Last year I read Danny Vendramini’s Them & Us on Kindle. Now I’ve reread it in print.
Reading on Kindle should only be done with mediocre books. It’s astonishing how much information is lost in a screen-based read, unlike on paper where we can use a yellow highlighter and jot down numerous footnotes—a practice that helps us absorb the content.
The fact that Them & Us was one of the few books that greatly improved my worldview doesn’t mean it’s without flaws. Far from it! Vendramini is as liberal and anti-racist as other authors who revolutionized my way of thinking. I’m referring to Lloyd deMause and Alice Miller’s work on the mistreatment of children; how Richard Weikart demonstrated that Hitler was privately a pantheist highly critical of Christianity; and how historian Tom Holland showed that Christian values were transmuted into the ethno-suicidal ethics of contemporary Westerners.
It doesn’t matter that all these authors, including Vendramini, are archetypal liberals. What matters is that it’s perfectly possible to use their findings for the cause of 21st-century National Socialism.
Vendramini published his book in 2009, after Jorge Velasco and an associate of his, “Varg,” wrote their lengthy essay on the new racial classification. An abridged version of that essay appears as an appendix in The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour. But now that I’ve reread Vendramini’s book and better understood its content, I realise that Velasco and Varg relied on accepted wisdom about Neanderthals, who, according to Vendramini, have been anthropomorphised by naïve and politically-correct scholars to the point of being considered human.
František Kupka relied on Marcellin Boule’s scientific interpretation of Neanderthal remains found in France.
I’m writing this post because our point of view must be consistent, especially in the texts linked in the featured article. So yesterday I removed a couple of pages from Velasco and Varg’s essay, where the authors failed to notice that prehistoric Neanderthals resembled apes, not humans.
The February 2026 edition of The Fair Race can be read here, and it’s the one now linked in the featured article. However, the PDF of that appendix without this recent censorship is still available on this site, here.
3 replies on “Consistency”
I also reviewed the PDF Neanderthal Extermination, which I barely made any changes to (for example, I had forgotten to clarify that “NP theory” means Neanderthal Predation theory).
I’m under the impression than Vendramini’s research has been on the whole ignored by the scientific orthodox. Much as with the reception to Tom Holland (though the former is more well known) I put most of this down to his unavoidably ‘non-PC’ conclusions, much as he himself remains a liberal. However, I was just wondering, have you come across any official attempts to debunk him (i.e. print journal standard), not just those low tier idiots on YouTube? I’d be very interested to see what they tried to take him down with, and if there is any criticism of him stronger than a kind of ‘how could he say this about our primordial human brothers?’ Boasian nonsense i.e. is there any accusation of a flaw in his scientific approach, liberal ideology aside?
I ask this, as I side with his perspective on Neanderthals, and was just wondering what the true scope of the opposition was. You’d think he’d be much more well-known (I hope he’s still working at all and they haven’t destroyed him!). Currently, he’s about as overshadowed in my eyes as Mendel was in his day, if not more so – good theories get lost more easily in a modern world inundated with easy access ideas.
Perhaps I’m giving too much benefit of the doubt to their even being a respectable science these days, and the entire thing is irredeemably corrupt at official level. Either way, thank you for preserving his ideas. I enjoyed the detailed discussions on here on this topic some months back.
People in general don’t realize what Schopenhauer and Thomas Kuhn were saying: that novel ideas are ignored, then fiercely combated, and finally accepted.
Currently, Vendramini is receiving the same treatment that Richard Carrier has received for a dozen years. Despite his central study being published with peer review, the Bible scholars ignore his work without refuting it in specialised journals. That’s why I liked Carrier’s last book, The Obsolete Paradigm, because it shows how academics have ignored him, and when they do respond, it’s clear that sometimes they hadn’t even read his previous book.
You’re right that Vendramini’s thesis is—like Carrier’s—revolutionary insofar as it dismantles this neo-Boasian obsession of considering hominids noble savages. Without knowing it or intending to, his thesis refutes this pathological projection of liberals onto all wingless bipeds, including pre-humans. Furthermore, many were offended that Vendramini’s thesis was, so to speak, “antifeminist.” From the moment Neanderthals began preying on them, as a defence mechanism, our ancestors began to behave toward their females more like chimpanzees behave toward theirs than like bonobos do.
In other words, without realising it, the liberal and even feminist Vendramini has provided scientific support for prehistoric and historical patriarchy, insofar as Homo sapiens is a dysmorphic species.
There are many other aspects of Vendramini’s thesis that liberals find shocking, such as the notion of a twenty-thousand-year campaign to exterminate Neanderthals, which is what happened when Cro-Magnons invaded Europe. If you read today’s academic articles, although several mainstream scholars suggest that Cro-Magnons may have exterminated Neanderthals, they use euphemisms like “territorial competition” and similar phrases to avoid calling a spade a spade: “genocide,” the extermination of one race by another, which is what actually happened (and IMHO what should happen again).
As I say in the PDF linked in this comments section, only an ethnostate would rescue Vendramini’s work from the obscurity it suffers today. I suspect it will take longer than it took to recognise Mendel because this monk’s findings weren’t controversial.