Race Change Among the Nations

Julius Caesar
note: By 'race' we mean peoples not color. 
Populations shift and change over time. Some do anyway, though not all. But the make up of nations is very different from what most suspect.
Italy is one such nation which had a total population change.
According to researchers, Italy had a total change of race and population between 300BCE(bc) and 300 CE(ad)., from Italian/Roman to Babylonian and Tyrian(Tyre).
One need only compare the looks of Julius Caesar to modern Italians to see there is no relationship whatever. Julius Caesar was a very fair skinned ,blue eyed strawberry blond. His complexion was said to be like Irish porcelain for fairness.
Dr.T Frank author of Roman Economics and Social Life is the worlds foremost authority on the subject. Here are his words on it

"There is one surprise that the historian usually experiences upon his first
visit to Rome. It may be the Galleria Lapidaria of the Vatican or at the Lateran
Museum, but, if not elsewhere, it can hardly escape him upon his first walk up
the Appian Way. As he stops to decipher the names upon the old tombs that line
the road, hoping to chance upon one familiar to him from his Cicero or Livy, he
finds prenomen and nomen promising enough, but the cognomina all seem awry. L.
Lucretius Pamphilus, A. Aemilius Alexa, M. Clodius Philostosgas do not smack of
freshman Latin. And he will not readily find in the Roman writers now extant an
answer to the questions that these inscriptions invariably raise. Do these names
imply that the Roman stock was completely changed after Cicero’s day, and was
the satirist (Juvenal) recording a fact when he wailed that the Tiber had
captured the waters of the Syrian Orontes? If so, are these foreigners ordinary
immigrants, or did Rome become a nation of ex-slaves and their offspring

"Unfortunately, most of the sociological and political data of the empire are provided by satirists. When Tacitus informs us that in Nero’s day a great many of Rome’s senators and knights were descendants of slaves and that the native stock had dwindled to surprisingly small proportions, we are not sure whether we are not to take it as an exaggerated thrust by an indignant Roman of the old stock. . . . . To discover some new light upon these fundamental questions of Roman history, I have tried to gather such fragmentary data as the corpus of inscriptions might afford. This evidence is never decisive in its purport, and it is always, by the very nature of the material, partial in its scope, but at any rate it may help us to interpret our literary sources to some extent. IT HAS AT LEAST CONVINCED ME THAT JUVENAL AND TACITUS WERE NOT EXAGGERATING. It is probable that when these men wrote a very small percentage of the free plebians on the streets of Rome could prove unmixed Italian descent. By far the larger part — PERHAPS NINETY PERCENT — had Oriental blood in their veins ."
"There are other questions that enter into the problem of change of race at
Rome, for the solution of which it is even more difficult to obtain statistics.
For instance, one asks, without hope of a sufficient answer, why the native
stock did not better hold its own. Yet there are at hand not a few reasons. We
know for instance that when Italy had been devastated by Hannibal and a large
part of its population put to the sword, immense bodies of slaves were brought
up in the East to fill the void; and that during the second century B. C., when
the plantation system with its slave service was coming into vogue, the natives
were pushed out of the small farms and many disappeared to the provinces of the
ever-expanding empire. Thus, during the thirty years before Tiberius Gracchus,
the census statistics show no increase. During the first century B. C., the
importation of captives and slaves continued, while the free-born citizens were
being wasted in the social, Sullan, and civil wars. Augustus affirms that he had
had half a million citizens under arms, one eighth of Rome’s citizens, and that
the most vigorous part. During the early empire, twenty to thirty legions, drawn
of course from the best free stock, spent their twenty years of vigor in
garrison duty while the slaves, exempt from such services, lived at home and
increased in numbers. In other words, the native stock was supported by less
than a normal birthrate, whereas the stock of foreign extraction had not only a
fairly normal birthrate but a liberal quota of manumissions to its advantage

"To this increase in the population the native stock seems not to have
contributed much. Decimated by long wars, fought by citizen crimes, which
secured to Rome a Mediterranean empire, its ranks were thinned still further by
the withdrawal of colonies of citizens to the provinces beyond the sea and by a
heavy decline in the birthrate even among the poorer classes. The native Roman
and Italian population steadily dwindled and the gaps were filled by NEW RACES
(La Piana, Foreign Groups in Rome During the First Centuries of the Empire, The
Harvard Theological Review, vol. XX, pp. 188, 189)."
Names of the old Roman stock were gone from the Empire and replaced with entirely different people.. And the names of the new population reflect their Babylonian/Syrian Asia Minor heritage. Slaves had begun to outnumber the Roman stock so much that Romans began to move to their summer estates in Gaul and Spain and England.

"One of the most serious evils with which the imperial government was called
upon to contend was the decline in population. Not only had the Italian stock
almost disappeared from the towns, but the descendants of freedmen had not been
born in sufficient numbers to take its place. Accordingly, while the Lex Papia
Poppaea offered privileges to freeborn citizens for the possession of three
children, it used the whole question of inheritances of freedmen and freedwomen
for the encouragement of procreation (A. M. Duff, Freedmen in the Early Roman
Empire, Oxford Univ. Press 1928, p. 191)."

photo: later Roman couple showing population change

Momsen the foremost authority ever on the Roman Empire had this to say:
"Riches and misery in close league drove the Italians out of Italy, and filled the peninsula partly with swarms of slaves, partly awful silence"(because of loss of Roman citizens) Romans left Italy in massive waves for the outlying areas of Gaul, Spain(Gallicia) and England.
Professor Duff another world renowned expert on the subject says,

"The fact that the Romans who resisted Hannibal (late 3rd century B.C.) and
those who succumbed to the Goths (5th century A.D.) were totally different peoples
is one of the main explanations of the decline and fall”
Who were these interlopers who did not care much for Italy at all and allowed it to die?
They were called Syrians by the poet/historians of the day but to call them Syrians is not accurate since in reality they were the Babylonians. Babylon had not only desecrated Israel by putting the hated Samaritans as colonists in Israel but they also did the same in Syria and in Phoenicia, thus changing the populations there as well.

Recall that when Ezra returned from Babylon to rebuild the beit hamikdash(temple) the Samaritan population wanted to help rebuild. Ezra turned them down soundly because he knew they were a totally reprobate people who had a very corrupt religion.
In essence the Babylonian Empire had simply moved itself into the area of Syria. The Seleucid kingdom was really just Babylon moved over.

Lemprierre’s Classical Dictionary says:
"Seleucus, surnamed Nicator, who had
received this province (of Syria) in his lot in the division of the Macedonian
dominions, raised it into an empire, known in history by the name of the kingdom
of Syria or Babylon "
Never make the mistake of thinking that calling someone Greek makes them Greek.
People in those days were called by the place where they resided, not always by their actual racial or national origin. So, Margaret the Phoenician, Ruth the moabite, were not necessarily the race or nation attributed to their name at all. It simply means they lived there. We see such sayings as "that Greek woman, syro-phoenician by birth" and this is not at all unusual. Alexander had destroyed the Greek race with forced and rampant intermarriage by the vast majority of his troops . The real Greeks totally disappeared from the area and by the time we get to Antiochus the first, those called "Greeks" are not Greek at all racially.

Listen to Roman historian Livy describe it:

"The Macedonians who settled in Alexandria in Egypt, or in Seleucia, or in
Babylonia, or in any of their other colonies scattered over the world, have
degenerated into Syrians, Parthians, or Egyptians. Whatever is planted in a
foreign land, by a gradual change in its nature, degenerates into that by which
it is nurtured"
Total race change! Juvenal said that the "Orontes had flowed into the Tiber" meaning those who were called "Greeks" in Italy were not Greek by any stretch of the imagination .
The British, also big colonizers, did no such thing but in fact discouraged intermarriage to preserve their race intact.

Rome brought in more and more slaves to fill the work load til finally there were no real Roman Italians left at all and Italy was totally populated by the Babylonians.
Historians’ History says:
“Diocletian permanently introduced Eastern forms of government. Until his time
the outward appearance of the emperor had only a passing air of Orientalism, but
with Diocletian this character of government was established for all time to
come. From Diocletian the white bandeau or diadem, borrowed from the East,
became the distinctive sign of the ruler, whilst formerly the purple raiment had
been the sole sign. Diocletian and his next successor (Constantine) introduced
the remaining Oriental regal ornaments. The emperor Aurelian had, indeed, set
them the example here” (vol. 6, p. 435). “The Asiatic pomp, which had been
adopted by Diocletian, assumed an air of softness and effeminacy in
the person of Constantine

Dr. Shotwell says
The tongue of Greece gave free access to the philosophy of the Orient, and its
pantheon was filled with all the gods of the world, Rome’s thought became the
reflex of that of the Hellenized east (that is, the thought of Syria and Egypt).
If Rome conquered the ancient . The world, it was made captive in return. The Roman government and society were no longer Roman in anything but name,administration of the empire had become a Persian absolutism (inherited from
Babylon), and its society was verging towards Oriental caste

Babylon was transferred to Rome and when Rome became the holy Roman Empire, it was transferred to Europe.
Now you can see why Europe was no pal of the Jews through it's history.
This is not to say all Europeans are Babylonian, this is not true at all and that is yet another story..who the nations really are today.
Much information quoted is taken from the research of Dr. Ernest L. Martin a expert on the subject.


  1. yes the empire never falls and just rises again under different names, it's dissolved like mud but always returns in each succeeding incarnation, reincarnating through the sheer force of historical destiny

  2. Anonymous2:47 AM

    Fabulous post! Exactly right too. Been studying this for years.

  3. Thanks, it is really too bad that most do not see the vital importance of this article and its implications for the future of Europe and America. This is no small thing and will have dire consequences in the future.