politicians definitely not alien races within White homelands  In his piece, “Race mixture in the Roman Empire”, Frank outlined how he first realized that race mixture was the cause of the change in Roman society. By studying the names of graves on the Appianay in Rome, he found that huge numbers of late Roman Republic inhabitants had names which originated in the (((Levant))) or Middle East, in strong contrast to the early inhabitants of Rome, who had Latin names. Frank describes it so:  "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?'''  (Frank, Tenney, 1916 Race mixture in the Roman Empire': American Historical Review, Volume 21')  “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.”  Lot of name-changin' going on as fake (((Greeks))) flooded Rome  "Clearly the Greek name was considered as a sign of dubious origin among the Roman plebians, and the freedman family that rose to any social ambitions made short shift of it. For these reasons, therefore, I consider that the presence of a Greek name in the immediate family is good evidence that the subject of the  inscription is of servile or foreign stock."  These “Greek” names were for the greatest part not Greeks at all, and were Middle Easterners who had adopted Greek names. The writer Juvenal, speaking of the Roman population, actually points out the Levantine origin of many of these people in his writings, referring to the Syrian River, the Orontes:  “These dregs call themselves Greeks but how small a portion is from Greece; the River Orontes has long flowed into the Tiber” (Juvenal, III, 62). "Therefore, when the urban inscriptions show that seventy per cent of the city slaves and freedmen bear Greek names and that a larger portion of the children who have Latin names have parents of Greek names, this at once implies that the East was the source of most of them, and with that inference Bang’s conclusions (Dr. Bang of Germany) entirely agree. In his list of slaves that specify their origin as being outside Italy (during the empire), by far the larger portion came from the Orient, especially from Syria and the provinces of Asia Minor, with some from Egypt and Africa (which for racial classification may be taken with the Orient). Some are from Spain and Gaul, but a considerable portion of these came originally from the East.” “Very few slaves are recorded from the Alpine and Danube provinces, while Germans rarely appear, except among the imperial bodyguard. Bang remarks that Europeans were of greater service to the empire as soldiers than servants….and this, in turn, helps to explain the strikingly Oriental aspect of the new population.”  (Frank, Tenney 1916 Race mixture in the Roman Empire: American Historical Review, Volume 21, pp. 700, 701) Frank went on to explain the push and pull effect that led to the racial makeup change in Rome: of how native Romans were drawn away from Rome by colonization and military service, and of how their places were taken up by slaves, in serfdom and as freedmen, in Rome itself:  “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.”  (Frank, Tenney 1916 Race mixture in the Roman Empire: American Historical Review, Volume 21 p. 703).  "White Romans 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.”  (Frank, Tenney 1916 Race mixture in the Roman Empire: American Historical Review, Volume 21 p. 703) ROMAN FATE SEALED Duff pointed out that even by the time of Octavian Augustus, there were significant numbers of ‘Orientals’ in Rome:  “Even in Augustus’ day the process of Orientalization had gone too far. The great emperor saw the clouds, but he did not know they had actually burst. His legislation would have been a prudent and not a whit excessive a century earlier; but in his time Rome was a (((cosmopolitan))) city, and the doom of the Empire was already sealed”  (A.M. Duff, Freedmen in the Early Roman Empire, pp. 207, 208) What the Roman Emperors looked like starting with Augustus