So while I think many of Serge’s ardent followers are victims of his aggressive pathology and deserve compassion, I draw a line between protecting them and enabling them. The man who was concerned about his partner’s strong reaction wasn’t specific about which parts of my post she didn’t like, but was concerned my criticisms might turn students more toward Serge’s side.
What do you think?
At the time I wrote it, as now, I was struck by the glaring lack of insight shown by students posting on the SergeProp blogs, where they imply media exposure of harm is worse than Universal Medicine’s harmdoing. The denial of Serge’s unscrupulous, sleazy and corrupt behaviour is extraordinary. However, they’re not denying it vocally, and their posts are more remarkable for what is not said than what is. Readers here know I’ve been posing questions to UniMed since we began this blog and not one student or apologist has made any attempt at answering my concerns. Not one. No one has disputed my questions and no one has denied the issues I’ve raised or my account of my experiences. Strange isn’t it? The only direct criticism we’ve had is the standard attacks on so called abusive husbands – as if I don’t exist – some whining that we named the UniMed cartel, some whining that I critiqued the idiotic diet and some whining that Serge doesn’t really look like crap – I just chose a bad photo.
What that tells me is the UMers are aware of the issues, even if they weren’t aware those issues are part of UM’s culture of harm until we pointed it out. The fact they aren’t publicly discussing the problems tells me they’re struggling with them. If they thought my account was a fiction and my concerns baseless, they would be clamouring to deny them and to discredit me, but because they still possess a glimmer of conscientiousness, and they know what I say can’t be denied, they’ve chosen to ignore me in the hope I’ll go away. What won’t go away is their struggle with irrefutable facts.
I want them to struggle with them. I want them to engage their critical faculties and their senses of morality, engulfed as they are by Serge’s abstractions, and examine our concerns. Not because I want them to suffer, but because the reengagement of their minds, the examination of their response to facts will be their first step to exiting the controlled milieu, emancipating themselves from the mystical manipulation, and moving toward healing. Genuine healing, that is, not ‘Esoteric’ (bogus) healing. Genuine as in moving toward the rediscovery and redevelopment of their whole persona, rather than the shrunken one currently under Serge’s spell.
I agree many hardcore devotees (try not to vomit Kyla), will turn to each other under pressure from outside. I don’t think it can be avoided, particularly since Serge has already programmed them that those not engaged in UM are automatically hostile and hell bent on obstructing ‘the work’. It’s also difficult to avoid due to the extreme potency of Serge’s thought reform tech. However, I see the alternatives as equally unfavourable. Either, the group is allowed to carry on, unexamined, unaccountable and unaccepting of their responsibilities, collective and individual, or, when Serge goes down spectacularly due to actions taken by various federal agencies, unless his highly dependent students are somewhat prepared, we’ll be witnessing wholesale collapse of personalities.
We sincerely welcome feedback on our strategies, in the comments or privately through the contact page. We also wholeheartedly welcome your posts, so that this site really is democratic, not just me prattling on. We’d like our readers to read many voices and many approaches.
In the meantime, we’ll continue to work a number of angles: the medical accountability angle, the cult dismantling angle and the appeals to personal responsibility angle. I won’t pretend coming out of denial is a comfortable or pretty process. It hurts, and brings out strong reactions: defensive thrashing of arms and gnashing of teeth. Yet, to allow denial to continue has far more insidious consequences. At the beginning of the year, Serge was cranking his profit making machine at full throttle, under an illusion of impunity in spite of mounting collateral damage. As angst ridden and ugly as the exposure might get, personally, I’d prefer to be where we’re at now.
With regard to the feminist revolt, I’d like to reiterate a point about Kyla’s overt accusations directed at Lance and another Bangalow husband and father. With disgust I watched the comments to her post grow to 54, a rallying of the majority of the SergeProp brains trust. All of them echoed the cries of abuse and the claims of victimhood and how dare anyone criticize their loving lifestyle, and thanks for ‘sharing with us how awful it is’ etc. With all that moaning outrage, it appears the fervent self loving and group hugs aren’t helping them rise above the initial flickers of outside criticism.
In yesterday’s cult thought reform post, I wrote about Serge’s polarizing demand for purity, and the black and white thinking that portrays those on the UniMed workshop treadmill as good and FIERY, and anyone who isn’t as evil and PRANIC! It leads to an ‘us versus them’ mentality, and a tendency to label the slightest disagreement as hate, the slightest show of anger or frustration as a threat to the student’s path to self-loving, and the slightest criticism as abuse.
In the real world, however, domestic abuse and violence is very real and it appalls me that a group of women are flocking to support accusations that they cannot and will not substantiate. Kyla, if Lance is an abuser, produce the documentation, the records of police complaints or court documents. Until you do so, you have no right to accuse.
You and your supporters need to know that each time you make baseless accusations you devalue and discredit the testimony of a woman or family that is in real danger. Remember the story of the boy who cried wolf? When you trivialize abuse you further injure and demean its real victims.
Drs Hall and Mallatt, as doctors with supposedly high standing in the community your participation in this malicious falsehood is a disgrace, and yet another abuse (real) of your positions.
And finally, let’s return to ‘the truth about serge benhayon’ (lol) blog, and eminent feminist, Rod Harvey’s numbingly obfuscatory hot air blowing post on the status of women. The entire thing is a comprehensive recitation of the misandrist platitudes Serge uses to bust relationships,including a generalizing inference women have zero responsibility in relationship breakdowns. Towards the end he writes: I’m not here to be an activist, or to defend women
No, except that you just expended 800 words of Sergisms doing precisely that.
(they can do a good job of that for themselves).
You’d better believe it.
By truly engaging with women we’ll discover their essence and how feminine, sexy, playful, loving and amazing they are. How could we possibly belittle that?
GENIUS! Did you discover that all by yourself?
But I am now convinced that if we are to accelerate serious change, then men’s support is crucial. Let’s be in it together.
Yes. Lets. If you’re so motivated to protect women’s rights, Rod, how about you answer the questions I’ve been asking all along. Any UM students are welcome to answer, including Kyla and the women’s rights activists who commented on her esoterically unbecoming and factually deficient rant:
Is it acceptable for Serge, the unqualified anything, to be palpating ovaries and prying into women’s histories with men?
Are you comfortable with him doing that with the women in your life?
Are you comfortable with adolescent girls staying in Serge’s home?
Did he offer your wife a vaginal examination? Or your sisters in the group?
Do you think it acceptable that Serge raves incessantly at his workshops about sexual violence in the presence of children?
Does it disturb you that Serge can’t leave the subject alone?
Does it disturb you that Serge constantly denigrates sex as impure and animalistic, actively encourages women to deny sex to their husbands and themselves, yet once he’s succeeded in annihilating your libidos with his rhetoric and his regime of malnourishment, gloats to you all about his ability to ‘make love’ and have ‘full body orgasms’?
Doesn’t that strike you as perverse? Sadistic even?
Show us what kind of feminist you are, Rod.