Divine and Other Laws. Justice without righteousness, we have argued, is a contradiction in terms. Justice takes its cue from righteousness, for only righteousness has the right to make or acknowledge laws, whether divine or human (civil), and justice, true to its subordinate nature, the duty to apply them. But laws come in a variety of different guises, not just divine or civil but also criminal and natural, these latter being as distinct from each other as they are from anything contrary to them, whether of man or of God. Yet much of what passes for divine law is really criminal, or diabolic, law dressed up as divine, pretty much as Devil the Mother hyped as God (the Father), and therefore it is really anything but truly divine. The ‘thou shall not kill’ commandment, which passes for divine law, is really a manifestation of criminal, or diabolic, law, as are commandments about not committing adultery or not stealing or coveting one’s neighbour’s goods, including his wife. Divine law is not expressive of a prohibition but of an affirmation of divine principles, not least those appertaining to self-realization and to the soul, which it strives to honour and to attain to, thereby transcending the egoistic self in the interests of what I like to call the psychoistic self, the deeper manifestation of selfhood which lies more in the realm of the spinal cord than in that of the brain stem. A law that forbids you to do this or to do that is not, in truth, divine but the product of an attempt by meekness to constrain vanity, and is, in effect, the converse of what issues from righteousness, albeit indirectly, as a just retort to vanity. Either way, whether stemming from meekness or from righteousness, law is generally less female than male in character, but its application can be more female than male, as in the case of justice, which actively imposes judgement upon what is deemed to be criminal conduct. Meekness, whether genuine or pseudo, is in no position to impose upon vanity, and therefore it differs quite demonstrably from justice in that it seems to reflect the male inability, under female hegemonic pressures in sensuality, to be as somatically free and as psychically bound as the female, thereby opposing, to a degree, the kind of criteria that make for vanity even as the male must bow to such criteria and acknowledge them from a subordinate standpoint. He cannot, however, preclude them, and that is why meekness, by itself, is insufficient to counter vanity but requires the application of justice acting under the guiding light of righteousness, from which one can extrapolate an opposition, almost polar in character and analogous to a servant striving to protect her master from some evil assailant or general wrongdoer, to anything which would appear to run contrary to such righteousness and its positive intent. On the other hand, a society which is insufficiently righteous or which may have turned against male-hegemonic righteousness under female-dominated decadent pressures – not least those stemming from feminism - will perversely use justice as a weapon to dethrone righteousness, thereby returning to a situation analogous to that in which meekness finds itself obliged to constrain an excess of vanity without being in a position to eradicate it. Only righteousness, at the end of the day, can eradicate vanity, and precisely by bringing justice to bear on it from a position in which the meek have already been saved from any proscriptive opposition to vanity and no longer prop it up without being able to do anything about it. With righteousness triumphant over meekness, justice is bound to bring vanity to account, though the axial complexities of all this go far beyond this sketch, as certain of my earlier writings would indicate.