‘A race that rejects Him will surely perish!’ —Matt Koehl
Without having read Hellstorm, the darkest hour for the white race will never be understood (book-review here). If you’ve already read it, check out ‘The Wall’.
Despite defensive adaptations like xenophobia, changes in sexuality, raising wolves as guard dogs, becoming more athletic, developing a trauma-proof CNS [Central Nervous System], keeping to their own territory (and away from forests), plus a plethora of defensive teems,[1] the fossil record reveals the Levantine population continued to decline. It seems that the Skhul-Qafzeh humans were slowly losing the battle for survival—and heading inexorably towards extinction. But at this pointy end of the predation cycle, things started to change, radically.
To understand what happened next, we need only examine the situation through the prism of Darwinian theory. This predicts the extraordinary and dramatic events that unfolded as the human population plunged towards extinction. For a start, it tells us that all the weak, slow-moving, dim-witted, gullible humans went the way of the dodo—their genes eradicated from the gene pool.
______ 卐 ______
Editor’s note: This is what will happen to gullible Aryans: the fate of the Dodo!
______ 卐 ______
Then, as all but the most diehard survivors perished, it generated intense selection pressure for a new kind of adaptation. Why? Because the old defensive adaptations were no longer adaptive. Neanderthal predation was continuing to decimate the Skhul-Qafzeh population and make their lives a misery. What was needed was a radical new adaptation, one that didn’t just help humans evade or escape Neanderthals. To survive as a species and to be truly free of Neanderthals, humans needed to go on the offensive. This required a revolutionary new approach to the problem. And this is precisely what I theorise happened. The enormous selection pressure generated by Neanderthal predation gave birth to a completely new group of adaptations, which I call strategic adaptations.
Strategic adaptations are not defensive, they are offensive and, in the Levant, their blind objective was to empower the Skhul-Qafzeh humans to engage Neanderthals in combat and defeat them. Strategic adaptations were blindly aimed at the complete annihilation of the Eurasian Neanderthal. [Here and below, emphasis added by Ed.]
The emergence of strategic adaptations makes sound evolutionary sense. Defensive adaptations were useful, up to a point. But ultimately, the only way the Levantines could achieve continuity and security and be predation-free was to permanently remove Neanderthals as ecological competitors. Skhul-Qafzeh humans had to depose Neanderthals from the top of the food chain and take over the mantle of apex predator.
The enormity of the task was mind-blowing. For a timid prey species to turn the tables on the top predator on the planet would require the reversal of an ancient and well-established predator-prey interaction and would almost certainly have been
unprecedented in the animal kingdom. Humans had to evolve into a militaristic species, the likes of which had never been seen before. They would have to become more intelligent, ruthless, cunning, aggressive, cruel and determined than their lethal adversary—become a new super-warrior species with one specialist skill: to kill Neanderthals.
A superior killing machine
Skhul-Qafzeh humans born with offensive physical characteristics and aggressive teems—any kind of inheritable trait that allowed them to outcompete, kill, wound or chase off Neanderthals—lived to pass on their offensive genes along with their newly acquired Neanderthal battle teems. Strategic adaptations included any physical or behavioural adaptation that directly or indirectly contributed to Neanderthal extinction.
NP theory argues that, for the first time, a few humans didn’t run and hide when they saw Neanderthals approaching. Instead, they courageously stood their ground and engaged Neanderthals in combat. Bolstered by their newly-acquired strategic adaptations, the humans began to win a few victories. Initially, they would have lost a lot of men, but this only concentrated the strategic adaptations into a smaller group.
Because the human survivor population was so small at the time and the strategic adaptations were so adaptive, the genes that encoded the most aggressive adaptations spread to fixation very quickly. Soon, a new transitional human emerged. Natural selection was gradually evolving the ultimate killing machine—the most virulent hominid species by far—modern humans.
Once acquired, what humans did with these strategic adaptations is not in doubt. Charles Darwin, in The Descent of Man, provides a salutary reminder of what lay ahead for the Neanderthals:
We can see, that in the rudest state of society, the individuals who were the most sagacious, who invented and used the best weapons or traps, and who were best able to defend themselves, would rear the greatest number of offspring. The tribes, which included the largest number of men thus endowed, would increase in number and supplant other tribes.
The strategic adaptations which I propose played a pivotal role in humans gaining the upper hand over their historical enemy are a disparate lot. They include high intelligence, cruelty, male bonding and aggression, language capacity, the facility to interpret intention from behaviour, organisation, courage, guile, conjectural reasoning, a genocidal mindset, improved semantic memory, consciousness, competitiveness and the ability to form strategic coalitions, or proto-armies.
These adaptations included a raft of new aggressive them and us teems that unified the Levantine humans into a cohesive combative force (the first proto-army) that encouraged them not only to stand their ground but to attack Neanderthals and exterminate them without guilt or remorse.
A major plank of the hypothesis is that strategic adaptations emerged only towards the end of the period of Neanderthal predation (during the population bottleneck) sometime between 70,000 to 50,000 years ago. To prove the strategic adaptations hypothesis, it must be demonstrated that they all emerged because they helped humans kill Neanderthals, and that they all appeared between 70,000 and 50,000 years ago.
Because there are so many strategic adaptations it is not possible to make a detailed examination of them all in this book. Instead, my analysis is limited to a sample of the most important strategic adaptations:
Male aggression
Courage
Self-sacrifice
Tough-mindedness
Machiavellian intelligence
Language
Creativity
Organisation—the origins of human society
Gender differences
Division of labour.
Bloodlust teems
Courage, bravado and proactive aggression are normally anathema (or a last resort) to prey species. From a survivalist perspective, it makes more sense to be timorous and cautious. But, because killing Neanderthals would require hand-to-hand combat, getting into close contact required courage, audacity and even self-sacrifice. Gradually, timid defensive individuals lost out to a new breed of aggressive, courageous, tough-minded individuals.
It is not difficult to see how a ‘bloodlust teem’ could be encoded. If a group of Skhul-Qafzeh men came across a wounded or infirm Neanderthal, they might easily work themselves up into a highly agitated state and beat him to death before pounding his corpse to a pulp. This kind of frenzied excitement (observed so frequently among wild chimpanzees) could generate enough excitement in one individual to precipitate a directed (or teemic) mutation in an intron (the nonprotein-coding region of his DNA). If the affected intron happened to be on his Y (male sex) chromosome, the bloodlust emotions he experienced during the melee would be permanently encrypted into his ncDNA and subject to patrilineal descent. Once inherited by male descendents, the archived bloodlust emotions would remain unexpressed until triggered by the sight or sound of a Neanderthal. When expressed, the bloodlust emotions could precipitate the same kind of reckless and frenzied aggression.
Only in this specific and atypical ecological context were reckless daring, proactive aggression and self-sacrifice adaptive behaviours. When it came to fighting Neanderthals, risk-taking become both a laudable human attribute and a functional adaptation. In this context, foolhardy machismo and reckless bravado became laudable heroism. American anthropologist Joseph Campbell once said, “A hero is someone who has given his or her life to something bigger than oneself.” And, while the great cause was genocide, for those Skhul-Qafzeh humans it would have been a noble cause. Heroic males would not only be praised and appreciated as altruistic and self-sacrificing by the folk they defended, but would also be highly sought after as sexual partners by admiring females. Even today, research shows that when choosing a mate, women place significantly greater importance on altruistic traits than anything else.
Thus, the nascent genes for courage, altruism, self-sacrifice—indeed for heroism itself—dispersed through the community, transforming the Levantines from a timorous prey species into a proto-militaristic tribe.
The current anthropological model does not adequately explain the historic and cultural preoccupation with the hero’s struggle against the forces of evil. However, in the context of an adversarial struggle between two sibling species, it makes sound evolutionary sense.
It follows that the Skhul-Qafzeh attitude to killing also had to change. Early humans obviously killed other animals, but only for food. Now for the first time, they had to kill something they didn’t intend to eat, and another hominid to boot. And kill them without compunction, hesitation or guilt. This required a library of virulent new aggression teems.
These new teems were adaptable because, if early humans could not bring themselves to administer the coup de grâce to a wounded Neanderthal, then these soft-minded individuals risked retaliation, revenge and possibly their own lives. Selection favoured the cruel and the merciless. This was, after all, war before there was a notion of it—before civilisation, before even barbarism. There were no treaties, protocols, exchange of prisoners or rules of engagement. No field hospitals, no Red Cross and no POWs. In this context of quintessential savagery, mercy was not only maladaptive, it was not a practical option.
To dispatch Neanderthals efficiently and without pity, humans had to perceive them psychologically and emotionally in a new way. And this is where teems proved so functional. Teems can encode extreme antipathetic feelings into genetic sequences. Once encoded into ncDNA and inherited, Neanderthal hostility teems provided the emotions used to instinctively loath and dehumanise Neanderthals. They allowed the Levantines to perceive Neanderthals as sub-human, not even in the same category as animals. After all, the animals they regularly killed for food were not despised but were more likely revered for their speed, grace and life-force, and because they gave their lives so that humans could survive. This respect for prey (at times elevated to a spiritual relationship) is evident in every modern hunter-gatherer culture.
Neanderthals though, were a special case.
They were, in all probability, considered by humans as ‘worse than animals’, categorised metaphorically as pests, along with cockroaches, spiders and rats.
This would have served an important adaptive function. Seeing Neanderthals as subhuman allowed humans to slaughter them without guilt or remorse. Administering the coup de grâce to a wounded Neanderthal would be as easy as squashing a cockroach or crushing a rat with a rock.
The selection extended to favour men who were willing to give up their lives fighting Neanderthals. Under normal circumstances, male self-sacrifice would almost certainly be maladaptive, but in lethal combat with Neanderthals, this level of commitment and courage was obviously a strategic advantage that could turn the tide of a battle. Also, male bonding, pack mentality and obedience to the leadership would be eminently adaptive because discipline, organisation and hierarchy are essential elements of military success.
Within the context of the life and death struggle in the Levant between two adversarial sibling species, aggression, risk-taking, self-sacrifice, and the ability to exercise lethal violence without hesitancy (all derived from Neanderthal teems) were advantageous and essential to human survival.
Collectively, this disparate assortment of aggression traits in modern humans has been aptly described by psychologist Erich Fromm as ‘malignant aggression’, which he says is biologically nonadaptive. Considering that during the last century alone, 203 million people were slaughtered by other human beings, he’s got a point. But while malignant male aggression in today’s fully modern humans is unquestionably deleterious, back in the torrid days of Neanderthal predation, malignant male aggression was the lynch pin of Skhul-Qafzeh survival and renewal.
______ 卐 ______
Editor’s note: Note how Danny Vendramini—a normie, after all—fails to realise that, just as Neanderthals were the mortal enemies of our distant ancestors, Erich Fromm, a Jew who fled National Socialist Germany to take refuge in Mexico (the psychoanalyst who destroyed my life studied with Fromm) is the modern equivalent, along with other influential Jews, of the forgotten prehistoric crisis. From this angle, the final solution reached by our hominid ancestors is the same as the final solution devised by Heydrich at the Wannsee Conference. Today’s racialist conservatives do not want to see something so obvious because they have internalised, to the core of their souls, Judeo-Christian prohibitions.
Vendramini ends that section of the chapter with these words:
______ 卐 ______
The challenge to existing theories of human evolution is to explain how and why malignant aggression and its correlates—warfare, racism, and genocide—were initially selected, and what adaptive function they conferred. It is hard to imagine any situation, apart from Neanderthal predation, where such extreme levels of male aggression (levels that are still evident today) would be adaptive.
Footnote:
[1]Teems are inheritable packages of emotion, and provide only an emotional memory of a traumatic incident. Teems derived from Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons present only half the picture—and no details. They describe what the others felt like but not what they specifically looked like. To flesh out the details, Mesolithic and Neolithic humans had to use their imagination, or draw on their storytellers and mythographers (all aspects of culture) to give form to the demons, monsters and satanic creatures they believed lurked in the darkness beyond their walls. In other words, culture gives form to teems. Even today, when modern humans attempt to identify the source of residual anxieties, they too must draw on their imagination, just as their ancestors did, or project their feelings onto one of the monsters from mythology, literature or the movies.
…nothing more than sitting in my study office, day after day, as the weeks pile up, feeling impotent, raging, and yearning to be able to make a difference, yet knowing that one person is simply not enough, and that not enough people so far are this angry, and this embittered against our many enemies, not knowing how to proceed (and not for a lack of imagination)”.
Neanderthal sexual predation not only reduced the Skhul-Qafzeh population, but also contributed to the hybridisation of the Levant population so, unless humans could find a way of preventing—or at least minimising—the worst excesses of Neanderthal sexual predation, their future as a separate species looked bleak. This generated selection pressure for adaptations to counter, or at least reduce, the impact of Neanderthal sexual predation.
Ostensibly, the goal of Skhul-Qafzeh males was to out-compete Neanderthal males and retain access to fertile females. But, from a Darwinian perspective, the stakes were much higher. Sexual compatibility exposed humans to overwhelming aggressive competition from Neanderthals, a competition so powerful and destabilising it rendered the existing Skhul-Qafzeh sex system obsolete and maladaptive. If the Levantine humans could not reclaim sexual exclusivity, their viability as a species was in jeopardy.
Given the enormous selection pressure this situation generated, we can use Darwin’s model to predict what happened next. In the struggle for survival, random mutations that increased the Levantine humans’ chances of sexually out-competing Neanderthals were selected and fixed.
What I propose is that the process of natural selection gradually came up with an entirely new human sexuality.
This hypothesis claims that sexual adaptations against Neanderthal predation that accrued via natural selection formed the basis of a uniquely human mating system. The new system was unique in the animal kingdom and achieved the almost impossible—it excluded Neanderthals and brought Neanderthal sexual predation to a complete halt. By abandoning most of the primate-Neanderthal sexual protocols—the pheromonal scents, swollen genitalia, colouration, vaginal sniffing and violent status contests—the new human mating system became ‘Neanderthal proof’.
To be adaptive and effective, the new sexual protocols had to achieve fixation (or close to it) in the Skhul-Qafzeh population. Normally, this would take thousands of generations. But, because the Levantine human population was so small (ironically due to the Neanderthals themselves), the new system spread rapidly to fixation via genetic drift.
The break from sexual tradition and the emergence of a new human mating system did something else equally important. It indelibly stamped the Skhul-Qafzeh humans as a sexually isolated new breeding population. As human sexuality developed along new isolationist lines, the demarcation between the species increased.
From then on, there would be no more sexual compatibility, no more interspecies sex, and no more hybrids.
In this radical new theory of human sexuality, the devil is in the detail. Analysis of the new mating system reveals how each of its constituent components served an adaptive function vis-à-vis reducing Neanderthal sexual predation. Let’s begin with patriarchy.
The battle of the sexes
Winning, and then defending fertile females from other males is a core element of primate reproductive strategy. So keeping human females from falling into the arms of Neanderthal males would become the responsibility of every male Levantine adolescent and adult. Any systemic failure of this imperative could contribute to the extinction of the Levantine population. It is to be expected then that, during the attenuated 50,000-year period of Neanderthal predation, the Levantine males’ fear of losing their mates to Neanderthals became innately associated with hyper-vigilance, anxiety, suspicion, guilt, control, resentment, depression, paranoia, grief and loss of self-esteem.
Levantine males would have been terrified of Neanderthals, and this would have discouraged direct retributive aggression against them. It would have been far easier (and safer) to sublimate those hostile feelings and redirect them towards their females. By virtue of their greater strength and aggression, men would unilaterally have asserted physical control over their females and their sexuality.
While primate males regularly use dominance to control access to fertile females, the Levantine humans took this to a whole new level. For the first time in human evolutionary history, males imposed mandatory (sexist) restrictions on female behaviour that included an insistence on monogamy, obedience, fidelity and sexual modesty, plus a ban on public flirtation and copulation, overt sexual displays and especially any form of fraternisation with Neanderthals—or any strangers.
The hypothesis also asserts that groups of dominant young males would have enforced these draconian protocols with threats, banishment, physical coercion and lethal violence. In this way, early human Levantine society was abruptly reconfigured from a promiscuous sexual society to a male-dominated, sexually restricted hierarchical society.
Is this when a proprietary sense of ‘ownership’ was first insinuated in gender relations? I believe so. After millions of years of casual female promiscuity, men began to claim females they had sex with as their own.
Females were no longer free to copulate with multiple partners or to migrate to outside groups. Promiscuity was out. Women lost control of their bodies and their sexuality. The sexes were no longer equal. Sexism had arrived.
Another name for the control of females and their sexuality by males is patriarchy. Although many primate species (including chimps) display some patriarchal elements, others (like bonobos) display very few. But no other primate species imposes such draconian restrictions on its females as humans. And in no other primate species do males kill females to maintain sexual control, although male primates have been known to kill their infants if they have been sired by another male.
Because patriarchy is such a ubiquitous feature of human society (no genuine matriarchic society has ever been documented) [emphasis added], we tend to take it for granted and assume it is simply another facet of human nature. Or assume, as some do, that it is a cultural artefact that sprang from preclassical western civilisations. But NP theory makes the case that patriarchy emerged in its present form and became entrenched in the male psyche only because Neanderthals drove a wedge into human sexual relations. Patriarchy makes sense in evolutionary terms only as part of a suite of male mate-guarding adaptations that emerged to provide some relief against Neanderthal sexual predation.
One indication of the important adaptive function patriarchy provided during the Late Pleistocene is that today it remains the prevailing social structure of virtually every human society. Modern women are still subject to far greater sexual control than men. Social anthropologists say this mechanism of control is expressed through marital customs, rape laws, sexual harassment, wife beating, abortion laws, femicide, birth control restrictions, eating disorders, sexual jealousy, and cosmetic surgery. Enforced monogamy is as ubiquitous as female modesty. Adultery by women in many human societies is still punished by severe penalties, while adultery by men is often condoned or ignored.
The green-eyed monster
Perhaps nowhere is patriarchy more keenly expressed than through male sexual jealousy. But let’s make a distinction. We are not talking about the kind of jealousy a young male chimp displays when his amorous advances towards a female are gazumped by an alpha male. Among primates, that kind of sexual jealousy serves an adaptive function. It’s part of mate-guarding protocols that ensure certainty in paternity and prevents expending time and effort on another male’s offspring.
By comparison, if human sexual jealousy was forged, as I contend, in the furnace of Neanderthal sexual predation this would explain why humans acquired a far more virulent and potentially lethal variant. Human sexual jealousy has been fuelled and maintained by hatred built up over thousands of years and encompasses, not just anger and frustration, but murderous rage, hyper-vigilance, severe beatings, mental cruelty, femicide and even suicide—behaviours virtually unknown in other primate species.
For example, no other primate demonstrates morbid jealousy, psychotic jealousy, conjugal paranoia or the so-called Othello Syndrome—a lethal form of sexual jealousy, characterised by irrational thoughts and emotions, violence and an unfounded belief in a partner’s sexual infidelity.
Morbidly jealous individuals are much more prone to domestic violence, including homicide and suicide. Because lethal jealousy is unknown in the primate order, and appears so maladaptive, it is likely that the Othello Syndrome evolved in humans as an adaptation against Neanderthal sexual predation.
Honey, I killed the kids
Despite the Levantine males’ best efforts to protect their females from Neanderthals, some women inevitably fell pregnant to Eurasian Neanderthals and, because they were sister species, these conceptions occasionally produced fertile offspring. What happened to those hybrid offspring is one of the most important aspects of the Neanderthal predation paradigm.
If Levantine males saw these children as mutants—abominations—then it’s likely that they were summarily killed. A similar fate may also have been dealt out to the mothers, notwithstanding that they had little choice in getting pregnant. In other words, throughout the Late Pleistocene, infanticide and femicide may have been widely implemented as crude adaptive strategies to thwart the Neanderthalisation of the Levantine population.
____________
N.B. You can read the first 35 pages of Vendramini’s book here.
Without Christianity, would whites have any trouble seeing that Jews are their enemy? The meta-message of the Christ club is that Jews matter, they’re important, their tall tales are the heart and center of “our” lol civilization.
Editor’s Note: Not since I read Desmond Morris’s The Naked Ape decades ago have I been so fascinated by facts about our prehistory that I knew nothing about, in part because academia has been under the control of an anti-white, neochristian mentality that considers these topics taboo, including Aryan beauty. As for Danny Vendramini’s book, below I have omitted the numbers referring to the bibliographical notes:
______ 卐 ______
Nobody would want a mate who looked like a Neanderthal, so the new ‘human look’ became increasingly subject to sexual selection. As the ‘new look’ became de rigueur, the old look became subject to artificial selection. Not having ‘the look’ was not only seriously ‘uncool’—it was likely to get you killed.
The characteristics which came under the most intense meta-selectional pressure were physical features that could be seen from a distance, because early identification of a predator is at the core of survival. This would mean that, for humans, body hair (length, density and colour) gait, posture, body silhouette and facial features were the most obvious foci of predator identification and differentiation.
A hairy problem
Although it is interesting to speculate on what colour skin the Skhul-Qafzeh people had, it was not a factor at the time because it is almost certain that the Skhul-Qafzeh people were covered in dense body hair.
While readers may find the prospect of recent human ancestors sporting so much body hair unpalatable, this is precisely what NeoDarwinian theory predicts. Coming from Africa where they occupied an open savannah environment, it is highly likely that the Skhul-Qafzeh people acquired a coat of protective hair to insulate them from the hot African sun and its equally cold nights. The same reasoning suggests that—like lions, monkeys and other mammals occupying the same grassland environments—lightbrown fur would probably have been most adaptive because it facilitated concealment from predators. So, what happened to the hair? Can NP theory shed any new light on this age-old question?
The loss of body hair in humans—but in no other primate—has generated a vigorous debate among anthropologists for decades. It’s particularly puzzling in light of the fact that hairlessness is maladaptive in terms of climate extremes, heat stress, sunburn, skin cancers, hypothermia and low ambient temperature environments. [Author’s Nota benne about human hairlessness:] (Actually, modern humans are not hairless. But discarding our thick, long and highly pigmented hair (called terminal hair) in favour of fine, short and unpigmented vellus hair has created the impression of hairlessness. For the purposes of this book, terms like hairlessness and denudation are used even though they’re not strictly correct.)
In Before the Dawn, Nicholas Wade outlines the paradox:
Hairiness is the default state of all mammals, and the handful of species that have lost their hair have done so for a variety of compelling reasons, such as living in water, as do hippopotamuses, whales and walruses, or residing in hot underground tunnels, as does the naked mole rat.
Innumerable theorists have attempted to explain why only humans turned into a ‘naked ape’, including Charles Darwin who argues:
No one supposes that the nakedness of the skin is any direct advantage to man; his body therefore cannot have been divested of hair through natural selection. […] in all parts of the world women are less hairy than men. Therefore we may reasonably suspect that this character has been gained through sexual selection.
A variation of Darwin’s sexual selection theory has been proposed by American psychologist Judith Rich Harris. She believes that hairlessness and pale skin are the result of sexual selection for beauty, which operates through a form of infanticide she calls parental selection. Harris argues that historically, parents frequently killed infants they didn’t consider beautiful enough, and one of the criteria for beauty she nominates is hairlessness. […]
Negative attitudes to hirsutism and a preference for hairlessness (personally and in prospective mates) are universal across human cultures throughout recorded time. Because artificial selection was practised almost exclusively by males, the selection pressure for female denudation would have been even more acute, resulting in women becoming even less hairy than men. This indicates that the pressure on women and girls to be hairless is anchored in the threat of lethal force wielded exclusively by men since the Late Pleistocene.
While hairy aggressive men were quite prepared to kill hairy women, they were less enthusiastic about topping themselves. This reasoning is supported by considerable sociological research which shows modern women and girls traditionally come under greater pressure to be less hairy than men. For example, a study of 678 UK women in 2005 found that 99.71 percent of participants reported removing body hair. Citing examples of depilation in ancient cultures (Egypt, Greece and Rome) and in a variety of modern societies (Uganda, South American and Turkey), cultural anthropologist Wendy Cooper contends that the need for women to remove body hair is deeply embedded in human nature.
Philosophers and scientists have pondered the aesthetics of human beauty for thousands of years but are still no closer to explaining them, or why our faces look so different from those of every other primate. Finally, we have a simple answer—the human face evolved to be visually different from Neanderthals—allowing us to tell friend from fiend. Today, Neanderthal facial characteristics (as depicted in the forensic reconstruction) provide an innate standard by which humans judge ugliness and beauty. The less like this Neanderthal you look, the more ‘beautiful’ you are.
____________
N.B. You can read the first 35 pages of Vendramini’s book here.
lecture to SS generals at Posen, he declares that “convinced Christians” are the enemies of National Socialism. Order Police and Security Police (SD): “Everyone who is a convinced Communist is automatically against us; every Freemason, every democrat, every convinced Christian, is against us. These are the ideological enemies opposing us all over Europe”.
Source: Speech of the Reichsfuehrer SS at the Meeting of the SS Major Generals (SS Gruppenfuehrer) at Posen 4 October 1943, Page 59.
The NP [Neanderthal predation] theory is based on the three Darwinian mechanisms of evolution: natural selection, sexual selection, and artificial selection. Speaking of sexual selection, in one of the first chapters of Them and Us, Vendramini tells us:
Among the higher mammals—and this is particularly true of primates— it is usually the female that is proactive in selecting a mate. While males will mate with any female in oestrus, females are more discriminating. This would suggest that Skhul-Qafzeh females [our ancient hominid ancestors, represented above in the figure on the right (on the left, a Neanderthal)] used sexual selection as an evolutionary tool more than the males did. But, as we are about to see, the final mechanism of selecting anti-Neanderthal traits was wielded almost exclusively by males.
A little further on, he adds about artificial selection:
When Darwin coined the term natural selection, he meant that nature was doing ‘the selecting’—that the natural environment the organism lived in was a major determinant of which members lived and which died. In addition, Darwin described artificial selection: the way farmers and breeders intentionally select certain traits in domestic animals, which is a relatively benign form of artificial selection. However, the term also applies to the lethal form of selection—almost always applied by human males—as to who lives and who dies.
So the third way that anti-Neanderthal adaptations spread was by artificial selection—where coercion, ostracism, banishment and lethal violence by Skhul-Qafzehs gradually removed from the gene pool any individual who (for whatever reason) they considered too Neanderthaloid. NP theory holds that, throughout the Late Pleistocene, coalitionary groups of human males increasingly resorted to infanticide and homicide to eradicate Neanderthal-human hybrids, excessively hairy individuals, deviant neonates, or anyone who looked like a Neanderthal.
One of the most salient features of artificial selection is its speed. Unlike natural selection, which tends to create gradual change over thousands of generations, even benign forms of artificial selection can occur very quickly. A good example is the selective breeding experiments carried out in the 50s by the Russian geneticist Dmitri Belyaev to produce tame foxes. By selecting only the tamest foxes to breed, Belyaev and his team turned a colony of wild silver foxes into domestic pets within ten generations. The new animals were not only unafraid of humans, they often wagged their tails and licked their human caretakers in shows of affection. Even their physiology changed—the tame foxes had floppy ears, curled tails and spotted coats.
In eastern Spain, scrawled on a cave wall in red ochre, is one of the earliest known depictions of intergroup violence.
However, this rapid transformation of Belyaev’s foxes pales into insignificance compared to lethal and pernicious forms of human artificial selection—including genocide, ethnic cleansing, racial vilification [emphasis added], religious persecution and pogroms—that can exert a significant evolutionary impact almost overnight. The long history of such affronts and their ubiquitous application by disparate cultures separated by thousands of years supports the hypothesis that aggressive Skhul-Qafzeh males would have no compunction in eradicating anyone they felt was more them than us.
Historically, lethal violence and genocide have not been the business of women. Throughout human history, they have mostly been the preserve of males, and there is no reason to believe it was any different in the Late Pleistocene. Males claimed lethal violence as their own instrument of artificial selection. Groups of men decided what constituted a Neanderthaloid trait, and who felt like a Neanderthal. Men became the ultimate arbiters of who and what was acceptable. It was they who decided who lived and who died.
Given this, the use of artificial (or lethal) selection to remove anti-Neanderthaloid traits would be more prevalent on females, children and infants than on adult males. Sociological and anthropological evidence appears to support this more nuanced view.
Evolutionary biologist Ronald Fisher observes that when a trait conferring a survival advantage also becomes subject to sexual selection, it creates a positive feedback loop that leads to very rapid uptake of the trait. But we can now see that in the Levant it was not only natural selection and sexual selection that were working together to rid the population of hybridised individuals and Neanderthaloid characteristics. The process was also being logarithmically boosted by artificial selection—as coalitions of aggressive males banished or murdered their way towards the same common objective—towards a new kind of human that looked, sounded, smelt and behaved less like a Neanderthal. This blind, inexorable process would have made a substantial contribution to human evolution by identifying and quickly culling vestigial Neanderthal genes from the nascent human genome.
When the original Levantine population of Skhul-Qafzeh early humans was decimated by Neanderthal predation, the survivors became the nucleus of a new founding population of modern humans.
Although it may seem like a joke, this entry and others about how, through sexual and artificial selection, our ancestors eliminated all simian traits to produce the physiognomy of modern humans could be titled “How prehistoric men designed women” (see article here).
____________
N.B. You can read the first 35 pages of Vendramini’s book here.
I’ve continued reading Danny Vendramini’s book, Them and Us: How Neanderthal Predation Created Modern Humans, and I plan to read the whole thing. At my age, that almost never happens to me: I only devour books when they add information that potentially can revolutionise my worldview, and just as William Pierce’s Who We Are revolutionised my view of history, Vendramini’s book might revolutionise my view of prehistory.
It must be understood that academic distortion doesn’t only come from Jews, like Franz Boas. The Christian mania of seeing noble savages in infanticidal and even cannibalistic cultures has been extended to prehistory throughout universities that suffer from “atheistic hyper-Christianity”. That’s why it’s worth listening to voices like Vendramini’s.
Years ago, a racialist commenter confessed in the comments section of this site that he was hurt by my use of prehistoric Neanderthals to argue about what I call historic Neanderthals. This commenter exemplifies that those who claim they aren’t influenced by the System are in fact influenced by it (what is taught in universities is the System, including benign reconstructions of what prehistoric Neanderthals looked like).
Vendramini proposes something radically different, and until a frozen Neanderthal’s mummy is found we won’t know who is right: the neochristian academy, which projects love towards all wingless bipeds of the present and past, or Vendramini.
Originally I added a couple of pics in my article “Neanderthal extermination” but I deleted them as I continued reading Vendramini’s book, who says the following:
Twenty-eight thousand years after the last Neanderthal roamed the earth, forensic science is able to reconstruct a far more accurate representation of a Eurasian Neanderthal. Their thick coat of fur, hunched back, bow legs and distinctive gait added to their unique appearance.
A creature that looks like an athletic gorilla but uses complex weapons to hunt its prey is so foreign and counterintuitive it has hampered our understanding of Neanderthals for one hundred years. Anthropologist John Shea’s description of Neanderthals as “wolves with knives” comes close to describing their paradoxical nature.
The forensic reconstruction of the La Ferrassie Neanderthal began with a computer scan of its skull. Digital sculptor Arturo Balseiro (pictured) then used NP theory to reconstruct detailed features of its anatomy.
Today and tomorrow I will continue reading Them and Us…
____________
N.B. You can read the first 35 pages of Vendramini’s book here.
“Because WN has been led by intellectually limited religious conservatives, or, more accurately, by those appealing to them, it has never been able to get beyond the bugbear of respectability.”
…nothing more than sitting in my study office, day after day, as the weeks pile up, feeling impotent, raging, and yearning to be able to make a difference, yet knowing that one person is simply not enough, and that not enough people so far are this angry, and this embittered against our many enemies, not knowing how to proceed (and not for a lack of imagination)”.
Another name for the control of females and their sexuality by males is patriarchy. Although many primate species (including chimps) display some patriarchal elements, others (like bonobos) display very few. But no other primate species imposes such draconian restrictions on its females as humans. And in no other primate species do males kill females to maintain sexual control, although male primates have been known to kill their infants if they have been sired by another male.
lecture to SS generals at Posen, he declares that “convinced Christians” are the enemies of National Socialism. Order Police and Security Police (SD): “Everyone who is a convinced Communist is automatically against us; every Freemason, every democrat, every convinced Christian, is against us. These are the ideological enemies opposing us all over Europe”.
