The “Visions” cult – a preliminary overview

The term “cult” is employed throughout this discussion since this definition most accurately applies to this grouping within AA. The adjective “Visions” is used as a general label although it goes by different names in different areas. One should be careful not to assume that a group is part of this cult simply because they include this title in their group description.

We would also like to point out, drawing from our own experiences as previous members of these cult groups, that the vast majority of people attending these meetings are mostly ignorant of the implications of their participation. They, like us, truly believe that they are carrying the AA message, that they are abiding by the traditions of AA and would be grievously shocked in most instances to be confronted with the possibility that what they were involved with is something essentially corrupt. They are not to be demonised – they are innocent victims of a core group who follow their own agenda – the pursuit of power and the control of AA. It is these latter who represent a threat to the spirit of AA. Since they exist in relatively small numbers we believe that it is quite possible to break their hold on these groups and return AA to the principles outlined in the basic text of our society.

History

There will be some discussion on the details of the cult's development over some considerable period of time. Its origins are believed to go back to 1977 but we only have direct information from the early 1980s. From its start in the Joys of Recovery up to the present day we present you with an outline (as yet roughly depicted) of its development within AA. The precise details are relatively unimportant – suffice it to say that in this period there has been a proliferation in meetings and groups associated with this cult that in our belief has now spread throughout AA in this country affecting every level of the service structure – at group, intergroup, region and possibly even Board level.

We have conducted some preliminary research into the matter and the geographical distribution of these groups is also discussed in that section of the website.

Why are they a cult and why are they subversive?

From our direct experience, observation and reports from other members we have identified the following patterns – this is a general profile with variations occurring in different areas and groups

Their strategy when seeking to establish new groups and meetings is as follows: a group is established by a number of members in an area. The Kent meetings (with which we are most familiar) have been running for a number of years in the Rochester area. These groups focus their attention on newcomers – this appears to be entirely legitimate since one of the main purposes of AA is indeed to help the still suffering alcoholic. Unfortunately these newcomers to AA are by necessity unfamiliar with the fellowship and therefore are most susceptible to influence by those with whom they are in contact initially. Generally in AA this contact is benign but in the cases of these cult groups this is not the case. Newcomers are usually funnelled into these groups via the conventional routes of twelve step referrals (they are also recruited via the process of “poaching” from other local AA meetings – the most common strategy is for cult members to attend the meeting, identify newcomers and through a process of both promotion together with subtle, and sometimes not so subtle, rubbishing of local groups they persuade the newly arrived member to attend their meetings. These individuals rely on the reticence of other AA members to intervene for to do so would be to present disunity). A characteristic of these groups is that they encourage their members to participate in service activity – eg twelve step calls. Again, on the surface this would seem to be an entirely legitimate and praiseworthy activity. However once the newcomer is contacted it is from this point that the cult techniques come into action. Once introduced to the cult meeting they are “discouraged” from using any other meeting as a home group. They are usually informed that the message being carried by the cult group is superior to that of the other local (non-cult) meetings – that the rest of AA has lost its way and that a purer and more fundamental message is being communicated. Since they have little means of comparison and are in a vulnerable condition it is virtually impossible for them to question this perspective. Newcomers are “encouraged” to use only a sponsor from within the group. In the early stages newcomers are advised that local non-cult sponsors are “sick” – a term frequently applied to mainstream AA – and if no local cult sponsors are available they are instructed and indeed taken up to the main cult meeting in London where they are “assigned” a sponsor (not a temporary sponsor). They are encouraged to rely on their sponsor for direction in virtually every area of their lives – sexual conduct, marital relationships, employment, money matters, raising of children etc. This goes way beyond the normal scope of AA sponsorship. They are discouraged from exercising their own judgement or autonomy and told to rely on their sponsor for guidance and direction. A schedule is set for them for progress through the Steps without reference to their individual capacities and contrary to anything that can be found in the chapter Working with Others. Under the guidance of their sponsor they work through the steps gaining an understanding of these via the interpretation of their sponsor. Again the cult promotes the appearance of transmitting the AA message but only in a form that encourages dependency upon the group and upon their sponsor. The message thus conveyed is both in letter and in spirit in complete variance from that contained in the basic text of our fellowship. They are discouraged from sharing in their home group until they have reached (or completed Step 5) and instead should merely express their gratitude in the meeting. Thus the sharing is mostly dominated by established members who carry a uniform and unvaried message that appears to conform to AA principles. Much emphasis is placed on Step 9 (since it is just before the introduction of Step 10 in the Big Book that there is a section where what are called the12 promises occur) as being the point at which the individual will have arrived at the point where they are adjudged to be capable of running their own lives. Apart from the fact that the number 12 is an artificial creation intended no doubt to point up the relation with the 12 Steps, 12 Traditions, 12 concepts ad nauseam a quite ritualistic, superstitious and unrealistic weight is attached to this apparent transition point (promises occur in different forms throughout the book from beginning to end and it is made clear from their context that they do not just simply happen when one gets to Step Nine). Our view is that by this time the sponsee will have been thoroughly inculcated with the group ethos and will have internalised the group norms and thus can be safely launched upon the wider sea of AA carrying the politically authorised version of the AA programme. This does not of course mean that individuals do not venture into the regions of the ignorant beforehand but the group ethos will ensure that whatever they hear that is at variance with the cult message can be considered to be not the true AA and the product of sick minds. So much for the rest of us!!

The cascade structure of sponsorship in these groups ensures conformity of opinion and controls dissent. It also ensures that the appearance of democratic group consciences is maintained whilst in reality the newcomer is encouraged to follow their sponsor’s guidance in these matters. The true source of control in the group is not the group conscience but the steering committee. This is supposed to concern itself only with the day-to-day administration of the group but in fact is the decision making body of the group. It is composed of core members who have thoroughly accepted the group norms and can be relied upon to do the right thing.

Promotion rather than attraction

As indicated above cult members will promote their group to the detriment of local groups. Apart from the methods already outlined other tactics include the provision of a buffet or hot meals at the end of the meeting. This poses under the guise of AA hospitality (which is usually confined to tea and biscuits) and is simply a replacement of the “meeting after the meeting”. We would regard this is an extravagant use of AA funds. Where a separate contribution is made and is clearly demarcated from the AA collection it nevertheless ensures that the newcomer is kept within the confines of the group outside the formal AA meeting. Conditioning can then be continued reinforced by the appearance of an informal context for the process. In other groups this outside AA activity is usually unplanned, spontaneous and people make their own choices about who they keep company with; but not in the cult groups. Additionally some of these groups supply free Big Books to newcomers. This is a policy that is sometimes adopted by other mainstream AA groups – although an individual may make a choice to buy a Big Book for a newcomer it is our view that buying your own Big Book might represent more of a commitment than a "freebie" from a group. The problem is that these groups will announce in other groups this free facility – another promotional ploy.

Cult literature

These groups are quite adept at interweaving their own message into the literature. They frequently use readings from printed cards and some of their step guidance is similarly presented. Although these readings represent a close paraphrase of the Big Book (and other Conference approved literature) included in this material are views that are not part of either the literature or AA teaching. Whereas it is entirely legitimate for an individual AA member to hold whatever views they want they are usually careful to ensure that others are clear that they do not represent AA in their exposition. No attempt is made to do this in cult meetings, and yet again, the newcomer would be unaware that the opinions expressed were not part of the AA programme. The most extreme example of this occurred not long ago in a cult meeting in the North East London Intergroup. Some of the group literature was accidentally left out on chairs in the meeting – the material related to Step Four. We have subsequently traced the source of this material to a website quite independent of AA. (this website has now removed the offending sections) In this handout reference was made to the sex conduct section of Step Four. We will not go into details other than to say that members doing their Step Four and Step Five were being asked to consider, amongst other matters, if their conduct was expressed in such areas as sex involving children, animals and bottles. We would argue that only the most perverse interpretation of this Step could possibly include these areas. One of our members was asked to comment on the matter by the AA who sent this material – he responded that at best it could be viewed as voyeuristic and at worst as a form of psychic rape. Additionally questions arise in the legal sphere if such information was disclosed in a Step 5 quite apart from the fact that AA members, by and large, are not qualified to deal with the psychological implications that such disclosures might involve.

The most prominent and widespread example of this promulgation of non AA literature is the six point card. This includes advice that in itself is innocuous and hardly controversial. However it is not made clear to the newcomer that this is not been approved by the membership of AA. Additionally a weight is placed upon following these suggestions that amounts to a superstition that encourages a blind adherence to its format. Part of the list includes contacting two newcomers each day. Apart from the fact that this is certainly not specified in the literature it encourages what has been described by one member as a kind of “feeding-frenzy” amongst cult members when dealing with newcomers. It has been reported that new members of AA have had their telephone number distributed around the cult group without their permission so others can hit their target of two a day. It also represents a form of "pyramid selling" thus ensuring the propagation of this dubious message. Newcomers have reported being rung up daily and harangued by group members purporting to carry the AA message.

Prescription drugs

It is part of the ethos of these groups that they carry a purer AA message; a part of this message relates to the use of prescribed drugs by members. It is a commonly held belief in these groups that AA members cannot get well unless they abandon the use of medication. Depression has been re-diagnosed as self pity by these medically unqualified individuals and they have advised and, in some cases, instructed new members to discontinue use of their medication. This is entirely contrary to AA guidelines on the matter. Publicly these groups, and only after continued pressure, have abandoned this position but we are not convinced that they do not still seek to promote that message. This has undoubtedly contributed to a great deal of entirely unnecessary suffering and in some cases to suicide by people new to the fellowship. This we regard as unacceptable.  There is a more detailed discussion of this area in the Medication section of the site. 

Presentation

Frequently these groups present a well-organised and structured image to visitors. Members are encouraged to dress smartly and it is frequently the case that the member (if male) doing the chair will be wearing a suit. Again there is nothing particularly wrong with this and the rationale is of course taken from the Just For Today card – to dress becomingly – although it does not direct that evening wear is essential. This suggests to a newcomer to the group that this is in fact a legitimate AA meeting and serves to further reinforce the relative “amateurism” (our words) of other groups and thus legitimise further their corrupt message. It requires a bit more digging to get beneath the surface veneer to expose the corruption that lies beneath. Additionally, the member might be struck by the forest of outstretched hands that extend on approaching the doorway. In some case it feels that you are running a gauntlet before entering the meeting. It might be worthwhile to remember that the last thing a newcomer might actually want on attending their first meeting is a lot of people competing to extend the hand of friendship let alone be asked to give out their phone number to a bunch of strangers who are self confessed ex-drunks. Appearances can be very deceptive in these circumstances. Is this a well-run group or a well-controlled group?

In relation to the above we have frequently encountered comments from other members when they report visiting these groups that whereas, at first sight, they cannot but be impressed by the organisational ability, zeal and enthusiasm of their members and their apparently uncontroversial approach in communicating the AA message, yet they experience a sense of unease despite this appearance. This is frequently put down to the fact that they are unfamiliar with this kind of format and overrule their instincts by focussing on the apparent presentation. Nevertheless they cannot shake that sense of uneasiness. We would advise members to trust their gut instinct and take a closer look at what lies underneath the surface – we suggest that what they sense is the profound dis-ease that these groups communicate – and intuition beats presentation every time. The group mind or cult is what predominates in these situations and the smell of control pervades everything.

Defensive strategies

These groups employ a wide range of strategies to defend themselves, deflect attention, undermine any opposition and avoid criticism. These include:-

1) Keeping on the move: closing down an identified group and re-opening elsewhere under a different name (North East London Intergroup).

2) Camouflage: changing the name of the group in the Where To Find – so avoiding traditional identification tags like Joys, Visions, Beginners, Road etc (note: caution referred to above).

3) Evasion: refusing to answer direct questioning on some of the matters outlined above (the "not in our experience" defence - see below).

4) Apparent compliance: adopting a public stance of following general guidelines whilst continuing to follow their own agenda.

5) "Muddying the waters": focussing on the details and wording of a complaint rather than addressing the central issues eg. They do not like the tag “cult” (possibly because it is accurate and it would be very bad for business if that label stuck to them – hence our use of the word). They will object to that and lead the discussion into issues of semantics thus deflecting criticism.

6) Intimidation: mass attendance at Intergroup meetings to intimidate and thereby enforce their will.

7) Playing the victim: “we’re only trying to carry the AA message and people are bullying us” – they do not like to be on the receiving end of conduct that they will quite happily impose on others.

8) Misrepresentation: see above with reference to AA message and literature.

9) Manipulation: taking advantage of AA's philosophy of minimal organisation – they are relatively well organised and utilise that to the full.

10) Evidence: the cult's claim that there is no evidence for the accusations levelled against them – ignoring the increasing numbers of testimonies that are starting to surface with regard to their activities.

11) The "yellow card" defence: using the yellow card as a weapon – relying on AA members reluctance to talk about other AA members outside meetings – even when this relates to the conduct of whole groups and regardless of whether newcomers are being systematically abused.

12) Fear of AA disunity: they play upon this fear within AA – “if our meetings are shut down where will our members go?” – this cult has no problem in acting in such a way that local AA meetings in their area are being denuded of members and becoming unviable. This defence is also a reflection of their arrogant stance – AA existed before they came into being and it will continue long after they are a distant memory.

13) Undermining: of those who speak out by focussing on the personality of the complainant rather than the content of the message – this is supported by the utilisation of whispering campaigns coupled with character assassination. They exploit any personality conflicts amongst AA members (something which is always in plentiful supply) and thus divide and rule (placing personalities firmly before principles).

14) "Passing the buck": the group claims that offending behaviour is the responsibility of an individual and not the group - “we can’t control everything that our members do – we’re not responsible for them”. It is true that individuals finally must take responsibility for their actions but given the dictatorial sponsorship system of these groups (see above) their very structure implicates the group on these occasions (it is interesting to note that no other groups seem to need to worry about these issues – just the cult groups).

15) Sacrificial lambs: (linked to 14) above) offering up a sacrificial lamb for public apology whilst allowing the group to continue with its underlying agenda.

16) The “not in my experience” defence: used when an individual is being asked to respond as a GSR relating to the running of his/her group. In this instance the questionable conduct is sidestepped by the respondent claiming that he/she has no "experience" of the matter – since he/she is reporting for their group such a reply is irrelevant.

17) Lying: (which only works if you don’t get caught out) - a great favourite with cult group members although they have not quite perfected this skill.

18) "It's all a mistake": if it does not look like a lie will suffice and there is no possibility of a cover-up then human error is invoked, where necessary a scapegoat is deployed, and the group throws itself upon the mercy of the court.

More will be added as we identify them.

Infiltration and collusion

The cult also relies on a number of factors that we will refer to as collusion and infiltration.

Infiltration: the participation by group members in other groups not yet part of the cult. The tactic is to take up group positions in a neighbouring meeting and thereby gradually shift the group conscience. Cult members are encouraged to attend the target group (in the Kent area we believe that Aylesford is a prime target – the GSR, Treasurer and possibly the literature secretary? are either current members of the Strood cult or have past associations with it). A number of strategies are employed in a “charm offensive” to persuade the target group members that they are under no threat. Any opponents of this move are subject to the above indicated undermining strategies and labelled as troublemakers – again focussing on personalities rather than the substance of what they communicate. If a group cannot be “turned” in this fashion then a competing group is set up nearby in an attempt to undermine the existing local group (as occurred in the Medway towns area). The same strategy will be employed to gain influence and then control over intergroups and regional representation. At the moment five officers of the West Kent Intergroup (including the Vice Chairman) are members of the Strood cult.

Collusion: here long-term members are targeted for conditioning. The methods used are quite straightforward - good old fashioned flattery. Under the guise of seeking the guidance of the “old-timer” his/her ego is massaged and they are encouraged to take a favourable view of the cult position; after all they are only trying to carry the AA message with enthusiasm and zeal and get back to the way AA (never) was. One of our number has personal experience of this when one of the more active personnel of this cult would frequently remind him how much his experience was valued. The ego naturally rose to the occasion but also a slight feeling of uneasiness; he was accustomed to the healthy levels of irony levelled at him by other members so this pseudo-deferential approach rang warning bells.

Other aspects of the collusive tendency are demonstrated where an ambitious member feels that they might benefit from association with the cult and the efficiency it displays even though they do no approve of its method, and their support is thus canvassed.

The cult plays upon both apathy and the quietist tendency in AA. The first needs no further exploration although in defence of those groups most proximate (in our area the Strood branch of the Visions cult) to a cult group apathy is difficult to oppose when your own group is systematically being undermined, and there is no apparent support from other groups in the area. The quietist tendency is reflected in the view that AA has been through all this stuff before and it will survive – all that we need do is rely on our Higher Power and all will be well. As far as it goes we do not have any problem with that – but we do remember a saying that was current in AA a few years ago: "God can move mountains but bring your own shovel".

The argument has been put forward that perhaps this kind of dogmatic and dictatorial approach is suitable for some members – that they need to be told what to do - and that these groups do help people to stop drinking, remain stopped and get well. We would challenge that viewpoint. We have seen no evidence that these groups are any more effective than mainstream AA – in fact everything points in the opposite direction, of the widespread damage they do in the areas in which they operate. As to whether they turn out members who are well we would again question that assertion. If by “well” it means churning out people who have been undermined, brainwashed, discouraged from thinking for themselves, having a perverted form of the AA message communicated to them, and with a belief that the rest of AA is quite deluded, then we doubt it. One of our number recounts that he did not get well with the Joys of Recovery - he got well after he left that group. To give you some idea of how perverted this message is, and how much ground it is gaining even outside the cult circle, a long term member recently commented to one of us (with reference to the sponsorship styles of these groups) that perhaps they should be more “strict” with their sponsees. He had to check to ensure that the member in question was not joking – but it was meant in all seriousness – not only had they such little confidence in their own experience, they apparently saw nothing wrong with the notion that they had the right to be strict with anyone. We are not aware that sponsorship involves any kind of ownership or right to control. Abusive sponsorship relationships do not do anyone any good.


Finally we would argue with reference to these groups that we owe a moral and legal duty of care to our fellows that far outweigh our obligations to AA. Members have to consider for themselves to what extent they are willing to stand by and let these abuses continue unchecked before they take action. It is preferable that we get our own house in order, and with the greatest of speed for the benefit of those who come to us for help. But it is now our view that the time is rapidly approaching where we would rather that suffering alcoholics went elsewhere for assistance than run the risk of coming to our Fellowship if all they can expect is further abuse and neglect.