Justice and The Way of Folk Culture:
 

Justice depends on, and exists in, individuals who are noble by nature and who thus uphold and strive to live by a Code of Honour, with disputes being private affairs between individuals.

The Folk way is for individuals to be free, and independent, and to not allow anyone to restrain them, or lord it over them, or exercise any authority whatsoever over them unless they have accepted such restriction or such authority of their own free will. The Folk way is for an individual to accept only the authority of someone that  individual knows personally and respects, and to whom that individual has given a personal pledge of loyalty.

Otherwise, their honour demands that they fight for their freedom and physically defend themselves if someone tries to restrain them or lord it over them or exercise authority over them. Furthermore, honour gives them the right to injure and if necessary kill anyone who tries to restrain them, who tries to subdue them in any way such as trying to exercise authority over them, or who tries to take away the freedom of an individual to act in such an honourable way.

The Folk way is to respect the right of other people to act and behave in such a way.

The Folk way is for any disputes, for any complaints, to be settled personally between the two people involved who meet face to face. If honour demands it, the dispute can and in some cases must be settled through a duel or via a personal combat between those involved. The Folk way is for such disputes and such complaints to be a personal matter, with the individual not accepting the word of anyone else in such matters.

Thus, the whole basis of the Folk way of Justice - and thus the basis for the Folk way of life itself - is this fierce independence, this upholding of personal freedom and honour, this giving of personal oaths of allegiance, and this respect for the right of others to do the same.
 

Personal honour and the free giving of allegiance are the basis of true freedom, just as a free society is a society which accepts personal honour and which not only allows people to freely choose their allegiance but also gives and freely allows them an opportunity to leave that society, and the lands ruled by the government of that society, and so be exiled or outlawed, should they choose not to give their personal pledge of allegiance to those in authority in that society.

Anything else is tyranny: a negation of freedom.
 
 

A Personal Example:

A while ago, during my days as a revolutionary activist and thorn in the side of the Establishment, I was arrested by the Police after a complaint from a so-called "member of the public" about something which I was alleged to have written. This complaint was in fact made not by an ordinary "member of the public" but by a political enemy:  someone who held an official position in an organization opposed to the political views I was then expounding. Following this complaint, the Police set up a team to investigate the matter and gather "evidence". They obtained a search warrant, came to my home, arrested me, searched the house for seven hours, and took away some of my possessions.
 

Once the Police investigation began, I was powerless, and completely at the mercy of the State and its Police. The Folk way - the honourable and just way - would have been for the person who made the complaint to ask me, in person, about the matter, and for us to try and settle things, or come to some agreement. If this person did not like what I had written, or said, he should have asked me to change it, or maybe even ask me to issue a public apology. Failing this, he could personally challenge me to duel.

But of course, this person hides behind "the law" - behind the "authority" of the State. He does not know me, as I do not know him, in person. And he does not have the honour, the decency, to get to know me: to ask me about the allegations he is going to make to the Police. This is dishonourable; it is cowardly; it is tyrannical.
 

The complaint having been made, and the Police having arrived at my home, the honourable, the just, the civilized, way for me to deal with such an affront against my personal honour when confronted by seven Police officers early one morning, would have been for me to defend myself, and my honour and freedom, by physical force: if necessary using deadly force. For I had not accepted their "authority" to arrest and detain me, as I had not accepted their "authority" to enter my home, search it, take away my property, and later on lock me in a cell in a Police Station. No one had asked me, in an honourable and civilized way, if I accepted such "authority"; if I had given my allegiance, on oath, to the State.

I had given no such allegiance, as I had not personally accepted such "authority". Therefore by everything that is honourable, by everything that is just, these officials - and the State - really had no right to do what they did, as they have no right to do what they are doing and will do in pursuing this case against me.
 

To defend myself in an honourable way was, is and always has been, my desire: my natural instinct. I had given these Police officers no authority to do what they did. They did not know me personally, as I did not know them. My natural instinct is to defend my honour, and freedom, my home, my family, by force: but I am not allowed to do this, for were I to do this, I would (as I know from past experience) be subdued by as many Police officers as it would take just as I would be committing a "criminal offence": so-called resisting arrest. In addition, I cannot carry a weapon in order to defend my honour, and cannot even in this country legally obtain a gun to defend my home and my family. And were I to carry a weapon and use it, in my defence, I would be committing yet another so-called "criminal offence".

This is unfair; it is dishonourable; it is unjust. It is tyrannical.

These officials were given their "authority" by the Crown: in reality, by the Government of the day. Thus, they were given the "authority" to arrest me, to enter my home against my wishes, to detain me (using whatever force was necessary), to lock me in a cell, to charge me with some "criminal offence".

Furthermore, this Government gave others to "authority" to prosecute me for some "crime" and yet others the "authority" to judge me and send me to Prison for whatever number of years they decide.

And I am granted, by this Government, only certain specific and very limited "rights". I have a right to remain silent (although this may be held against me). I have a right to legal representation. I have a right to what they call a "fair trial". I even have a right to appeal against their guilty verdict. And that is about all.

Once the process of Police investigation is begun, I am totally and completely at the mercy of the authority of the State, for the State, being tyrannical, makes a presumption that I am subservient: that they have the right to do what they do. The assumption is that since I reside in this country, since I am "British" by nationality, that I have accepted the authority of the State and its Government. But no one has asked me: no one has given me the chance to to affirm or deny allegiance to the State. Am I legally bound to obey this State just because I reside in this country?

This presumption of acceptance of authority is itself dishonourable; it is unjust: it is tyrannical. Even in medieval times in this country when a Monarch ruled absolutely, there were still outlaws: people who of their own free will put themselves beyond the law, the order, of the State.

Legally, the person to whom I should swear allegiance is the Monarch, for in theory and in this country the State and its officials derive their "authority" from the Monarch. But I have not done this, and no one has asked me if I have: no one has the decency, the honour, the sense of fairness, to ask me if I have given such allegiance.
 

The Folk way is for those in authority to ask me, in person, if I give my allegiance to the Crown, to those in authority; and if I, of my own free will, choose not to so give my allegiance, then I become an "outlaw" and have the right to live as an "outlaw" in areas where there the Crown has no authority.

In effect, I exile myself, or am exiled. But I still have the freedom to choose exile. Today, I and others do not have this option. We are not allowed this option. This is unfair; it is dishonourable; it is unjust: it is tyrannical.

Our society became unjust when the Monarchs, in medieval times, decided to establish their authority, by force, over the whole land, leaving no area where people could go if they did not accept their authority. Later on, the dishonourable presumption about a person's allegiance was made, with the Monarch, then the State, taking away our freedom: our right to freely give our allegiance. Thus people were treated as servile subjects of the State, with the State treating its subjects in a dishonourable way.
 
 

A Return To Justice and Freedom:

We must return to justice; we must regain the freedom we have lost. We must establish a just way of life,  a society of liberty. The society of today is totally unjust; it is tyrannical.

I loathe and detest this society and its governments. I am instinctively in rebellion against this State with its ignoble way of life. I have not and never will give my allegiance to this State and its appointed officials, as I do and will regard any charge made against me, any trial, any imprisonment, as a personal affront to my honour, my dignity, and so will strive with all my heart to regain my honour, my dignity, my freedom.

We who are honourable by nature, by instinct - we who uphold honour and the principle of loyalty -  must either rebel against the tyranny we are forced to live under, and so strive to establish a free, a just, an honourable, society in this land, or we must leave this land and establish a new community, new homes, for ourselves where we can live as free men and women according to the way of honour.
 
 
 

David Myatt