ST = Substitute Teacher C = The Committee and Erik
ST: Erik, how about a well known person today? Somebody we can believe in blindly?
Erik: There’s lots of those people, they’re in the government.
ST: Can we get a live person, somebody still alive on Earth or does it have to be someone who passed away?
Erik: Better if they’ve finished up on Earth; that whole Earth time thing means they have to be scheduled, ‘cause you’re tryin’ to fit ‘em back into that.
ST: So who do we pick?
Erik: Let The Committee pick someone.
ST: Good idea; esteemed Committee, shall we choose somebody and present them to you or will y’all do the choosing?
C: We prefer not to select; we prefer to inform as this a more suitable role we have. Selection and direction from us resembles dictation, not interaction. The take and give and response and question we much prefer, as this is the way of the universe. Your participation, not observation without choice, this is more insightful for you all.
Erik: Why didn’t y’all say “y’all”?
ST: Not everybody is from Texas.
Erik: Too bad, but I’m working on it.
ST: So you’ve set up a Republic of Texas, Erik?
Erik: Yup.
ST: How do souls get in?
Erik: Just like on the planet’s surface, drive, walk, fly and ride. Horses. Motorcycles, too.
ST: How about a Texas celebrity? I only remember Buddy Holly so far….
Erik: Good idea; hey, Steamy Committee, can we get a good Texas celebrity?
C: Permission you need not request, select your preference.
ST: OK, Erik, I’ll look up something on Texas Google.
Erik: That would be the Lone Star version I authorized, right?
ST: Of course, of course…nothing less! Stand by…..
Erik: (strums fingernails on table [I’ll have to ask him later, what kind of table – ST]) Hey, Bill Gates, make it snappy!
ST: I can think of a few alive I’d like to question, like George Jones and how to ride a lawnmower to a bar, but thankfully he’s still kickin’…but we’ll ask Admiral Nimitz, how’s that?
Erik: I’ll go sink his ship…..stand fast! (Nimitz commanded US and allied forces in World War II and was Chief of Naval Operations afterwards)
Admiral Nimitz: Good Day.
ST: Admiral, what was your childhood like in central Texas?
AN: Oil had not been discovered then; the economic activity was agricultural in principal.
ST: Did you have any hope to rise to the positions you reached?
AN: No more than any other person; there were many as dedicated and earnest as I was.
ST: You saw the world from a grave perspective, figuratively and literally, holding so many lives in your hands. Did this disturb or concern you?
AN: No.
ST: Did your upbringing in a central Texas town have positive meaning for your career as compared to a city person, raised in an urban environment?
AN: I could not say myself; there would have to have been a comparison done by impartial review. I don’t think so, if given to guess. I believe and always did, that the immediate influences of family, friends and local events are significant, independent of the type of environment.
ST: From your place now, in Heaven, can you see the motivations of all countries involved in wars, such as your experiences and also others to follow?
AN: Yes, however history documents them well. I will not address what is known. I will say I observe with great interest efforts to eradicate mass conflicts, wars as they are called.
ST: Why would you first say mass conflicts and then wars? I ask because you would be considered an authority above all others; what might be the difference?
AN: Mass conflicts now occur much as before organized forces and nations prevailed; less formal and often hybrid governing militias have arisen and sporadic terrorism is common offense.
ST: Why might this be significant?
AN: The technological domination by just a few nations has made such techniques effective as they were before technical advances in warfare. These efforts are difficult to eliminate.
ST: Is anti-war sentiment a new phenomena?
AN: No; the distribution of news globally is what makes many things appear newly advanced or developed, where they always were.
ST: What other things?
AN: All things of common interest, of collective benefit. Technology has allowed long distance news for only a small portion of the last two millennia, a period over which much development of current human societies took place without it.
ST: What effect has there been?
AN: Ever faster and ever more voluminous delivery of news has given humans the ability to react; this is the main change. Basic nature of human behavior in the collective has not been altered by it; as this relates to mass conflicts.
ST: So Admiral, what are the differences between mass conflicts and war?
AN: War is organization; mass conflict involves offense to defend or pursue interests of a cohesive group without the organization to the degree or extent considered common.
ST: If you could choose one thing about violent conflict to change, what would it be?
AN: Other than to prevent it, I would eliminate the phrase “illegal war.”
ST: Curious I am, why?
AN: This implies a legal war? Which party to the violence approves the legality? The idea of this is self-defense, certainly. I can say from my Earth experience, those who lose to the victors justified in defense do not consider legality or reason of the victor’s motivations.
ST: How do you suggest war and collective violence be prevented?
AN: It is a good beginning and a noble start to choose peace when war appears to be an option; however this is dangerous. Far more difficult it is, to transfer your good desire to an adversary. Could such potential foe interpret good intent as opportunity to attack?
ST: So what could be done?
AN: There must be collective understanding; it is a group of very few that commence large conflict, compared to the many affected as organized conflicts have occurred. It is difficult as humanity has operated, to supply understanding yet it can be done. National pride is easy to use as a barrier; suggestions can be portrayed as invasive and alien to the target group causing a good number to avoid or discount the ideas presented.
ST: Can you give an example?
AN: I lived as an American; my nation rose to military dominance and has increased the gap. This ability is seen the world over as dangerous and corrosive, including by many within the nation itself. The military and destructive ability of the USA is seen reflexively as a potential threat. The previous mention of news has provided this ability; has the ability been used to the extent of its potential? Whether yes or no, it must be asked, by whose standard? Whose impartial evaluation, if this existed and it should not, yet if it did, who would independently evaluate responsible versus irresponsible use of force? This takes us back towards concepts of illegal wars, my opinion given.
ST: Has the United States used its destructive power to a great extent?
AN: No; it has used but a fraction of its capability and I will say, this is no consolation to the targets. I infer no kindness by such analysis.
ST: So what is the solution?
AN: Interaction on a global scale is no more unique than local contact. Neighbors out of sight are far less given to arguments with you; less interaction provides for less opportunity. Globalization of Earth commerce and travel have increased opportunities for learning, study and knowledge yet as with all things, many aspects and possibilities accompany all new routes. Does the marvel and wonderment of the new, seemingly magical path through the beautiful forest cause the dangerous beast hidden within to become passive and docile? The nature of the animal will not be altered so easily. Collective human nature, set forth in history, operates as always. Interact differently.
ST: How would we interact differently?
AN: As would proceed any successful negotiation; all parties present preferences and reactions to one another; to agree in advance where to yield and to advance. This your diplomacy seeks to achieve, and so it does. Recognize imperfection in your own position and in your counterpart and accept it might show forth.
ST: I have to ask about the future of military operations; what can humanity expect?
AN: Far less of it.
ST: Thank you Admiral.
Erik: Did you smoke a corncob pipe, Admiral? Like the caricatures?
AN: I tried it a few times, but wooden pipes are better for this.
Erik: Cool; take care, and by the way, was your name Chester chosen just like the US Marine General Chester Puller, for strong leaders, like pre-destiny? Like US President Chester Arthur?
AN: Yes.
