To forgive is to fore-give, that is, to retroactively accept that the giving had taken place before the demand occurred. To fore-give, that is, means that when one assesses a wrongdoing, one accounts for the loss as if it had already been given as a gift to the wrongdoer.
Justice is the balancing of accounts, such that a wrongdoer must themselves bear the cost of the loss to those done wrong to. Justice implies that if one causes a loss to another, one must compensate that other for the cost of the loss.
Forgiveness and Justice are clearly at odds. Forgiveness is about taking upon oneself the cost imposed by the wrongdoer, while Justice is about the wrongdoer taking the cost of the loss upon themself. If forgiveness were applied universally, such that every wrongdoing were forgiven, forgiveness would see that all who have done wrong are gifted the loss of the victim. If Justice were applied universally, such that every wrongdoing were compensated, Justice would see that all who have done wrong are obligated to compensate the victim. Clearly, forgiveness works to the benefit of the scoundrel, the vandal, the thief, the robber, the burglar, the usurer, the rapist, the murderer, and not to the benefit of the deceived, vandalized, stolen from, exploited, raped, or murdered. Justice works for the benefit of the deceived, vandalized, stolen from, exploited, raped, or murdered, and not to the benefit of the scoundrel, the vandal, the thief, the robber, the burglar, the usurer, the rapist, and the murderer. These are clearly contradictory approaches to the world.
Let us explore the ethnological origins of these concepts, so that we can anchor them in something tangible.
Justice is derived from primitive, proto-Indo-European roots, and refers to the condition of being straight or upright, being full of vitality, and, coming into Italic, refers to a sacred formula[1]. The word is composed of the basic, fundamental root, just, and a common suffix, -ice (meaning, the condition or quality of the word being qualified), indicating its being long-rooted indigenously in the language and cultural demeanor of the proto-Indo-Europeans. Foreign or new-fangled ideas are often, instead, compound or borrowed words, rather than basic, indigenous terms. For instance, for us Anglos, it is whiskey, derived from a Celtic term from the time of its origin, which referred to the “water of life”,[2] and, similarly, as a novelty for the Native American, it is “fire-water.” As time goes on and compound terms are regularly used and concepts familiarized and individuated, we see an evolution of terms into words, such as with firepower, typewriter, and etc. In contrast, the word beer, indigenously Indo-European, is a rendition of the word meaning, fundamentally, “drink.”
The origin of forgive in Germanic languages, such as what would become English and German, is claimed to be derived (calqued) from Latin,[3] and in Dutch, specifically, refers as much to poisoning,[4] though it seems to have been established through compounding existing Germanic words, possibly in response to equivalents in Latin. The source of the Germanic word give, interestingly enough, is also cognate to equivalent Baltic and Slavic words that mean “to take” or “to seize.”[5] The source in Latin seems an appropriate emanating point for influence of the Germanic languages, seeing as the Latin-speaking Romans had formed an empire that would influence all of the surrounding and even distant peoples. However, the calquing, if that’s what took place, may have gone the other way around, with proto-Germanic sources, such as proto-Gothic and proto-Saxon, possibly having influenced the Romans instead, perhaps indicating an influence taken from India where these tribes were known as Yuezhi and Indo-Scythians (or Saka).[6]
It was, after all, the Saka who would produce Shakyamuni, “Sage of the Saka,” the Buddha, famous for his teachings of compassion. Buddha, as perhaps first noticed by William Jones, may have been remembered by the Goths in the form of Odin, and by the Saxons in the form of Woden. Despite the Saka origins of the Buddha, the Goths worshipped Odin as their primary deity, while the Saxons might see Woden as a lesser deity, their commonmost primary deity being Tyr. Tyr was a god of Justice and honor, who saw to it that battles rewarded the fair, and who sacrificed his arm to ensure the wellbeing of society, whereas Odin was a Trickster god of death and sophistry, willing to manipulate others for personal gain. Of course, this speaks to the beliefs of the rulers and their dupes, whereas rogue Saxons and Goths might take to primary exaltation of other deities such as Baldr, Ing, Fria, Loki, or etc.
Odin, a god of war, death, and manipulation, may appear at first glance to be very distinct from Buddha, who was known for his teachings of compassion. That is, until one realizes what manipulation actually looks like in the world as a matter of realpolitik. A bodhisattva is a person on the way to Buddhahood, which Har Dayal has suggested is connected to a reading of -satva as “warrior,” from satvan. Buddha has been interpreted as a god of the bodhisatvas, and so might Odin be similarly interpreted as a god of war? Odin is the god not just of war but also of manipulation, and manipulation looks like a poisoned apple. Perhaps this is why to fore-give is to poison and to seize. Indeed, we see the poison of forgiveness, and its corollary charity, in the form of welfare traps, co-dependency, and subservience to the noblesse oblige of usurers, all of which enrich the “giver” at the expense of the “taker.”
The Saka and the Yuezhi differed greatly in their political methods, the Kushan Empire of the Yuezhi being centralized and authoritarian, with officials answering to a central authority (the emperor), and the Indo-Scythian Empire of the Saka being decentralized and liberal, with local rulers having considerable degrees of political autonomy. The Saka had also been known for having uniquely established an aristocratic republic, or gana-sangha, which was exceptional for its establishing a class-based republic while surrounded by caste-based monarchies. The Saka, that is, during the time of Buddha, had a system free from castes (because of few ethnic distinctions in the population, which was primarily Saka), but which upheld a class system, though allowed even the poor to have a voice in the assembly. The Yuezhi, too, seem to have been resistant to the caste system, though the Kushan ruler Heraios was a self-declared tyrant, and is depicted with artificial cranial deformation, something that would also be found among the Yuezhi more widely, as well as their progeny, the Huns and Han.
Perhaps opposition to the caste system, fueled by mutual Buddhism, was a uniting factor that led both Yuezhi and Saka to intermix with, and take up the causes of, Dravidians, thereby establishing the mixed population of kshatriya (noble warrior) landlording moneylenders, pastoralists, and agrarians today known as Jats. But it must be remembered that this was a chiefly act of redistribution, and not a life-risking act of pure altruism. Dravidians, and in particular Tamils, had been “untouchables” or Dalits, and this was a clear moral faultline for the competitors of the caste system. The dark complexion of the Jats—otherwise having an Aryan superstrate—, owing to an Elamo-Dravidian Australoid substrate, is a clear testament to disregard for the caste system long before the documented rebellions of the Jats against the Moghul Empire.
The god of forgiveness would, of course, be Jesus Christ, a corollary to India’s Hare Krishna. The origins of Jesus, the man, is disputed. While his Nazarene, Israelite origins are not under textual question, his ethnicity and religious affinities are regularly disputed, with a possible Jewish, Samaritan, Druze, Greek, or other possible ethnic heritage and religious views possibly derived from Judaism, Samaritanism, Druze, Hellenism, Zoroastrianism, Gnosticism, Hinduism, and Buddhism. Whether Jesus was more of a legend or a complete mythological fabrication is also regularly disputed, and, more recently, efforts by Greek enthusiast and philologist Ammon Hillman have brought to question the benevolence of Jesus altogether, with Hillman arguing that Jesus was a drug abusing, semi-cannibalistic pederast. This contrasts strongly with folk Christian beliefs, such as those of the Anabaptists. But, no matter how it is looked at, the story is centered on human sacrifice. And regardless of whether Jesus really existed or not, or if he was really a mythologization of John the Baptist or Appolonius or some other such figure, it has been made certain by those espousing the Jesus Myth position that at least a portion of the story involved syncretic religious scholarship, with the story of Jesus aligning clearly with Mithraic and other such solar myths.
While Christianity is often understood to have been spread by the Romans, the word god, used to refer to the Christian deity in English, was actually originally a reference to a gothi or godi, a tribal leader of the Goths. The Romans’ term for God was deus, a reference to the Indo-European Sky-Father concept. As such, God is not a name, but a position occupied by a given deity, much as godi is not an individual’s name but their chieftainship. Goths, themselves, refer not to a specific people, but to a tribal system of gotras or “clans”, such as is still found among the Jats of India, ancient relatives of the Jutes, Gutes, Gutians, Goths, Jews, and, perhaps to a lesser extent, the Saxons or Saka. The Goths, as distinct from the Saxons or Saka, and by way of Greek-born Ulfilas, were the earliest Germanic adopters and spreaders of Christianity, particularly Arian Christianity, which was a unitarian, anti-Nicene brand of Christianity that came up against Catholicism (or, rather, ¬vice versa, as the Nicene Creed was a direct attack on Arius and Arianism). Arius himself had been an Egyptian Berber, and so Germanic Christianity, as spread by the Goths, was largely distinct from Roman Catholicism in having this origin. It has been argued that, with Christianity seemingly having roots in Judaism, the earliest Christians had been, like Arius, unitarian monotheists who believed in a singular deity in rejection of polytheism, in which they would have seen trinitarianism. This should not be surprising, considering that Jews (Judeans) and Goths (Jutes) were not at all distantly-related people, but part of the same cultural diaspora. As such, Gothic Christianity, or Arianism, might be closer to the original than was Roman Christianity, which may in fact have been a form of damage control to co-opt what was, at its origin, a grassroots rebellion. Indeed, it would not be long after the rise of Catholicism that the Goths, in concert with Phoenicians (Carthaginians), Jews, Saxons, and other Germanic, Iranic, and Hunnic groups, and with help from internal pressure from grassroots Christianity, Zealots, and Essenes, would succeed in sacking Rome.
In contrast to the Gothic embrace of pre-Catholic Christianity, the Saxons had long held out, being particularly reluctant among Germans, along with the Frisians (and Danes), to adopt Christianity. Both of these Groups were forced into Christianity by either the Franks or Goths (in the forms of Jutes and Normans). While the Goths were part of the larger cultural diaspora previously described, the Franks had emerged from within the Roman Empire as the Salians, with frank meaning “free (from Roman control).” The Franks were most likely an admixture of Celtic-Germanic, or Belgic, and Hunnic, Alanic, and Radhanite Jewish influences, but also, and especially politically, represented a continuation of Roman influence. The mixture of the Frankish and Gothic influences would produce the Normans, who finally forced the remaining Saxon holdouts, as with the mainland Stellinga and Stedinger, into Christianity and serfdom, an influence already begun by Jutish and Frankish pressures.
In The Bible, the Goths may be most closely associated with the Southern Kingdom of Israel and the Saxons with the Northern Kingdom; that is, with the Jews and Samaritans, respectively. The story goes something like this: The Shasu, a derivative of the Ancient Sumerians, conquered into the Levant and some of them became the Samaritans, or Northern Israelites. Another tribe, the Hyksos or Habiru, had similarly conquered into Southern Israel, becoming the Judes (Judeans, Jews). It is likely that the Shasu were Indo-European-speakers, whereas the Habiru were Semitic-speakers, Habiru becoming known later as Hebrew. When displaced by Assyrians, the Samaritans traveled North across the Caucasus and joined the Scythians, becoming the Sarmatians, the Saka, and Cimmerians. The Saka travelled to become the Indo-Scythians, before returning to Central and then Western Europe, where they developed into the Saxons. The word Saxon is almost certainly originally derived from the word for a stone knife or arrowhead, a saxe, much the same as Saka was, such that the words are either cognate or share a developmental relationship. The origins of the -on ¬suffix in Saxon is subject to much debate, with plausible explanations being that the Saxons were an admixture between the Saka and the Wusun or, being derivative from the Lost Tribes of Israel, refer to the sons of Isaac, “‘saac’s sons.” The word son is likely as old as Indo-European itself, and Isaac may himself had had a name meaning, essentially, Saka. It is not impossible that all of these explanations somehow come together to paint a clearer picture.
Interestingly, the differences between the Northern Kingdom—or Kingdom of Israel— and the Southern Kingdom—the Kingdom of Judah— seem to mirror those between the Goths and the Saxons to some extent.
Early in Israelite prehistory, the Shasu seem to have appeared and established villages and court systems South of the Phoenicians,[7] Celts,[8] and Illyrians,[9] with each household being built around a common courtyard, with a tendency to henotheism and then monolatry, perhaps similar to other Indo-Europeans of the time who participated in Zoroastrianism and Hinduism, and whose main god was Yahweh, meaning “I am” or “Being,” not entirely distinct from the Hindu Brahma or Zoroastrian Ahura Mazda, both of which are also ontological references to existence itself. At this time, there were no kings, as the Israelites were instead organized into a confederation of autonomous tribes, each governed by judges who ruled a posteriori through case law, as was also common among Indo-Europeans such as the Anatolian Hittites and the later Saxons in their practice of common law, and led a priori by prophets, who had no direct power of coercion, though had the power of persuasion. Along with the Shasu seem to have come Habiru or Hyksos, many of whom settled in the South of Israel, and who were similarly governed by judges and prophets. The Northern population was more decentralized and lawful, while the Southern was more centralized and legalistic.
Despite the warnings given by Samuel against having one, The Bible holds that the people demanded a king. An unlikely story, but we nonetheless see the rise of King Saul and the United Monarchy or United Kingdom of Israel (and Judah), whereby the Northern populations of Samaria and the Southern populations of Judea were ruled by a common monarchy. Upon the death of King Saul, from the North, however, his son Ishbaal ruled for two years before being displaced by David, a Judahite from the South. David’s son, King Solomon (“Sun and Moon”), was a tyrant who demanded corvée and tributes which the Northern tribes found to be unacceptable. Upon the succession of his throne to his son Rehoboam, the Northern tribes seceded from the United Monarchy, thereby establishing the Southern Kingdom of Israel as an independent alternative, and leaving behind a separate, and miffed, Kingdom of Judah. After the split, the Kingdom of Judah engaged in perpetual war against the Kingdom of Israel in order to try to re-subjugate the Israelites to Jewish (Judish, Judean, Judahite) rule.
The Assyrians would eventually displace the Israelites of the North, while the Babylonians would enslave the Jews of the South, the remnants of the North admixing with other populations and becoming modern Samaritans and those of the South admixing with others and becoming the Karaites, with the banished tribes becoming the Ten Lost Tribes and the Babylonian Jews, or Radhanites, becoming the usurious, Rabbinical Jews upon their return to Europe. The most likely people to have admixed with Radhanites include Goths, Suebes, Franks, Slavs, and derivatives of these such as the Geats, Swedes, Danes, Normans, Rus, etc. The Vikings are known to have maintained trade connections with the Radhanites, thereby making connections between the Amber and the Silk Roads.
Again, the Jews were relatives of various other peoples as part of a diaspora that I refer to as the “Old Jat Belt,” and which I believe extended from the ancient lands of the Jats in India to the lands of the Gotes and Jutes in Scandinavia and Jutland. This diaspora, as I understand it, included the Gutes and Geats, the Gutians, the Yuezhi, the Goths, the Zatts, Zuts, Juts, and many others, and who were known as Habiru and Hyksos, probably in terms of their behaviors or professions, as marauders, brigands, and mercenaries. Meanwhile, the Saxons had come from a separate diaspora, which had included the similarly-designated Shasu, but also the Samarans, Samarrans, Sumerians, Cimmerians, Sauromatians, Sarmatians, and Saka.[10]
When the Goths (or Jutes) and the Saxons intermingled in Europe, they did so within the context of a long line of interaction between these cultural diasporas. And when the Goths— as Jutes and Normans— pursued the Saxons into England, pressed Christianity and feudalism onto them, and sold them out to Jews, this was probably seen as having been foreshadowed to some extent. Perhaps this was similar to the more recent influence on (largely) Saxon-inspired Anglo-American society, which has been losing its character, similarly, to the influences of the French, Catholicism, and Judaism or Jews (along with others, such as Slavs, various Orientals, and largely-innocent sub-Saharan Africans).
The major consequence of the de-Saxonization of Anglo-American society has been the reduction in the power of the common law, much as had occurred under Jutish and Norman tyranny. Whereas the common law, the theoretical foundation of American government, operates on the classic Indo-European formula of a posteriori judgement and compensation for wrongdoing, with leadership provided by lawspeakers who remember but do not legislate the law, which is established through democratic assemblies called Things, civil and common law are statutory forms of law that have to do with a priori dictates or human declarations that must be followed lest one face artificial consequences. Whereas the Saxon lawspeakers traditionally served accumulative purposes, similar to a Melanesian Big Man or Tonowi, the Gothic godis served a purpose more akin to Melanesian chieftains, playing a redistributive role. The strategy of a redistributionist is to attack those at the top, forcing them into the middle class, by allying oneself with the lower elements of society, to whom the possessions of the upper class is then redistributed. This is what occurred with the Normans when they allied with Britonic factions to suppress the Anglo-Saxons, and it is what is occurring today with Anglo-American subservience to Jewish and Catholic cultural Marxism. At the same time, chieftains are no strangers to accumulation themselves, redistribution being a means to enable their own plunder. But whereas Anglo-Saxons and Anglo-Americans, under Gothic and Frankish, Catholic and Jewish influence, plunder through the usury of landlordism, the Gothic and Frankish people themselves plunder through monetary interest, legal expropriation (taxation, civil law), moral grandstanding (religion, sensibility), black magic (popularizing errors and bad habits), and intellectual gatekeeping (university).
Central to the Frankish-Gothic, or Norman, and Jewish-Catholic onslaught against the common law has been religiosity, and, in particular, the subservience of the Gentile population to Gothic and Roman Christianity and its god of forgiveness, of fore-giving. Such a god, wielded by the magical and manipulative followers of Odin, the Buddha, serves the purpose of a Trojan Horse, a poisoned apple, with which to gaslight, pacify, misdirect, and usurp one’s victim as one spreads feudalism, empire, and usury across the face of the Earth.
Despite the evils of the Norman Judaeo-Catholic forces, Saxons themselves have sprung from a landlording people, likely responsible for the first state in history, the Sumerians. But while this state was among the first, its laws, such as the famed Code of Ur-Nammu, are only known after the conquest by the Akkadians, Ur-Nammu being of Akkadian stock, suggesting that the Sumerian laws known were not native but imports. Early Sumerian society appears to have, like those of the Harrapan and Catalhoyuk civilizations of India and Anatolia, been fairly free of stratification in its early years, with kingship emerging later on, perhaps in a similar fashion to its occurrence in Israel among the Israelites. This being the case, landlording does not seem to be a genetic impulse so much as a cultural affair.
If neo-Saxons are to free themselves from the Norman yoke, they will have to do some introspection, practice some consistency, and stop dropping the ball when it comes to Justice. Landlording and overmanship is not acceptable, even when tolerated by the common law upheld by one’s own elders or judges. The Norman type will always wield the aristocratic sins of the landlording Saxon sort against them, and will continue to cry out in pain as they extend a slapping hand, saying all along that the Saxon is forgiven and must likewise forgive. Hope for a free society built upon the Saxon love of the common law must ultimately originate from the foregoing of Saxon aristocracy and landlordism and of Gothic monarchism and moneylending, the redistributive sins of the latter being justified by the unjust accumulation of the former. It is the original success of the pillaging, ruling class Saxon, who has lost his way with Justice, that gives the Goth an argument for redistribution, itself made defensible by a perverse demand for forgiveness, the externalization of one’s agency to pursue Justice, the granting of one’s ends to the dictates of an arbiter of privilege affirmed by the avarice, ignorance, and stupidity of the complacent.