Hello everyone. This is Gary Bean welcoming you to the L/L Research Podcast, In the Now, Episode #46. L/L Research is a nonprofit organization dedicated to freely sharing spiritually-oriented information and fostering community. Towards this end, we have two websites: the archive website, www.LLResearch.org and the community website, Bring4th.org.

During each episode those of us at L/L form a panel to consider questions from spiritual seekers. Our panel consists of Jim McCarty, husband to the late Carla Rueckert, scribe for the Ra contact and president of L/L Research, along with Austin Bridges and myself who are working hard to keep the mission of L/L Research alive and well. Each of us is a devoted seeker and student of the Law of One.

We intend this podcast to be a platform of discussion as we consider questions from spiritual seekers. These questions often challenge us to articulate our own perspective. Our replies, while excellent of course, are not final and authoritative, instead they’re generally subjective interpretations stemming from our own studies and life experiences. We always ask each who listens to exercise their own discernment and listen for their own resonance in determining what is true for them.

If you would like to submit a question for the show, please do so. Our humble podcast relies on your questions. You can either send an email to or go to www.LLResearch.org/podcast for further instructions.

Again, I’m Gary Bean and we are embarking on a new episode of L/L Research’s weekly podcast, In the Now. Jim and Austin, are you guys ready to embark as well?

Yes, indeed.

Let’s do it.

All right. We’ll jump right into our first question that comes from Andrew, which I’ll ask in two parts. Part 1:

“Dear Jim, Gary, Austin and other seekers,

I was listening to an old Art Bell show from 2001 with David Wilcock and Dr. Scott Mandelker yesterday and was struck by their discussion on the Quickening. Is this analogous to what Ra calls the Harvest?“

So, Jim, you got any thoughts on this Quickening business?

Well, I’m pretty sure it is. I haven’t really heard it called Quickening very much, which is an infrequently used term. I think Quickening refers to the enhancing or speeding up of the vibrations of the planet, and also very likely to the vibrations of each person that is seeking to move into the fourth density—the Harvest, the Graduation, the Ascension or the Quickening.

So I would say, yeah, it probably is.

Austin, what do you think?

That makes sense to me. I was assuming that they were talking about something very specific, but the only quickening I’ve ever heard of was from the Highlander movies where one immortal cuts off another immortal’s head and gains all their power. I don’t think that’s what David Wilcock and Scott Mandelker were talking about. So, I don’t really have a whole lot to say except what Jim said makes a lot of sense.

How about you, Gary?

I think presidential debates would be a lot more interesting if that were the case—like if one chopped off the other’s head. [Laughs]

Yeah, like Jim, I presume that a Quickening means an increasing intensity. Well actually, my point is a little divergent from Jim. I take Quickening to mean an increasing intensity in speed or sense of things. I believe Jim used the word ‘vibration’ which I think is even a truer thing to say. But anyways, I think everyone can attest to a sense of quickening in that aspect of increasing intensity and speed. So my question would be is this so-called Quickening due to the approaching fourth density, or the technology/sociological evolution of our global society, or both? This led me on an interesting—and I would say related tangent—not within the Law of One.

Like Austin and Jim, I’m unfamiliar with Quickening as Dr. Mandelker and David discuss it. But, so that brought to mind a vague memory I have of Terence McKenna’s time-wave zero theory. In researching that I found a related quote to McKenna by one Yanis Varoufakis in which he says:

“My metallurgist father impressed upon me, when I was still a child, the effect of technological innovation on the historical process. How, for instance, the passage from the bronze age to the iron age sped up history; how the discovery of steel greatly accelerated historical time; and how silicon-based IT technologies are fast-tracking socioeconomic and historical discontinuities.”

Discontinuity, I believe, means a breaking from the past. Now on to a quote by Terence McKenna. He said:

“Alfred North Whitehead proposed that history grows toward what he called a ‘nexus of completion.’ And these nexuses of completion themselves grow together into what he called the ‘concrescence.’ A concrescence exerts a kind of attraction, which can be thought of as the temporal equivalent of gravity, except all objects in the universe are drawn toward it through time, not space.

As we approach the lip of this cascade into concrescence, novelty, and completion, time seems to speed up and boundaries begin to dissolve. The more boundaries that dissolve, the closer to the concrescence we are. When we finally reach it, there will be no boundaries, only eternity as we become all space and time, alive and dead, here and there, before and after.

Because this singularity can simultaneously co-exist in states that are contradictory, it is something which transcends rational apprehension. But it gives the universe meaning, because all processes can be seen to be seeking and moving in an effort to approximate, connect with, and append to this transcendental object at the end of time.“

That’s interesting because he targets this upcoming concrescence, whereby everything kind of converges into this singularity, to coincide—more or less—with what the Confederation called the Harvest.

McKenna also studied the 64 hexagrams of the I Ching pattern, which he felt somehow—beyond my understanding—“codified the nature of time’s flow” in the world. McKenna took this data and developed software that would help map these cycles of time. I have another interesting point to share in the form of a quote:

“McKenna suspected that notable events in history could be identified that would help him locate the time wave’s end date and attempted to find the best-fit placement when matching his graph to the data field of human history. And the last harmonic of that wave has a duration of 67.29 years, according to his calculations. So, population growth, peak oil, and pollution statistics were some of the factors that pointed him to an early twenty-first century end date and when looking for an extremely novel event in human history as a signal that the final phase had begun, McKenna picked the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima.”

I’m sure Law of One readers can find a parallel there.

“This worked out to the graph reaching zero in mid-November 2012. When McKenna later discovered that the end of the 13th Baktun in the Maya calendar had been correlated by Western Maya scholars as December 21, 2012, he adopted their end date instead.”

So, I found that all really interesting that this, here’s the…

[Audio lost]

All right, so we had some technical complications with Skype that caused us to get cut off and none of us knows exactly where I last stopped speaking. So, I will just wrap up that reply and say that it was interesting how McKenna perceived the increasing intensification and complexity and novelty that was happening within society and saw how it was all coming to a convergence, to what he called a singularity and how he felt that the signal for this final phase was the dropping of the atomic bomb which has some parallels in the Law of One. But anyways, if you’re interested in the Quickening, Andrew, and if you haven’t encountered McKenna, it’s a great place to dive further into that.

So, you guys have any further thoughts?

No, not from me.

Were you thinking of the beginning of the fourth-density Harvest at that time as being the relationship to the Law of One?

Yeah. Didn’t Ra target the same time period as the beginning of the fourth density energies?

Right, 45 years before, in 1981, be about 1935 to 40.

Yeah, so there’s interesting corollaries there. I’m not saying that they’re identical or equivalent, but interesting.

It looks like Terence McKenna got the 2012 thing wrong, too.

Yeah, I don’t know what exactly he had in mind that would transpire then.


That’s a separate discussion, and it actually kind of ties into the next question.

That’s true.

Can you guys hear birds in my microphone? Besides the guy talking, but…

There’s some very loud birds outside, but I don’t think they’re going to interrupt the show.

Okay, well I just got the windows open, I wasn’t sure.

All right, next question from Andrew says:

“Further, it’s been said on your podcast many times that the Harvest is now. And according to Session #6.1, the Earth should be fourth density by now. Do you think we’ll ever see some kind of spiritual tipping point in our lifetimes, or will most of us have to wait until after death to really see 4D on the Earth?”

Austin, what are your thoughts?

Well, we have talked about Harvest a few times on the show so I might be repeating myself here when I say that despite incredible effort from readers to pick apart Ra’s words about how exactly the transition into fourth density will work, and how that relates to Harvest, and how Harvest will work, and especially all the discussion before 2012, there was never really a consistent interpretation about any of this. This includes things like the question that Andrew is referencing.

In that question that Andrew talks about, Don asks if in 30 years the earth will be a fourth density planet. Ra says this is true. Some people may interpret it different when they confirm Don’s statement about this 30-year period. Ra could have been talking about in time/space specifically, and not space/time. Maybe that’s the point where we were completely in fourth density time/space, instead of just mostly in fourth density time/space. Or they could have been confirming some sort of potential for us to reach in that 30-year period that is now available to us, but we still have to, you know, activate that potential ourselves. Or that 30-year period could have meant something totally different to them at the time because Ra’s notoriously bad with numbers.

So, it’s a difficult question to answer. But despite these differences in interpretations, I think my opinion is probably not as encouraging as some would hope. It seems to me that there are some rather strong cycles of energy being perpetuated on our planet that might deter us from some sort of mass-awakening or noticeable shift in the collective consciousness, which is the sort of shift that might be required for us have the sort of tipping point that Andrew is talking about.

That’s not to say that there aren’t many great things happening—not just within the alternative spiritual community—but all over the world within both the traditional and orthodox systems, as well as these sort of alternative thought systems. There are a lot of great things happening, but it seems to me that in order for fourth density to become available to us, which is what I sort of think Andrew is asking, we have to work through some of this hardened thinking that we have acquired in third density.

Doing this might be aided by the presence of the fourth density energy that Ra talks about, or the increased incarnation of the so-called dual-activation entities and other factors. But me personally, I don’t see fourth density being forced upon a population that isn’t ready for it and doesn’t bring it themselves in a sense. I do think that we’ll see some positive changes in my lifetime. But I feel like within the next few decades the mass population is probably not going to become aware of the fact that there’s a density system and we’re entering a new density. There’ll probably be no mass shift in our awareness of our consciousness, but maybe one day in the more distant future, we’ll realize that we’re undergoing this massive change with our consciousness and our reality. But it just seems like that possibility is a bit far away for it to be within our lifetimes to me. But I would love to be wrong about that, too. It would be incredible to see a mass awareness of the shift in densities and be able to talk about it with everybody instead of just our small little group.

Indeed. Jim, what do you think?

Well, I agree with everything Austin said. Ra said that one of the factors that will play a large role in just exactly when the Harvest for the entire population of the planet will be is the choices that our people make. We have various nations and religious factions around the world that are volatile, so it’s hard to say which way that they’re going to go. Depending upon the choices that are made there, we could find ourselves with a catalyst that would cause us to want to polarize more quickly and to try to send love where there is apparently no love, and to try to establish communication where there seemed to be breakdown in communications. So, I think that’s a big factor.

I think that everybody that is going through the death process right now is having a chance to be harvested. I think there’s probably a walking into the light to see if you can take enough of the fourth density light in order to survive here and it’s not too glaring. I think that is going on now.

I also think that if entities aren’t able to make it and they’re very close, they’re probably coming right back and giving it another shot. They probably have a little better point of view from the other side in the spirit world time/space to see if they’ve got time for another incarnation or another five or ten years or ten or twenty or whatever might be enough. Ra gave a general outline of a hundred to seven hundred years, which started about 1935 so we’re about seventy years into it.

So, who knows? I doubt if we’re going to see a big change in our lifetime, but like Austin, I’d love to be wrong. How about you, Gary?

Yeah. I agree with both of you guys. Regarding whether we’ll see anything before death, Ra indicates in #63.13, according to my reading of it, that all third-density or yellow-ray activated bodies will have to go through physical death prior to the full activation of fourth density in space/time. That doesn’t mean that enormous change can’t happen within our own space/time continuum while we are alive, but I don’t know how you choose to reconcile that one.

There is an interesting response that Q’uo gave to a question on this basic topic in February 6th of this year. I’ll read Q’uo’s reply but preface it with a caveat, or a disclaimer rather, to take any prediction of dates with a grain of salt regardless of the source, or regardless of how good the channel is. It’s just the nature of these things that dates can be iffy. So, Q’uo said:

“I am Q’uo. The time of the passing of the earth into the fourth density cycle of experience occurred in that time period that many were speaking of for a great period of your time before hand, that is, the year 2012. In this year the time/space beingness of your planet became completely of fourth density nature. However, the space/time portion of your planet has been somewhat, shall we say, confused and laggardly in the collection of entities and their ability to make what you would call, the graduation, to point the needle of the compass in a solid and discrete fashion.”

Let me pause for a second to say that connects to what Austin and Jim were saying in that the conversion of third density space/time into fourth density happens in proportion to what’s happening on the ground here on Planet Earth, and our unity or lack of unity and our harmony or lack of harmony and, so forth. Back to Q’uo’s final paragraph:

“Thus, our suggestion that it would take approximately two additional incarnational periods, that incarnational period each being somewhere between 70 and 80 of your years, before the space/time continua was able to match that of the time/space graduation into fourth density. Thus, you will see that there is some period of, shall we say, cleaning up of the mess that has been made upon your planet by the cultures that cannot seem to find a way home.”

Austin, can you do me a favor? There is a cassette holder, a plastic cassette holder on the adjustable desk and there should be a memo stuck to that. On that memo has a few numbers.

Yeah, like the date?

Yeah. Those are the past few instances I could find where we talk about Harvest and I forgot about it. I forgot to…

Oh, the episode numbers? Number 38 and number 15.


And then there’s a date below, the date 2015.02.03. Is that the channeling you’re referencing?

No. February 3rd, 2015 was the Blog Talk Radio show where we talked about it. Yeah, those. Andrew, if you’re interested in more, those past three instances we dive into this more comprehensively.

So, anybody have any other thoughts for Andrew?

Nope, not from me.

I have a quick thought about the prophecy thing you were talking about and how you said to take prophecy with a grain of salt. I think it’s relevant in discussing Harvest and any discussion about Harvest because Ra gave dates and every channel seems to have given dates. There’s lots of prophecy that gets flown around in this sort of New Age community. Ra talks about how this is problematic when they said in session #65.9:

“The value of prophecy must be realized to be that of only expressing possibilities. Moreover, it must be in our humble opinion, carefully taken into consideration that any time/space viewing—”

…which would be prediction or prophecy…

“—whether by one of your time/space…”

…a human…

“…or by one such as we who view the time/space from a dimension, shall we say, exterior to it—will have a quite difficult time expressing time measurement values. Thus prophecy given in specific terms is more interesting for the content, or type, of possibility predicted than for the space/time nexus of its supposed occurrence.”

Ra is basically saying there that whatever time is given for whatever prophecy, always take that with a big grain of salt and try to focus more on the content itself and specifically what that content means to you. How does it give you hope? Does it give you fear? Why are you focusing on the content? What draws you to the content and how is it helping you to learn more about yourself? All these lines of questioning are more productive than the date that it might happen. Just some final thoughts on the idea of prophecy.

Very good. Thank you very much. Andrew is the fellow that wrote some books recently, didn’t he?

Oh yeah, yeah. For anybody who’s interested in fiction—specifically science fiction—that is based on the Law of One, Andrew Crusoe, the fellow who asked this question, has written and is writing a series of novels called The Epic of Aravinda. I’ve read the first one and enjoyed it a lot. The next two are on my reading list. I’m not sure how far he plans to go with it, but I look forward to it a lot.

If you’re interested in anything like that, his website is myth.li, which does not sound like a web address. But I promise that if you just type that into your browser, you’ll get his website and you can find out all about his series, The Epic of Aravinda. I think he’s got some great deals. You can sign up for his newsletter and get like two free e-books or something. It’s heavily based on the Law of One. If you’re familiar with the Law of One you’ll find a lot of concepts in there. It’s not a strict science-based thing. It’s just a fun adventure that incorporates concepts that we’re all familiar with and he does it very well.

There, just a little shout-out for Andrew there.

Cool. Thank you for the question, Andrew. It feels like we’ve been on this a long time because of the difficulties, but I presume we have time to tackle Amy’s questions?

Yeah, I think we’ve got time for those.


Jim, you’re good?


All right. Amy has sent a couple questions. Her first one is:

“I want to ask a few questions. Does Ra give any advice on how a positive-oriented person can deal with a negatively-oriented person? How does a positive deal with extreme hate felt towards the negative person? Doesn’t it seem rather unfair that negatives are so healthy and robust?”

Austin, what do you think?

Well, there’s a few questions there, so I’ll do my best to get through them quickly. I think in general, it’s good to recognize whether you’re dealing with a genuinely negative person or if you’re dealing with someone who’s just sort of confused and has an inner turmoil because how you deal with those two different things could be different.

I think a lot of people might say that somebody is negative because they have a lot of negative-seeming behaviors. But these behaviors may possibly be the result of some confusion due to trauma or distortions this “negative” person may have, rather than resulting from a conscious decision to polarize negatively. They might just be a hurt person. So, I think the first thing to do is to determine whether or not they’re actually negative, or if they are just acting negative.

The next step is to set some boundaries. If it is a legitimately negative person, I feel like the safest thing you can do is to set complete boundaries because this is a person who has chosen to build their life philosophy around manipulating and controlling other people. There is no interaction you can have with that person you can trust to be genuine. If you’re able to just remove them from your life completely, I think that’s the best thing to do because you can never know what their motives are.

If they are just acting negative and might be simply confused, then you definitely also need to set boundaries. But there might also be opportunities for you to genuinely serve them. If you can, help them process their trauma in some way without enabling their negative behavior. It might be possible to help them to understand themselves better and why they behave the way that they do. Show them a little bit of love to help them feel what it’s like to be loved, and to possibly to give love. If it’s a genuinely negative person, then they would not be interested in that. But if it is somebody who is just confused, then that might be beneficial to them.

I’ll go ahead and stop there and see if Jim has any response to the rest of Amy’s questions, maybe.

I don’t think it matters really what kind of person you’ve got there. If they’re confused or negative or positive or whatever, I think the correct response to any person is love. Try to give love to the situation, whatever the situation calls for, just do your best to do that. That’s what we’re here for. That’s why we polarize and serve each other. How does a positive deal with extreme hate felt towards the negative person? I am assuming that the hate is coming from you, the positive person, so I would suggest that you attempt to balance that hate in your meditations so that the hate is balanced with love.

I don’t think hate is a good feeling to have for anybody. It hurts the one that gives it probably more than the one who receives it. Unfair that negatives are so healthy and robust? Well, you know, that could be unfair depending on what you think is of value in your life. Health and robustness is sometimes seen as goals for life. But I think it’s better to look at goals that have a metaphysical quality to them, such as being of service to others and trying to be understanding, loving, and helpful when you can. Those might be better goals to worry about instead of worrying about some segment of society being healthy and robust.

Just my opinion. How about you, Gary?

My apologies. I didn’t read these questions too well because she also asks later on if it would be appropriate to assume “a sickly person” to be of positive orientation, which connects very well to what she was saying about negative people being healthy and robust. I would say to both of those related questions that it wouldn’t be “appropriate”—if you don’t want to use that word. Actually, I think “possible” would be the word I’d use. So, it wouldn’t be possible to assume the polarity of the person based on their health. They could be sickly and negative or healthy and robust and negative.

I think you’re drawing this from what Ra said when they indicated that the negatively-oriented individual may be more healthy just because they are investing more of their intention into the care and upkeep of their body. Whereas the positive person has a tendency to put others or some kind of service or some kind of work ahead of the care and upkeep of its own body. However, that doesn’t preclude the positive person from being healthy, whether due to a balance of wisdom and love whereby they do invest in their body, or to a pre-incarnational choice to design a healthy body in order to perform some particular service. In Carla’s case, she had a very frail body that was part of her pre-incarnational design to serve in a body that way in order that she would learn certain lessons. So, it’s hard to draw polarity from one’s state of health. I think polarity is more reflective of one’s orientation and attitude and the way they relate to others.

In terms of this hate, I really couldn’t improve on Jim and Austin’s replies. But I would add to that a quote from Ra. In #46.9, Ra says:

“Control is the key to negatively-polarized use of catalyst. Acceptance is the key to positively-polarized use of catalyst.

Catalyst can be coming from within yourself or catalyst can be delivered to you by somebody else. You’re asking how can you deal with this. Those are the two basic road maps for how you deal with this. And if, like Jim said, that extreme hate is coming from you, then you can start with yourself. Accept and love yourself for having this hatred. I mean, it’s understandable that you feel that way. Certainly most people with an open heart have negative, repulsive sorts of reactions to seeing negative acts or negative people whether they are confused or consciously negative.

Yeah and that’s it for me on that one. I’ve got one more question from Amy, but do you guys have any further thoughts?

Not I.

Yeah. A little bit of clarification. Jim talked about not seeing a difference in how we treat an individual who seems negative, whether they are actually negative or confused and I talked about setting boundaries based on how you feel that person is. I agree with Jim that loving them completely, or attempting to love them at least, is what you would do in either case. But I don’t see setting boundaries or treating people in different ways based on how you think they would react or possibly use or manipulate you is precluding that love.

For instance, when Ra talked about the Ra contact group’s attempt to serve the negative being that was greeting them, they said they found it slightly humorous. Then they gave advice that was somewhat along the lines of if you served this entity in the way that it wished you to serve it, then you would no longer be able to offer your service to others because the negative entity essentially wanted to extinguish this. And so, that’s sort of what I mean by trying to gauge how an individual might be truly negative or really just confused because if an entity is just confused, then it won’t necessarily for sure be trying to manipulate you or extinguish your light or control you. Their behaviors might just indicate that. But if they have seriously made that choice to be negative, then that would affect at least how I would interact with an individual. I would still find it in myself to find love for that person, but I don’t think that boundaries preclude acceptance and love. Just wanted to add some clarification.

I’d like to add a thought real quick to that. I think what you are describing is an act of discernment. It’s hard to make these assessments, but somebody who is confused or wounded or hurt may be available to be reached, whereas a negative entity does not want to be reached. That negative entity is consciously intending to control, enslave, subjugate, and dominate you. In both cases, love is the fundamental reaction of course. But in terms of your action, strategy, and your particular response, discernment does come into play I think. Right?

Yeah, that’s basically what I mean.

The final thing I had from Amy was just more of a statement. She says:

“I’m a positive-oriented person and I find it so unacceptable for a person to be of a negative orientation. Consuming, extreme interest in one’s self is just so repulsive to me.”

Jim or Austin, you guys have any thoughts to that?

There’s no question, she just gives her opinion.

What I see in Amy’s statements and in her questions is the idea of her own shadow based on the Carl Jung archetype. Carl Jung said that our shadow is the person we would prefer not to be. Amy says she’s a positively-oriented person and she looks at negative orientation with a sort of disdain. It’s clear that she does not want to be that negative orientation. She finds the extreme interest in one’s self to be repulsive. I think that a lot of the work that the Confederation helps us to achieve, and that Carl Jung talked about in his own work with the shadow, is to use that shadow as a tool to find greater love within your reality.

We have a strong urge to reject what we find so repulsive and negative about somebody else. As a positive person, you might choose to only express some of that behavior that you find so repulsive. But it’s important to remember that we contain the entire spectrum of human behavior within ourselves. When you reject repulsive and negative behavior, you are essentially rejecting a part of yourself.

If Amy would like to look further into this and maybe find a way to find love for those types of people that she finds repulsive, I would suggest looking into Carl Jung’s shadow work and even doing a search in the L/L archives for the word ‘shadow’ because Q’uo actually talks about it in these same terms as well—that we are essentially rejecting a part of ourselves. Since we are all one thing, we contain the entire universe within us. When we find somebody else repulsive, we are actually finding an aspect of ourselves repulsive. Then you can work with that aspect of yourself easier than you can work with another person.

So, that’s what I would have in response to that comment.

I think it’s really salient to invoke the concept of the shadow self. My reply is just going to be a riff on the same thing that Austin focused on. You may indeed be a very positive person in the same way that I may be a positive person, and many others may be positive people,. But that’s not the end of our identity of who we really are. We are more than just a positive person or a negative person. We’re more than just third density entities. We are—and this is Ra’s message—the Creator. And the Creator, as Austin was saying, includes all things. There’s nothing that is not the Creator. So, you are fundamentally the negative person, too. Your larger identity includes that.

I mean, there is a space of your identity where you are very much a positive person, which you must enhance, accentuate, and intensify that because that positivity is going to carry us through multiple densities of evolution. But that is not the end of our identity, which is the viewpoint that Ra is attempting to share—that you are not just this positive person.

In #1.5, Ra speaks of unity. They talk about how the priests in, I believe it was Egypt, distorted Ra’s message. Ra said:

“However, the priests and peoples of that era quickly distorted our message, robbing it of the, shall we say, compassion with which unity is informed by its very nature. Since it contains all, it cannot abhor any.”

Unity itself, which is what you really are, it’s not an abstract concept. Unity itself cannot abhor the negative path no matter how evil or wicked their deeds. This is because unity contains all and you, Amy, are that unity. But that concludes my thoughts. You guys have any further?

Well, if there is part of herself that she really does not like and is taking it out on the negative folks, I think maybe it would be a good idea for her to love both that negative part of herself and the negative entities.


Umm-hmm. I think that’s really the full definition of love is to find love for that interior part of yourself that you are seeing within the others.

Yeah, Ra says that each is a mirror. So, that negative entity is offering you a mirror.

Well, that wraps up our show today. Jim, would you like to say anything to the listeners?

Well, thanks everybody for listening. Thanks for your time and thank you for your questions. Thanks for your love. So, when you go out and see everybody on the streets, whether you’re seeing somebody you like or not, try to give them a smile and see if they might smile back and send a little love everybody’s way because we can all use it. See everybody in two weeks.

You’ve been listening to L/L Research’s weekly podcast, In the Now. If you’ve enjoyed the show, please visit our websites, LLResearch.org and Bring4th.org. Thanks so much for listening and a special thank you to those who submitted questions.

If you’d like to send us a question before the next show, please read the instructions on our page at www.LLResearch.org/podcast. New episodes are published to the archive website every other Wednesdays at 1:00 p.m. Eastern. Have a wonderful week and we’ll talk with you then.