the region during this period (Figs. 2A and 3B). Although we were able to model eight of the 11 individuals as two-way mixtures of Copper Age central Italians and a Steppe-related population (~24 to 38%) using qpAdm, this model was rejected for the other three individuals (p < 0.001; table S16). Instead, two individuals from Latin sites (R437 and R850) can be modeled as a mixture between local people and an ancient Near Eastern population (best approximated by Bronze Age Armenian or Iron Age Anatolian; tables S17 and S18). An Etruscan individual (R475) carries significant African ancestry identified by f-statistics (|Z-score|>3; fig. S23) and can be modeled with ~53% ancestry from Late Neolithic Moroccan (table S19). Together these results suggest substantial genetic heterogeneity within the Etruscan (n = 3 individuals) and Latin (n = 6) groups. However, using f-statistics, we did not find significant genetic differentiation between the Etruscans and Latins in allele sharing with any preceding or contemporaneous population (|Z-score|

In contrast to prehistoric individuals, the Iron Age individuals genetically resemble modern European and Mediterranean individuals, and display diverse ancestries as central Italy becomes increasingly connected to distant communities through new networks of trade, colonization, and conflict (3, 6).

Imperial Rome and the expanding empire

During the Imperial period (n = 48 individuals), the most prominent trend is an ancestry shift toward the eastern Mediterranean and with very few individuals of primarily western European ancestry (Fig. 3C). The distribution of Imperial Romans in PCA largely overlaps with modern Mediterranean and Near Eastern populations, such as Greek, Maltese, Cypriot, and Syrian (Figs. 2A and 3C). This shift is accompanied by a further increase in the Neolithic Iranian component in ADMIXTURE (Fig. 2B) and is supported by f-statistics (tables S20 and S21): compared to Iron Age individuals, the Imperial population shares more alleles with early Bronze Age Jordanians (f4 statistics Z-score = 4.2) and shows significant introgression signals in admixture f3 for this population, as well as for Bronze Age Lebanese and Iron Age Iranians (Z-score < −3.4).

two-thirds of Imperial individuals (31 out of 48) belong to two major clusters (C5 and C6) that overlap in PCA with central and eastern Mediterranean populations, such as those from southern and central Italy, Greece, Cyprus, and Malta (Fig. 4B). An additional quarter (13 out of 48) of the sampled Imperial Romans form a cluster (C4) defined by high amounts of haplotype sharing with Levantine and Near Eastern populations, whereas no pre-Imperial individuals appear in this cluster (Fig. 4AC). 

Notice that these are two separate groups – a majority of European Mediterranean genetics and a significant Near Eastern minority.

some of the individuals in this cluster also project close to four contemporaneous individuals from Lebanon (240 to 630 CE) (fig. S18) (28). In addition, two individuals (R80 and R132) belong to a cluster featuring high haplotype sharing with North African populations (C4) and can be modeled with 30 to 50% North African ancestry in explicit modeling with qpAdm (table S28).

Different individuals.

The average ancestry of the Late Antique individuals (n = 24) shifts away from the Near East and toward modern central European populations in PCA (Fig. 3D). Formally, they can be modeled as a two-way mixture of the preceding Imperial individuals and 38 to 41% ancestry from a late Imperial period individual from Bavaria or modern Basque individuals (table S24). The precise identity of the source populations and the admixture fractions should not be interpreted literally, given the simplified admixture model assumed and the lack of data for most contemporaneous ancient populations (7). This ancestry shift is also reflected in ChromoPainter results by the drastic shrinkage of the Near Eastern cluster (C4), maintenance of the two Mediterranean clusters (C5 and C6), and marked expansion of the European cluster (C7) (Fig. 4C).

The high interindividual heterogeneity observed in Imperial Rome continues into Late Antiquity (Figs. 3D and 4). Late Antique individuals are distributed across the eastern Mediterranean (C5), Mediterranean (C6), and European (C7) clusters in roughly equal proportions. Using f-statistics, we identified three outliers who are genetically distinct from others in the same period, including R104, who genetically resembles Sardinians, and R106 and R31, who overlap with modern Europeans in PCA (Fig. 3D). 

In the Medieval and early modern periods (n = 28 individuals), we observe an ancestry shift toward central and northern Europe in PCA (Fig. 3E), as well as a further increase in the European cluster (C7) and loss of the Near Eastern and eastern Mediterranean clusters (C4 and C5) in ChromoPainter (Fig. 4C). The Medieval population is roughly centered on modern-day central Italians…The Normans expanded from northern France to a number of regions, including Sicily and the southern portion of the Italian Peninsula (and even sacked the city of Rome in 1084), where they established the Kingdom of Sicily (3, 36). 

Sallis Summary

Of course, we would like to have more samples, particularly for the Iron Age/Republic period, but the data are (for now) what they are, with the samples available, and we can, for the time being, make an assumption (that may be valid or invalid) that these samples are representative of the wider population. Also, how class differences in that period (e.g., patricians vs. plebeians) can be genetically modeled is unknown. Perhaps more samples will be found, and assayed, in the future.


The only part of the narrative that fits “movement” dogma is the genetic shift to the “east and south” (Eastern Mediterranean and Near East) during the Imperial period. However, it is interesting that the Fall of the Western Empire coincided with the later genetic shift to the “western and northern” directions. That is wholly opposite of “movement” dogma, which suggests Rome fell because of the influence of the “eastern and southern” influx (I suppose they’ll spin it that the “eastern rot” could not be reversed). The major anti-“movement” finding is that the original Romans (as per the study’s limited samples) were not Nordic, they were not Dolph Lundgren walking around in a toga. Similarities of the old Roman stock to modern “Mediterranean” populations suggest that the genetics of later Roman populations were roughly returned part-way to the original genetic “centroid” (see Figure 3) by the later “western and northern” influences that counter-acted the “eastern and southern” Imperial influx, resulting in the more modern Roman populations – although this of course only partly approximated the original genetic position, and did not recapitulate the original stock. 


Note that the study is about Rome and surrounding regions (and not all of the areas that constitute the modern Italian nation state). Rome was obviously a very cosmopolitan city as the center of a vast empire, and therefore genetic heterogeneity there over time would be expected to be significantly higher than in other parts of Italy and in the empire as a whole. Thus, likely, genetic heterogeneity in the Roman Empire was at its maximum in Rome and surrounding regions..

So, the “movement” is “one for three.”


1. The “movement” is correct about “eastern” (and “southern”) influences in the Imperial period, and a genetic shift from the Republic to Imperial periods. Likely, Der Movement will be happiest about Figure 4C (as well as the changes shown in Figure 3), and concentrate on that to the exclusion of all else, as it demonstrates these shifts in a dramatic visual fashion. However, keep in mind that – similar to population genetics in general – the labels for genetic components (e.g., in Figure 4C) are descriptive and not meant to be taken literally, and that by “European” the authors are talking about samples whose PCA position is mostly in the area of Northern Italy-Tuscany, extending to Spain/France/Croatia at the far edges (not Northwest Europe proper and certainly not Scandinavia). 


One thing that people have a hard time understanding, and what I harp on about here frequently, is that labels given to things are not equivalent to the things themselves. For example, some of the populations included as “Mediterranean” (or even “Eastern Mediterranean” if that includes Greeks) are European populations; the distinction between that and “European” is arbitrary.  With specific respect to the PCA placement of the Ancient Roman (Iron Age/Republic) samples “European” is more South-Central  European.


The somewhat subjective labeling of Figure 4C can be interpreted in light of some of the fundamental “raw” data. Figures 4A and S26 show haplotype sharing between the Roman samples and modern populations. To be fair to the “movement,” some (not all) of the Iron Age/Republic samples have significant haplotype sharing with “Central and Northern Europe.” However, most of the Roman samples with significant haplotype sharing with “Central and Northern Europe” are actually those from the Late Antiquity and Medieval and Early Modern periods.  Moreover, looking at Roman samples with significant haplotype sharing with “Southern Italy” and “Greek” (as well with the general “Southern Europe and Mediterranean” category), some of these are Iron Age/Republic. In fact, some of the same Iron Age/Republic Roman samples have relatively high haplotype sharing with both sets of modern populations (Europeans in general tending to share many genetics) – sample R1 is a prime example of this phenomenon.  Note that “Basque” is included in the “Central and Northern Europe” category and some Iron Age/Republic samples (R473, R105) with relatively high “Central and Northern Europe” actually have relatively higher haplotype sharing with Basques and French.  


Figure S27 is a PCA of the Figure S26 haplotype data and clarifies some issues. Of the Roman samples that are outside the range of modern (North-Central-South) Italy, those that are shifted in the direction of populations of actual Northern and Central European origin (e.g., Roman samples R1219,106, 62, 1286, 1288, 1224, 116, 31) are all from the Late Antiquity and Medieval and Early Modern periods (decline, fall, post-fall).  Several of the Iron Age/Republic samples that seem to show relatively high haplotype sharing with “Central and Northern Europe” in Figure S26 are actually shifted in the direction of “Spanish” and “Basque” (and to some degree “French”) in Figure S27 – these include the aforementioned R473 and R1015. The aforementioned R1 sample clusters near “Northern Italy.” Another Iron Age/Republic sample (R850) is in between “Southern Italy” and “Cypriot” in Figure S27. Other Iron Age/Republic samples are close to “Spanish.” Thus, the Iron Age/Republic samples are mostly “West Mediterranean” with some being “Central Mediterranean” (and one or two are outliers), with the former “West Mediterranean” group tending to have more of the relatively high haplotype sharing with “Central and Northern Europe” (likely due to the Basque or Basque/French similarities). I do not observe any of the Iron Age/Republic samples overlapping Northern European populations in the PCA of Figure S27.


Thus, the fraction of Iron Age/Republic samples that exhibit significant haplotype sharing with “Central and Northern Europe” tend to either (1) also exhibit significant haplotype sharing with “Southern Italy/Greek” as well as “Northern Italy” and “Central Italy” and hence end up overlapping with Northern Italy; or (2) be shifted in the direction of Basques/Spain, exhibiting a West Mediterranean genotype more Western Hunter Gatherer (WHG)-enriched than other “Mediterranean” populations, thus resulting in enhanced haplotype sharing with other WHG-enriched populations. On the other hand, a smaller fraction of the Iron Age/Republic samples are of a Central/East Mediterranean type (along with an unusual Etruscan sample that may or may not be an outlier for the general Etruscan population), with less haplotype sharing with WHG-enriched populations and, in general, modest haplotype sharing with several of the other population groupings used for comparisons.  

The Iron Age/Republic samples therefore crudely cluster in two groups – the larger group centered on Northern Italy, Central Italy, Basques, Spain, and to some extent France; and a smaller group centered on Central Italy, Southern Italy, general Southern Europe/Central Mediterranean, with some associations with East Mediterranean, as well as that Etruscan sample previously mentioned. This interpretation is broadly consistent with the authors’ comments on their overall findings in the main text, and is also consistent with the right side of Figure S25, which summarizes data of haplotype sharing, identifying “recipient clusters containing ancient individuals.”  Most of the Iron Age/Republic Roman samples are in cluster C12 – “Northern Italy, Central Italy, Spanish, French.” The remainder of the Iron Age/Republic Roman samples are in cluster C22 – “Southern Italy/Greek, ” and cluster C21 – “Spanish.”  The Roman samples shown in cluster C10 – essentially Northern Europeans – are Medieval and Early Modern.


Further, and importantly, Figures S10-12 show admixture analyses for different Roman samples and population groups, along with timelines. To my eyes, the Iron Age/Republic Roman samples exhibit an admixture profile relatively similar to present-day Italy as well as to the various of Roman history in between Iron Age/Republic and modern Italy (including the Imperial period), contrasting to the admixture profile of Northern Europe, which is clearly more different.


Figure S29 gives functional allele frequency data, which mirrors the general genetic data. For example, throughout most of Roman history, lactase persistence is low, and increases only toward the end periods, starting with Late Antiquity, precisely those periods that have samples exhibiting the most haplotype sharing with “Central and Northern Europe.”  Blue eye color was highest in the earliest (Mesolithic) and latest (Late Antiquity and Medieval and Early Modern) Roman periods; Iron Age/Republic and the Imperial periods look similar.  Hair color was not studied.


All of these data suggest a predominantly West Mediterranean character of the Iron Age/Republic (responsible for the haplotype sharing patterns discussed above), with some Central and Eastern Mediterranean influences. That is consistent with the overall PCA of Figure 2, as well as with the authors’ general conclusion that the area approximated modern “Mediterranean” genetics by the time of the founding of Rome. Thus, the general PCA positions (Figure 2) of the Iron Age/Republic samples show that a majority of these fall in the area of Northern Italy/Tuscany (“European”) with a minority (keeping in mind the low number of samples from this period) in the area of Central and Southern Italy (“Mediterranean”). These are different parts of Italy, in Southern Europe; hence, again, the authors overall conclusion is that “By the founding of Rome, the genetic composition of the region approximated that of modern Mediterranean populations.” 

Two other points. First, the authors make clear that genetic modeling of the Imperial population was a problem due to a poor data fit, suggesting that “this was a complex mixture event, potentially including source populations that have not  yet been identified or studied.” That sounds a lot like the parental population problem exhibited by commercially available ancestry testing.  Second, for those interested in single locus data (I am not), mitochondrial DNA (Figure S4) and Y chromosome (Figure S5) show changes over time similar to that of the autosomal genome.


One critique of the paper is that they could have, in the main text, discussed the haplotype sharing data in more detail. Needless to say, genetic kinship analyses would have been helpful, but as I have noted at my blog many times, population geneticists typically eschew performing such determinations.

Now, I have already observed signs that the dishonest “movement” is retconning their dogma, making believe that they never said that the original Romans were Celto-Germanic Nordics. No, now, with 20-20 hindsight, they make believe that they asserted that the original Romans were akin to Northern Italians/Tuscans – that is a complete fabrication of the dogma as well as not fully reporting the full spectrum of the ancient individuals’ genetics. 


Essentially, very crudely speaking, Iron Age/Republic was shifting in the direction of Benito Mussolini, Imperial was shifting toward – and past – Julius Evola, and then Late Antiquity and Medieval was shifting toward Il Duce again, but not getting back to the original position. These are just very crude approximations; the peoples of that period were not literally exactly the same as similar modern peoples. Further, even though genetic heterogeneity in Rome obviously significantly increased after the establishment of Empire, the samples assayed exhibit genetic heterogeneity even before Empire – The Iron Age individuals exhibit highly variable ancestries, hinting at multiple sources of migration into the region.” If we assume these samples represent the general population (obviously an important assumption for this study), then the founding of Rome was due to a somewhat diverse population base. Whether that correlates to patricians vs. plebeians is an interesting question. Regardless, the existence of genetic heterogeneity from the beginning of the Roman state is not consistent with much of “movement” dogma.


Another point, as alluded to above, is that while we can determine which extant groups seem most similar to Roman samples from different time periods, with Iron Age/Republic being of particular interest, that doesn’t mean that the Romans of any particular period were actually the same as any extant group or groups. Populations change over periods of centuries and millennia and this is particular true of an area with the history of Rome, with various population movements and important historical events over time. Similarity is not the same as exact identity.  Ancient peoples no longer exist as they did at their time, but we can determine which extant groups are most similar, and when the extant groups occupy similar territory as the ancients, then the extant groups are likely to be in part descended from those ancients. The Roman stock as such no longer exists, but we can determine what a small subset of them were like genetically (and get some phenotypic characteristics from functional genes), and make possible associations with modern populations. A careful study of busts and statues from, e.g., the Roman Republic shows facial phenotypes that are not really precisely the same as any extant group. One can look for phenotypic similarity, as with the genes, but not exact identity, when comparing ancients and moderns. The same goes for other groups. There are no Gauls anymore, as they were back then, but there are extant groups similar, with likely a linkage of descent between them.

2. The “movement” is wrong about the Fall of the Western Empire being associated with an increasing “eastern” and “southern” component. It is the other way around. The Fall occurred as the population of Rome was, genetically speaking, moving “west” and “north.”  Unlike Der Movement, I do not postulate (a crudely deterministic) cause and effect between these genetic changes and the sociopolitical situation in Rome (as far as I understand, corruption was maximal in Late Antiquity). Der Movement would of course, I presume, make distinctions between “decline” and “fall” and assert that the “fall” was due to the “decline” caused by the “eastern (and “southern”) influx.” Indeed, one can expect the most “interesting” interpretations of these findings by the “movement.” Nevertheless, the Roman state was founded by a Southern European population likely most akin (but not identical) to modern Northern Italians, but with Central and Southern Italian influence as well, and at the height of Imperial power, the city of Rome was more “Mediterranean” in character, albeit with some unfortunate significant influences from regions outside of what is today Italy (or Europe as a whole). 


3. Most of all the “movement” is wrong – 100% wrong – with the idea that the original Romans were Nordics akin to modern Northwest Europeans.  See my comments for points 1 and 2 above; also as regards point 3, I once again cite from the paper:

After two major prehistoric population turnovers—one with the introduction of farming and another prior to the Iron Age—individuals in central Italy began to genetically approximate modern Mediterranean populations…The Iron Age individuals exhibit highly variable ancestries, hinting at multiple sources of migration into the region during this period An Etruscan individual (R475) carries significant African ancestry identified by f-statistics (|Z-score|>3; fig. S23) and can be modeled with ~53% ancestry from Late Neolithic Moroccan (table S19). Together these results suggest substantial genetic heterogeneity within the Etruscan (n = 3 individuals) and Latin (n = 6) groups….In contrast to prehistoric individuals, the Iron Age individuals genetically resemble modern European and Mediterranean individuals, and display diverse ancestries as central Italy becomes increasingly connected to distant communities through new networks of trade, colonization, and conflict (3, 6).

From a historical-sociopolitical narrative, pride of place first of all does of course has to go with the founders of Rome, who established the city and its traditions, as well as conquered the bulk of what was to become the Empire – the Iron/Age Republic group.  However, from the same narrative perspective, second place has to go to the extenders, maintainers, and rulers of the Empire, who established the Pax Romana.  Now, one cannot conflate all of the urban rabble of any period (Iron Age/Republic as well as Imperial, or later) with the ruling strata. Thus, from a biopolitical perspective, the ruling strata of the Imperial period would likely be those of European Mediterranean stock; that Imperial population would likely be similar to the smaller “group 2” fraction of the Iron/Age Republic era described above. 


An important take-away point on all of this is that the political situation of a polity can affect its genetic composition (which we know intuitively, but it is demonstrated here). The division of the Roman Empire between West and East shifted the genetics of Rome in a more “western and northern” direction. Indeed, these data support a trend opposite of “movement” dogma – it is more that political changes drive genetic changes than vice versa (although, in theory, there can be feedback in both directions; the point here is that the Roman data – from the “movements” own assumptions about population character – support the politics affecting genes’ direction and not the reverse).


Similar to Ancient Rome, a European Imperium that deports non-Europeans and cuts off population movements with non-Europe will decrease kinship overlap between Europe and non-Europe and increase kinship overlap between European peoples, given enough time (and the latter will occur without any panmixia). 


In any case, with respect to the paper, we can expect the most outrageous lies, distortions, and misinterpretations about it from the fundamentally dishonest “movement.”  They’ve done it  before.  I urge the reader to take a look at the paper itself (and much of the text is reproduced here, above), including the supplementary data section, and come to your own conclusions. Hopefully, you’ll see that my summary is essentially correct and that whatever nonsense Der Movement comes up with is just that – nonsense.

Strom Speech

Interesting.

See this, emphasis added:

SOME PEOPLE get excited when Donald Trump speaks. I can understand that. He’s a hate-object and love-object for the rubes and their emotions run wild on cue, just as the Cunning Race intends. And he’s kind of unpredictable. Will he withdraw troops from Syria, or just move them around a bit? Will he tell us that we have to “stop all these Middle Eastern wars” — while simultaneously funding Israel’s war machine to the tune of more billions than the whole US budget used to be? — and continuing to run the “kill list,” and the never-ending drone attacks, and the seldom-publicized commando raids, all across the many nations that Israel considers enemies? Will he tell us he’s raising tariffs — or lifting them? Will he blather about the much-needed but totally imaginary WallOr will he tell us how much we love and need all those “highly-skilled” and “patriotic” non-White immigrants? Will he ever dare to use the word “nationalism” again? Or will he get teary-eyed about the “heroes” who fought against the Germans and against nationalism in the “good war”? When Donald Trump speaks, it can make your head spin.

But according to Greg, Trump is a sincere man of genuine greatness.

But that’s not the kind of speech I’m interested in hearing. I tune that garbage out just as automatically as I tune out commercials and animated Internet ads. Donald Trump’s speeches, and those of his rivals, might as well not even exist as far as I’m concerned.

Forget Donald Trump. This is the speech I want to hear:

“Ladies and gentlemen, fellow Americans. Today, America is restored. Today, a massive conspiracy to destroy our nation and people has been thwarted, and the conspirators and traitors have been arrested or fled — and I promise you that every single one of them will face justice.

Including those traitors ostensibly in the “movement?”

“Most of you have known — or at least sensed — that America was being led astray, led into degeneracy and suicide, flooded by enemy aliens, eviscerated by pointless wars — and that our hard-working, honest, and trusting people were being fed lies and were being ground down into poverty by the theft of their wealth. What you sensed was true.

“Many of you saw that the power structure erected by the world’s wealthiest and most powerful ethnic group, the Jews, was at the center of the conspiracy. And you were right. Such alien power has been removed, and had to be removed, and if the men behind that power even slightly threaten to return they will be pursued to the uttermost ends of the Earth. But far more shameful, far more evil, and far more worthy of punishment are those among our own kin — Americans and Europeans who willingly sold themselves and sold their own children’s future for money, and served the conspiracy by being its functionaries and its public faces. A special justice awaits such traitors, and it cannot and will not be evaded.

Some questions for Kevin Strom.  Do those traitors include the HBDers, who promote Jewish and Asian supremacism and divide Europeans against each other? Does include those like Johnson and Durocher who write for Unz, a Jewish HBDer who once claimed that White nationalism was the biggest threat to America?  Does it include Greg Cochran, who openly wrote that Jews should conquer Italy for use as a Jewish homeland?  Does it include Derbyshire, who not only mated with a Chinatrix, but who labeled “race purists” as “nuts” and who openly promoted miscegenation?  Does it include the White Judeophiles and “yellow supremacists” who enable Derbyshire?

“Today we restore America. Today, too, a New America begins with new principles and new laws that will make such a conspiracy impossible in the future — that will make true liberty possible again — that will assure our children’s future into an infinity that we can now begin to imagine but only they will know.

“The conspirators, who through their secret unity and through their manipulation and theft of our money gained great wealth, began by infiltrating and perverting our institutions of learning and scholarship and instruction. In a thousand different ways, they turned entire generations against their own kind, against their own culture, against their own survival. They then repeated the same kind of subversion and division on a larger scale by using their ill-gotten wealth and influence and academic prestige to manage and own the media of public entertainment and information: newspapers, magazines, film studios, broadcasting stations and networks, social media combines on the Internet. And with this multiplied power coupled with their secret unity of purpose they were able to gain control of the political process. No candidate can be elected or retain office without their vetting and permission. And any candidate or official — and even, in recent years, any scientist or scholar or private citizen — who defies the will of the conspirators is professionally and personally destroyed.

“In recent years, in fact, it has become increasingly obvious that the goal of this conspiracy has been and is to commit genocide — genocide against the founding people of America, and the founding peoples of Europe and European culture wherever they may be found. To say that the actions of this conspiracy are evil and immoral and intolerable and unacceptable is to vastly understate our case. The very existence of such a conspiracy is intolerable, wherever they may be on their timeline of genocide. The existence of the conspiracy — at least in our nation and the nations who have joined with us today — is now at an end.

“Today I have directed the Council of National Salvation, whose members I have carefully chosen from the National Alliance, and our best and most loyal scientists…

Ted Sallis?

…engineers, military men, and union, business, and spiritual leaders, to oversee a transition to the New America — our New America — and to appoint new men as necessary and create new institutions as necessary and make new laws as necessary for the rebirth of our people on the North American continent.

“The members of the former Congress and Senate, and officials of agencies private and public deemed by the Council to be a part of the conspiracy have been arrested and are awaiting trial. The media of mass information that illegitimately controlled the political process and were complicit in genocide, and the financial institutions that were defrauding the public, funding the conspiracy, and were therefore also complicit in genocide, have been nationalized and will operate henceforth under the direction of the Council.

“There is almost no danger of retaliation from the conspirators. The scientific and technological powers recently gained by our Alliance thanks to the patriotic scientists…

Ted Sallis?

…and businessmen who developed them have made us, our leadership, and in fact all Americans and allied Europeans, for all practical purposes immune from any weapons, including atomic weapons, that might be launched against us by the remaining conspirators. And any such attempt by the conspirators would be met with their total and instantaneous destruction as they well know. They will do as they are told.

“The conspirators have denounced our new order as “racist” and have attempted to stir up other nationalities against us, but their screeching is more and more falling on deaf ears. These other peoples now increasingly recognize that they, too, have been exploited and duped and cynically used by the conspirators, and are eager to cast off their chains and define and achieve their own destiny and self-determination, too. With our new powers and with the liberation of America and Europe comes a new and and more free world. A world in which money no longer rules, where money is a store of honest value and no longer a master. A world where the evils of multiracial, colonial empires will never exist again. A world where the evolution of Life and consciousness can resume its upward journey. A natural world no longer plundered beyond reason to feed the ever-growing maw of usury.

“All laws that prohibit crime or evil of any kind are still fully in place and will be enforced with more vigor than ever before. Those who think they can exploit the weak by taking advantage of the new situation will find themselves not only punished but completely excluded from our new society. Do right, all of you. I know that with very few exceptions, all of you will. The New America is really a new world. And it will be a world very much worth living in.

“The work of the National Council will be reported upon every evening, online, in the press, and on this network. Until the Council fully reorganizes our broadcasting system, we will be presenting the works of the greatest musical artists and composers on this network over the next several weeks, beginning tonight with the works of Ludwig van Beethoven. Good night and may Divine Providence bless our great undertaking.”

Now that’s the kind of speech I want to hear. Of course, when the real speech comes along there may be significant variations — it might not encompass all of America; it might just be the secession of a significant part. It might encompass more than just America. It might begin in another nation. But it will, it must, entail the defeat of those who are trying to kill us — who are committing genocide.

The specifics of the “powers” gained — powers that cannot be resisted — might not be what you think, either. You could think of those powers as what the great film director Alfred Hitchcock referred to in the plots of his films as the “MacGuffin.” It’s a made-up nonsense word for an important concept in fiction and drama. The word was coined by the English screenwriter Angus MacPhail who worked with HItchcock, but the concept is as old as the earliest stories ever told.

Now what is a MacGuffin? To a director, it’s the thing, and it could be anything, that the main characters want to have, must have, and which sets them fighting each other, killing each other, and all the rest. It could be the secret microfilm, as in Hitchcock’s North by Northwest. It could be the Maltese Falcon. It could be the gold in the hills or the oil in the valley. In Medieval tales, it might be the “Holy Grail.” In more modern works, it could be a new and secret weapon that cannot be resisted. It’s what the characters must have.

In my analogy, it’s what we must have. It doesn’t have to be an irresistible weapon as implied in my speech. It could be an irresistible anti-weapon, as I also suggested. It could be a new way of thinking adopted by so many of our folk that they’ll never support, or work for, or fight for the System that is killing us again. It could be a new spiritual movement that unites a million or ten million White people in a new society-within-a-society so strong that it comes to power silently and bloodlessly. It could well be something that has not only not been thought of yet, but hasn’t even been conceived abstractly. But whatever our MacGuffin turns out to be, we must have it. We must win. And building the consciousness that we are right, that we must win, among more and more of our folk — is precisely what makes it more and more likely as time goes on that what we need will be created and will be given to us and to no one else. And once we have what I lightheartedly call the MacGuffin — once we have what We Must Have — then we will finally be able to do What Must Be Done.

But then we have a second, worse Strom piece.  See this.

The immigration laws of this country were crafted to keep America a White nation, and in 1924 an immigration law was passed that in fact caused America to become Whiter and Whiter with each passing decade.

Cut immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe, allow Colored immigration from the Western Hemisphere.


Der Movement, Der Movement, Der Movement marches on.


I mean, yes, the Reed-Johnson act was justified in principle to stabilize America’s ethnic balance, but it should have stopped non-White immigration from the New World, in addition to the other immigration restrictions.

…despite some unfortunate anti-Slavic attitudes expressed before and even during the war…

I like how Strom minimizes that anti-Slav attitudes were at the very heart of National Socialist race theory, and that the use of Slavic soldiers by Germany was purely instrumental (and only after the war in the East started going sour and more manpower was need), and that Hitler had to be forced – almost kicking and screaming – to allow Vlasov to recruit men. Of course, there was differences of opinion on these matters in National Socialist Germany, and no doubt one can find quotes that are less hostile to the Slavic peoples (most of which no doubt date to after Stalingrad), but how can one deny Hitler’s attitudes on this question and his ultimate war aims in the East?


Strom is channeling his inner Pierce in that second piece, and I do not mean that as a complement.

Skorzeny and Jeelvy

Two idiots.

This book, and this one is also on the same subject, about a minor but very interesting episode of WWII, deconstructs the Skorzeny myth. These books persuasively argue that Skorzeny was an inept blowhard, a publicity hound who got credit for a successful raid to which he contributed little and actually almost ruined. General Student and others deserve the real credit.

Skorzeny, worshipped by some in Der Movement, is a clear example of Der Movement’s obsessions and fetishes.  An Austrian Nazi – and ostensibly a politically dedicated Nazi – Skorzeny also I presume wins points because of his negative views of Italians, as chronicled in Irving’s Hitler’s War. But, alas, the Aryan Superman Skorzeny was not only an incompetent fraud, but also a traitor who worked for Jews.

I mean, too bad he’s not alive today, he’s got what it takes to be a WN 2.0 hero!  Maybe Unz would give him a column at The Unz Review.

Nicholas R. Jeelvy

Posted October 24, 2019 at 12:35 am | Permalink

The establishment has to pretend like we don’t exist and prop up alt-lite grifters and milquetoasts. It’s called “unthinging”.

At the same time, another wing of the establishment is censoring those grifters, who are more fragile to censorship than us, because they depend on numbers rather than truth.

The beast is scratching at itself, folks. The beginnings of victory are visible.

Victory is coming!  All you gotta do is send in dem dere “D’Nations!”  Remember those who give live in the golden age today!  This guy writes for Counter-Currents and has the nerve to talk about “grifters.”  These guys got balls the size of Jupiter.

Odds and Ends, 10/1/19

More of the same.

Zman the liar:

The alt-right never got around to thinking up a new metaphysics. They spent their time recreating an aesthetic from a bygone age that was intended to shock, rather than celebrate a new ideological movement. The closest they came to imagining an alternative Right was borrowing the idea of an ethnostate from fringe Russian thinkers. Otherwise, the alt-right was just a collection of complaints decorated with some racist and fascist language and imagery.

Thus, Zman is parroting Johnson’s lie that the fall of WN 2.0 was mimicking WN 1.0 while the truth was the exact opposite: WN 2.0 represented an entirely new aesthetic – Millennial and Generation Z juvenile jackassery and mindless snark (Beavis-and-Butthead White nationalism).  The major things they had in common with WN 1.0 was the commitment to the ethnic affirmative action program and the usual ethnic fetishism.

And what to make of this?

.. was borrowing the idea of an ethnostate from fringe Russian thinkers.

Sir Humphrey of Ireland was Russian?  Seriously though, hasn’t a “White ethnostate” been a staple of WN thought for decades?  What the hell does it have to do with Russians?  This is what happens when a smug know-it-all drops out of nowhere and establishes himself as a “movement” voice without knowing what the hell he is talking about.

Juri
Do not underestimate the cucked electorate.. Austrian elections results just came in and anti immigration FPÖ is down by 10 per cent and far left greens up by 14 per cent. Greta Thunberg and other screaming lunatics turned entire Austria to far left.

The ghosts of Hubert Humphrey and John Lindsay are well pleased.

Sallis continues to be proven correct. Der Movement is as predictable as an atomic clock.

Germany’s Schettino.  Excerpts, emphasis added:

On a list of historical figures who have left disaster in their wake, few can top Erich Ludendorff. And yet, he was not an incompetent man. On the contrary, he was one of World War I’s most able generals, among the few who recognized that Western Front battlefield tactics would require a fundamental rethinking, especially with regard to combat leadership.
Ludendorff was born on April 9, 1865, in the town of Kruszewnia, near Posen, Prussia. Like most of the border towns split between Polish and German ethnicity, Kruszewnia was a hotbed of Prusso-German nationalism. His parents were middle-class but strongly nationalist. And as young Erich gobbled up military histories filled with romantic legends and nationalist nonsense about Prussia’s struggles against Napoléon or its heroic defeat of the “evil French” in the Franco-Prussian War, his nationalistic fervor soon eclipsed that of his parents. 
The truth was that unrestricted submarine warfare would almost immediately bring the United States into the war. Here again, Ludendorff threw his weight behind the navy’s arguments by insisting the United States was incapable of fielding an effective army, much less deploying it to Europe to fight on the Western Front. His comment to a senior industrialist in September 1916 sums up his understanding of strategy: “The United States does not bother me…in the least; I look upon a declaration of war by the United States with indifference.” Even more astonishing is that in the fall of 1916 Ludendorff was seriously worried that Holland or Denmark might enter the war on the Allied side…The U-boat offensive had failed. It remains one of the more disastrous strategic decisions in human history.
Although Ludendorff managed to build an extraordinary, albeit fragile, force for his coming offensive, he did not have the slightest idea what its operational goals should be. When asked as much by Crown Prince Rupprecht of Bavaria, group commander of the northern forces along the Western Front, Ludendorff testily replied: “I object to the word ‘operations.’ We will punch a hole into [their line]. For the rest we shall see. We also did it this way in Russia.” And that is precisely what the Germans, under Ludendorff’s direction, did. Their impressive battlefield gains were completely devoid of strategic and operational benchmarks, and they constructed no defenses to maintain the greatly expanded front…
…Ludendorff displayed neither leadership nor strategic sense. In September he began casting about for someone to blame for the looming German defeat. His initial target was his staff. By early October, he had shifted the blame to the liberals and socialists. As the German political, strategic and operational situation spiraled out of control, Ludendorff himself approached a complete breakdown. On October 26, the Kaiser dismissed him. Disguising himself in a false beard, Ludendorff fled to Sweden to write his extraordinarily dishonest memoirs.
As a commander, Ludendorff represented the strengths and weaknesses of the German army. “In my final analysis on Ludendorff,” notes David Zabecki, the foremost historian of Germany’s 1918 offensives, “I have to conclude that in many ways he was a reflection of the German army as a whole in the first half of the 20th century: tactically gifted, operationally flawed and strategically bankrupt.”

Some more.

And by the war’s final summer when it was clear that defeat was inexorable, the general slipped into a downward spiral of despair. He exhibited violent mood swings, lashed out at Hindenburg and even reportedly broke down in tears before his subordinates. Some speculated that he was in the throes of a nervous breakdown.

Interestingly, I do not recall any Chris Brand posts about “neuroticism and anxiety” with respect to that episode.  Very selective, eh, Chris?  Brand can’t answer right now, being kept busy in hell and all.

WWI: The Lie to End All Lies

Contra Johnson’s thesis.

Let’s consider Johnson’s absurd thesis that WWI (and II!) had nothing to do with petty nationalistic competition between European nation states, but instead was due to “empires.”

I will now consider this, excerpts follow (emphasis added) with some comments:

The early years of the 20th century saw tremendous growth in Europe of both population and prosperity. With arts and culture flourishing, few believed a general war possible due to the peaceful cooperation required to maintain increased levels of trade as well as technologies such as the telegraph and railroad. Despite this, numerous social, military, and nationalistic tensions ran beneath the surface. As the great European empires struggled to expand their territory, they were confronted with increasing social unrest at home as new political forces began to emerge.

Nationalistic tensions. Well, everyone seems to recognize this reality except Johnson and his band of liars.  The idea that “empire” was a major driving factor is ludicrous.  Consider: In WWI, the British, French, and Russian empires were allies, even though in past decades and past centuries, these empires were in conflict.  What changed?  Simple – the national interests of the states in question. The fact that they were empires were incidental. There were conflicts of national interests, and imperial considerations were just one manifestation of those national conflicts of interests. By 1914, the rise of Germany was the threat that brought together the convergence of British, French, and Russian interests.  Empires or no empires, the shifting constellations of national interests would have existed and led to war.

Rise of Germany

The main issue.

In the resulting Treaty of Frankfurt which ended the war, France was forced to cede Alsace and Lorraine to Germany. The loss of this territory badly stung the French and was a motivating factor in 1914.

Indeed.  A territorial dispute – local European territory not colonial – was a motivating factor in the rush to war.  Petty nationalism, conflicts between neighboring states, historical enmity and revanchism – all in the mix.

Building a Tangled Web

As we’ll see, the “tangled web” of alliances – Johnson’s vaunted “temporary solutions to temporary problems” – led to the war that helped wreck the White world.

With Germany united, Bismarck began setting about to protect his newly formed empire from foreign attack. 

Empire?  Johnson starts breathing heavily. Unfortunately for him, “empire” in this context is the modern German nation state, cobbled together from an amalgamation of smaller entities.  So, at what point is today’s ethnonationalism merely a current interpretation of past imperialism?  Freedom for Bavaria!

“A Place in the Sun” and the Naval Arms Race

An ambitious leader and the grandson of England’s Queen Victoria, Wilhelm sought to elevate Germany to equal status with the other great powers of Europe. As a result, Germany entered the race for colonies with the goal of becoming an imperial power. 

In other words, Germany’s pursuit of a real empire was a result of petty nationalist competition with Great Britain and France.

These efforts to obtain territory overseas brought Germany into conflict with the other powers, especially France, as the German flag was soon raised over parts of Africa and on islands in the Pacific.

Petty nationalism started the process.  Overseas conflicts were a manifestation of this.

A global power, Britain moved in 1902 to form an alliance with Japan to curtail German ambitions in the Pacific. This was followed by the Entente Cordiale with France in 1904, which while not a military alliance, resolved many of the colonial squabbles and issues between the two nations.

Suddenly, “colonial squabbles” lost their importance in light of the German threat.  If the nations of Europe had been confederated, none of this would have occurred.  Instead we got Johnson’s “temporary alliances.”  Followed by a world war.

This pan-Slavic sentiment was backed Russia who had signed a military agreement to aid Serbia if the nation was attacked by the Austrians.

Yet we are told by some (commentators at Amren) that pan-Slavism is an acceptable alternative to pan-Europeanism.

Turning to their ally, the Austrians inquired regarding the German position on the matter. On July 5, 1914, Wilhelm, downplaying the Russian threat, informed the Austrian ambassador that his nation could “count on Germany’s full support” regardless of the outcome. This “blank check” of support from Germany shaped Vienna’s actions.

Always the troublemakers.

Behind the scenes in Berlin, German officials were eager for a war with Russia but were restrained by the need to make the Russians appear as the aggressors.

Surprise!

The Dominoes Fall

While the German military clamored for war…

I’m shocked, shocked I say.

Early on July 31, Russia began a full mobilization of its forces in preparation for war with Austria-Hungary. This pleased Bethmann-Hollweg who was able to couch German mobilization later that day as a response to the Russians even though it was scheduled to begin regardless. 

My being shocked continues. 

Though it was unlikely that Britain could have remained neutral if France was attacked, it entered the fray that next day when German troops invaded Belgium activating the 1839 Treaty of London. 

Those pesky treaties and alliances again.

On August 6, Austria-Hungary declared war on Russia and six days later entered into hostilities with France and Britain. Thus by August 12, 1914, the Great Powers of Europe were at war and four and a half years of savage bloodshed were to follow.

Thank you, petty nationalism.

Comment left at Counter-Currents:

HungarianFashionista
Posted September 29, 2019 at 12:59 pm | Permalink
(Health warning: The first 30 minutes of this podcast contains a large dose of WW1 Entente propaganda.)
I wish Western nationalists would stop pontificating about and lecturing Eastern Europe. We take care of our corner of the white world, and you take care of yours, that should be the rule in nationalist politics.

They should stop pontificating about Southern Europe as well, a topic about which they clearly know nothing.

We take care of our corner of the white world, and you take care of yours, that should be the rule in nationalist politics.

You would think that “ethnonationalists” would inherently understand that, but, you see, in reality they are ethnoimperialists.  For example, the British-Saxon hybrid John Morgan believes he has the right to live in Hungary, despite not being an ethnic Hungarian, while pontificating about Hungary and lecturing to Hungarians, all the time lauding the alleged virtues of “ethnonationalism.”  It’s “ethnonationalism for me but not for thee” for these imperialistic invasive hypocrites.

The Rudolf Hess Restitution Commandos

And other news.  Emphasis added.

Laugh at this oldie but goodie from Der Movement:

Feb. 13, 1981
Nazis Set Deadline to Get $7 Million for Hess’ Release
BONN (JTA) — A group of neo-Nazis calling themselves the Rudolf Hess restitution Commandos have set a Feb. 14 deadline to kill two Jews at random unless they receive $7 million for a fund to free Rudolf Hess from the Spandau Prison in West Berlin. Hess, 86, who was Hitler’s right-hand man at the Deputy Fuehrer, is now the only prisoner in Spandau.
The neo-Nazi group made its demand in letters dated Jan. 30 and mailed to Salzburg, Austria, to the governments of the four Allied powers which administer the prison — the United States, Britain, France and the Soviet Union — a West German government spokesman said.
The neo-Nazi organization said the $7 million it is demanding would be “a gesture of goodwill” and should be paid to the “Freedom for Rudolf Committee,” an organization formed by Hess’ son, Wolf-Ruediger Hess, 43, a Munich architect. No comments were available from the younger Hess.

I don’t know – maybe it would have made more sense just to directly demand Hess be freed in exchange for not killing Jews instead of asking for “$7 million for a fund to free Rudolf Hess from the Spandau Prison in West Berlin.”  Or was that an early “movement” ploy for “D’Nations?” Who knows the minds of these early day Quota Queens? When I first heard about this back in 1981 my immediate reaction at that time was the same as it is now, but I suppose that a swarthoid simpleton like myself cannot understand the grand 4-D chess moves of my big-brained superiors. Alas, needless to say, they didn’t get the money, Hess was murdered (“suicide”) in prison, and none of these “Commandos” actually went ahead to “kill two Jews at random.”

1981, 2019: It’s all one.  Der Movement, Der Movement, Der Movement marches on.

Where’s the wall?  Billions of dollars to coddle and care for mongrel invaders, nothing for real enforcement.  And of course Trump will sign it – did you ever doubt it?

Never forget that the Amren crowd were telling you that Trump was “the last chance for White America;” thus:

For President Trump, black criminals are more important than public safety. He’s soft on crime and has broken another promise. Worse, with George Soros-backed progressive district attorneys winning elections, we’re likely to see a lot more “broken windows” in the future—and a lot more crime.

This blog, on the other hand, correctly labelled Trump as a fraud and a Negrophillic race cuck before the election.  But, hey, keep on supporting Amren and ignoring EGI Notes because, well, you know…

Come now, Hood, surely your man Trump has the courage to stop this disaster? He’s the last chance for White America, isn’t he?

Let’s translate all of this rambling into words readers of this blog can understand: A “movement leader” was wrong; Sallis was right.  Wasn’t that easy?

Burr, Wild Bunch, Vance

Odds and ends.

Recommended reading.

I’m no fan of Burr’s proto-SJW views – including and particularly his ridiculously positive views about women – but he nevertheless was the most Faustian of the Founding Fathers.If you read the book, you’ll also see he had “big balls,” as the phrase goes.  His downfall was due to two facts – one, that all his energies went to his own personal self-aggrandizement with no underlying greater objective; and, two, he wasn’t very detail-oriented. or realistic about the motivations and limitations of others.

Nevertheless, the type of dynamism of this Faustian and ambitious individual is something we could use in the “movement” today if – and only if – it is put into the service of higher goals (racial interests) and not purely selfish objectives, and if Burr’s other flaws also did not manifest in whatever modern heir he would have among racial activists.

If the White race is doomed, then at least let us go out like this.

“They struggle to defy their destinies” – the essence of Jack Vance summarized in 54 seconds here.

Of course, Mazirian the Magician is only one tale of several that make up The Dying Earth, the latter being the more modern title for the collection of short stories (Spoiler alert below*).  But the Type Is prefer hobbit holes, orcs, and “the battle for Middle Earth.” There really should be a study done on preferences regarding sci-fi/fantasy – is it personal psychology, ideology (e.g., Traditionalism vs. Futurism), or ethnoracial (e.g., Nords vs. Meds)?

*Spoiler alert!   The highwayman doesn’t end well, the hopeless quest does end reasonably well, the “lovers” (who are at the time not “lovers” at all but presumably become so after the story ends) end up victorious, and the woman is cured of her curse.