#and any studio financially benefits an awful human being

[simplytolkien]

Wow, I’m getting a lot of aggressive messages about my opinion of Rings of Power. I knew there would be some push-back from our lovely modern internet society, but this is stupid. I never said the show was perfect, but I enjoy it, and I hate this snobby nit-picking. Why our society has come to believe that this sort of tiny-minded critical attitude shows how intelligent and sophisticated you are, I don’t know, but it’s frankly stupid. It just shows you up for being ignorant and lacking in grace. Especially since right at the beginning of the show it says ‘based on The Lord of the Rings and Appendices by J.R.R. Tolkien’ right on the screen in the intro. Based on means not 100% faithful. In any project. And the complaints I’m getting about changes to the story show that people haven’t actually paid attention to the original lore anyway, and all but two of the complaints are about things that actually are accurate. They just seem to be riding the seemingly ‘cool’ wave of hate for the show that started long before there ever even was a preview released. Some people made up their minds when it was announced that it was going to be bad, and they seem to be controlling the narrative about it, which is a shame, and people who have such a need to be ‘cool’ follow along without their own opinions as usual. But I think the show so far is strong enough to overcome such narrow bigots and stand firm in its own merits and be loved by people for time to come, and if some people want to watch it and be angry and miserable, that’s their loss. I do know some people are actually not going to like it, and hey, that’s okay too. Just give it a fair shake before you actually decide you don’t like it.

Yes, there are a few issues with Galadriel so far. They are changing her story and timeline, but that isn’t a deal breaker for me. I don't mind her taking a more active role in the wars, just like I've said before that Arwen riding Frodo to the Fords, while not at all accurate, is still one of my favourite scenes in the movies, and they had more scenes filmed with her along those lines that didn’t make it to the films. As a woman who loves Tolkien, I understand that he definitely wasn’t the misogynist he’s often accused of being. He wrote many beautifully strong women and wrote several who expressed dissatisfaction with the ‘traditional’ notion of womanhood, Éowyn being the most famous. And of course, Lúthien, based so lovingly on his wife, was anything but traditional. Another favourite of mine is this quote and conversation between Erendis and her daughter in Númenor. I like that these projects are portraying strong women, even if it isn’t in the exact same places where Tolkien did. Galadriel fighting isn’t far-fetched to how her character was written. Tolkien even had her mother-name (one of three names elves are given) mean man-maiden because she was such a tomboyish elf, always riding and hunting and doing it all better than most of the men (and also because she was taller than most women and had a deeper voice). So far she is somewhat tactless, grumpy, and hasty, but I think it’s simply a case of early-episode overcompensation. I’ve seen it over and over in shows where they come out of the gate really hard with a character’s attitude for the first few episodes to firmly establish a character in viewers’ minds, and then they begin to mellow or soften their approach. It isn’t my favourite approach, but it is commonly used in the industry. I am hoping they give her more grace soon. And it isn’t Morfydd Clark’s fault. I think she’s doing an amazing job with what they’re writing for her and how they’re directing her. The only things about her that aren’t exact for the role is that she isn’t tall or deep-voiced, but she can’t change those... Otherwise, perfect.

But you have to understand that Galadriel was a rebel. She was a rebel and a leader in the rebellion of the Ñoldor when they left Valinor because she strongly desired to rule her own kingdom. She was full of pride and ambition, and that was her driving force for many many years, which was why she was still tempted by the Ring in the Third Age and had to resist to be allowed to sail back into the West. No, she never would have sailed for Valinor (which I think was included to portray her rebellion against the Valar), and yes, she should have met Celeborn by this time, but again, this show has five seasons planned. It’s only been three episodes. Give it time. Yeesh. And I myself am not sorry that we potentially get to watch her love story happen. But she wasn’t a ruling elf from the beginning. Eventually for a time she and Celeborn ruled a small group of elves sort of like a fiefdom under Gil-Galad before moving into what becomes Lothlórien, so her being a commander under Gil-Galad isn’t ridiculously far-fetched.

When it comes to Elrond, the theme in the messages I’m getting is that he isn’t being treated right because he’s a lord and not a politician, like he’s being treated like a nobody. Again, people need to read more of Tolkien than Lord of the Rings to talk about these very aged characters. Lord of the Rings was the very end of Elrond’s life in Middle-Earth. Rings of Power has his earlier role spot on so far. He wasn't Ñoldorin, who were the ruling elves at this point, or even a High Elf since he was never in Valinor. And he wasn’t full elf. He had some human and Maia. (I’ll post a cool breakdown of Elrond’s genealogy that 5ummit created after this.) He wouldn't have naturally had a high position with the Ñoldorin at this point, but it goes a long way to showing how he was valued that he was Gil-Galad's herald and a captain, which is lore accurate. He wasn't the heir of all major houses as such. He wasn't even a prince while Galadriel was a princess in both the Ñoldor and the Teleri. Elrond’s line was respected and loved since he was Lúthien’s great-grandson, but it wasn’t a ruling line (ringofsecrets is right; he was royal through Lúthien, but they no longer had a kingdom). It was just that after the first war with Sauron, he was one of only two elf commanders who survived, Cirdan being the other, and so Elrond became a ruling elf because he was loved and wise. He was offered the title High-King, having been connected with Gil-Galad, but he turned it down since he wasn't of the bloodline of the High-Kings through a male ancestor (even though he was through a female ancestor) and because so few of the Ñoldorin were left that it didn’t matter. And actually, Galadriel had a far closer claim to that title herself, being niece or great-niece or something close like that of the first High-King. (I get all the F names in her family confused when I haven’t read The Silmarillion in a while.) But I don't think anyone wanted the title. The four Ñoldorin kings all came to bloody ends... I do like that they made Elrond and Galadriel friends since eventually Elrond marries Galadriel’s daughter.

And then there was the comment on the post about the hobbits and their age, but it was worded oddly, so I’m not sure exactly what you’re saying? I think you mean the culture is portrayed as too old, like hobbits didn’t exist for another 2300 years? But again, there’s nothing objectionable here. In Tolkien’s lore the hobbits came from more primitive ancestors, the same ones Gollum came from, and if you remember, Gollum had found the ring over 500 years before ‘The Hobbit’ happened, and he was in an established group in the east where Isildur would have dropped the ring when he died. It was in the same region that Beorn lived, east of the Misty Mountains near what became Mirkwood. There were three breeds: Harfoots, Stoors, and Fallohides. The Harfoots and Fallohides were the first who over time travelled north and west to finally settle in the Shire because of various unrest and dangers, especially those caused by Sauron moving into and settling in what became Mirkwood. The Stoors, the breed Gollum was, moved around in the east a lot longer and interacted with the Dunlendings some before finally moving west into the Shire. These hobbits aren’t early. They’re simply living primitively in the east, just like Tolkien said the three different breeds who were the hobbits’ ancestors did before they came to the Shire and intermingled until they were one people. And unlike every other race in Middle-Earth, Tolkien didn’t once write an origin story for hobbits. He never described their creation. The first record of interaction with the ‘Big Folk’ was with the Éothéod, the ancestors of the Rohirrim, in far-away times and in the east, so no one knows when and where they originated.

I never said I thought Rings of Power is 100% accurate to the books. That never happens in any project, especially one that says ‘based on’. But I love that it seems so far like they're staying true to more than people think. Really, so far they’ve just changed some of the timelines or minor events. The actors have interviews explaining some of the thinking behind decisions made, and the creators themselves said that some of it would be different to the commonly held versions of Tolkien's works because Tolkien was ALWAYS changing things. I mean, he worked on this world for decades, so he was always fiddling with timelines and lineages and so on. Even some of the main characters and events in the Silmarillion changed quite a few times after the Silmarillion was written, including Galadriel and her whole family of Finarfin and Fëanor and such, who were changed enough times that it's still not clear who Gildor Inglorien is. That's why the creators of Rings of Power consulted Tolkien's grandson Simon. They wanted his knowledge of some of the more obscure information since Tolkien was changing things until he died. I think that's cool. It feels like they're honoring Tolkien's whole approach to his world instead of just saying 'this is what it was period end of.'

No matter what they do, there will always be people who want to gripe and complain, and then there will be people who legitimately don’t like it, and that’s totally okay. I mean, I hate Game of Thrones, but I don’t go around the internet taking it out on people who like it. Let them enjoy what they enjoy. I’ve learned to just let people be themselves and enjoy the cool things that can come out of that, even if it’s not necessarily what I would do. That doesn’t mean it’s wrong, and if this is how the creators want to honor Tolkien, they’re the ones who had the courage to approach studios and say, ‘Hey, we know we’ve never made a tv show before, but we love Tolkien and have this great idea.’ And then they put in the hours and hours and hours of work. Don’t tear down the people that do things if you’re too scared, lazy, unmotivated, or unable to try yourself. I know I wouldn’t be interested in doing it. I think they’re doing a beautiful job with cosmetics and graphics and just creating a beautiful world for these characters to live in, and I’m going to enjoy my journey through it, along with the other people who choose to live with gratitude and enjoyment and sent lovely messages and comments. :)

#rings of power #tolkien #simply tolkien #my tolkien nerdom came out strong in this post #stronger than normally anyway #but i just thought maybe there are some people that will judge less harshly if they know some of the history #like i hated the way cate blanchett did galadriel's voice in the lotr movies #until i read tolkien say that she had a deeper than normal voice #now i'm like that is so right! #and any studio financially benefits an awful human being #most are just wise enough to stay out of the public eye #are you going to boycott every movie or tv show ever made? #any more hateful message senders will be blocked #sorry not sorry #it's just a tv show #grow up #i still love the show #let's just see how it goes

[mcmansionhell]

The Brutalism Post Part 3: What is Brutalism? Act 1, Scene 1: The Young Smithsons

What is Brutalism? To put it concisely, Brutalism was a substyle of modernist architecture that originated in Europe during the 1950s and declined by the 1970s, known for its extensive use of reinforced concrete. Because this, of course, is an unsatisfying answer, I am going to instead tell you a story about two young people, sandwiched between two soon-to-be warring generations in architecture, who were simultaneously deeply precocious and unlucky. 

It seems that in 20th century architecture there was always a power couple. American mid-century modernism had Charles and Ray Eames. Postmodernism had Robert Venturi and Denise Scott Brown. Brutalism had Alison and Peter Smithson, henceforth referred to simply as the Smithsons. 

If you read any of the accounts of the Smithsons’ contemporaries (such as The New Brutalism by critic-historian Reyner Banham) one characteristic of the pair is constantly reiterated: at the time of their rise to fame in British and international architecture circles, the Smithsons were young. In fact, in the early 1950s, both had only recently completed architecture school at Durham University. Alison, who was five years younger, was graduating around the same time as Peter, whose studies were interrupted by the Second World War, during which he served as an engineer in India. 

Alison and Peter Smithson. Image via Open.edu

At the time of the Smithsons graduation, they were leaving architecture school at a time when the upheaval the war caused in British society could still be deeply felt. Air raids had destroyed hundreds of thousands of units of housing, cultural sites and had traumatized a generation of Britons. Faced with an end to wartime international trade pacts, Britain’s financial situation was dire, and austerity prevailed in the 1940s despite the expansion of the social safety net. It was an uncertain time to be coming up in the arts, pinned at the same time between a war-torn Europe and the prosperous horizon of the 1950s.   

Alison and Peter married in 1949, shortly after graduation, and, like many newly trained architects of the time, went to work for the British government, in the Smithsons’ case, the London City Council. The LCC was, in the wake of the social democratic reforms (such as the National Health Service) and Keynesian economic policies of a strong Labour government, enjoying an expanded range in power. Of particular interest to the Smithsons were the areas of city planning and council housing, two subjects that would become central to their careers.

Alison and Peter Smithson, elevations for their Soho House (described as “a house for a society that had nothing”, 1953). Image via socks-studio.

The State of British Architecture

 The Smithsons, architecturally, ideologically, and aesthetically, were at the mercy of a rift in modernist architecture, the development of which was significantly disrupted by the war. The war had displaced many of its great masters, including luminaries such as the founders of the Bauhaus: Walter Gropius, Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, and Marcel Breuer. Britain, which was one of the slowest to adopt modernism, did not benefit as much from this diaspora as the US. 

At the time of the Smithsons entry into the architectural bureaucracy, the country owed more of its architectural underpinnings to the British architects of the nineteenth century (notably the utopian socialist William Morris), precedent studies of the influences of classical architecture (especially Palladio) under the auspices of historians like Nikolaus Pevsner, as well as a preoccupation with both British and Scandinavian vernacular architecture, in a populist bent underpinned by a turn towards social democracy. This style of architecture was known as the New Humanism. 

Alton East Houses by the London County Council Department of Architecture (1953-6), an example of New Humanist architecture. Image taken from The New Brutalism by Reyner Banham. 

This was somewhat of a sticky situation, for the young Smithsons who, through their more recent schooling, were, unlike their elders, awed by the buildings and writing of the European modernists. The dramatic ideas for the transformation of cities as laid out by the manifestos of the CIAM (International Congresses for Modern Architecture) organized by Le Corbusier (whose book Towards a New Architecture was hugely influential at the time) and the historian-theorist Sigfried Giedion, offered visions of social transformation that allured many British architects, but especially the impassioned and idealistic Smithsons.

Of particular contribution to the legacy of the development of Brutalism was Le Corbusier, who, by the 1950s was entering the late period of his career which characterized by his use of raw concrete (in his words, béton brut), and sculptural architectural forms. The building du jour for young architects (such as Peter and Alison) was the Unité d’Habitation (1948-54), the sprawling massive housing project in Marseilles, France, that united Le Corbusier’s urban theories of dense, centralized living, his architectural dogma as laid out in Towards a New Architecture, and the embrace of the rawness and coarseness of concrete as a material, accentuated by the impression of the wooden board used to shape it into Corb’s looming, sweeping forms.

The Unité d’habitation by Le Corbusier. Image via Iantomferry (CC BY-SA 4.0)

Little did the Smithsons know that they, mere post-graduates, would have an immensely disruptive impact on the institutions they at this time so deeply admired. For now, the couple was on the eve of their first big break, their ticket out of the nation’s bureaucracy and into the limelight.

 The Hunstanton School

An important post-war program, the one that gave the Smithsons their international debut, was the expansion of the British school system in 1944, particularly the establishment of the tripartite school system, which split students older than 11 into grammar schools (high schools) and secondary modern schools (technical schools). This, inevitably, stimulated a swath of school building throughout the country. There were several national competitions for architects wanting to design the new schools, and the Smithsons, eager to get their hands on a first project, gleefully applied.

For their inspiration, the Smithsons turned to Mies van der Rohe, who had recently emigrated to the United States and release to the architectural press, details of his now-famous Crown Hall of the Illinois Institute of Technology (1950). Mies’ use of steel, once relegated to being hidden as an internal structural material, could, thanks to laxness in the fire code in the state of Illinois, be exposed, transforming into an articulated, external structural material. 

Crown Hall, Illinois Institute of Technology by Mies van der Rohe. Image via Arturo Duarte Jr. (CC BY-SA 3.0)

Of particular importance was the famous “Mies Corner,” consisting of two joined exposed I-beams that elegantly elided inherent problems in how to join together the raw, skeletal framing of steel and the revealing translucence of curtain-wall glass. This building, seen only through photographs by our young architects, opened up within them the possibility of both the modernist expression of a structure’s inherent function, but also as testimony to the aesthetic power of raw building materials as surfaces as well as structure.

The Smithsons, in a rather bold move for such young architects, decided to enter into a particularly contested competition for a new secondary school in Norfolk. They designed a school based on a Miesian steel-framed design of which the structural elements would all be visible. Its plan was crafted to the utmost standards of rationalist economy; its form, unlike the horizontal endlessness of Mies’ IIT, is neatly packaged into separate volumes arranged in a symmetrical way. But what was most important was the use of materials, the rawness of which is captured in the words of Reyner Banham: 

“Wherever one stands within the school one sees its actual structural materials exposed, without plaster and frequently without paint. The electrical conduits, pipe-runs, and other services are exposed with equal frankness. This, indeed, is an attempt to make architecture out of the relationships of brute materials, but it is done with the very greatest self-denying restraint.”

 Much to the upset and shock of the more conservative and romanticist British architectural establishment, the Smithsons’ design won.

Hunstanton School by Alison and Peter Smithson (1949-54). Photos by Anna Armstrong. (CC BY NC-SA 3.0)

The Hunstanton School, had, as much was possible in those days, gone viral in the architectural press, and very quickly catapulted the Smithsons to international fame as the precocious children of post-war Britain. Soon after, the term the Smithsons would claim as their own, Brutalism, too entered the general architectural consciousness. (By the early 1950s, the term was already escaping from its national borders and being applied to similar projects and work that emphasized raw materials and structural expression.)

 The New Brutalism

So what was this New Brutalism? 

The Smithsons had, even before the construction of the Hunstanton School had been finished, begun to draft amongst themselves a concept called the New Brutalism. Like many terms in art, “Brutalism” began as a joke that soon became very serious.  The term New Brutalism, according to Banham, came from an in-joke amongst the Swedish architects Hans Asplund, Bengt Edman and Lennart Holm in 1950s, about drawings the latter two had drawn for a house. This had spread to England through the Swedes’ English friends, the architects Oliver Cox and Graeme Shankland, who leaked it to the Architectural Association and the Architect’s Department of the London County Council, at which Alison and Peter Smithson were still employed. According to Banham, the term had already acquired a colloquial meaning:

“Whatever Asplund meant by it, the Cox-Shankland connection seem to have used it almost exclusively to mean Modern Architecture of the more pure forms then current, especially the work of Mies van der Rohe. The most obstinate protagonists of that type of architecture at the time in London were Alison and Peter Smithson, designers of the Miesian school at Hunstanton, which is generally taken to be the first Brutalist building.”

 (This is supplicated by an anecdote of how the term stuck partially because Peter was called Brutus by his peers because he bore resemblance to Roman busts of the hero, and Brutalism was a joining of “Brutus plus Alison,” which is deeply cute.)

The Smithsons began to explore the art world for corollaries to their raw, material-driven architecture. They found kindred souls in the photographer Nigel Henderson and the sculptor Edouardo Paolozzi, with whom the couple curated an exhibition called “Parallel of Life and Art.” The Smithsons were beginning to find in their work a sort of populism, regarding the untamed, almost anthropological rough textures and assemblies of materials, which the historian Kenneth Frampton jokingly called ‘the peoples’ detailing.’ Frampton described the exhibit, of which few photographs remain, as thus:

“Drawn from news photos and arcane archaeological, anthropological, and zoological sources, many of these images [quoting Banham] ‘offered scenes of violence and distorted or anti-aesthetic views of the human figure, and all had a coarse grainy texture which was clearly regarded by the collaborators as one of their main virtues’. There was something decidedly existential about an exhibition that insisted on viewing the world as a landscape laid waste by war, decay, and disease – beneath whose ashen layers one could still find traces of life, albeing microscopic, pulsating within the ruins…the distant past and the immediate future fused into one. Thus the pavilion patio was furnished not only with an old wheel and a toy aeroplane but also with a television set. In brief, within a decayed and ravaged (i.e. bombed out) urban fabric, the ‘affluence’ of a mobile consumerism was already being envisaged, and moreover welcomed, as the life substance of a new industrial vernacular.”

Alison and Peter Smithson, Nigel Henderson, Eduoardo Paolozzi, Parallels in Life and Art. Image via the Tate Modern, 2011.

A Clash on the Horizon 

The Smithsons, it is important to remember, were part of a generation both haunted by war and tantalized by the car and consumer culture of the emerging 1950s. Ideologically they were sandwiched between the twilight years of British socialism and the allure of a consumerist populism informed by fast cars and good living, and this made their work and their ideology rife with contradiction and tension. 

The tension between proletarian, primitivist, anthropological elements as expressed in coarse, raw, materials and the allure of the technological utopia dreamed up by modernists a generation earlier, combined with the changing political climate of post-war Britain, resulted in a mix of idealism and post-socialist thought. This hybridized an new school appeal to a better life -  made possible by technology, the emerging financial accessibility of consumer culture, the promises of easily replicable, luxurious living promised by modernist architecture - with the old-school, quintessentially British populist consideration for the anthropological complexity of urban, working class life. This is what the Smithsons alluded to when they insisted early on that Brutalism was an “ethic, not an aesthetic.”

Model of the Plan Voisin for Paris by Le Corbusier displayed at the Nouveau Esprit Pavilion (1925) via Wikipedia (CC BY-SA 4.0)

By the time the Smithsons entered the international architectural scene, their modernist forefathers were already beginning to age, becoming more stylistically flexible, nuanced, and less reliant upon the strictness and ideology of their previous dogmas. The younger generation, including the Smithsons, were, in their rose-tinted idealism, beginning to feel like the old masters were abandoning their original ethos, or, in the case of other youngsters such as the Dutch architect Aldo van Eyck, were beginning to question the validity of such concepts as the Plan Voisin, Le Corbusier’s urbanist doctrine of dense housing development surrounded by green space and accessible by the alluring future of car culture. 

These youngsters were beginning to get to know each other, meeting amongst themselves at the CIAM – the International Congresses of Modern Architecture – the most important gathering of modernist architects in the world. Modern architecture as a movement was on a generational crash course that would cause an immense rift in architectural thought, practice, and history. But this is a tale for our next installment.

Like many works and ideas of young people, the nascent New Brutalism was ill-formed; still feeling for its niche beyond a mere aesthetic dominated by the honesty of building materials and a populism trying to reconcile consumerist technology and proletarian anthropology. This is where we leave our young Smithsons: riding the wave of success of their first project as a new firm, completely unaware of what is to come: the rift their New Brutalism would tear through the architectural discourse both then and now.

If you like this post, and want to see more like it, consider supporting me on Patreon!

There is a whole new slate of Patreon rewards, including: good house of the month, an exclusive Discord server, monthly livestreams, a reading group, free merch at certain tiers and more!

Not into recurring donations or bonus content? Consider the tip jar! Or, Check out the McMansion Hell Store! Proceeds from the store help protect great buildings from the wrecking ball.

#brutalism #architecture #architectural history #brutalism post #smithsons #alison and peter smithson #british architecture #modern architecture #le corbusier #concrete #brutalist architecture

[trishgibsontx]

why your business is really failing: from a real-time intuitive vantage point

photo by Babita Patel

my work continues to evolve. in a nutshell: I see truth. period. when I treat serious medical cases, with someone who has visited many doctors on the planet with no successful outcome, I don’t see or feel opinions — I see and feel something that comes from beyond that, and something that I would call truth. let me explain exactly how and why it is different from OPINION:

first of all, my requirement for working with others is clear and simple: I do not want to know anything about them before meeting them. I do not want to know their full name, what they do for work, where they are from, why they are reaching out to me, or any other details that would interfere with the fact that I am human and have a discerning ego like everyone else. this requirement allows me to feel what IS, not what I THINK IS. when I work with public figures, I mandate that they do not leave me a message with their real/full name. I am working with their energy and being, not their trending image. this helps to keep any potential opinion at bay.

second of all, I generally don’t have opinions about people — I feel truth about them, if that makes any sense. it did NOT serve me well as a child. if I could have changed what I saw, I would have. but I couldn’t. in addition, with where I come from inside of myself, I still think the BEST of others first (a byproduct of my being, not my intuition). I learn over — and over — and over again, that where my being comes from is not reality. I have walked a tightrope in life, often overlooking many ugly truths — even in my private holistic practice. letting some of the wrong people in. I have, as a byproduct of difficult personal experiences, learned more than ever how to experience truth versus any wishful thinking or otherwise OPINION.

truth versus opinion: truth = gut knowing. opinion = experience. the two are NOT THE SAME THING.

so to my original post point: when I enter businesses of any sort, I see IMMEDIATELY what is working or not working, and why. this boils down FIRST to one thing, and one thing only, that seems to evade the general human population: individual human energy. it is absolutely true that one rotten apple can dismantle an entire company. an entire production. an entire office space. while “higher” and more positive frequencies absolutely transmute thousands of lower frequencies, the fact is that in smaller companies especially, the spore of a defunct energy/person can not only infiltrate otherwise well-meaning and hardworking individuals, but it can destroy the entire business.

the second thing a failing business boils down to is UNCONSCIOUS wounds in the higher-ups. especially in men. women are more open, are more likely to attend therapy, and more easily made vulnerable. men, not so much. it takes a special character to become vulnerable and run an operation by power versus force. when we have unconscious wounds that we cover up by blaming others, our business suffers. if we are repeating the same pattern over and over and over again and we keep firing and hiring people, we are the problem. no amount of trending life coaching or group seminars can fix this.

so there it is: 2 strong reasons your business is failing. 1) the individual energy of the people you have working for you 2) your unconscious wounding. so, what to do about it? that is an egg you will have to crack at your own speed, as your situation starts to override your ego. as for me, where my work has emerged is within the CEO or small executive team dynamic. I started treating C-suites, and then I was asked to treat their closest circles to enable team efficacy. my model of working on a strictly individual basis has shifted a bit, but still only on a limited case by case basis. it is exciting though, because to see a large company (especially one that contributes positively to society) do well and know that I can tangibly help support that holds endless possibilities as we collectively move from “fact” to “flow” (my words). and again, when it comes to working with large companies, obviously C-suites are the first who have either something to actually lose or actually gain within their infrastructure. everyone else is pretty much just along for the ride, or waiting to C-level their own enterprise one day.

I want to share with you what I see in some random and mixed examples as far as how energy travels in company dynamics. 1) designer label clothing stores. what actually inspired my T.E.P. program is the following: one day I was walking past a clothing store of a designer variety. everything in my mind wanted to enter that store; everything in my body wanted to run from it. it was a store I had been in several times in years prior, and I saw the SAME people working there, still. this brand has a lot of money, so it can afford to pay for basically empty retail space where hardly any sales are made (as the CEO/shareholders are too removed to truly know why they are losing thousands per month, and possibly close to 7+ figures per year). not only is it empty of client traffic, but the feeling I have each time I walk by — to this day — is dark and dismal. there is no doubt a low energy in there (please read other parts of my blog to support understanding what low energy is), sucking away at energy that would otherwise be bringing in revenue. there is a cloudy troll, somewhere in that store location, eating up something that does not belong to them. sitting at a computer waiting for the day to end, so that they can collect their check. with employee participants around them, doing the same (I guess some brands do not offer commission). so I don’t go in. there is another store, of a similar style, also high end designer, just 2 blocks north of the one I just described. for a year, I had the same feeling about THAT STORE — I would not go in. however one day last year, something in my body felt like it wanted to be in there. I walked in and whatever had been preventing me from being in there the year prior was gone. I immediately asked the staff: did you just fire someone who had been here for quite some time? they were bowled over not only with shock, but relief. they didn’t say much aside from confirming that my feeling was correct, but I could tell that whoever was no longer there was a real drain on sales. these people cost businesses unconscionable amounts of money! needless to say, they earned my new business, because I no longer picked up on something that turned my core away — despite their beautiful ad campaigns. 2) a fortune 500 financial sales institution: let’s just say that not only have I worked at a couple (over 10 years ago), but I have advised some of them — from an intuitive perspective. I recall one in particular, which felt almost like an Italian restaurant cover — you know, when restaurants are a front for…something else. anyhow, I walked into this place and immediately felt that the director of the main department was…corrupt or off. his mouth said one thing, and his energy said another. I knew that the CEO had no idea, because they had worked together for so long. this director reminded me of a bartender at an off-the-books bar — who pocketed most of the cash without ringing up drinks. it took me some time to understand what he was actually doing — which was actually not really my concern — but most importantly why…so that he could be shifted around within the company or eliminated from it altogether in order to benefit the bottom line. within the why explained how he was able to fly beneath the radar for so long, and who he had taken with him (he was running a full bottom-to-top system). he was ultimately demoted (not fired, likely there were lawsuit or other concerns), and the company seemed to rebound. in these set-ups, there is often so much money floating around that no one notices or cares — until it ultimately (and that can take some time!) makes it to the top of the food chain — to the CEO. the CEO is the one who will ultimately feel the burn monetarily, but on the way to that is the energetic burn that co-workers and general employees feel as they go to work each day — it is not a happy place when something like this is so off, but no one can pinpoint it. ultimately those with above-board energy and pure being will leave — creating the decline in overall business. 3) a yoga studio I used to go to: this studio I was a member at for nearly 10 years. in the last year or so of time, something changed — they hired some horrid, God-awful energy. immediately, within months, sales went down. I watched it right in front of my eyes. people disappeared from the studio. staff confided in me that the person they had brought it was a black hole of toxicity. the owners could not hear or see beyond “logic” to fix this. I could not bear to walk in there any longer, despite loving the practice. I dropped my membership which cost them over 1500 per year. other members did the same. the wrong person in your office, store or boardroom can and will cost you thousands, millions, or trillions of dollars — because it is costing your staff peace of mind.

when I am hired to perform my T.E.P. duties, I will give the C-suite full disclosure on who and what is driving or killing their business. and let me be so super clear here: it is ALWAYS a person. it is NEVER a marketing strategy, labeling, branding, or something tangible. it is ALWAYS a human being. clearly, what is driving or killing a business is not always obvious to everyone. often, it is not obvious to MOST people. heavy and bottom-feeding energy can and does hide in plain sight (and this is where I come in). a heavy or bottom-feeding energy that is killing your business, will ALWAYS pair either with YOUR, or your subordinates’, unconscious wounding that is engaging this dance for a reason. because we are human. this is what we do. until we don’t do it anymore — until our business is suffering, and we can not figure out why, and now we are willing to.

The post why your business is really failing: from a real-time intuitive vantage point appeared first on © The Medical Intuitive Blog: Healing Elaine ®.

from Trisha Gibson http://www.themedicalintuitiveblog.com/2018/03/09/business-really-failing-real-time-intuitive-vantage-point/

[ronnygurner647-blog]

Chip Clegg Warns Of 'Corrosive Result' From Grand Fraud Car.

Google's self-driving automobile line is actually mostly based in The golden state, a component of the globe where there's not much storm. For more mature vehicles, this's an ideal substitute for built-in dash devices that even more latest autos use. The organization additionally introduced that CarPlay will definitely very soon support a wider series of display screen dimensions and also resolutions, furthermore applications developed due to the vehicle creators themselves. Purchasing a board substitute for the section from the automobile where it is actually nicked is what is normally required for heavily dented cars and truck metal surface areas. Similarly, if Hannah might possess enjoyed Clay-based weep in Tony's auto or even observed the people which had acquired the strips toss stones at Tyler's window, possibly she will have hung on. Due to the fact that of one significant selection, I prefer everybody in a setting like Alliy as well as Hannah's could possibly recognize exactly how lots of people's lifestyles would never be the exact same. Volvo possesses biker discovery as well as 'city quit' innovation - seeing to it you do not plunge in to the cars and truck facing you in website traffic - as well as lane-correction technology is actually basic on numerous VW and also Mercedes designs. Psycho therapists possess even come up with a phrase for how you are actually experiencing - paraskavedekatriaphobia, or even concern from Friday the 13th. With all guides being blogged about the auto business, the dispute in between eastern, and also the atmosphere, The Reckoning stays existing as well as pertinent. After damaging far too late into the second barrette turn, I tried to recompense through switching whilst breaking, which delivered the nose of the vehicle nearly facing back where I arised from. If you enjoyed this short article and you would like to get even more facts concerning http://budaperta.xyz/ kindly check out the website. These checks will typically cover MOST as well as safety and security criteria as well as due to the complication of today's automobiles are better executed through producer experienced auto mechanics. It's the first auto I have actually resided in for grows older with neither satnav nor docking place. If our company recognize that the part from automotive past history thought about 'traditional' is actually relocating, and that some cars and trucks are going to attain 'timeless' condition as they age, then our idea of exactly what versions may be called 'classic' is surely heading to modify with time. They are going to certainly never be secure if self-driving automobiles can just be secure if we are sure no one can easily reconfigure them without maker commendation. You may ask another carpool group moms and dad to cover for you (word of advice right here for the rich: Don't ask me.) but you could certainly not produce random replacements and ask your going to jobless brother-in-law - the one who last week you whined consumed all your excellent Scotch in one resting - to steer my little ones. As soon as our experts have actually established that it is actually merely the vehicle our experts desire, as opposed to his more profitable subsidiary, our supplier functions briskly. For some time, auto suppliers seemed to have eventually found the surprise answer to this complex ethical problem. The Apple CarPlay in-car ecosystem has actually been a long-lived part of Apple's portfolio, and the firm was actually just recently granted a patent that defined exactly how a cars and truck might be controlled, partially, by an apple iphone. Facing the disconcerting separate in between the life she anticipated and also the one she is right now in fact residing, Leah takes off for San Francisco to claim Judy's auto. That possesses a whole lot more to carry out with nationality and also the meanings from excellent our community has made. Possessing motor vehicles valeted regularly certainly not merely maintains all of them in good condition however also makes it possible for any type of minor issues to become dealt with prior to they become an issue. They're certainly not such as COD or even Witcher where DLC is actually a tools kit, charts or even magic, they're accounts along with edge quests that would certainly possess been actually specific activities 6-8 years ago now are benefit journeys that delve into the much deeper portion of tradition and creatures of a region in a manner of speaking. Regardless of what state your vehicle could reside in, a charitable organization may benefit from having the vehicle provided to them. In March, a questionnaire by United States car organisation AAA showed that 3 out of four United States motorists are afraid" from using in self-driving vehicles, and 84% from those said that was because they trusted their own driving capabilities greater than a computer's, even with difficult proof that recommends that driverless cars and trucks are dramatically safer - human mistake is the biggest deadly on our roadways, besides. Folks who put great literary works as the most awful books ever composed seem perform be actually doing this simply given that they may possess had pain surviving the book and they believe that good literature ought to merely amuse. Slightly Mad Studios was actually targeting to run Task AUTOMOBILES 60 FPS on existing generation hardware and also although this falls shorts it performs make an effort incredibly hard. GMC's IntelliLink infotainment device provides Android Automobile as well as Apple CarPlay connection while OnStar 4G LTE hotspot capacities permit passengers make the most of in-car Wi-Fi. Howard Bishop, the main UK as well as European financial expert at IHS Markit, said: There was plainly a considerable lift to sales arising from each individuals and also companies bringing forward vehicle investments prior to improvements to auto excise responsibility were launched in April. Therefore, a great way to increase facial hair, particularly your mustache is to massage therapy your upper lips.