Evolutionary biologists suggests that human nature has been a constant for times immemorial. Pluck an infant from the Stone Age, raise him in the 21st century and one can not tell the difference.

Let us assume that indeed: Human Nature Remains Unchanged. What follows from that axiom?

Man has always been religious. We can abolish Christendom, but we cannot erase our religious inclination. How does that express itself? I submit: by revering science.

War is a permanent theme in our history. It follows that war will always with us. Peaceful coexistence will remain unattainable until (and so long as) we are invaded by aliens from outer space.

Human sacrifices are part of our prehistory. Do we find them today? Sure: parents labelling their toddler as transsexual. Progressives perferring the multicultural ideal over the safety of their children.

by Renkema

The year is 27 BC. After two decades of bloody civil war, Augustus becomes Princeps of the Roman empire. His mandate, peace and the rule of law, are supported by the senate and the people of Rome.

In return the Romans acquiesce to the end of the republic. It is a small price to pay for peace and prosperity.

Not all subsequent emperors of Julio-Claudian house governed Rome equally well. But even Tiberius, an arguably poor administrator, does not have to worry about his position as long as he honors his mandate and maintains peace and the rule of law.

/home/inttimes/interestingtimes.news

Eighty years later we find Nero on the throne. By now, the horrors of the civil wars must have shrunk into a distant past. That, in and of itself, would have weakened his mandate. Moreover, Nero defies the other half: the rule of law. He forces himself on the senators' wives and critiques their proficiency in bed as dinner conversation. Nero no longer guarantees the rule of law, rather his cruelty and capriciousness are its biggest threat.

In short: Nero loses his mandate and is forced to commit suicide. Thus ends the Julio-Claudian house.

We may argue that all power is borne by a mandate. That mandate may be affirmed by elections, but this is by no means necessary. Dictators, too, need a mandate to rule.

Fast forward to 1945. Once again, we find ourselves at the end of two bloody wars. In Europe, the social-democrats gain power, whether under the guise of labour, conservative or christian democrats. Their mandate is rather similar to Augustus': peace and staving off a communist revolution.

Once again, this mandate is broadly supported by the populace. High taxes and stymied freedom are a small price to pay for safety and security.

Once again, eight decades pass and erode the memories of war. And we may wonder whether the social-democrats are singing the swan song of their mandate. The war in Ukraine meets with surprising zeal. The European response is reminiscent of the 'war, war, glorious war' mentality of the 19th century. This response is a far cry from the 1980's, when the social-democrats orchestrated mass demonstrations against ballistic missiles.

Moreover, the social-democrats fiddle as their promise of security burns. Tolerance of islamic terrorism and mass immigration have degraded Europe into a low-trust, high-crime society. The threat of an October 7th against indigenous Europeans looms.

Which brings us to our great matter. If the social-democrats lose their mandate, what is next? It could be an islamist take-over. Or is there a viable nationalist/nativists mandate?

I am not a fan of social-democracy; but both alternatives seem decidedly worse.

Marxism is en vogue, even though Marxism has resulted in failure and poverty. It seems that the sympathy with which Marxism is viewed results from deep, irrational emotions ... emotions which hark back to our history as a social, tribal animal.

I make this point to counter a bizarre assumption often made about socialism/communism: that this ideology originated in the 1800's. If the human inclination towards socialism runs so deep that it supersedes its abysmal historical record, then it must be part of our human nature.

Monasteries come to mind, where people chose to live in communes: sharing food and clothing, eschewing private property. A more perfect communist society was ne'er seen. Strangely, though, monasteries are not celebrated by communist sympathizers.

This paradox can be explained by how communism was defined by Marx: as a commune encompassing the entire society, brought about by revolution. To Marx, the monasteries would have been an unwelcome reminder that no revolution was needed, and also that never more than 1% of the population voluntarily embraced communism.

So, monasteries might have been a significant obstacle to the spread of communism, were it not for Marx' trouvaille: Marx never called for a violent revolution, or murdering opponents while abolishing freedom. Marx simply pointed to its inevitability. Marx claimed scientific certitude about the course of history. Marx posited himself as merely the messenger.

With the benefit of hindsight we now know that Marx' claim was nonsense. Communism was not inevitable. If anything was inevitable, it was the fall of communism.

If Marx skillfully circumvented the lack of popular support, the communists now ran into a subsequent problem. You see, astronomers do not have to advocate, pray or chant for the return of Halley's comet. They predict its return every 76 years, and then go about their daily business. After all, astronomers have scientific certitude.

Marx and friends adopted a similar attitude: for the second half of the 1800's they sat around in their salons, waiting for the inevitable revolution to arrive. Slowly, very slowly, it dawned on them that something was amiss. Of course, it was unthinkable that communism was amiss. So as frustrations boiled over, they proposed three solutions.

The first was social-democracy: participating in elections with a socialist agenda. This met with considerable success, but never enough to usher in the revolution. In England, this resulted in the Labour party. In Germany, the SDAP was founded in 1869.

The second was anarchism, as proposed by Errico Malatesta. He advocated propaganda of the deed, holding that revolutionary ideas could best be spread by terrorism. An anarchist ploy may be to fire at the police over the heads of peaceful protesters, hoping to elicit an violent response. Victims of such a response can then be held up as martyrs and used to radicalize and polarize.

The third was national-socialism or fascism, as advocated by lifelong socialist Mussolini. From the age of sixteen, Benito worked for the Partito Socialista Italiano as an organizer, journalist and agent-provocateur. The First War saw Mussolini in the trenches, getting wounded, emerging as a war-hero. But Mussolini had gained a key insight: there was no such thing as international solidarity. German, French, English and Italian workers were chomping at the bit to kill each other. From this, Mussolini concluded that the international pretensions of socialism were an obstacle to success. Socialism was to succeed on a national scale.

If 1850 through 1914 had proved to be a long dry spell, the First War proved a turning point for the fortunes of the socialists. In 1917, an anarchist coup d'état succeeded in Russia. In 1922, a fascists coup d'état succeeded in Italy. In 1933, the NSDAP acceded to power in Germany. At long last: power!

Of course, none of these power-grabs came close to the workers' revolution as predicted by Marx. Popular support was enjoyed only by Hitler and Mussolini. Both held together an alliance of socialists and racially-motivated nationalists. A workers' paradise never materialized.

But not for a lack of trying. The NSDAP created the modern welfare-state: first in Germany, subsequently in occupied countries. Their 25 Punkte Programm called for

• the state to provide livelihood and health-care for its citizens,
• every citizen was obligated to work,
• confiscation of all war profits,
• abolishment of interest and speculation,
• nationalization of industry,
• old age welfare,
• et cetera.

And indeed many socialists ideas were realized by Hitler, among which

• the doubling of workers' vacation,
• agricultural subsidies and price-control,
• the progressive income-tax,
• the introduction of environmental protection,
• rent-control,
• child benefits,
• free health-care,
• tax on alcohol and tobacco,
• a Universal Basic Income for house-rent, insurance, coal (for heating) and potatoes

Of course, the Germans lost the war and left. But the socialism stayed. Western European countries now elected social-democrats, who maintained the welfare state established by the Nazi's. Take, for example, the Dutch law which prohibits the termination of employment, established in 1942. This law is still on the books. In 2006 the Dutch social-democrats blocked a much-needed modernization; and the labor-unions declared this law to be "holy".

Thus, communism succeeded implicitly rather than explicitly. Many of our citizens are unaware how many of their ideas derive from the Marx and Hitler. They simply do not know any better.

by Renkema

Lange tijd heb ik gedacht dat ik dit niet moet opschrijven; en wellicht is dit epistel een vergissing. Ik kom uit een keurig gezin, opgegroeid in 't Spieghel in Bussum. Mijn ouders hadden een goed huwelijk; alles was pais en vree.

Joden of Israel kwamen eigenlijk nooit ter sprake. Rond 1980 werd 'Holocaust' uitgezonden op de TV. Dat was de eerste keer dat ik dit woord hoorde. Misschien ook de eerste keer dat ik leerde over deze volkerenmoord.

Bij ons in de buurt woonden diverse Joodse families. Van die identiteit was ik me als kind niet bewust. Achteraf, denk ik dat mijn moeder wel die identiteit benoemde (mijn vader nooit). Maar ik heb dat nooit als negatief ervaren. Op de lagere school had ik een vriendinnetje en toen ze een keer bij mij gespeeld had, zei mijn moeder: 'ze is Joods, hoor'.

Zoals gezegd, nooit negatief. Mijn moeder is een keurige vrouw. Een enkele keer schreef ze een brief aan de krant, het NRC. Die brief begon steevast met de opmerking: 'Ik ben sinds 1956 lid van NRC Handelsblad'. Want je neemt geen abonnement op de NRC, je bent lid.

Dat Joden iets bijzonders hadden, merkte ik pas in mijn studie sterrenkunde. Daar laafde ik me aan Einstein, Pauli, Bohr en Feynman. De grote denkers waren allemaal Joods. Daar werd ik prosemiet.

De tijd tikte verder. Mijn moeder werd weduwe. Ononderbroken lid van de NRC. Op zondag steevast kijken naar Buitenhof. De weekdag sloot ze af met een talkshow van de Publieke Omroep.

Maar zoals de oplettende lezer weet, veranderde de NRC (en de andere media) na 9/11. Langzaam kroop het antisemitisme naar binnen, het gezwel groeide, het zaaide uit. De toon van mijn moeder veranderde ook. Geert Wilders was 'extreem rechts'. Er kwam kritiek op 'de politiek van Israel'. Maar alles keurig, hoor.

Toen mijn moeder de tachtig passeerde werd de dementie onontkenbaar. Heel droevig. Eén van de eerste symptomen van dementie is het wegvallen van sociale filters. Zo ook bij mijn moeder. Dat leidde soms tot grappige situaties, vaker tot schaamrood op de kaken.

En toen, op een kwade dag, viel het woord. 'Rotjoden'. Er was niet eens een aanleiding voor. Het kwam er zo maar uit. Ik dacht eerst dat ik het verkeerd had verstaan.

Toch maar doorgevraagd. En toen moest ik constateren dat mijn dementerende moeder antisemiet is. Mijn eigen moeder. Ze was inmiddels al zo ver heen dat ze haar het niet meer kon verklaren. Er was geen redenering in te vinden. Maar de gevoelens waren er.

Inmiddels is ze volledig dement. Ze weet niet meer dat ik haar zoon ben. Ze weet, gelukkig, ook niet meer wat Israel is. Het wereldnieuws ontgaat haar volledig. In gedachten leeft ze weer in het gehucht aan de IJssel, waar ze in 1935 geboren werd.

Maar ik denk er vaak over na. Werd ze antisemitisch opgevoed? Leerde ze het in de oorlog? En werd het daarna, toen de omvang van de holocaust duidelijk werd, onder het tapijt geveegd? Was dat de achtergrond voor het benoemen van de Joodse families bij ons in de buurt?

Of werd ze -zoals zovelen- stukje bij beetje vergifigt door NSB Handelsblad? Liet ze haar oren hangen naar het sluipende antisemitische van de Publieke Omroep? Altijd kritiek op 'de politiek van Israel'. Kritiek op het 'zionisme'. Een kwart eeuw eenzijdige berichtgeving gaat niet in de koude kleren zitten.

Voor mijn moeder maakt het niet meer uit. Ik vertel haar nog maar eens dat ze acht kleinkinderen heeft. We praten over de vogeltjes in de tuin en het mooie weer.

Maar ik vraag me af in hoeveel andere Nederlandse hoofden dit speelt...

Human sacrifices. It is the first thing we associate with the Aztecs, the Maya and the Inca. We recoil in horror. It is not just inhumane. It is inhuman.

Of these peoples, perhaps the Aztecs are most relatable to us. They sacrificed 20,000 of their subjugated peoples at the dedication of Templo Mayor in 1487. This can be understood as genocide, something with which we are more familiar.

The Inca practice of 'capacocha', leaving children to die slowly, like the mummies of the Llullaillaco children, is -prima facie- stranger. Every indication is that here, parents sacrifice the very children they loved.

But it makes sense. What better way to show purity of belief, to show dedication to the cause, than to sacrifice your own children? To sacrifice the one child that is your favorite?

Behold the Palestinian mothers volunteering their son as suicide bombers. We are inclined to believe that Palestinians don't love their children. But what if they do? What is they simply love killing non-believers even more?

As so often, the pertinent question is: who is the audience? For the Palestinians mothers, the audience is their peers: other parents. They prove their purity, their dedication not by donating money or through performative chants. They sacrifice the thing they love most (except murdering infidels).

Let's zoom across the globe to a happier, more civilized place: the Hollywood hills. Celebrating your child as trans is all the rage among stars and celebrities. Castration is the rite of passage. The celebrities sacrifice their progeny to prove their dedication to the religion of progress. No religion has emptier, colder deities.

But there is, of course, a superlative of capacocha: sacrificing yourself. Martyrdom is a much revered concept throughout religions, places and times immemorial. And in 2025 we witnessed an interesting display in the 'take back the night marches' in Holland.

There is, sadly, an epidemic of rape of white women by migrants from Africa and Islamic countries, sometimes escalating to murder. After one particularly gruesome example young, progressive women bonded together and marched to "take back the night". Billboards, in Dutch, advertised the occasion. Dutch media splashed attention on the young ladies. But the origin and background of the abusers went unmentioned. They were simply identified as "men".

Of course, the migrants do not speak Dutch, much less read it. Nor do they watch Dutch media. Clearly, the rapists are nót the intended audience.

How do we make sense of this bizarre display? These ladies oppose rape, but not so much as to actually want to stop it. They will vote pro-migration in the next election.

The billboards in Dutch unwittingly show who the audience is: Dutch women. The point is not to stop rape, but to show how horrific it is. How much these ladies suffer for the greater good.

Martyrdom.