Session 202305181

Group-Funded Session on the State of the World


“Group-Funded Session on the State of the World”
“Why It Is a Struggle to Accept Differences”
“Revolution Without a Guillotine”
“Building Toward an American Civil War”
“Grading the World Concerning Climate Change”
“The End of the Science Wave”

Thursday, May 18, 2023 (Private/Phone)

Participants: Mary (Michael) and Jean-François (Samta)

“ I would be very encouraging to all of you, and I would say, ‘Definitely be paying attention to yourselves. It will be very important. It’s becoming more and more and more important.’”

ELIAS: Good afternoon!

JF: Hi! Good day, Elias.

ELIAS: (Laughs) And NOW what shall we discuss?

JF: (Laughs) This is to be a discussion about the state of the world. This is a group-funded session, so thank you first of all to everyone who’s contributed to making it happen.

The first thing I would offer is, while I was preparing to do this session a while back, before it got delayed, I had an interesting piece of imagery occur.


JF: It was after Debbie and Phil’s discussion with you about differences and acceptance regarding world affairs and world situations [1], and Lyla and I were exchanging messages about it because it was a very inspiring session to listen to. And one time I was at the bus stop, I was listening to her message and she was commenting on that session with Debbie and Phil; she was saying that we really still perceive ourselves, each other, as separate and fundamentally different in the world. But what the session was imparting to her is that really we ARE everyone else, we ARE each other, we ARE one another but with different perspectives. So I listened to that, I got on the bus, I sat, and I wasn’t really paying attention to the people around me, but two men sitting in front of me – I wasn’t looking at them – they were discussing, and I started to notice how their speech, the way they were talking to one another, it sounded very symbiotic. At some point I glanced up to look at them, and I was stunned because they were identical twins; like, I could not have told them apart, they were so similar. And they were completing each other’s sentences, and their gestures looked almost like a dance, like a choreography. One of them would move in a certain way and the other would kind of follow – you know the way you can see groups of fish, they all move together. They had something like that going on. And it hit me right then, this was imagery reflecting what Lyla had just communicated, that we ARE one another; in certain respects we are the same, we are all one.

ELIAS: I very much understand, and I agree. And I would say that this is definitely a point of interconnectedness.

JF: Yes. And you know, listening to that session, it sounded very much like how much trauma we create, or don’t create, in the world. You know, it mostly hinges on acceptance – acceptance of ourselves and of one another.

ELIAS: I would agree. Which is considerably difficult for most people.

JF: Why is it difficult? Why is it such a struggle for us?

ELIAS: Because it’s threatening, because people are not taught to be confident in themselves. They’re not taught to trust themselves. And this has been something that has been occurring for millennia, especially in relation to the religious era, that people are not encouraged to trust themselves. They are taught to trust outside sources – God. And in that, differences are threatening. They’re scary to people, and it threatens their identity, it threatens their perception, it threatens them in many different capacities, and because of that, it moves them in directions of a LACK of acceptance.

Fear is a very big motivator behind many expressions with humans. Fear and dominance: those would be the biggest directions that people move in that are contrary to acceptance.

JF: When the covid crisis emerged, you had said that one of the three things that we were being prompted with was differences.

ELIAS: Correct.

JF: And it seems to be now that differences are more exacerbated than they were before the pandemic. I mean, wasn’t that the point, though? Like, are we not more accepting of differences than we were before the covid crisis?

ELIAS: Not necessarily, but that IS the point. You tend to think that if something is being expressed as something that you’re addressing to, that whatever it is that’s the catalyst for that, that that will make it so in relation to it should be accomplished when the catalyst is finished. But the catalyst is simply a beginning; it’s simply something that initiates something. It doesn’t mean that it’s finished when the catalyst is no longer in play; therefore, the mass event was the catalyst for those three expressions and directions: being self-directing, being self-structuring, and addressing to differences. That simply was the BEGINNING of those three expressions. That doesn’t mean that they were entirely accomplished at the end of the mass event; it simply means that they were begun at that time.

JF: Yeah.

ELIAS: And generally speaking, how you address to something is to present it to yourself, to be more aware of it. Therefore, you have to become aware of differences and the difficulty with it before you can move in the direction of accepting that.

JF: Yeah. It stirred the nest.

ELIAS: If you only are reacting to something, you’re not addressing to it. You’re simply reacting to what is a threat, because that’s what a reaction is. Reacting is something that you do when something has threatened you – in varying degrees. And in that, that doesn’t mean that the threat is something TREMENDOUS; it might only be something in an instant, such as something that startles you. Being startled is a reaction. In that, it may be a very quick reaction and something that is only momentary, but it’s still something that threatened you in a moment.

JF: So for the record, globally we are not more accepting of differences than before the start of the covid crisis?

ELIAS: Not necessarily, but you’re more aware. I would say that you are becoming more and more aware of differences and what that means and that there is that element of threat in relation to differences. You see, that’s the point, is that people have to be able to see something before they can actually address to it.

JF: Yeah.

ELIAS: And people react and they don’t even see what it is that they are reacting to.

JF: Yeah. The awareness of it, it positions us differently in that we can evaluate and make choices and address to.

ELIAS: Precisely.

JF: Right.

ELIAS: And in that, without that you simply express that you react to differences because you don’t agree with something, or you don’t like something. And in that, that’s not actually being aware of what you’re doing, but in not being aware, you keep justifying what you’re doing and how you’re reacting.

JF: Yeah, and in the kinds of experiences that we create THROUGH reaction, probably we won’t like it, and that can also contribute to motivating us to reevaluate how we interact with that.

ELIAS: Correct.

JF: Yeah. (Laughs) There’s a saying like, “It gets worse before it gets good.”

ELIAS: Yes. (JF laughs) “The dark before the dawn.” It’s dark before the dawn. And I would say that that is generally correct. These clichés come about for a reason.

JF: Right. They don’t come from nothing.

ELIAS: Correct. Correct. And in this, I would say that it’s a matter of recognizing that yes, the reason that it’s dark before the dawn is because you are becoming more and more aware of what you’re doing, of what you’re reacting to, and therefore evaluating and presenting more and more examples to yourself, therefore usually presenting more and more EXPERIENCES to yourself.

JF: Is there a country or society or group that you could name that would be a good example for us to look at, at this time? Like a good example of accepting differences more so, relatively speaking at least?

ELIAS: (Long pause) A country? No. A group? (Another long pause) I would say… some – not all – some of the aboriginals; only those that choose to continue to express themselves and live in the bush.

JF: So they ARE expressing acceptance of differences?

ELIAS: Yes, but only those, not the aboriginals that have assimilated themselves into the Australian or New Zealand societies, no.

JF: Well in a way, they’re… It’s kind of hard to use them as an example because we don’t necessarily HAVE access to them, or they’re not participating in mainstream society, say. They –

ELIAS: Correct.

JF: By definition (chuckles) they’re doing their own thing and we’re not really interacting with them.

ELIAS: You are correct. But they are aware of the rest of the world, and they are aware of the people in their countries and continents. They are not participating with them physically, but they are aware of their participation in the same country.

JF: And would you say that that goes hand in hand in a way with keeping attention on self? Is that what motivates them to exist in that capacity? And that in keeping their attention on themselves, that also is a contributor to accepting differences?

ELIAS: Yes. Because in that, they’re not threatened by the expressions, the beliefs, the behaviors, the choices of other people. They don’t concern themselves with it. They live how they live, they make the choices that they make, and in that, they’re not concerned with the choices or the expressions or the behaviors of other people. It doesn’t matter to them.

JF: In another way of saying this, it’s like our age and culture of hyper-media: It just fuels the conflicts with differences, does it not?

ELIAS: It in some manners does and it can, but it doesn’t have to.

JF: Right. Right. It’s how we use it.

ELIAS: Yes. And that would be the situation with everything: It’s what you do with things. It’s the choices that each of you make that matter and that determine what direction you move in. That you can be interactive with your social media, you can be interactive with all of these avenues that, in your terminology, make your world smaller and make you all more accessible to each other, but in that, it’s a matter of how you do that and moving in a direction of recognizing that the only way that anything threatens you is if YOU aren’t confident in yourself.

JF: Hm.

ELIAS: If you are expressing a confidence in yourself, then it doesn’t matter what you engage, what you present to yourself, what you interact with, because YOU are creating your reality.

I would say to you, even in relation to things that you think of as posing a genuine threat such as wild animals, it depends on you and what you do, how you engage and what you do. The choices that you make determine what your experience will be. And in that, if you are actually expressing that responsibility to self and you are confident within yourself…

Confidence doesn’t mean dominance. It doesn’t mean that you move in directions of dominating something else. It simply means that you’re not afraid. And in that, you can generate more clarity to make choices that won’t place you in positions of danger.

JF: Hm. Okay. Thank you for that.

Also in Debbie and Phil’s session, you mentioned revolution as something that is occurring now and that it can take many forms. Can you elaborate on where we find ourselves now in relation to revolution or potential revolution in this decade, as the objective implementation of the Shift advances rapidly?

ELIAS: (Pause) Revolution is moving in new directions, new choices, and in a manner of speaking, overthrowing the old.

Now, in the past, that has been done in physical directions in relation to actually physically overthrowing existing regimes. In this present time framework, you are more doing it in the capacity of expressing the importance of the individual; and therefore, how you’re overthrowing is very different. It’s more being done in the capacity of changing importances and therefore changing what you pay attention to; in that, changing the importance of many authorities and therefore not paying attention to them any longer, not giving them your attention. And if you’re not giving them your attention, you’re also not participating with them.

And in many capacities, this is happening with people in relation to established governments. They’re simply not paying attention to them any longer because they’re not important to them any longer. And therefore in that, they’re not participating with them.

And that is how this new overthrowing, in a manner of speaking, is occurring, because it’s a matter of they don’t have to move – or none of you have to move – in the direction of a guillotine. (Chuckles) All you have to do is move your attention away.

JF: But doesn’t that give free rein to established authorities to abuse the power, so to speak?

ELIAS: No. (Laughs) Because how do they abuse power if there’s no one that they are in power above?

JF: Well, I’m thinking about how… You know, like there’s a so-called cost of living crisis now in many places in the world, and in how resources are organized, distributed, accessed, there seems to have been growing inequalities over the years. And I remember you saying in Rome, when the Rome session happened, that there are elites in the world that are not going to let go of their power and what they have easily. So if –

ELIAS: They’re not! And I would say that at this point, it doesn’t much matter, because it’s all about what the individuals choose, not what groups choose, and that’s the point. Up until now, everything in society has been determined by groups. The groups choose. They establish what is right, what is wrong, what the laws are, what the rules are. And all of that varies from one group to another, from one place to another, because in any given place the majority of the people in a group determine what the rules are.

In this, as the emphasis shifts from groups to the individuals, that’s changing, because the individuals are beginning to not pay attention to what the groups express. Therefore in any given place, there are individuals that are simply not paying attention to what the rules are. And they are not necessarily moving in opposition to them; they’re simply not paying attention to them at all, and simply moving in whatever direction suits them, and expressing in relation to what is important to them. And in this, the more each individual does that, they actually are automatically encouraging everyone around them to do it also. And that doesn’t mean that they are standing on a soapbox and advocating for everyone to be individually expressing themselves alone; that’s not how it’s being accomplished.

And this is what we were discussing about revolution. It’s being accomplished simply by people moving in the direction of paying attention to themself and NOT paying attention to everyone else around them, or governments, or authorities, or groups. And it’s just beginning. Your pandemic, your mass event, was the catalyst, the beginning of all of this: something that shook your world and changed it. And it did! And in that, now it’s the movement into individual expressions.

Now, in that of course, you also have the expressions of young individuals, as you always have throughout your history, because they are generally more vocal and they’re passionate and they want to be noticed and they want to exact change, and therefore they are expressing in some manners in relation to what other individuals are expressing, not necessarily as vocally. And therefore you have groups of individuals – generally younger individuals – that are expressing more in the direction of what seems to be traditional revolutions or civil unrest, let us say. That has been happening in many different areas in your world.

JF: Oh yeah.

ELIAS: But that’s simply a reflection of what is happening on a larger scale but one that seems to be more quiet – one that you don’t necessarily see in your media, one that you don’t necessarily notice in relation to civil unrest, because it’s simply people moving in the direction of paying attention to themself and moving in the direction of the aboriginals (chuckles), that people can live in a country and not participate with it.

JF: Is there not a place or a point in expressing publicly? Is there not such a thing as productive, non-oppositional protest, say?

ELIAS: Of course! I would say that generally speaking, there seems to almost always be a factor of some type of opposition. But is that not productive? Of course it is! And I would say that it’s definitely a reflection of the greater masses. And this is something that people misunderstand and misinterpret frequently, that they think that the protests of the few are isolated and that they don’t reflect the masses, and that’s not actually correct. That’s not actually true. That there are masses of people that actually agree with those that are protesting. And in that, they’re simply not expressing in those terms, but that doesn’t mean that they’re not expressing at all.

And in that, this would be, yes, the reflections of greater numbers of individuals, but they’re not necessarily made up into a group. That the protesters may be expressed in a group, but the people that they are actually reflecting are not necessarily a group. They are individuals that are expressing and living in the capacity of being the individuals and putting the emphasis on the importance of the individual by putting the importance on themself.

JF: Mm-hm. Yes!

ELIAS: What I would say to you is, this is not to be confused or misconstrued with people that are self-centered in the capacity that you think of as being self-centered, but that it IS self-centered in relation to being centered in one’s self – but also being aware of being very interconnected with one’s self and everything else.

JF: Well, who knew that minding your own business was a revolutionary act?

ELIAS: (Laughs) Precisely.

JF: You know, another thing that caught my attention in your conversation with Debbie and Phil is when you were using the war between Russia and Ukraine as an example to make a point about differences and acceptance, and you said that no country so far has approached another country with which it is having a territorial conflict, say, and suggests something like, “Perhaps we can both occupy this land,” or “Perhaps we don’t need to have separate countries.” This is… I mean, in a way it was suggesting that this is the direction that we are likely to go into as the Shift progresses, is that the national identities, national borders, that is likely to fluctuate a lot, no?

ELIAS: It likely will, because there will BE more acceptance; and when there is more acceptance, that is expressed, as I said, because people are more confident in themself, and in that, they’re not threatened.

Now; in this, let me ask you: What do you think the expression of ownership is?

JF: Hm. (Pause) Well… It is a separation, is it not?


JF: But I’m not sure what you’re prompting me about.

ELIAS: Ownership is something that is expressed not only because of separation, but it is something that people express to create boundaries: “This is mine. This belongs to me. I – "

JF: Is it a kind of protection?

ELIAS: Yes, it is. “I possess this, and because I possess this and it BELONGS to me, YOU have no right to it.”

JF: We do the same thing with countries and traditions and identities.

ELIAS: Yes, you do. You do the same thing with ESSENCES! (JF laughs) You do the same thing with FOCUSES: “I have this focus. You can’t have it.” (JF laughs) “I am this focus. You can’t have it.” In this, possession is an expression of, yes, protection of yourself and part of your identity.

JF: And in becoming more accepting, that no longer becomes necessary.

ELIAS: Correct. That it doesn’t matter. It’s not threatening to share.

JF: So –

ELIAS: And look at your pandemic.

Now, this is something that is quite ironic, actually, because in one capacity it’s something that was shared with the entire world. You were all participating in the same expression, in the same experience, in the same action, BUT you also moved in a direction of expressing isolation and moving away from each other. And in that, it’s scary to share. It’s threatening to share. It’s dangerous to share – at the same time that you were sharing (laughs) everything.

JF: Hm. Yeah, that’s an interesting angle to consider it from. (Laughs)

ELIAS: Yes! At the same time that you were sharing this same experience, and in that, could have moved in a very different direction, but it doesn’t matter because the actual reason for that mass event was to create that catalyst and it did that very well. But in that, it is quite fascinating how humans respond to most expressions. You are definitely a very fearful species.

JF: And it’s normal to us; it’s been normalized.


JF: Speaking of fear, I don’t know, it looks like there is a potential rise of fascism in the world, or the threat of war, further war. Let me ask you one specific question there about that. A few years ago you said that the Americans, they were moving a direction of a kind of civil war. Is that still something you would assert?

ELIAS: I would say that it ebbs and flows, but yes, that I would say that the Americans are a
country that is severely divided, and it continues to be more and more and more divided.

Now, understand: When the Americans generated their first civil war, it was something in the making and growing for several hundred years. The Civil War did not occur until the… slightly farther than the midpoint of the 19th century. And in that, the Americans had been engaged and building and becoming divided from the time of actually about the midpoint of the 16th century. Even though they weren’t an independent country yet, the practices that were occurring in the areas that were being settled were very strongly divided. Therefore that division had been bubbling, let us say, and moving until it reached an actual boil, and it didn’t reach a boil for approximately… more than 200 years.

JF: Okay. Yeah. (Laughs) So these divisions are part of the genesis and history of the country in that it’s ongoing.

ELIAS: Yes, but also I would say that in order to generate an actual civil war, – a war that is a civil war – that actually requires a considerable amount of movement. And I would say that since the first civil war in America, there was somewhat of a very unsettled cooling-off period, let us say, for approximately… I would say approximately 30 years.

Now; since then it’s been building again, because the issue was never resolved. The population of the country of the United States of America thought – or thinks still – that the issue was resolved, but it never was. And –

JF: So America has got a problem.

ELIAS: Quite so. And it’s building again in a different manner, but it’s building; and it hasn’t reached its fever pitch yet, but it’s moving in that direction, and the division is very strong.

JF: Is there a potential for the rise of fascism in the United States in this decade? Like, a lot of people are still worried about a character like Trump because he could be coming back. What does he represent at this point, and what would be important for people to keep in mind when faced with such an individual in such a position socially?

ELIAS: What is important to keep in mind? That he is no more important than (whispering with emphasis) any other individual. That it’s not about the masses; it’s about the individual. And therefore, if people keep their eye on the individual and themselves, they will continue to move in the direction of placing less and less importance on the government and more and more importance on simply the individual.

Now, in this, I would say that it’s an interesting situation, because this individual initially gained a tremendous following and initially was garnering a lot of popularity, but subsequently has lost a lot of that popularity. A lot of the individuals that were very devoted to him have become disenchanted with him.

Now, that’s not to say that there aren’t still a significant amount of people that DO agree with him and that do move in the direction of wanting to support him, whether he would move in the direction of a public office or not, but I would say that this is, once again, a continuing expression and offering, if you will, of the subject of difference. And the more people move in the direction of opposing someone such as him, the more they are continuing to exacerbate that subject of difference and NOT moving in the direction of acceptance.

JF: Okay. Thank you. I mean we’re –

ELIAS: I would say that if people are concerned and worried about this individual moving in the direction of a public office, I would express a… an encouragement for them to check themselves and make that not important, because they are moving in the direction of expressing that very thing that they OPPOSE – that they want more acceptance but they’re not expressing that acceptance. Therefore, what will you create?

[The timer for the end of the session rings]

JF: Yeah, that was pretty eloquently discussed in Debbie and Phil’s session.

I know the buzzer rang. If we might continue for a few minutes, I would ask, you know around the time of the Rome group session you had also begun to discuss climate change. So eight years later, what grade would you give us globally in being responsive to the ongoing changes in the capacity of preparedness and dealing with it realistically?

ELIAS: (Pause) What grade would I give you? I would express (pause) globally, as a whole, perhaps satisfactory.

JF: Oh! That’s encouraging.

ELIAS: But (JF laughs) not poor, but not excellent either.

JF: Okay.

ELIAS: And I would say that what moves you in the direction of satisfactory is that there ARE some countries that have genuinely moved in some very innovative, constructive directions.

JF: Can you name an example or two, that we might look at them?

ELIAS: I would say… (pause) look to… (pause) the northern countries of Norway and Sweden (pause) –

JF: They usually get it right, yes.

ELIAS: And – (laughs)

JF: (Laughs) These countries are always on the list of “best of,” like were doing better than others. But keep going.

ELIAS: (Laughs) They are paying attention. (Laughs) And I would say that they definitely are… tipping the scales in a direction of making it so that globally it raises the grade to being satisfactory. (Laughs)

JF: All right. Let’s pay attention to them and let’s be inspired.

ELIAS: I would agree.

JF: Last question: At what stage of the science wave would you say we are? Like, what’s going on? What are we doing now in relation to what the science wave is about?

ELIAS: Remember what I have said: When science acknowledges perception as being the central point of everything, that will be when your science wave ends.

JF: So are we moving closer to that? Like is anything happening of significance with regard –

ELIAS: Yes. Yes. They are moving slowly, but they are moving closer. There are some scientists that are definitely moving in the direction of acknowledging that – not that the entire community of scientists would accept that; they don’t. But it’s beginning. It’s moving slowly, but it is moving.

JF: Okay! So not over any time soon, eh?

ELIAS: Not yet. Although that could generate a dramatic change, and it could move very quickly from that. It simply depends. It simply needs a slight shift in which the scientific community would acknowledge that one piece.

JF: Well, thank you so much for this discussion. It’s very much appreciated. And thank you again to –

ELIAS: You are very welcome.

JF: – everyone who contributed.

ELIAS: You are very welcome. And I would be very encouraging to all of you, and I would say, “Definitely be paying attention to yourselves. It will be very important. It’s becoming more and more and more important.”

JF: Thank you.

ELIAS: You are very welcome, my friend. I express tremendous encouragement and support, and love and friendship to all of you. And I express a tremendous acknowledgment to all of you in what you are accomplishing and what you are giving importance to. Well done. (Laughs)

Until our next meeting, in tremendous, tremendous love, au revoir.

JF: Au revoir.

(Elias departs after 1 hour 5 minutes)

[1] Session 202304231

Copyright 2023 Mary Ennis, All Rights Reserved.