Very well... in that case, deconstruction will just have to happen here.
Problem one: "evidence also indicates that neanderthals were extremely violent..." -nope; broken fossilized bone proves nothing other than a bone was broken. It says nothing of circumstance of the bone breaking. Similarly, evidence of stab & laceration wounds show only that wounding occurred while proving nothing of why or its author. Does evidence indicate Neanderthalensis led a harsh existence? Yes. Does it prove extreme violence was a trait of their culture? No.
Problem two: "...anti-social, xenophobic, dogmatic, neophobic and territorial." Nope, those are psychological and behavioral traits which are impossible to glean via archaeological recoveries from preliterate cultures and, as such, were falsely, incorrectly, unprofessionally attributed to Neanderthalensis by early researchers based on scant evidence and personal preconceptions/bias. Such idiocy has been accordingly discredited/destroyed by proven interbreeding between Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis and Homo Sapiens Sapiens.
Problem 3: "Evidence also indicates that some Neanderthals were cannibals." Nope... while evidence shows that some Neanderthalensis bones were processed in a manner consistent with game butchering, there's neither proof it was for the purpose of consumption nor done by Neanderthals. Excarnative burial ritual cannot be ruled out nor can harvest of marrow for the purpose of tawing. Could they have eaten their own? Of course; humans have done, still do the same in extreme conditions so there's no reason to assume Neanderthals wouldn't as well. When/if a coprolite(s) is recovered -assuming such hasn't already occured- which supports androphagy among Neanderthals, then it will be time to revise the record.
