Session 201901251

Session 201901251
“Climate Change”

Friday, January 25, 2019 (Private/Phone)

Participants: Mary (Michael) and Anon

“I charge you to be foot soldiers and that you give the information to other individuals also, NOT to be silent.”

ELIAS: Good afternoon!

ANON: Hi, my friend!

ELIAS: And how are you proceeding?

ANON: Well, it has been a long time that we talked last time I guess. (Both laugh)

Elias, the disruption of the line yesterday just before we had the session, is that a reflection of the topic that we want to discuss today? (1)


ANON: Okay. You are aware of what it is, and I am pretty sure that you strongly encouraged me to have a session with this topic. Is that correct?

ELIAS: Yes. I would agree.

ANON: Okay.

ELIAS: What we were discussing in our conversation together previously.

ANON: Yes, and I can actually feel that it is escalating, you know? It is really… (Sighs) So, there is something that you want to bring out to the people, and we have ninety minutes. And I just want to ask you a couple of questions and then you have an open floor to express what you think is most beneficial.

ELIAS: Very well.

ANON: First of all, I would like to know, is it still beneficial to remove more unrest from the world, Elias?

ELIAS: What I would say to that, my friend, is if you are moving in the direction of wanting to address to unrest that I would suggest that you target other areas, not necessarily in relation to climate change. There are plenty of subjects and reason for unrest in your world presently. And in that, as I expressed to you previously, at this point now, moving in a direction of attempting to quell whatever unrest is being expressed in relation to climate change would almost be counterproductive, because the expression of unrest in relation to climate change is likely the most powerful expression that will aid in raising more awareness about the subject—

ANON: Okay.

ELIAS: — and moving individuals in the direction in which they may finally stop blinding themselves to what is actually occurring.

ANON: Okay. I do understand that. Thank you, Elias.

ELIAS: You are welcome. In that, as I expressed, if you want to set your sights in a different direction and you want to address to the unrest in other subjects, there definitely are plenty of other expressions of unrest that you could be engaging and be helpful in easing them somewhat.

ANON: It would be beneficial in relation to refugees.

ELIAS: Definitely.

ANON: Okay. Can you give us a realistic—

ELIAS: In that, I would express to you about that.

ANON: Yes?

ELIAS: Because (inaudible) refugees, and some of them are being displaced because of climate change. Some of them aren’t. But in relation to (inaudible), if they ARE being displaced because of climate change, the factor that they are refugees is expressing enough to emphasize the situation. Therefore, adding to calming or soothing them in their struggle can be beneficial.

Now, what I would also say, which may be even more significant, would be perhaps to address to the unrest in the people, the residents of different countries that are allowing refugees and allowing asylum, because the people that are residents are afraid. The residents of different countries that are engaging with refugees and allowing them to enter their countries and are attempting to (inaudible) them, these people are afraid. And that is generating a counterproductive expression en masse. It is creating a reinforcement to cultures and countries in not wanting to aid refugees or closing borders or expressing no, they will not aid with asylum or with refugees regardless of the situations or the circumstances. And that is all born out of fear, and it is actually gaining considerable momentum.

What is happening is that there are some countries that have been consistently aiding and have been open to all of these masses of individuals, but because there are a FEW countries that are or have been engaging that, they have become overwhelmed. And that has created fear in the people that reside in those countries because they are overwhelmed with the influx, and they don’t have the capacity to accommodate that.

Which is what I have been expressing for years, that it is significantly important not to wait until you are flooded but to prepare and move with the movement, and therefore have the ability to accommodate the mass relocation of people.

Now; in that, that hasn’t been done. And therefore, there is an overwhelming expression in certain countries that have chosen to be accommodating. Your country [Germany] is one of them.

ANON: I know. Elias—

ELIAS: The people are afraid because the influx is so great that it is overwhelming, and it is more than the state can accommodate. And that creates tremendous unrest with the refugees themselves, and then THAT creates tremendous unrest with the residents because they are afraid. And when THEY are afraid, that fear is permeating and influencing in relation to people in other countries to also be afraid. And what they are doing is closing their borders and not aiding in all of the relocation. Therefore, the relocation falls to very few, and it is, once again, overwhelming.

Now; that also is impacting (inaudible), and this is the piece that most of you aren’t paying attention to, is that this piece of this massive influx of refugees and displaced individuals into very limited areas is also contributing to the situation with your planet. You don’t think about that because you are automatically moving in a direction of thinking that all of this in relation to climate change is all moving on its own and is all expressions of what you think of as natural conditions: weather and land and oceans and waterways. And it is so much more than that.

And when you present a situation in which you overpopulate certain areas, that also contributes to the situation of climate change. It encourages it more. It enhances it more. Think about momentarily countries such as China or India. And then think about places, not necessarily the entire country but cities such as Tokyo or New York, in which there have notoriously been situations of overpopulation. And what does that do? The overpopulation of different places in your world taxes the natural environment. You create overwhelming waste. You create overwhelming pollution. And it affects the water, the land, the air.

ANON: Basically, Elias, it is an extreme, isn’t it?

ELIAS: Yes. Definitely. But it wouldn’t have to BE an extreme if people are actually paying attention and moving in a direction of being accommodating in a more realistic and reasonable capacity. If the influx of refugees into Europe—let us use that as an example—were more evenly dispersed, it would not create a situation in which it is actually—

(Connection is broken and re-established)

ELIAS: In this, what I would say to you is that given all of these situations, what is beginning to happen, what has been already happening but it is beginning to move in a direction that is almost crisis, is that all of these factors of climate change are beginning to significantly affect your economies in many countries in different capacities. In your country, your economy is becoming affected in relation to the tremendous influx of refugees and (inaudible) individuals, which is becoming overwhelming. In other countries, the economy is being affected because of alterations in the ability to produce resources. In yet other countries, the economy is being affected because they are contributing to climate change by OVER-producing certain food sources such as cattle.

In this, there are other places that are being affected with their economies because they are affecting climate change in relation to construction, building and tearing down natural growth areas and replacing that with buildings. In this, even the people that have been looking at the situation of climate change seriously – and what I am expressing by that is the average individual, not necessarily the scientist, but the average individuals that have been looking at the situation of climate change in a manner in which they accept it, they believe it, they recognize it, they want to be involved in doing about it or with it – most of that is focused on coastal areas.

I would express to you, in relation to myself and individuals that interact with myself and ask questions about this subject, most of the individuals that are asking questions about this subject, if they aren’t asking merely general questions but if they are asking personal questions about their individual living situation, most of those individuals reside in areas that are near a coast. And they are concerned or worried about rising sea levels and if they are in danger.

I would express to you that thus far to date, only two individuals have engaged conversations with myself and asked personal questions about their area in which they reside, and they don’t reside in coastal areas but are inland and were concerned in relation to weather patterns, water flow, drought and crop production—only two. There are BILLIONS of individuals that reside in these types of areas. Only two have inquired as to the affectingness in other places besides coastal areas.

Let me express to you, my friend, individuals have been privy to the news coverage of the fires in different areas, and individuals throughout your world are aware of the fires that have been generated in the western area of the United States country, and they pay very little attention to it. They notice it, they might briefly express that it is sad or that it is unfortunate and "all those poor people," but that is basically as involved or as aware as they become.

This is an enormous contributant to your state of climate change. Fire creates tremendous toxicity. Fire in that type of volume is tremendously devastating, because not only does the fire itself, in natural conditions – and I am expressing in entire natural conditions – now not only is fire in that situation in effect tremendously toxic and destructive, but when you add into that chemicals and different materials—you don’t think about when a house – one house, not thousands, one – when a house burns, there are so many different materials that are burning and that are vaporizing into your atmosphere, and all of it is toxic and damaging and dangerous. Not only the wood, which the wood in itself alone is treated with chemicals to build your house and to sustain a longer lifetime, so to speak, therefore the wood itself incorporates chemicals. Then you add to that paint. Then you add to that fibrous materials for insulation. Then you add to that everything that is within the house, all of those materials, all of those manifestations that are being melted and that are vaporizing toxins into your atmosphere.

Now, when you add to that that in certain areas that have become notorious for fires, such as this particular area in that country, they have been battling those fires for decades, every year. And how do they do that? Not only with water, but with chemicals, which create a type of domino effect, in a manner of speaking, because then the next year they have created the fodder, in a manner of speaking, for more fires and more intensity in the fires, because they have added to the ground chemicals that are flammable and put out fires initially, but as they seep into the ground, into the earth, and they mix with the natural flora of the different areas—the trees, the vegetation—it creates a reaction in which the very chemicals that are used to put out a fire become toxic and are influencing future fires to burn hotter and longer. This is not about oceans.

ANON: Yes. I think—

ELIAS: Why does this happen in that particular area so tremendously? Because they have no more forest, because they have destroyed them all, killed. The rainforests that remain, which are in themselves being depleted, those that remain and are still contributing to the water collection in other areas of your planets – which they ARE, and I cannot emphasize this strongly enough. You receive rain in the manner that you do, or precipitation in the manner that you do to prevent drought in any particular area, why? Because of those rain forests that put water into your atmosphere which is then carried by jet streams in your air to different areas of your planet, thousands and thousands of miles away. But they need a recipient.

It is very similar to electrical conduit. You can have electricity flowing in a certain direction, but you need a conduit to access it, to harness it. The water that is expressed into the atmosphere by rain forests around your planet are carried through jet streams in the air to other areas, but those areas need TREES. Those are the conduits. It doesn’t need a rain forest, but it does need trees to attract the water from the jet streams in the air. If there are no trees, then the water in the atmosphere collects in places that have the same type or greater pull in relation to the atmosphere. It pulls that water out. And where on your planet is that expressed? What configuration has the same pull or the same strength in drawing that water as other trees that pull to them? The oceans.

Therefore, instead of the water moving towards the areas in which there are these tremendous fires, there are no trees to attract that water. Where does it go? It goes to the ocean. It bypasses the areas over the land and creates a drought, because the humans have created a situation in which there are no conduits for the water.

ANON: Interesting.

ELIAS: And it not only is in relation to that, but when you affect an area in a LARGE area in which there are tremendous fires, you think that if you reside in a different country, in a different part of the world, that that doesn’t affect you. And that is so very incorrect.

I would express to you a reiteration of what I expressed previously in relation to France and the tremendous devastation of the vineyards in France – and that is also occurring in the western areas of the United States – but in France, they don’t understand why they are generating this type of climate which is creating drought, which is killing the vineyards en masse. Why? Because other areas of the planet, water is being redirected from.

Therefore, when one direction stops, it changes everything. It doesn’t only change that one area. It changes the ecosystem. When the water isn’t moving in a certain direction or being drawn to certain areas of the planet, it also affects the ecosystem in relation to what resides there and what contributes to the balance of the ecosystem, which are the insects, which are dying. And those that aren’t dying are relocated. But what you notice is that they are disappearing from where you are accustomed to seeing them, that they are, in a manner of speaking, becoming extinct in certain areas. France is another one of those areas. Not only honeybees, but beetles, which you perhaps think of as insects that are repulsive or that you don’t like or you don’t see any point in beetles, as they are generally destructive creatures and perhaps it is good that the beetles are disappearing, different types of beetles.

It is not necessarily good, because one of the functions that beetles do is to aerate different aspects of the earth. They consume diseased plants and trees to rid the planet of disease in relation to what you would term as natural occurrences, and they aerate the ground, which allows vegetation to grow more effectively.

ANON: Elias, you know—


ANON: This is one of the scariest things, because in my opinion many of the other problems like water shortage or infrastructure seems to me doable with enough manpower and money flowing into that. But with the depletion of insects, that is a different story, because since there is nothing in my opinion currently that people can do to substitute that, even if they put a lot of energy into it there is simply no technology available currently to substitute it, you know?

ELIAS: I would very much agree. You don’t have the capability at this point to be engaging the same action or doing the job that these insects do, that actually sustain you as humans in relation to feed sources. It isn’t that you don’t have the technology; you don’t have the manufactured capability to do that.

ANON: Yes, and I am quite aware of that. And see, that is really scary, because as I told you, many of the other problems, even if it is very hard to change people’s minds, but it would be doable, you know?

ELIAS: Yes. Yes. It IS. I agree. I would express that you ARE doing some of it, even if you are doing it inefficiently and actually creating more influence in relation to climate change than you realize, you are attempting, in some capacities – or a few of you are attempting – to address different situations. And you ARE engaging them, and you are functioning. Not very effectively, but you are doing it. But you can’t sustain that influence indefinitely. And you don’t have indefinitely, in relation to time, to BE attaining it, because everything is escalating tremendously.

At this point now, let me express to you, my friend, three years prior I was expressing that some actions would be occurring very quickly but some actions would be occurring between thirty and fifty years. That it was inevitably coming soon, and relatively speaking in fifty years, it is not much time. But in that three years, whatever would have been expressed in fifty years now is more likely that it will be occurring in less than twenty-five. Whatever would have been occurring in twenty-five years from now will likely be occurring in less than ten.

ANON: Okay.

ELIAS: And what I was expressing in relation to that is that there are MASSIVE changes, that your world will be considerably different from what you are accustomed to now.

ANON: Elias, to make it more tangible, can you offer now a realistic evaluation of the number of people that have to be relocated in the next five years in the U.S., as an example to make it more tangible and not that people think it is only about some remote people on islands, and also a second number in a more worst-case scenario?

ELIAS: I would say…only within the United States?

ANON: Yes, because then people have no chance to say, "Oh well, that is not belonging to me," because it is happening in their country.

ELIAS: I would agree, but I would also express that this applies to Europe also.

ANON: Yes, but take it—

ELIAS: Very well. In relation to the United States, which the expression of displacement would be within their own residents because that country is expressing considerable difficulty in allowing immigrants—or refugees—I would express—

(Connection is disrupted and re-established)

ELIAS: Continuing. Therefore, the answer to that question was millions. And most individuals will attribute that to what you think of as natural disasters, being fires, floods, hurricanes – but it won’t be natural.

ANON: So, again. You are saying that in the next five years that at least one million or several millions in the U.S.?

ELIAS: More than one.

ANON: More than one. And if you would express in a more worst-case scenario, it can also be three to five millions?

ELIAS: Oh, definitely it could move in that direction. It could easily move in that direction.

ANON: I mean, it is important that people have an idea that we are not talking about several hundred thousand, but I mean one million. If you really want to relocate one million in the U.S., I mean you have a lot of problems already.

ELIAS: That is a lot of individuals. And I would express—I would say to you, my friend, that in that country they were devastated and were considerably affected by the terrorist attack in 2001 in which only hundreds of people were affected. We are now moving in a direction of speaking of millions.

ANON: Yes. It is unbelievable.

ELIAS: You are already, already NOW, at this present moment in that country, addressing to thousands and thousands and thousands of individuals that are displaced, and that will merely increase.

ANON: But the government is really trying to keep it under the table, so to speak, isn’t it?


ANON: Which is also another topic, that the government is actually not working any longer to the greatest benefit of the people.

ELIAS: I would agree. I would definitely agree, but I would also express that that is a natural direction and action in relation to this shift, that it is part of the progression in relation to people. I would say that that is occurring in actually many countries, not merely that one.

ANON: Yes.

ELIAS: That government is not necessarily working for the people or reflecting what the people want. I would express that YOUR country is attempting to do that and is not actually listening to the people of your country and their outcry of how afraid they are.

ANON: That’s true.

ELIAS: How unsafe they feel. Therefore, even when a government is moving in a direction in which they are attempting or trying to move in a direction that they believe is humanitarian, they still aren’t considering the entire picture. They aren’t (inaudible) balance.

ANON: Okay. Let me ask you another question. Can you offer a realistic number of the rising of the ocean? I mean, you already talked and agreed with me that it is not one millimeter but we are talking rather a centimeter or even more. So, what would you say is a realistic number for the next five years? And also, would you say that it is not staying constant but it is at least a linear progression, so it is every year we see a greater impact?

ELIAS: In the latter of that question, that every year it would generate a greater amount, I would express yes, and a validation of that. I would say to you that in relation to a viable number, I would say that within the next five years it is likely that it will increase in the capacity of approximately six to eight centimeters.

ANON: In total, or per year?

ELIAS: I would say that that would be within the five-year period. But that is a low estimate.

ANON: Okay. And—

ELIAS: That is based on what it is doing now, but it is continuously escalating. Let me express it to you in this manner, that perhaps individuals will understand somewhat more clearly. Think about your technology. Think about how tremendously your technology jumps in the span of one year. Think about how incredibly different your technology is now from five years ago. Think about simple aspects of technology now as opposed to five years ago.

Now, in very simple actions, if you want to listen to and enjoy music you don’t actually have to purchase an actual physical object. You don’t have to physically store those types of expressions any longer. Five years ago you did. Five years ago, in THIS example, your vehicles were still being produced with CD players. They aren’t any longer, because you don’t require that any longer.

Think about the change in technology in only five years and how tremendously different it is and how tremendously it has increased in its growth. And apply that to climate change, because that is how fast it is moving also.

ANON: See, and that is my intention. I want to make clear, and that’s why I ask specific questions and numbers, because many people are still not really seeing how escalating these things are currently.

ELIAS: I agree.

ANON: So, another question that Inga is interested in.

ELIAS: If you take your technologies and you equate that with your climate change in relation to the rapid escalation of it, that may give you some idea in how quickly it is changing and how dramatically it is changing.

ANON: I do agree, Elias.

Inga has a question. What small action can we do that many would not see or think that makes a difference but that would contribute to make climate change more acceptable and avoiding a catastrophe, so to speak? What can we do in small things? Any suggestion, Elias?

ELIAS: I would express that there are many avenues that you can engage. Let me say to you one of which that the average individual can be influential in. I have expressed many times to many of you in response to questions about health and diet and what is optimal in relation to what you consume as humans, what is most beneficial and healthy for you to consume.

Now, in that, I have expressed in many, many individuals one factor in relation to consuming fish. Now; this is one of those subjects that has far-reaching results and expressions. Many individuals presently are expressing a perception that it is healthier and better to be consuming wild caught fish. In some capacities I would agree with that, but I would express that I would not agree with it if you move in directions of generating more and maintaining them more efficiently than farm-raised fish. Because individuals are en masse moving in the direction of perceiving that wild caught fish is healthier and therefore better, they will incorporate more money to consume wild caught fish, but in actuality what that is doing is damaging your seas, because you are overfishing them and not giving them time to regenerate.

Therefore, with you overfishing – and this is also very much associated with that feeding subject that we were discussing about overpopulating – therefore, ALL of this is interconnected. But in that, if the average individual were moving in a direction of consuming fish as a staple in their diet and were consistently moving in the direction of farm-raised fish, that would increase the revenue to the groups that are farm raising fish, which would increase their ability to generate that, which would place more emphasis on that industry and would move the emphasis away from the fishing industry in relation to wild caught fish. This is a subject that your conservationists have been addressing to for decades, and most individuals are not paying attention to them. But within your own homes you can be contributing to those directions, depending upon what you eat for supper.

ANON: Okay. To sum it up, if everyone that has an interest to contribute to these ways of coping with climate change, if you would pay attention to what you are actually consuming, this is actually making a difference and it is emitting a different energy—

ELIAS: Definitely. If individuals, if families and individuals were consuming red meat perhaps once a week, once every two weeks or once a month, that would deplete the demand for cattle tremendously. And cattle generate a tremendous contribution to climate change because of the gases that cattle generally automatically emit merely by existing. And when you are farm raising thousands and thousands and thousands of them, you are contributing equally as much as thousands of old motor vehicles, and in some situations you are contributing by the development and the raising of cattle MORE than the emissions from motor vehicles.

Therefore, if you actually begin to think about practices that you engage in your reality presently—how you farm, how you raise and generate and how many you generate in relation to animal products that you consume, how you fish – and let me express to you, my friend, that yes, there are some countries in your world that are considerably stubborn and that move in directions of not wanting to conform to what the rest of the world expresses is beneficial for the planet – but the more people en masse move in certain directions, the more pressure it places on those countries that are stubborn and that don’t want to change.

ANON: That’s correct.

ELIAS: I would say that two countries that are notorious for being stubborn and not wanting to change, and continuing to engage practices that are contributing significantly to these problems, are the country of the United States and Japan.

ANON: Um-hm. Another question that is kind of interesting. What can you say to the possible polar shift? Is it more likely now, or is it the same as a couple of years ago?

ELIAS: That is somewhat of a volatile subject at this present time. It isn’t actually shifting yet, but it is also a very strong potential that that could occur.

ANON: Okay.

ELIAS: A very strong potential. Which that—that, my friend, I would say to you is an entirely different subject. And that—that would be significantly devastating to much of your planet. It would be significantly devastating to your species, not to even engage how devastating it would be to thousands of other species.

But, as we have been discussing, you may begin to recognize in that interconnectedness that in your ecosystem of your planet – not merely one area, not merely one country, but the entirety of your planet and how it all moves together – everything contributes to that. All of the animals, the insects, the plants, everything has a purpose. Everything has a function. And the more you remove, the more you change the functioning of the ecosystem. It isn’t that you necessarily kill it, but you change it. You turn it into something else.

As I have expressed from the beginning, the planet will survive. The planet will adjust, and it will continue. Does that mean it will continue with you? That remains to be seen.

I would express, as I have from the onset of this forum, your science fiction is rapidly becoming science fact. And when you think about that, think about all of your parts that move in the direction of apocalypse. That is part of your science fiction. Now, I would say that as you are creating to this point, it is unlikely still that you will generate the type of apocalypse that is expressed in relation to another world war, but you are definitely moving in the direction, and you have been for over a century, of creating more and more and more pathogens, more and more and more diseases—and not only with your species, but you are creating more and more diseases in relation to what you eat.

ANON: In relation to the science fiction, what I recognize is that there is a tremendous emphasis on zombies. What is this kind of a reflection, Elias? Zombies.

ELIAS: Repeat.

ANON: I would like to know, there is a tremendous emphasis in science fiction and movies on zombies. But what are they representing? Why are people drawn to zombies?

ELIAS: Because of the pathogens. Because that is true. THAT is part of your science fiction that is moving more in the direction of being science fact, because that is actually, as much as you think of it as being science fiction and fantasy, it actually is more realistic. Because THAT would much more be likely of a direction that you would create in relation to an apocalypse in association with disease. You are already doing that. You aren’t creating zombies, but you are creating a tremendous escalation in what you generate in disease, and these diseases are becoming more and more difficult to eradicate.

ANON: Oh my god.

ELIAS: Because you aren’t merely limiting them to yourselves. For a considerable time framework in your previous century, and the beginning to the midpoint of your previous century, you were generally limiting your creation of diseases to your own species, but you have far exceeded that at this point. Not only are you now generating diseases with other species of animals, you are creating diseases in relation to vegetation. And THAT is significantly devastating, because it affects your ability to feed yourselves as a species.

Your numbers have grown to a point in which you could not sustain yourselves simply on consuming other animals—not at this point. There are too many of you. You have too great of numbers to sustain the entire population of your planet through the consumption of other animals. You depend on crops that you grow. You depend on vegetation. And in that, you are diseasing the vegetation.

ANON: And add to that the depletion of insects.

(Connection is disrupted and re-established)

ELIAS: Continuing. (Inaudible) In that, I would encourage you to do more—

(Connection becomes noisy)

ANON: Elias, wait. There is something in the line.

ELIAS: Continuing. What I was expressing is I would be very encouraging of most of you to ignite some excitement within yourselves in relation to expanding your horizons beyond your world.

ANON: Can you explain that?

ELIAS: In relation to the masses, the next step with your evolution is to be exploring beyond your planet, exploring other worlds that can be available to you that you can engage in addition to this world. Because this world is changing, and it is changing with or without you.

ANON: Oh my god. So…

ELIAS: In that, I would express that some of you, perhaps many of you, will change with it and will remain with this planet. But I would also express that many of you may not be able to be accommodated by this planet any longer, and therefore it would be tremendously to your benefit to seriously re-engage exploring beyond this one planet.

ANON: Oh my god, Elias. I mean, this is the first time that I hear you moving in this direction, so this is really something.

ELIAS: I would say that that is another avenue that would be significant for you to be moving en masse in exploring and moving your energies in different directions.

ANON: Okay. But let’s come back. So, you are really telling me that people should think or move in the direction of coming to the point that maybe it is necessary that they have to move in their lifetime – not in the future, but in their lifetime – to other planets already? We have reached that point, Elias?

ELIAS: I would say that that is definitely a significant possibility and potential. It isn’t definite, but it definitely is a significant potential.

ANON: Oh my god.

ELIAS: I am expressing that change is happening rapidly, my friend, tremendously rapidly. That is the reason that I used the technology as an example.

ANON: Because it makes it tangible.

ELIAS: Yes. Yes.

ANON: Oh my god. Elias, this is something that really… I haven’t even foreseen that. I mean, I was aware that it was escalating, but that you are now moving in this direction, it is really something that is really surprising me.

ELIAS: I would say to you, my friend, this is a subject that warrants considerable serious attention, and that it is definitely important, especially now that you are moving in these directions of affecting food sources. That is a serious move.

ANON: Yes. I can see that.

ELIAS: You haven’t done that in your history, not in this capacity. Yes, you have created droughts; yes, you have created pestilence; and yes, you have created diseases. But this is different. You are almost systematically creating disease in relation to vegetation that is dramatically limiting your food sources. There are expressions that are limiting your ability to generate significant crops, but to this point presently you are still generating enough food sources to accommodate the population of your world—for the most part. Not entirely, but for the most part. But at this point now, I would say that within the time span of your most recent twenty-five years, you have created more diseased crops than you have in all of your history.

And that is all interconnected also, because a significant part of that is associated with pesticides, pesticides that are designed to eliminate certain insects, which contributes to what we were discussing about the insect populations and the significantly diminishing numbers of them. But in that, the pesticides have been created and designed to affect certain insects, but that has given way to the influx of other and new insects that actually generate disease with the crop. They actually infect. The insects that were naturally expressed in your ecosystem previously would consume crops, but weren’t necessarily diseasing them.

ANON: Oh my god.

ELIAS: Therefore, in that, there were cycles that would occur in relation to insects and crops. They weren’t destroying all of the crops every year or every season, but they would move in natural cycles, which was a part of your ecosystem. Now that you have destroyed that cycle, you have given way to other expressions, other insects, other manifestations that don’t merely consume crops and may not consume them at all, but rather use them as havens and hosts, and disease them.

ANON: Oh my god. Elias, are you addressing in the next internet group session this topic a little bit further?

ELIAS: It is likely, yes.

ANON: And also, I have a question. I recognize that I asked people to contribute to this session and whether they have an interest. And in the Scotty group many people had an interest, but outside this group, in the main Elias forum there was almost no interest. And I wonder, is that because it is my energy and people got somehow reluctant? Or is it because of the topic and people perceive that they actually do not want to hear what you have to say?

ELIAS: I would say it is more the latter than the former, but not necessarily that they don’t want to hear, but that they are somewhat complacent. It isn’t that they are thinking about it and objectively expressing that they don’t want to hear about it; they merely are not as interested. And in that, they don’t see that any of it is affecting them personally, but it is. They merely don’t recognize that what is affecting them personally is part of this entire subject.

ANON: Most definitely, Elias. Yes.

Okay, my friend. I mean… What can I say? I'm really… You know that I am quite aware of what is going on, because I have the ability to tap into that quite accurately. But even I, I must say, was not aware of the severity that you are expressing now.

ELIAS: I am understanding. And what I would express to you, my friend, is a tremendous encouragement for you to spread that awareness. You are aware now to a greater degree, and I would express that then you and any other individuals that are engaging with this conversation, I charge you to be foot soldiers and that you give the information to other individuals also, not to be silent.

ANON: We have passed this point where we can sit there and be silent.

ELIAS: I would agree.

ANON: Okay, Elias. Our time is over. I really thank you for the information. And it is being published and many people will read it. And I think many people will kind of be scared, but it is not about doom and gloom. It is simply recognizing what is already in motion and to adjust to it, isn’t it?


ANON: So, thank you Elias for the session.

ELIAS: I am greatly anticipating our next meeting, my dear friend. I express great acknowledgment to you and encouragement. And I express a thank you for this forum. (Chuckles)

ANON: You are welcome. (Chuckles)

ELIAS: Until our next meeting, my dear friend, in tremendous lovingness, as always, au revoir.

ANON: Au revoir, Elias.

(Elias departs after 1 hour 3 minutes, excluding disconnections)

(1) The session was scheduled for the previous day, and since Mary wrote that she would be a bit late, ANON sent her an email and asked whether she was available. She responded immediately and ANON called, but the line was busy. What happened was that due to an odd weather pattern, Mary’s roof leaked and finally there was more damage that disrupted the power line, just seconds before she was able to pick up the phone call.