…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.”
If there is one phrase that captures my spirit, which is practically identical to Kalki’s spirit if we draw inspiration from the most revealing passages of Savitri Devi, it is to exterminate the obsolete versions of Homo sapiens.
Only those whom these Neanderthals have martyred in a truly bestial manner, and who have managed to survive—like Benjamin and me (for Ben’s autobiography see here; mine, here)—have reached level 10 on Mauricio’s scale. Those who have not been martyred by the System and survived won’t understand our passion for exterminating the primitive version of humans which for decades I have called, in my soliloquies, “Neanderthals”.
But oh surprise! That expression of mine from so long ago may have an equivalent in the Aryan collective unconscious. According to Jung, even very ancient events could be unconsciously contained within our psyches, and Danny Vendramini’s book, Them and Us: How Neanderthal predation created modern humans serves me wonderfully to explain myself.
Darwinian scholar Danny Vendramini.
It doesn’t matter if only thirty per cent of what Vendramini says has a genuine scientific basis and the rest is mere conjecture. The fact is that since the Jew Franz Boas, anthropology has become an anti-white ideology; and every time I watch videos on YouTube about prehistory I get extremely upset because this ideology permeates our view of our distant past to such an extent that not only does it portray the first Homo sapiens as Negroes, but these YouTubers have dared to depict cities of historical blondes, such as Sparta, with figures of mulattos among Caucasians and a few blondies: as if historical Greece were ethnically a replica of a modern-day American metropolis! (see, e.g., the first comment in the comments section).
In the prologue to his book, Vendramini tells us:
When I applied Teem theory to what had transformed humans from stone-age African hominids into fully modern humans, why we look and act the way we do, and even why we’re obsessed with sex and violence and good and evil, it proposed a single simple explanation that was both extraordinary and unexpected.
The result is a unified theory of human origins called Neanderthal Predation theory (or NP theory) which is based on a fundamental reassessment of Neanderthal behavioural ecology. Exciting new evidence reveals Neanderthals weren’t docile omnivores, but savage, cannibalistic carnivores—top flight predators who hunted, killed and cannibalised our archaic ancestors in the Middle East for 50,000 years. What’s more, Neanderthals were also sexual predators, who raided human camps to rape, and abduct young females, leaving a trail of half-cast ‘inbreds’.
This multi-faceted predation eventually drove our ancestors to the brink of extinction. Genetic evidence reveals that at one stage our entire ancestral population was reduced to as few as 50 people.
The only humans to survive the predation were those born with mutations for ‘survivalist adaptations’—modern human traits like language capacity, Machiavellian intelligence, coalition building, creativity, risk-taking and aggression. These traits effectively transformed them from a prey species to a virulent new hunter species—Homo sapiens.
Armed with these new attributes, the first modern humans systematically exterminated their former predators, firstly in the Middle East and then in a blitzkrieg invasion of Europe. They then spread out to colonise the world. Guided by an innate sense of them and us, hyper-aggressive men killed anyone who looked or behaved even remotely like a Neanderthal, including hybrids and other humans [emphasis added]. It was this lethal process of artificial selection that gradually unified human physiology and behaviour.
It’s a fairly radical theory, but its strength lies in its predictions and ability to explain aspects of human evolution, physiology and behaviour that have frustrated philosophers, biologists and anthropologists for centuries.
The book has been written for a general readership which has an interest in how we got here. I’ve included ‘boxes’ to explain peripheral subjects and there’s a glossary of ancillary terms at the end. But to help academics evaluate the theory, I’ve also included my references—all 800 of them.
Because the evolutionary events I am investigating happened so long ago, some aspects of the scenario I propose are speculative. For instance, I speculate on the psychological impact that Neanderthal predation had on our ancestors, how the menfolk felt seeing their women abducted and raped. I do this because the psychology of ancestral humans had a direct bearing on our evolution and needs to be considered as part of a holistic theory.
For some scholars, though, the use of speculation and the imagination are anathema—but historically there has always been a legitimate place for the imagination in science. A scientific model can be subjected to rational debate and analysis only once it exists in a tangible form. The day before Einstein conceived his theory of relativity, there was nothing to think about. It existed in a netherworld beyond deductive reasoning, and required an act of imagination to bring it into existence.
Einstein is famously quoted as saying, “Imagination is more important than knowledge” and he explains, “For while knowledge defines all we currently know and understand, imagination points to all we might yet discover and create.”
For radical, big-idea science, imagination isn’t just ancillary to the scientific process, it is an indispensable ingredient.
With human evolution, it could be argued that the reluctance of academics to imagine alternative evolutionary scenarios, or to encourage lateral thinking beyond the narrow pathways of orthodoxy, has hampered progress in this field.
While imagination played a role in the formulation of the NP theory, the resulting evolutionary scenario has, of course, been subjective to an exhaustive six-year process of scientific scrutiny and verification which involved sifting through 3000 scientific papers and other pieces of evidence. Ultimately, the theory’s credibility rests on the rigour of this process.
But let’s not fool ourselves. Although, unlike academics who study prehistory Vendramini uses his vivid imagination, this writer is a normie as revealed in the following passage of the first chapter:
Until we understand the evolutionary imperatives that subliminally drive universal human behaviours, xenophobia, superstition, sexism, war, racism [my emphasis], homicide, ecological vandalism, genocide and the nuclear arms race will continue to hold sway over humanity.
This reminds me of what I have said about Tom Holland’s Dominion: we can perfectly appropriate Holland’s conclusions, but at the same time revalue his Christian-sympathetic values.
Only an academy of the future, in an Aryan state whose academic fields are linked to archaeology, palaeontology and prehistorical geology, will evaluate the Neanderthal Predation theory and clarify the matter. But by then, the extermination of the Neanderthals—and here, unlike prehistory, I am using my historical metaphor (cf. Mauricio’s scale)—will already be underway, if not already complete.
What is valid about Vendramini and others’ NP theory is that prehistoric Orcs were exterminated by us in the real world, and that this process could potentially be repeated with those I call Neanderthals—although that would imply a complete reversal of Christian values to the values of our distant ancestors: the prehistoric exterminators.
____________
N.B. You can read the first 35 pages of Vendramini’s book here.
…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”.
