Picture this –
It is Thursday afternoon. I am in a private counselling and healing session at the Universal Medicine (UM) clinic in Goonellabah NSW. I leave the clinic in a state of quiet and inner stillness after being treated with dignity and respect in a very loving, caring and professional way by its practitioners and staff. As I leave, the staff and a fellow client who was approached as she entered the clinic, have the courtesy to inform me that there is a reporter, Joshua Robertson, and a cameraman from the ABC News positioned outside and that I do not need to leave now if I do not feel comfortable doing so. However, I have young children that need to be picked up from school and so I must leave.
Upon departure from the clinic there are no immediate signs of the reporter or cameraman, however, as I walk to my car they swiftly spring into view taking up strategic positions by which they can film me, without my permission. I say strategic because in this country (Australia) from what I understand of the laws, you can be filmed without your consent on private property if the persons filming you are on public land.
In this instance, the cameraman was standing on the opposite side of the road and filming me head on as I was driving out and the reporter, Joshua Robertson, who had his arms folded and was looking in the opposite direction over his shoulder, was positioned on my right on the same side of the road as me and on the corner of the driveway of the clinic.
As you can imagine, having just come out of a very private, quiet and honouring space and to be affronted in this way, a camera aimed directly at me, was a complete violation of my own personal space – a violation it would seem that is sanctioned under Australian law.
I continued to drive but I had to pull over the car because I was visibly shaken by this incident. I felt completely violated, intimidated, bullied, imposed upon and affronted on all accounts and from all angles. No matter which way I turned and assessed this situation, I could not stop the feeling that something here was very awry.
I know this energy – its smell, its taste, its touch, its sound. I know how it moves, it speaks, it bullies and it coerces. The truth is that we all do. It is age-old supremacy energy and whether it comes in its more grotesque and obvious forms such as genocide, murder, torture etc. or in its more seemingly subtle forms through workplace/schoolyard bullying or simply a look in the eye, this energy is all from the one and the same source of energy that seeks to completely annihilate our expression of all that is fair and loving and true.
In short, it exists to obliterate any expression of divinity no matter how small this may be, wherever and whenever it should appear.
Supremacy energy has existed since the moment we as spirits separated from our Soul and began our descent into physicality. As such it is specifically designed to keep us from reconnecting to our divinity (Soul) so that we play only human and thereby live small and in the shadows, too afraid to speak up and live the full greatness we are lest we incur the wrath of this ‘monster’.
We have all had experiences with this at some stage, if not across all stages of our lives.
Having encountered the media in the past, both with my personal dealings with Daily Telegraph reporter Jane Hansen in 2015 and also by being present when a former Uniting Church minister David Millikan stood up with a camera crew planted in the audience at one of the first Universal Medicine presentations I attended back in 2012 and condemned us all as being in a ‘cult’, I know first hand the mechanisations behind such orchestrations. I understand that the majority of the journalists we have today are only after a good story and they will go to great lengths to secure it.
And by ‘good’ I do not mean one that is virtuous and true, but one that panders to the appetite of its intended viewers – that is, they (the media) supply us with what we (the consumers) demand.
And what is it exactly that we demand?
The truth is, when we live empty of our true self (disconnected from our Soul) we demand to be filled by a sumptuous feast, a banquet if you will, that panders to our every desire that will deliver the precise energetic vibration required to quell the tension we feel that comes from having access to a body of love (our Soul) but not connecting to and expressing this love.
Even if we are not the ones who are actively watching, participating or endorsing such scandalous lies and demanding to be titillated and fed at this level, our chosen complacency to ignore that all this is happening or even that it could be having any sort of impact on us actually enables this abuse to occur. BIG OUCH.
By virtue of our chosen and much sought after comfort and silence, we enable the very abuse we abhor.
And this is something Serge Benhayon does not ever shy away from presenting for us to consider so that we have all the tools required to support us to arise out of this mud we have immersed ourselves in, should we so choose this for ourselves.
As consumers of the news we should be concerned that, what is reputed to be one of the most reliable and trustworthy vehicles for the nightly news in Australia, sources the work of Esther Rockett, a woman who has been extensively and aggressively trolling people both on and off-line for over six years (with no sign of slowing down), along with Lance ‘Riley’ Martin, a man who just recently had his less-than-virtuous ‘conman style’ business antics exposed on national TV. His conning apparently spanning years and illustrated by numerous business name changes and a long line of victims complaining publicly about his business scams. It appears that the ABC, the once lauded public broadcaster, then could run with the entirely false and defamatory headline that Universal Medicine, a business that in actual fact has a demonstrated track record of consumer success and whose founder, Serge Benhayon, has shown nothing but complete dedication in supporting people to restore their true levels of health and vitality, was a ‘cult’.
We may be struck by the irresponsibility of our public broadcaster providing a tabloid beat up instant credibility, a credibility offered by merely giving credence to the story at all. We may find pause to ask ‘why’? Why? Because we the consumers sense the exact quality of the vibration on offer and like a moth to the light we are drawn to its source.
Yes it is WE, the seemingly innocent public, who pretend that we are simply at the mercy of heartless corporations and media machines, that want and thirst for this vibration with all its sensationalism and drama because we know it will deliver us the required frequency we hunger for that will give us the ‘easy out’ of having to feel the eternal unsettlement and deepseated unrest we live in everyday, because we live empty of our true self.
And to illustrate this point further with the example at hand, it is perhaps no accident that just after this incident where newly-appointed ABC reporter Joshua Robertson (formerly of the tabloid newspaper variety) and his cameraman were on the property of Universal Medicine, no doubt trying to dig for dirt which simply does not exist, the ABC ran a TV show on people who have ‘escaped cults’ and gave credit to Esther Rockett, the very same woman responsible for the extensive and abusive trolling here mentioned.
A woman that appears so empty of any semblance of truth that she has pumped herself up on the overriding and completely intoxicating illusion that she is some sort of esteemed ‘cult buster’, ‘doing good’ for the people of the world who are not credited with enough intelligence to energetically discern fact from fiction.
Esther Rockett is no one special but she is responsible for ensuring that a hate campaign could continue its course and that a media circus could be projected into the public eye from the deep recesses of her own personal imaginings, aided by the intoxicating and completely perverted fantasies of another apparent cyber bully, Lance Martin, who appears to suffer from the blinding illusion that Universal Medicine and its founder Serge Benhayon, are somehow responsible for the demise of his unsuccessful marriage and his business failings.
For while he points the finger and is busy crying wolf (or is that witch?) in that direction, he does not have to admit to that which perhaps truly fuels him – an overwhelming fury born of a seething jealousy towards a man he potentially sees as ‘having it all’, even though in-truth the ‘all’ in question here is the All that we all are and each have access to, that Serge simply reflects through his living way.
Martin’s stated vendetta to bring the man he sees as his nemesis down appears to be fuelled by his reaction to the simple presence of one who conducts themselves with the level of integrity and truth we are all deserved of.
We note here the very apparent conflict of interest on the ABC’s behalf allowing Joshua Robertson to fabricate this report seemingly out of thin air, or should we say out of the toxic air already circulating due to the imaginings of this small group of people with what appears to be a malicious vendetta against all things Universal Medicine.
It is indeed an interesting choice on the ABC’s behalf to put Joshua Robertson in this position considering that he perhaps still carries with him an axe to grind from his previous dealings with some of the female Universal Medicine students who addressed him on his biased, degrading, sleazy and completely inaccurate portrayal of them (and towards women in general) in a previous report he compiled in 2012 when he was a mouthpiece for the gutter press.
Hmmm… a public outcry in the news about ‘cults’ infiltrating our health systems and workplaces, preying on innocent women and children, coupled nicely with a program about ‘escaping cults’ from one and the same TV station… Does not the former ‘news’ story nicely whet the appetite of those who will consume the offered vibration of the TV show while using real human beings and their lives for the whetting? Have we really allowed our standards to drop so low?
It is no accident that these journalists are ‘in bed’ with these bullies while the very distinct aroma of corruption and collusion fills the air we must all then breathe.
It just so happens that I met Lance Martin and his then wife Anna Douglass well before I became a client and student of Universal Medicine as we all lived on the same street at the time. Years later when I started to regularly attend the presentations of Universal Medicine, Lance Martin had a go at recruiting my husband for what seemed to be a gathering or gang of ‘disgruntled ex-husbands’ who somehow seemed to blame Universal Medicine for the demise of their relationships. The recruitment drive fell on deaf ears with Chris, simply because we always chose to take responsibility for the tensions that would sometimes arise between us, as they do in all relationships, and never did we need a third party to blame for these tensions to take the pressure off us. You can read more about our experience here.
But I do not have to have met these characters; Lance Martin, Jane Hansen or Joshua Robertson to see and sense exactly what is going on here. These people hold no significance in the sense that if it were not they, it would be others that would be used as pawns in this medieval style public spectacle that is our modern day media circus.
The truth is we allow the lines to blur between our news and entertainment and we allow this corruption to embed itself into the very fabric of our society, piercing through to and denigrating the very core of who we are, because it suits us to do so.
And until we begin to set a solid foundation of values that are impulsed from our innermost self and thereby serve all equally, then we will continue to feed on that which cannot ever truly sustain us.
Interestingly, my letters of complaint to the ABC were met with the usual response that assured me that my experience with the ABC and being filmed without my consent fell well within the parameters of what they have outlined in their Code of Practice  to be reasonable and fair.
I was directed to Standard 6.1 that states:
‘Intrusion into a person’s private life without consent must be justified in the public interest and the extent of the intrusion must be limited to what is proportionate in the circumstances.’
The justification for such an intrusion here being that:
‘In terms of the footage that has caused you concern, ABC News management advise that there was no intention to cause distress to individuals; those who may have attended the UM centre on that day were not the focus of the report, however some vision of the clinic was necessary in telling the story. ABC News further advise that anyone filmed in the course of gathering material was de-identified by blurring of the vision that was used. As you note, your face was obscured by the way in which you were holding your mobile phone. It is relevant for us to further note that your connection with UM is in the public domain. Given this, and the fact that the faces of those outside the clinic that day were adequately obscured in this brief footage, Audience and Consumer Affairs are satisfied that the footage as broadcast could not reasonably be regarded as an intrusion into your private life. In the circumstances, we are satisfied that no consent was required for the filming and broadcast of this footage.’
What we see here is how such reductionist bureaucracy is very quick to dismiss the human experience and indeed renders it naught by a system that would appear to have very little to no care at its core as it has not been founded on principles that place the well-being of all people at the forefront. It is an entanglement of clever words that appear to be designed to strip you of your humanity as it sheds all accountability from itself.
In short it would be fair to say that energetically and metaphorically speaking this response from the ABC could be translated as –
‘Look, if we dehumanise the target and shoot, it is not technically murder. Furthermore, if you choose to stand with the target then we also have a right to aim at you. If we hit you it is not our fault for firing bullets, it is your fault for getting in the way. After all, you knew we were shooting in the first place.’
Perhaps it is no accident here that the word for firing a gun and filming are one and the same.
To further expose the hypocrisy of the standards we have allowed in our media corporations (which are merely a reflection of the lack of standards we have let root deep within us and within society) the ABC’s Code of Conduct, Principle 5 under ‘fair and honest dealings’ states that:
‘Fair and honest dealing is essential to maintaining trust with audiences and with those who participate in or are otherwise directly affected by ABC content. In rare circumstances, deception or a breach of an undertaking may be justified. Because of the potential damage to trust, deception or breach of an undertaking must be explained openly afterwards unless there are compelling reasons not to do so.’
So again, the behind the scenes truth of what is being said here is that:
‘We will treat you fairly to maintain your trust unless we think that you do not deserve to be treated in this way (i.e. does not suit our chosen agenda to do so), in which case we have every right to deceive you and not treat you fairly but we will be able to explain our reasons for this abuse which we may or may not tell you because that is up to our discretion because we are the ones setting this standard, not you, and you allow it by not setting the standards in society that no corporation can drop below and until you do, we have free reign’ aka ‘lawlessness within the law’, in total opposition to Universal Law.
The ABC also note that:
‘The ABC potentially reaches the whole community, so it must take into account community standards. However, the community recognises that what is and is not acceptable in ABC content largely depends on the particular context, including the nature of the content, its target audience, and any signposting that equips audiences to make informed choices about what they see, hear or read.’
Again – a loophole for abuse because not only have we allowed our community standards to drop well below par of what is truly decent and respectful at a bare minimum, we also do not have a unified code of conduct across all industries in our society, thereby giving the open door for the ‘context argument’ because we have not yet established a set of standards and values within our community that are based on common decency and integrity and hold every person equal.
Put simply, we have shifting determinants for abuse depending on what each of us perceive abuse to be in regard to our own personal experience of it and its seemingly broad spectrum, rather than living accordingly to what we all know is true and that is that anything less than the love that we are is abuse and needs to be called for what it is.
There should be no blurred lines with dignity and respect
Principle 6 under ‘Privacy’ states that:
‘Privacy is necessary to human dignity and every person reasonably expects that their privacy will be respected. But privacy is not absolute. The ABC seeks to balance the public interest in respect for privacy with the public interest in disclosure of information and freedom of expression.’
How is privacy not absolute? Either we are treated with dignity and respect or we are not.
Could this potentially be telling us:
‘We (the media) have every right to violate your personal space if it means we can deliver the precise energetic vibration the masses are hungry for, no matter if there is not a crumb of truth in it. “Freedom of speech” gives us this right’…?
When the truth is that respect for people is not a token gesture but a way of living that ensures no matter the situation or person we are dealing with, our interactions with others will be respectful and decent and not outwardly abusive or even worse masked behind a thin veneer of ‘nice and polite’.
Furthermore, what is ‘in the public interest’? Is it the yearning for truth or the insatiable hunger for sensation? And who determines the basis upon which the bounds of decency are transgressed?
As the regulators cannot be relied on, it looks like we are all sitting back and allowing the media to set the very low standards to which we then must all comply with. Another example of how we become complicit enablers to a heartless system with no care or decency at its core.
The ABC offers a sliding scale of decency – spiralling downwards
The point is that here we have a Code of Conduct from the ABC that specifically states that all due and reasonable care will be taken by the ABC in its dealings with people, but this is then perfectly perforated with all the required loopholes that give them the leeway to justify deception and breaches of privacy in order to legally get away with such violation.
Their sliding scale of decency pivots on what they refer to as ‘context’ – a concept that allows them to shift their standards as they provide that which meets ‘the public interest’. In other words, a violation can be justified by the greater ‘good’ they purport to offer.
But who has determined the ‘good’ in this instance? Half a story with no examination of the half doing the story telling? With which authority does the determination of public interest lie? Why have we allowed the determination to be with those whose Codes of Conduct and policies come devoid of ethics and decency? Could it in fact suit us that this is the case, also considering that the ABC are not alone in this charade as this is also the case with other media outlets and their various specifically worded ‘Codes of Conduct’.
The truth is that if we as a society allow standards to be set that are not based on a foundation of human decency, care and respect for each other then we will be measured according to those standards and not by all that is decent, loving and true.
Supply and demand – we are fed precisely what we demand
And so the moral of this sorry tale is a simple case of supply and demand. That is – what we are fed is precisely what we demand. If we truly want to have a media that is free from corruption, bias and vendetta based journalism, then we must stand on a foundation of integrity and truth and not abuse and its lies.
This is not a case of one person’s ‘truth’ against another’s. It is not ‘my’ truth or ‘Serge’s truth’ but simply a return to the absolute and one-unifying truth that lives and breathes within us all and thus serves all equally, despite our religion, race or creed.
However, because we as humans have championed our right to twist and distort what is true, we have become not only complacent to the lies that abound, but also extremely defensive of them because in some way they serve the exact manner by which we choose to live.
Esther Rockett is no campaigner for the truth; she is a perpetrator of lies who it would seem has become so enveloped by them she has lost all semblance of reality and seeks to peddle her twisted narrative to those unfortunate enough to listen, certain media included.
Going by their previous antics, I have no doubt that until their last breath, this mob will continue to circulate and defend their lies because they are the sole creators of them – for a visual here, picture the character Gollum from Lord of the Rings clutching desperately to his ‘precious’ ring – the message for us all being that once you think you own something to this degree, not only do you become very unwilling to let it go, you become consumed by the overwhelming desire to keep it, no matter the cost to you or anyone else.
Furthermore, those that peddle lies will continue to do so only for as long as there is a demand for them to be consumed.
The ball is well and truly in our hands, the question is – in which court do we stand?