Lit.Org - a community for readers and writers Advanced Search

Average Rating

(0 votes)

You must login to vote





At this point, it is necessary for me to write a brief explanation
about how I use the English word "perfect". In our present society
"perfect" is often taken to ONLY mean: "without fault, flaws, defect or
imperfections". However, I do NOT use the English word "perfect" in
quite that *usual* manner.

# "3 a : PURE, TOTAL
# b : lacking in no essential detail : COMPLETE . . ."
# "synonyms PERFECT, WHOLE, ENTIRE, INTACT mean not lacking or
# faulty in any particular. PERFECT implies the soundness and the
# excellence of every part, element, or quality of a thing . . ."

In accord with the above listed qualities of the word "perfect" that
are from the definition in the "Miriam & Webster Dictionary", I use the
English word perfect to mean: "whole, true, complete, real, ideal,
supreme, intact, honest, and non-violent".

In other words, (applying the word perfect to humans), a "perfect
relationship" is a complete relationship, a true relationship, a real
relationship, an ideal relationship, a supreme relationship, an honest
relationship, and a non-violent relationship.

Thus, (applying the word perfect to a concept), a "perfect system" is a
whole system, a complete system, a true system, an ideal system, a real
system, a supreme system, an honest system, and a non-violent system.
That is how I use the English word "perfect" within this narrative.

So, for the purpose of this narrative, the "perfect society" does NOT
mean a society without challenges, difficulties, or dis-agreements. But
"perfect society" does mean an ideal society whose residents have
chosen NOT to do harm to other law-abiding residents, and it will be a
society that has established certain world-wide operating standards in
order that problems can be peacefully dealt with and resolved.

My definition of "perfection" in connection with society in its
simplest form means people choosing to be honest in their dealings with
one another and also choosing **NOT** to do intentional harm to other
living beings, because when those choices are made, then all else such
as efficiency, well-being, and prosperity will be easy to obtain within
earth human society.



Thus, a "perfect earth society" will be a society founded upon certain
reasonable principles. For example, a perfect earth society will be an
honest, fair, and non-violent society.

Why do you say a "perfect society" will be an honest, fair and
non-violent society? Here is the "step-detailed" explanation of my

In order for a society to be a "perfect" society, residents MUST be
safe, otherwise the society cannot be called "perfect", because if
residents are not safe, then the society would NOT be "complete", nor
would it be "quality", and it certainly would not be an "excellence of
every part" society.

Since a "perfect society" *MUST* be a "safe society", it therefore
follows that it must also be an honest society, because trust (which
promotes security - and security is safety) is an essential component
for a "safe society". In order to have trust and security, there MUST
be honesty among people. So, a perfect society = an honest society.

An honest society will also be a fair society, because to be unfair to
someone is to deny or deprive that individual of something, and to deny
or deprive someone is to steal from that individual, and "to steal" is
dishonest. Thus, an honest (perfect) society *MUST* be a fair society.
So, a perfect society = an honest society, which = a fair society.

One gauge of "fairness" is if other individuals would be willing to
accept any particular action or decision made against someone else, to
also apply to themselves.

In an honest society where people trust one another and dwell secure,
and where they are fair to one another, then they will also be
non-violent towards one another, because violence is basically an
UNFAIR practice whereby someone (who thinks that he/she is stronger)
tries to IMPOSE his/her will upon someone else (the presumed weaker).

Thus, a perfect society = an honest society, which = a fair society,
which = a non-violent society. That is "Why" I made that statement.



In the perfect society, the responsibility to deal with wrong-doers
will be carried out by the duly authorized society agents (police and
judges etc.), but those "agents" will depend, in large measure, upon
the ordinary residents to maintain security by reporting wrong-doers.
In that sense, a "perfect society" is a self-policing society.

Having said that, I must also say that the "perfect society" will be a
free society, NOT a repressed "police society". But the "limit" to
that personal freedom is that no one can victimize anyone else.

Once it becomes accepted that there will be NO society tolerance for
anyone to be victimized, then it is our collective willingness (NOT to
be victims and to rid society of those who victimize others), that will
be the "deterrence" which will keep our society free of violence.

A society of non-victimizers simply cannot allow ANY victimizers to
remain among them, no more than a predator can be tolerated within a
society of non-predators (just like a wolf could not be allowed to live
in a chicken coop among chickens). To allow even one predator in the
society is to be **unfair** to all the rest of society who are living
as non-predators.

Therefore, our "collective willingness", as a society, to tolerate NO
individual to victimize another, no matter how "small" that FIRST
victimization may seem, will (after a transition period), enable a
society that is primarily free of victimizers.

I realize that this concept of "NO" victimizers might seem, at first,
to be an unrealistic goal, but for those who think it through, they
will comprehend that it is the *ONLY* way to have a safe society for
ourselves and our offspring.

Our present society has wrongly conditioned us to accept that we will
always have victimizers living among us (the "nobody's perfect" lie),
but that just is NOT true.

As we transition, there will be a decreasing need for police, courts
and prison (prison is NOT a place for punishment, but it is a place to
separate wrong-doers from society while they have an opportunity to
rehabilitate themselves), and that need for the police, courts, prison
and executions will continue to dwindle until we retain them only for
exceedingly "rare" cases that might occur from time to time.

In the perfect society when acceptable systems are in place to resolve
any dispute, and people are committed to the concept of a society of
non-victimizers, then violence between people or groups of people will
be an unacceptable and unnecessary method for solving disagreements.



Violence is wasteful, inefficient, and unfulfilling, but sometimes it
is necessary for duly authorized society agents to use forceful means
in order to effectively deal with those individuals who have chosen to
be anti-society, OR it might be necessary for an individual to use
violence (self defense) so as to end an attack made by a wrong-doer.

Even a society that rejects violence, MUST retain the option to employ
violence, in order to protect residents from being victimized.

Therefore, a "perfect society" is one in which all of its residents can
participate in equal, *secure* opportunities for self achievement, self
advancement, and self growth, whether they be male or female, youth or
elder, strong or weak, part of the majority or part of the minority,
white, black, red, yellow, or brown skinned.

So, a "perfect society" will be a society in which every resident is
entitled to dwell *securely* and also where each resident will give
respect toward others and receive respect from others. In later pages,
this non-victimization aspect as well as other components of this
potential "perfect earth society" will be more fully presented.



Because "organized religions" play (and have played) such a central
role within our present earth society, it is necessary that I express
some comments about God and religions. Firstly, to me, "religions" and
God are two different subjects, and I will treat them as such. In these
narratives, **ALL** of my comments about God will be based upon these
following key commonsense principles:

*** ABOUT GOD ***

1.) The real God has NO objection toward someone who is skeptical about
the existence of God, because a real God could easily prove His
existence to the satisfaction of even the most skeptical person (as the
Jewish/Christian Bible records that God willingly did for Gideon).

2.) The real God's existence should certainly be able to be proven by
scientists, in accord with normal scientific principles, so that once
proved, even a skeptic could scientifically verify the existence of God
for him/her self. (Since God can do "anything", then developing a way
for earth humans to verify God's existence scientifically, should prove
to be no challenge at all for God.)

3.) The real God who is all-powerful has NO need, nor any interest, in
having earth humans "serve" (do for) God. Instead a real God will
"serve" (do for) us earth humans, just as it was God who "did for"
Abraham, NOT Abraham who "did for" God, as recorded in the
Jewish/Christian Bible.

4.) The only requirement that the real God has, is that we earth humans
live in harmony with God, and we can do that by living according to
one, NOT 10, nor 20, nor 600 "laws". Yes, just *ONE* simple principle,
which is: "Be honest"; or to word that *ONE* simple POSITIVE principle
as a negative phrase, "Do not steal".


Those familiar with the Jewish/Christian Bible should remember that
what God asked of Abraham, was for him to "walk before me, and be thou
*perfect*" (meaning for Abraham to "be honest"). Also, the reason why
Noah was saved from the flood, was because he was "a just man and
*perfect*" (meaning that Noah was "honest").

Thus, the ONE society principle of "Be honest" contains ALL of the
Jewish/Christian Bible's "Ten Commandments", because those recorded
"Ten Commandments" are simply variations of "Do not steal" in three
distinct categories.


1.) Be honest toward God:......."Do not steal from God that
.................................which belongs to God";
2.) Be honest toward others:...."Do not steal from others that
.................................which belongs to others";
3.) Be honest toward yourself:.."Do not steal from yourself
.................................that which belongs to you".

A.) EXAMPLE OF CATEGORIES 1 (God) & 3 (yourself):
To insult God by claiming some person/thing is God, or to otherwise
blaspheme God, is to steal from God the rightful acknowledgement of who
God is, and to steal from one's self the benefit derived by knowing God
and living in harmony with God.

1.) To murder someone is to steal their life.
2.) To lie to someone is to steal the truth from them.

C.) EXAMPLES OF CATEGORIES 2 (others) & 3 (yourself):
1.) To not honor one's parents is to steal from them the honor due
them, and also to steal from yourself "long life".

2.) To commit adultery is to steal from your partner the exclusivity
that he/she is entitled to by the commitment that you made, and to also
steal from yourself the benefits of that exclusive physical love

D.) EXAMPLE OF CATEGORY 3 (yourself):
To envy (covet) someone or something is to steal from yourself the
enjoyment of who you are and of what you have and to also steal from
yourself your "peace of mind", etc., etc., etc..

A reasonable reader should be able to comprehend how ALL of the
Jewish/Christian Bible Ten Commandments are really variations upon the
"Be Honest - Do not steal" theme, and that by living by just the "ONE"
basic principle of "Be Honest", that is to say "Be honest toward God,
Be honest toward others, and Be honest toward yourself, then all of
those recorded Jewish/Christian Bible variations would be followed. "Be
Honest" is the underlying foundation principle for those
Jewish/Christian Bible's Ten Commandments.




"Being Honest" is not an excuse to use "partial truth" as a weapon to
hurt someone. "Being Honest" does not mean "being tackless", nor is
"Being Honest" something to be used as a "cover" for accomplishing a
hidden agenda.

"Being Honest" includes "being involved" with other society members,
because "honesty" is not merely a negative of not being "dishonest",
but it also is a positive of "concerned helpful action toward others".

As an example of what I mean about not just a negative - but also a
positive, consider that the same is true for "non-violence", because in
order to be "non-violent" it is not enough to merely refrain from
violent action against someone else, but the positive component of
"non-violence" is to be concerned and helpful toward others.

Yes, just as it is not sufficient to refrain from active violence in
order to be "non-violent", it is NOT sufficient simply to refrain from
being dishonest in order to be "honest", because it also is necessary
to be concerned, involved, fair (honest) and helpful about the overall
well-being of others.

"Being Honest" also means to insure that the best positive result will
be accomplished from any situation of "honesty".

In the "perfect society", where people will endeavor to be *truly*
"honest", they will learn how to consider a situation in its entirety
in order to understand the complete truths contained therein. Thereby,
the results of "honesty" will be positive results, obtained by people
who choose not to intentionally harm another living being.



BUT, in today's society, some people are adapt at using what they call
"honesty" as a means to be unfair and to hurt others. They do so, by
using "partial truth" (selfish truth) without regard to the situation
as a whole. They are therefore "dishonest" because of their motivation.


On a recent TV news magazine program it was presented that a man and a
woman were previously married, and a son was born during that marriage.
That couple ended their marriage and the father continued to have
visits from the son, and he was providing financial support for the
son. The man then began a new relationship and with encouragement from
the new female partner it was decided to get a DNA test upon the son.

The DNA test revealed that the man was not the child's biological
father. During a visit to their home by the 6 year old child, the man
told the child that he was not his father and that he would no longer
have visits with the child.


1.) While not the "biological father" of the child, the man WAS the
"legal father" of the child (because the child was born during his
"legal marriage" and he had no objection at the time for his name to be
entered, as father, upon the child's birth certificate and parentage of
the child was not an issue in their divorce).

2.) The man was still "legally" responsible for maintaining his
financial support for the child (because he was the child's recorded
"legal father").

3.) The man's proper dis-agreement was with the child's mother and it
was not with the child (there were legal avenues for him to pursue in
order to redress her fraud). The child was an innocent victim of this

4.) The "legal father" was the only father that the child knew, and the
child's biological father was not involved in his life.

5.) It is a fact that many people truly love children who are not their
biological children.

6.) The "new couple" seemed to have a motivation to concentrate upon
their present involvement only.


The man was being dishonest when he told the child that he was not his
father, because he WAS the child's "legal father". The man was wrong
to tell the child (with whom he had a 6 year "father and son"
relationship) that he was terminating their relationship.

Although the truth that he was not the child's "biological father"
should be made known to the child, *at some point*, the "timing" and
the manner of his "dumping" that truth upon a 6 year old child, and his
removing his emotional support from that young child, was despicable.

In my opinion the man simply was interested in "getting back" at his
former wife, and he was influenced by his new relationship, to just
dump his "legal son" (a son that he supposedly loved for 6 years).

But, there are **legal** relationships, and just as a person can not
simply walk away from a marriage without following the legal method,
such as a divorce to dissolve that **legal** relationship, so too a
parent can not simply decide that he/she will no longer continue to be
a parent to a *legal* child.

It seems, to me, that this "man" simply sought to hide his dishonest
motivations behind a "cover" of his claiming to be honest.

The "legal father" was unfair to the 6 year old child and he **chose**
to deliberately emotionally hurt a 6 year old child because of his own
inadequacy in being able to deal with the "whole truth".

The primary truth was that he *WAS* the child's "legal father". Whether
he liked it or not, the child was his primary responsibility in that

The child was the only totally innocent victim in that situation. The
man WAS a victim of his former wife's fraud, but he was a victim who
had made personal choices. The man had made a choice to partner with
that woman (and partnerships have responsibilities and consequences).

However, the child was an INNOCENT victim of his mother's fraud, for
the child made NONE of the choices.

The man had accepted that he had a child during his legal marriage and
he had proceeded to have a 6 year "father and son" relationship with
that child, and that 6 year "bond" between a human adult and a human
child should have counted for some type of positive emotional value
from that "legal father" towards his "legal child".

That child, during ALL of his 6 year life, had been influenced and
parented by that "legal father". Like it or not, that "legal father"
had provided more toward the environmental character development of
that 6 year old child than the biological father had, and that "legal
father" had a major responsibility toward that child.

The adult's primary consideration, **in that situation**, should not
have been toward his former spouse, nor should it have been toward his
current relationship, nor toward himself. His primary consideration,
**in that situation**, should have been the welfare of his 6 year old
"legal son". I saw no evidence that the welfare of the child ever
entered into that person's consideration.

That man was dishonest, not honest! He attempted to use "partial
truth" as an unfair means to gain his own hidden agenda (getting "free"
from the emotional and financial entanglements of a previous
relationship), and he caused hurt to an innocent living being in the

The specifics of how to be fully "Honest" (with ourselves and with
others) can be taught, and it can be "learned". Once a person makes a
commitment to "be honest" (as "perfect society people" will), they will
then begin to view situations differently than is presently done within
this existing predatory society.




The role played by "religions" within this predatory society has too
often been the role of promoting human against human conflicts, by
separating people into different groups and beliefs and also by
promoting an inferior role for women and other groups. Thus, the
"seeds" for suspicion and mistrust have been widely sown within our
society by "religions", along with their "us" verses "them" attitude.

In our present era, it is quite popular for various religions to preach
that an "END" is coming, and many "ENDTIME Preachers" say that it is a
*cataclysmic* end that is coming. Because this "ENDTIME" situation has
such a large impact upon our present society, I will address it in much
more detail later in book two or in book three. But I will make a few
general comments here.

For example, some "religious" groups even try to participate in the
"violent END" that they preach about, by doing violence to themselves
and/or to others (I call them the "death choosers"). Here are specific
news reported examples of what I mean:

The Jim Jones massacre in Guyana; the David Koresh Waco shootout and
the murder of their own members; the recent tabloid suicide of the
"Heaven's gate" group and other cult suicides; the poison gas murders
by the cult in Japan, the cult murders in Africa, etc., are but a few
examples that were in the newspapers and on TV about this "ENDTIME"

Also, there are some politicians who talk suspiciously about the "New
World Order", and there are numerous negative "conspiracy theories"
floating about which predict a violent upheaval within society, so
those adherents stockpile weapons and supplies for *themselves* as they
prepare for the "worst" against *others*.

However, while there indeed is an "end" of something approaching, there
also is a "NEW BEGINNING" (Jewish/Christian Bible readers should
remember that at the time of Noah there was an "end" for everyone else,
but there was a "new beginning" for Noah and his immediate family).

Those who preach about the "END" do not publicize that their religions
are primarily responsible for establishing this present earth society
which created slavery, wars, national and racial divisions between
peoples, inferior status for women and races, etc., etc., etc..

Yes! Slavery, wars, national/racial divisions, inferior status for
women, all are conditions created by concepts of earth humans promoted
by various religious groups and their **distorted** concepts are even
claimed to be *verified* within their different religious sources.

So, the real "end" that is coming is the end for **their** earth
society (**the predatory system**). AND they also do not preach that
their "ended predatory society system" will be replaced by a **better
society system** (the "perfect society"). Thus, there **IS** an "end"
coming (the end to prejudice and mistrust), but at the same time there
also is a "new beginning" coming for our earth society.

Many of the "death choosers" within our present society usually promote
a "violent END scenario", AND a non-physical "afterlife" that a person
must first "die" for, before it is to be received. Thus, many of the
"death choosers" do not seem to value their present physical life.

In contrast to the "death choosers", there are other people who have
the good sense to value their physical life and those people choose to
"live" life, and it is these "life choosers" who will gravitate toward
the many opportunities that a "NEW BEGINNING" on this earth presents.

These "life choosers" usually focus on making "what one now has" the
best it possibly can be, and thereby they are willing to deal with
things in its proper order as it comes. So "life choosers" place their
emphases and value upon the life they are now living.

Lastly, the vast majority of humans, now alive upon this earth, are in
the "middle" (neither "death choosers" nor "life choosers"), because
events within their own lives have not yet prompted them to gravitate
toward a "live" or "die" attitude. I believe that when these "middle
roaders" are aware that they have a choice, then most would choose life
instead of death.

So, a religious oriented reader *COULD* view these "Era of Possibility"
books as being like a "survivor guide", because some people just choose
to be casualties (they choose death) while some others choose to be
survivors of the schemes from those "death choosers" and these books
contain guidelines for "life choosers".

In fact, this book one has but one main focus, and that focus is about
the human life society upon this earth and how individuals might live
to their fullest potential here.

However, many "death choosers" do not want the "middle roaders" to have
the opportunity to make their choice. That is "WHY" so many "death
choosers" are interested in starting a world-wide "violent END", in an
attempt to rob the "middle roaders" of their right to choose by forcing
death upon them.

I say that for those who "choose death", then that is their choice, but
they do not have the right to try to take others with them. But in this
present society, because there are many "death-choosers" who are trying
to force their choice of death upon others (such as the cult in Japan
who gassed members of the general population and the various suicide
bombers/terrorists doing their evil), so they will be a focal point in
book two or book three, with the hopeful "goal" that many people will
"awaken" to the deadly menace to others, that those "death-choosers"
truly are.



Since my comments about God will be based upon those aforementioned
"commonsense principles", the reader will not find any type of mythical
"mumbo-jumbo", about God, written in this narrative, and I have no
objection if someone wants to read my comments about God from the point
of view that "I'll believe it when it can be scientifically proven".

The reason why I will occasionally mention God is in order to put the
interaction between God and earth humans into its proper place within
our potential "perfect earth society". Later, in book two, I will
explore, in more detail, the devastating role that religion has played
within our present predatory society.

In other words, we earth humans have our role and God has God's role.
Remember that the focus of this book one will be upon the earth human
role. Thus, even people who do not believe in the existence of God,
should be able to read, comprehend, and appreciate, the "perfect
society earth human role" that is presented herein.



When reasonable people plan to take a journey, it is usually important
to first decide upon the destination. Next, reasonable people, would
determine the starting point for that journey. Lastly, reasonable
people would consider the "transition" route, which is how to get from
point "A" (the starting point) to point "Z" (the destination).

These books can also be likened to a planning report for such a
journey, because the "perfect society" is point "Z" (our destination).
In book two, I will present specific details concerning point "A" (our
starting point). In book three, I will address the issue of the
"transition" route (how we can get from point "A" to point "Z").

Therefore, readers should recognize that the "perfect society" concepts
expressed herein, actually represent the "journey-destination", and
they are not intended to be understood as representing society's
present situation on earth, nor are they intended to represent the
"transition-route" (how we get from our present society to the "perfect
society"), both of which will be taken up in books two and three.

Thus, in order to fully evaluate these perfect society concepts, it is
necessary to view them as being just *one* part of a *three* part
process, which will make up the complete narrative, that is:

.....1.) Book 1 = The destination (where we are going).
.....2.) Book 2 = The starting point (where we now are).
.....3.) Book 3 = The "transition" route (how we get there).


Less Death

Related Items


The following comments are for "Perfect Earth Society, Ch 2"
by lessdeath

Add Your Comment

You Must be a member to post comments and ratings. If you are NOT already a member, signup now it only takes a few seconds!

All Fields are required

Commenting Guidelines:
  • All comments must be about the writing. Non-related comments will be deleted.
  • Flaming, derogatory or messages attacking other members well be deleted.
  • Adult/Sexual comments or messages will be deleted.
  • All subjects MUST be PG. No cursing in subjects.
  • All comments must follow the sites posting guidelines.
The purpose of commenting on Lit.Org is to help writers improve their writing. Please post constructive feedback to help the author improve their work.