30/08/10

aacultwatch

Every so often we get enquiries from AA members offering not only their support  but also wanting to get more involved in our campaign  - that is to rid Alcoholics Anonymous of its extremist, dogmatic and abusive elements, to keep our Fellowship healthily disorganised, and operating moreover in accordance with our Traditions (see About Us section for more details on this).  In response to these requests you might wish to consider the following:

a) Within the context of  AA meetings as such it is not really appropriate to raise these issues – that would be contrary to the stated purpose of these gatherings as indicated in our Preamble.  However outside this context there is absolutely no reason why the website should not be discussed, and the issues that it raises debated by the AA membership.  This may take place in group consciences, business meetings, Intergroup and Region meetings  and indeed at AA Conference level (or are we just being grandiose here......), and of course at any time between individuals who wish to exercise their fundamental right to freedom of speech.  These are all entirely legitimate forums for such discussion and any attempt to censor this should be opposed.  Whereas the site itself is evidently not run by Alcoholics Anonymous the views expressed therein are those of AA members (except where an outside source is cited eg. articles, research etc), and therefore qualify (if not on that ground alone) for consideration by other members of the Fellowship.  

b)  Knowledge is power:  One thing at least that we have discovered during the last three years the site has been running is that what the cult most fears is EXPOSURE.  They dislike intensely having their activities brought into the full light of day, with their misrepresentations of the Fellowship and its programme examined  (and then refuted), the unmasking of their systematic abuse of newcomers (this conducted under the guise of “sponsorship” of the worst kind - that is if it can be called sponsorship at all!), together with their discriminatory conduct towards those AA members who are dual diagnosis (this leading to further suffering for those concerned, and, in some instances, contributing to, if not actually causing, their untimely death),  and lastly their manipulation of AA guidelines, Traditions and Concepts to serve their own ego driven ambitions rather than the welfare of AA members (it is worth bearing in mind here that the cult are particularly fond of running so-called “workshops”  (advertised both within AA and outside the auspices of the Fellowship) to promote their own mangled “version” of these principles).  Finally our efforts - together with those of other similarly concerned AA members - are starting to have some impact on the cult in Great Britain.  A number of their meetings have either closed or been removed from the “Where to Find” (a decision undertaken by local intergroups),  or in at least one instance denied access to an intergroup for being “too controversial”.  A number of other groups (those more amenable to criticism) have recognised their breaches of the Traditions and guidelines and have (following upon group consciences) revised their conduct accordingly, and have subsequently been removed from our cult Where to Find (a resource incidentally which has proven to be remarkably effective in isolating these groups from AA and AA members).  All of the above has been sustained by the flow of information which has indeed proven to be a potent weapon in our campaign against the cult's activities.

We reiterate: knowledge is power!  When AA members have full access to what is going on in other groups they are then in a position to remedy (where required) any abuses that might be taking place.  We have no problem at all with the notion of AA members and AA groups 'policing' AA.  Indeed we would argue that under Traditions One, Four and Five (and contrary to the position taken by cult groups in their frequent misrepresentation of these guidelines) other groups not only have a right to take action to correct the dangerous conduct of cult groups (those purporting to act under the umbrella of AA) but even - we would assert - a duty to intervene, that is if there exists a genuine concern to ensure both “our common welfare” and protect the newcomer against this most insidious and malign influence within the Fellowship.   These flows of information need not specifically be directed towards aacultwatch itself (although we will always happily review any evidence sent our way) but rather between AA members, both individually and locally, either within the formal service structure or via (and just as importantly) informal networks.  Such conduits should no longer be obstructed by 'hiding' behind the Yellow Card (the confidentiality statement, which by the way has no legal or applicable ground to support it) or relying on collusion and/or denial within the Fellowship to ensure their perverse activities go unchallenged.  AA is an anonymous organisation - not a secret one.  We are in fact not only  “responsible”  for our own Fellowship but also accountable to a wider public, and  from which after all our membership finally derives.  In line with this we would argue that AA should operate altogether more transparently, and moreover that AA members have both a moral and a social obligation to speak up and expose cult groups wherever and whenever such abuses occur. Freedom of speech and freedom of action do not simply happen – they are rights that have to be actively defended or they wither and die, and we are left then subordinate to the fascist condition perpetrated by the cult groups (the terms “Step Nazis” and “Taliban” more than adequately express a sometimes intuitively grasped recognition - that this is precisely where the cult groups will finally take AA if they are left unopposed)

c)  Similarly such debate can take place in online forums (incidentaly we have been reliably informed by AA members that instructions have been issued by some cult groups to their members that these latter should not view the aacultwatch website (an indication in itself of their fear of exposure even amongst themselves!).  Our own forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/aacultwatch) exists to promote such discussion, and without wishing to blow our own trumpets (but we're going to anyway) we have already successfully challenged one anti-AA advocate (going by the bizarre tag “Agent [a citrus fruit]”; we have no intention of giving him or his website any more publicity here) and his adherents to produce verifiable evidence to support their claims. Of the eight or nine points raised they were only able to produce one piece of supporting documentation which might even approach meeting that simple criterion. The rest was mere propaganda or the recycling of misrepresentations about AA from other sources on the web.  Their other claims were challenged effectively by AA members who, citing in every instance the relevant guidelines, were easily able to confute their arguments. In like fashion the advocates of the cult position have been challenged by AA members to establish the moral legitimacy of their approach, something which this extremist element has so far entirely failed to do.  Other online forums of course provide a means by which these debates can be conducted, and this without necessarily mentioning aacultwatch explicitly (although to do so usually saves quite a lot of time in explanation).

d) Finally of course AA members may themselves directly confront and challenge cult supporters and adherents wherever these seek to promote their fallacious doctrine (and this even in an AA meeting where cult members may attempt to exploit the opportunity afforded therein), and expose their lies and misrepresentations, and this by the simple expedient of questioning their dubious interpretations of the principles and guidelines of AA (an approach which we ourselves will most certainly continue to apply). In order to do this AA members will themselves need not only to familiarise themselves with the relevant literature but ensure moreover that they have fully “imbibed”, as it were, the spirit of the Fellowship.  The cult may be quite adept in manipulating such former sources to serve their own personality driven ends but they fail entirely to distinguish the essence of AA which underpins its every action, and wherein lies its sole purpose; that is liberation – liberation from the tyranny of alcoholism, and this by means of liberation from the bondage of self, whether this last manifests itself immediately, or derives indeed from some other source – that is another “human power”. “Self will run riot” is the fundamental flaw upon which the cult rests, and which finally will be its downfall – and the sooner the better! 

21/08/10

Tradition Seven

Short form:

"Seven—Every A.A. group ought to be fully self-supporting, declining outside contributions."

Long form:

"7.—The A.A. groups themselves ought to be fully supported by the voluntary contributions of their own members. We think that each group should soon achieve this ideal; that any public solicitation of funds using the name of Alcoholics Anonymous is highly dangerous, whether by groups, clubs, hospitals, or other outside agencies; that acceptance of large gifts from any source, or of contributions carrying any obligation whatever, is unwise. Then too, we view with much concern those A.A. treasuries which continue, beyond prudent reserves, to accumulate funds for no stated A.A. purpose. Experience has often warned us that nothing can so surely destroy our spiritual heritage as futile disputes over property, money, and authority."

(our emphases)

Again a pretty straightforward piece of advice.  (Firstly it might be useful to know what an AA group is as distinguished from an AA meeting.  For some useful (conference approved) insights into this we recommend the following booklet called unsurprisingly enough: The AA Group. Click here (http://www.aa.org/pdf/products/p-16_theaagroup.pdf) for pdf download)). Essentially a self-supporting fellowship ensures its own autonomy, and of course this is consistent with our principle  of non-affiliation. Most importantly we are not a “business” nor should we be unduly distracted by such concerns beyond those necessary to ensure that AA remains viable.  In practice this means that ONLY AA members are responsible for the financing of our society.  Therefore AA meetings at which non-AAs are present (eg. guests) should ensure that these are made aware of this (courteously and discreetly) and should not put any money in the pot.  Similarly groups should pay the going rate for whatever accommodation they use for their meetings; they should not allow themselves to be subsidised in any way.  So for example those meetings run on hospital premises where there may be no charge should still pay an appropriate market rent to ensure that they abide by this principle. Interestingly this tradition does raise a question with regard to the sale of AA literature to the general public.  Effectively any monies derived from this source and subsequently used to subsidise AA mean that we are in fact taking money from “outside agencies”.  This problem would be avoided of course if literature was sold simply at cost price with no profits made, the funds derived being used simply to finance the costs associated with production and distribution. The debate about whether AA should be partly financing itself in this fashion has been going on for some time now. Perhaps it is time we achieved this “ideal” and started abiding fully by this principle. Such a step would also avoid the current controversy of literature being bought from sources outside AA (online distributors for example). We should only be financing ourselves from our own members' “voluntary contributions” - AA is not in the book selling “business” - that is not our “primary purpose”.

Finally a “voluntary contribution” means precisely that.  Whatever money is given is given ONLY according to the will of the donor including the time, place and amount, all of these specified by them and by them alone.  Any AA event which seeks to impose a charge upon the attendees is clearly in breach of this Tradition and in our view ceases any more to be associated with Alcoholics Anonymous. Moreover any attempt to “suggest” an amount as a way of avoiding this guideline is in our view contrary to this principle especially where such “suggestions” are accompanied by any form of coercion or manipulation (It is entirely reasonable though for the treasurer of a group to ensure that its members – and any visitor to the group (in accordance with Tradition 4) – are kept fully informed of the group's financial position). This may have implications for AA conventions etc but the principle is pretty clearly stated.  Therefore if AA members wish to organise such events and where these may include the provision of food (beyond the customary tea/coffee and biscuits), entertainment etc - and where there are inevitably costs associated with these - then the two activities should be clearly separated. Access to the AA meeting should be open to all AA members who wish to attend (and without charge) the remainder subject to the usual economic constraints.  One is an AA activity, the other is not. Again AA is not in the “business” of running dances, discos, buffets, raffles, bingo and other assorted purely social occasions – these are “outside” issues.

In connection with the above the current “rash” of workshops and cult conventions organised by sundry individuals where a charge is made for attendance are NOT by definition AA events.  They should not be promoted at AA meetings and newcomers especially should be made aware that these are NOT AA sponsored events.  Moreover the organisers of such events should NOT use the name Alcoholics Anonymous nor use the AA logo and should explicitly (and in large lettering) make it plain to all and in understandable language that they are nothing to do with AA.  After that a fool and his money are easily parted......

Cheerio

The Fellas

12/08/10

A brief observation on: "Secret of AA: After 75 Years, We Don’t Know How It Works" (see Stop Press 27/06/10)

""The sad fact remains that the program's failures vastly outnumber its success stories..." Really? As the old cliché has it, there are figures, statistics and damned lies! "Those who do not recover are those who cannot or will not COMPLETELY give themselves to this simple program... " (Alcoholics Anonymous, chapter five, 1939) i.e. those unable or unwilling "to go to any lengths" to stay sober. As Glenn Chesnut points out on AAHistoryLovers@yahoogroups.com (6 April 2010): "If you have severe diabetes, then the combination of insulin injections and watching your diet will do a lot of good, but if you quit the insulin shots and start pigging out on chocolate cake again, you will get very ill - not because modern medicine 'does not work', but because you stopped following the doctor's recommendations. It's time to stop blaming AA if people go to a few meetings, pay no attention to what is said, put out no effort, and then disappear and go back to drinking again. If you take three or four violin lessons, refused to practice the violin at home, and then quit going to your lessons, then not even the greatest violin teacher in the world can teach you how to play the violin successfully. Let's get serious here!" "AA's 12 Steps are a group of principles, spiritual in their nature, which, if practiced as a way of life, can expel the obsession to drink and enable the sufferer to become happily and usefully whole." (12 Steps and 12 Traditions, 1952, Foreword). For the AA program to "succeed" it has to be practised as a way of life."

(our usual thanks to this AA member for their contribution)

05/08/10

Tradition Six

Short form:

"Six—An A.A. group ought never endorse, finance or lend the A.A. name to any related facility or outside enterprise, lest problems of money, property and prestige divert us from our primary purpose."

Long form:

"6.—Problems of money, property, and authority may easily divert us from our primary spiritual aim. We think, therefore, that any considerable property of genuine use to A.A. should be separately incorporated and managed, thus dividing the material from the spiritual. An A.A. group, as such, should never go into business. Secondary aids to A.A., such as clubs or hospitals which require much property or administration, ought to be incorporated and so set apart that, if necessary, they can be freely discarded by the groups. Hence such facilities ought not to use the A.A. name. Their management should be the sole responsibility of those people who financially support them. For clubs, A.A. managers are usually preferred. But hospitals, as well as other places of recuperation, ought to be well outside A.A.—and medically supervised. While an A.A. group may cooperate with anyone, such cooperation ought never go so far as affiliation or endorsement, actual or implied. An A.A. group can bind itself to no one."

(our emphases)

The reasons for this tradition are pretty well self-evident – AA and money don't mix – therefore AA is not in the business of 'selling' treatment, religion, books, ideas, life styles, advice, or any other product or service you can think of.  It's got one purpose and it sticks to that – and that's given away free, gratis, no strings attached, no back handers, no side deals, no quid pro quo, zilch, nada, nichts …. (time to take a breath).... no contracts to be signed, no documents to be exchanged, no references required, no warranties offered, no insurance to be taken out (unless you count helping another alkie from time to time).  In other words, and just in case this isn't quite clear enough – YOU PAY NOTHING – either in money or kind.  AA is not a business, does not engage in commerce, does NOT make profits and just about lurches along on the contributions from its members – and how much they put in the pot is their “business” and nobody else's.  There are no “suggested” amounts to be “contributed”, no tithes, no subscriptions, no percentages to be calculated.  If you're a really sharp operator you can be a member of AA for your entire life and not pay a dime!!!  (Come on! – there must be someone out there who's done it??). So if someone tries to put the pinch on you, tells you you GOTTA pay for attending an AA meeting, or tries to extract a dollar or two off you for the pleasure of listening to their “experience, strength and hope” then wherever you are you can be sure it ain't an AA meeting. If they're trying to flog you something, be it a book or a CD on how to win at the game of life, or be terribly, terribly spiritual in just ten days then keep your hands on your wallet (or purse), turn round sharpish, and walk the other way......preferably in the direction of a genuine AA meeting

Cheerio

The Fellas

30/07/10

“FORTY-FIFTH GENERAL SERVICE CONFERENCE 2010

Committee Reports (All Committee reports were passed at the Plenary session with a two-thirds plus majority)

Committee No. 4

Would Conference consider and give guidance on the finance and publicising of Conventions?

Is the process of Convention organisation and accountability to the Fellowship clear for all?

This Committee recognises that Guideline 15 provides concise and comprehensive guidance on organising AA Conventions.

We would like to emphasise that Convention Committee members should report back to their Region or Intergroup with clear information of the processes they are following.  This would help to ensure that Convention organisation and accountability to the Fellowship is clear to all (Guideline 15).

The Committee would like to draw attention to Conference recommendation of 1995 which reads:

“that the practice of inviting speakers from overseas and paying their expenses is in breach of Traditions 4 & 12.”

To prevent misrepresentation, events organised outside of the service structure cannot use the AA name or logo* or use the Confidential Directory as a mailing list.

This committee believes that the primary purpose of any convention is to carry the AA message to the alcoholic who still suffers.

*Copyright/Logo *Guidelines for AA GB)

Voting:  Unanimous”

(extract from AA Service News – Summer 2010 – No. 143)

Comment: Apart from those “workshops” organised by the “speaker circuit” brigade (where you may with some facility be separated from your hard earned dough for the privilege of listening to mostly repackaged and recycled verbiage) the above may be of interest to Northdown Intergroup and to the notorious Road to Recovery Group, Plymouth.  In the first case aacultwatch contacted (via York) this particular Intergroup to request an explanation as to why the Winchester Convention (apparently sponsored by this intergroup) was publicising by name two speakers from the US. The flier advertising the event bears the AA logo and gives every indication of being an AA convention.  So far we've received no reply though the email was forwarded to them no later than the 15 June 2010.  As for the RtoR group it's hardly surprising that they are paying no attention to AA guidelines – after all this is not an AA group – but their website (although not bearing the AA logo) nevertheless describes the group as being of Alcoholics Anonymous.  Currently yet more brethren from the Pacific Group (and that's another looonnng story) are touting for business on their site.  Whatever did happen to Tradition 12 with this group?  Sorry..... forgot... this is NOT an AA group ….all is clear now!!

Cheerio

The Fellas

23/07/10

Tradition Five

Short form:

"Five—Each group has but one primary purpose—to carry its message to the alcoholic who still suffers."

Long form:

"5.—Each Alcoholics Anonymous group ought to be a spiritual entity having but one primary purpose—that of carrying its message to the alcoholic who still suffers."

(our emphases)

A pretty straightforward, uncomplicated guideline (emphasised by the word "ought"). The term "spiritual" as usual is slightly problematic and understood necessarily according to interpretation (which varies widely - thankfully - within AA). However the word "entity" might be worth having a look at:

1. Something that exists as a particular and discrete unit: Persons and corporations are equivalent entities under the law.
2. The fact of existence; being.
3. The existence of something considered apart from its properties.

The 3rd definition suggests that an AA group might be considered to exist as something quite apart from its properties - or to put it another way - it is some thing more than the sum of these, and which properties include its 'parts', ie. the members of this particular AA group. From this it would follow that a group is not simply an aggregation of individuals competing to further their own particular agenda, and possibly forming factions to promote these, but a co-operative inspired by a common cause, which causes takes precedence over ego-driven ambition.  This principle serves further to emphasise the necessity of ensuring that a group is neither 'driven' by a single individual nor by a "clique" but that every voice is given equal weight - and is equally heard - and this without direction or manipulation by any other (in the case of the cult groups, the All-Knowing, All-Seeing and quite probably All-Dancing Sponsor).  From this derives what is called the "group conscience" this conscience informed finally, and essentially, by a higher principle which some may call God - and then again some may not.

15/07/10

Tradition Four
 
Short form:
 
“Four—Each group should be autonomous except in matters affecting other groups or A.A. as a whole.”
 
Long form:
 
“4.—With respect to its own affairs, each A.A. group should be responsible to no other authority than its own conscience. But when its plans concern the welfare of neighbouring groups also, those groups ought to be consulted. And no group, regional committee, or individual should ever take any action that might greatly affect A.A. as a whole without conferring with the trustees of the General Service Board. On such issues our common welfare is paramount.”

(our emphases)
 
Note: This Tradition is one that is most frequently (and blatantly) broken by the cult groups (those presently engaged in attempting to subvert both the Fellowship and the message of Alcoholics Anonymous). Whilst claiming a “purer” and more “fundamentalist” application of AA principles these same groups ignore (or distort) any such guidelines (whether these be expressed in the Steps, Traditions or Concepts) which might hinder their efforts to present their perversion of the AA message, and by which cause they bring our society into disrepute.  The evidence for their impact may easily be reviewed by simply conducting a search of the anti AA websites, blogs, and internet groups which are springing up via that medium.  While we would not claim for a moment that AA itself is free of all fault nevertheless these anti AA sentiments become easily understandable when examined in the light of cult activities. The aacultwatch team however choose NOT to turn a blind eye to these allegations but rather to take action to oppose these abuses not only insofar as they affect our Fellowship but also (and more importantly) where they result in completely unnecessary suffering being inflicted upon newcomers who come to Alcoholics Anonymous in search merely of a solution to their alcohol problem. Anyone with a reasonable grasp of AA principles can easily comprehend this approach,  one which does not include dogma, dictat, abuse or humiliation, and indeed does not require of anyone anything more than “a desire to stop drinking”. Beyond this point the rest is entirely voluntary!  The aacultwatch team takes this Tradition very seriously and indeed as members of AA  (and of AA groups) regard it as an obligation to take action when a group (AA, or purporting to be AA) acts in such a way as to affect the welfare of individuals, groups or indeed of Alcoholics Anonymous as a whole.

10/07/10

Northdown Intergroup – an AA Intergroup?

04/07/10

Tradition Three

Short form:

"Three—The only requirement for A.A. membership is a desire to stop drinking."

Long form:

"3.—Our membership ought to include all who suffer from alcoholism. Hence we may refuse none who wish to recover. Nor ought A.A. membership ever depend upon money or conformity. Any two or three alcoholics gathered together for sobriety may call themselves an A.A. group, provided that, as a group, they have no other affiliation."

(our emphases)

Note: Both the Primary Purpose groups and other cult groups DO have other affiliations; these are therefore NOT AA groups, NOR should they be included in any Where to Find, and moreover their members should not be permitted to participate in the AA service structure at ANY level. Cult groups DO demand conformity - that is with their perversion of both the Fellowship and our programme. Cult groups DO attempt to "filter" out those who THEY JUDGE not to be alcoholic - which is NOT their call after all!!

27/06/10

Secret of AA: After 75 Years, We Don’t Know How It Works

By Brendan I. Koerner  June 23, 2010  |  12:00 am  |  Wired July 2010

(Our usual thanks to the contributor)

25/06/10

18/06/10

Tradition Two

Short form:

"Two—For our group purpose there is but one ultimate authority—a loving God as He may express Himself in our group conscience. Our leaders are but trusted servants; they do not govern."

Long form (weird but true - in this particular case the long form is actually shorter than the short form):

"2.—For our group purpose there is but one ultimate authority—a loving God as He may express Himself in our group conscience."

(our emphases)

Note: It is the group that makes the decisions - not some individual within the group (leader or not). Moreover there is no "govern" in AA and therefore no "government" and therefore following on from this no "politics" or "politicking".  If a group is "run" by an individual, or even a "clique", then it has of necessity NO group conscience

12/06/10

Northdown Intergroup? – a case of split PERSONALITIES perhaps!

04/06/10

Some observations from Wirral
 
“Thanks for your great site. I'd like to point your attention towards the Wirral meetings which I attended for some time until recently. I finally met a good sponsor who took me through the big book in an entirely compassionate way. As such I was able to see that it did indeed hold a lot of wisdom which has enabled me to move towards freedom in a realistic way. I have however seen the following at Wirral AA meetings, they are frequented mainly by a set number of individuals who seem to control things and have no qualms whatsoever about burdening or upsetting people often through stealthy and implied sinister means. I'm more than happy to quote particularly dangerous meetings if you require, although I'd say these elements are in almost every Wirral meeting I've been to:
 
1) Sexual predatory. One …... woman ….. making obvious advances towards me when I was new around and quite obviously unhappy at my refusal of her advances. What indeed I wonder was the implication? It is almost always that your life will be made difficult especially as you now 'have no choice' - in their words but to attend these meetings. Shocking. And it's happening to others too.
 
2) Discrimination towards dual addicted people. Open and obvious condemnation of anyone talking about non-alcohol related substances in meetings.
 
3) Pointless, platitudinal repetitive garbage based shares preaching rubbish about everything being great - and more importantly these shares are rewarded by the group leader. I'd say out of an entire meeting you might get one who is honest out of 20 who share. Most do not feel comfortable talking honestly in meetings and often resort to sharing outside or privately. There is a clear undercurrent of cult orientation here, where you feel outcast if you speak the truth.
 
4) Open criticism of members in meetings. One guy who has 'xx years sobriety' and is a well known and 'respected' member regularly complains about other people in meetings, even having the audacity to attack one woman who had to leave early because she had a panic attack. He is openly hostile to anyone who does not preach the 'AA gospel'. He is never challenged on this, and has many admiring 'peers' in the Wirral meetings who also have many years of 'sobriety'.
 
5) The constant preaching of certain death if you dare leave AA for any period of time. How is this helpful?
 
6) Rejection of returning members who've spent time outside of AA. Seems this door only swings one way.
 
7) Weak and clearly dogmatic Group Leaders throughout all Wirral meetings.
 
8) A general and ever present dis-satisfaction amongst members throughout the meetings.
 
9) Badly handled sponsorship. Implications that you will die if you do not get a sponsor. Some sponsors treating their sponsees like children, even scolding them if they do not ring them at a certain time of day. One sponsor even recommended I kill myself by cutting my wrists in a way that won't heal in time to stop me bleeding to death because I said I was depressed and had a case of the 'poor me's'. Several years later I got diagnosed with …...... by a professional.
 
10) Open recommendations not to take medication. I am actually unconvinced by present day medication, but do totally unqualified people really have the right to judge and advise from a position of influence on this topic?
 
11) A general concept of a 'select' group of people going around giving 'tough love' at every opportunity. Clearly egotistical 'now then mate' gang like mentality amongst those who are in the click, which is obvious every time they meet. I call them the Wirral AA Mafia.
 
12) Clear detachment and ostracisation by older members abusing their position of 'respect' within AA whenever a new or younger member says something they disagree with.
 
A right old mess, doing nothing like what AA was intended for - which has rotted the Wirral meetings to the core. I have withheld my name as I do not want to be identified, and that really does say it all!
 
Thanks again for your great site”

An interesting mail and it does suggest some worrying implications not only in terms of possible cult activity but also how AA itself operates.  As we have indicated before the cult did not come from outside AA – it came from within.  Cult members have simply interpreted the recovery programme, traditions, guidelines, concepts etc in such a way as to lend some legitimacy to their systematic abuse of the most vulnerable members ie. newcomers.  However many of the above abuses existed in AA before the emergence of this dogmatic tendency and it might be worthwhile reflecting on this (and with specific regard to the prescribed medication issue, and the role of sponsorship within AA).  An attentive study of the basic text of the Fellowship (the Big Book) should ensure that such exploitation (and discrimination) is eradicated, and that no member of AA assumes the right to direct the conduct of another, or erodes in any way their basic human rights.

Cheerio

The Fellas

29/05/10

"Requiem for a Friend
 
Sadly we have lost a dear and active friend who dedicated many hours of his time to the tradition of real AA in Mid Kent.

Ian W was a powerhouse of a character and had joined AA many years ago. He was particularly effective with newcomers and ferried them to meetings all over the south east. Whilst he respected everyone else's anonymity, he had a total disregard for his own, in fact he was the only member we knew who was known by his surname instead of his first name!!
 
He was horrified by the rise of the cult and was passionate about halting their abuse and perversion of Bill and Bob's message.
 
He personally helped several "refugees" who escaped from the cult, one in particular who whilst in prison was told he could not be sponsored if taking medication.
 
Before he passed on he was told that  things were changing, and indeed intergroups were voting to have  these rogue meetings removed from the Where to Find and intergroup.
 
He was also assured that his efforts were not in vain and the work to marginalise and expose this harmful and dis-unifying element would continue.
 
So Goodbye Ian you will be much missed but never forgotten,
 
John Does Mate.

May 2010"

We offer our condolences

The Fellas

27/05/10

Tradition One – a question?

Short Form:

"One—Our common welfare should come first; personal recovery depends upon A.A. unity."

Long Form:

"1.—Each member of Alcoholics Anonymous is but a small part of a great whole. A.A. must continue to live or most of us will surely die. Hence our common welfare comes first. But individual welfare follows close afterwards."

Question:  If it is the case that our common welfare should come first, but that this same common welfare is necessarily constituted as an aggregate of "small" individual welfares, and if even one of those "small" individual welfares is adversely affected, and thereby diminished (by say bullying on the part of a cult sponsor, discrimination on the basis of dual diagnosis etc) then surely the aggregated "common welfare" is similarly reduced. Therefore should it not rather be said that "individual" welfare and "common" welfare are correspondingly important and therefore it would be inaccurate to say that one should "follow close afterwards" ie. neither can be afforded a greater priority on this basis.  Therefore the assertion that in some instances the "greater good" (in this case AA unity) may have to be sustained at the cost of a "lesser evil" (eg. the unnecessary suffering of a minority of members, or even a single member) cannot be valid?

Cheerio

The Fellas

21/05/10

Some things never change - and some people never learn

The Strood/Rochester gang - or is it the Rochester/Strood gang nowadays?  The word is that attendance is falling at Strood (Cult HQ West Kent) - seems that even some of their own members can't quite stomach this extremist approach.  Still it's a caring sharing programme isn't it?  Except when it comes to newcomers .......

.......for it would seem that yet another of these unfortunates (unfortunate, that is, to fall under the influence of cult propaganda) has been on the receiving end of their version of "tough love" (cult speak for "getting the cold shoulder").  The individual in question had apparently been accelerated through the programme and was up to step Four (under the guidance of that all-embracing icon of the cult recovery programme - "THE SPONSOR") and this in a matter of three months. Somewhat bizarrely they picked up a drink (Who'd of thought it!  An alcoholic relapsing - well we never!!).  Needless to say the experience was quite devastating and some might even say necessary - after all - if you're unconvinced "step over to the nearest bar....."!  Compounding their bewilderment they simply could not fathom why they were not getting it!!  There they were, sitting in a meeting, week after week, surrounded by the massed (or not so massed!) ranks of the "happy, joyous and free" brigade, row upon row of faces fixed in that rictus grin of enforced bliss, giving it large with yet another rendition of the cult anthem beginning with the immortal words "My sponsor says....." - and yet nothing!  They were left instead with that gradually dawning - and perhaps bleak - reality - a life without alcohol! It would seem that a smile and another chorus of "My sponsor says..." was just not going to fix this problem! So now the real work begins - real sharing about real problems, and this with real people with a real solution - no more Disneyland recovery!  No more pretending, no more papering over the cracks, no more playing to the gallery and putting on yet another performance to gain the approval of your SPONSOR or whoever happens to be flavour of this particular month!  Time indeed for a REALITY Check!

Needless to say (but we'll say it anyway) the relapser was dropped like the proverbial hot potato by their SPONSOR.  Well maybe it was time for a change anyway!  But then the word got round and a second attempt to get a SPONSOR was similarly rebuffed - persona non grata is the alcoholic indeed who has the temerity to relapse whilst under the direction of a cult SPONSOR - it just doesn't look good at all!

Fortunately there is life after the cult experience - it's called Alcoholics Anonymous.  The individual in question had sufficient wit to ring up the AA helpline where they were listened to, not patronised, not lectured, not told off and then subsequently referred to an AA meeting - a real AA meeting.

This incident reminds us of another occasion where a newcomer at the Strood meeting fell off the wagon. When they managed to finally get back to the room they were actually told to sit at the back and keep quiet as if they were some naughty school child!  Something of a contrast with an AA meeting where they would be welcomed into the centre of the room and encouraged to speak up - if only to remind the rest of us what could so easily happen to ANY alcoholic who fails to maintain their "spiritual condition" (and this according to their own - not their SPONSOR's - conception of what this might constitute).

Finally a little nugget from down Bournemouth way.  It would seem that the local branch of the cult - "Bournemouth: Road to Recovery" - (see our cult Where to Find) has made yet another attempt to join the Bournemouth intergroup:

"Hi Fellas,    An update from Bournemouth Intergroup. Last Wednesday evening the Intergroup dealt with an application from the Bournemouth "road to recovery group" to be allowed to join the Intergroup. At the February meeting the Chairman invited all GSR's to ask their groups to consult their conscience and vote if the RTR group could be allowed to join in the Bournemouth service structure. All groups within Bournemouth did take part and the issue was widely and fairly debated and principles of AA were followed.

The resulting vote at the Intergroup meeting led to just 3 groups supporting the RTR application. The overwhelming decision by Bournemouth group members was no.   
                                         Keep at it fellas.

ps. That's about 5 years now."

16/05/10

The World as Will and Representation

For all those of you who are so eagerly anticipating Bob's (see below) contribution to western philosophy, and the general spiritual well-being of mankind  (only 33 days to go – or 0 years 1 months 2 days), we thought we'd offer this little warm up item by Arty S (German philosopher and acknowledged expert on notions of will and surrender).  We appreciate that the main event will probably cast Arty's offerings into the shadows but give the guy a break! He was only trying to do his best!   Click here for the Wiki page and then here for links to various online editions.

Remember – just for today – try not to be a mental loofah!

On a lighter note, and because quite frankly we were feeling just a teensy weensy bit frivolous, we thought we'd take a gander at what our little anti-cultwatch Tweeter was up to.  It's been some time since we perused his (or is it a her?) offerings and we were mightily disappointed to see that the abuse rate has slowed up somewhat. Indeed there was something of a long gap between August last year and February this year.  We do hope everything is all right with our little friend!  Unfortunately there does seem to be a bit of recycling going on with this - now - trickle of innuendoes etc but it is quite amusing to see how far to the edge this one is going to push it as he/she pursues his/her desperate course.  The more malign spirits within the team even speculated as to what we might do to nudge this one a little bit closer to the chasm's brink but then wiser counsels prevailed – and we made a cup of tea instead – but only of course after we had consulted our respective sponsors!

Coming soon – more news from Strood and Rochester – it would seem that they still haven't learnt from their mistakes (quelle surprise!) – and with the usual dire consequences for those newcomers who are unfortunate enough to fall into their grasp

Good reading

The Fellas

13/05/10

"Being responsible" - not just an empty phrase! 

"Hello fellas,

08/05/10

Bromley Primary Purpose Big Book Study – closed

We are delighted to be able to confirm that the above meeting has bitten the dust, and been replaced by a genuine AA meeting. The cult group details have been removed from our cult Where to Find – hopefully the first of many!  See details of new group below.

“I would be grateful if you could amend your website and remove the following meeting from it: Primary Purpose Big Book Study. Monday 19.45, Family Church, The Green, Downham Way, as this has now closed, due to a lack of enthusiasm or indeed interest.
 
The meeting has since re-opened as Monday Night Newcomers Meetings (same time, same venue). It is run within the guidelines of the 12 traditions of Alcoholics Anonymous specifically tradition 4 which states that each group ought to be autonomous...meaning it is not affiliated with any other group either inside or outside of Alcoholics Anonymous. Neither is it organised within Alcoholics Anonymous as an elite or fast track recovery programme. It does not promote specific, separate ideals or beliefs within Alcoholics Anonymous.”

30/04/10

Our Greatest Danger: Rigidity

24/04/10

Bexleyheath Road to Recovery - no more, no more, know more??

We were sent the following by a member:

16/04/10

Primary Purpose - Bromley

We received the following email recently informing us of the closure of the following meeting - an extract:

"....Primary Purpose Big Book Study. Monday 19.45, Family Church, The Green, Downham Way, as this has now closed, due to a lack of enthusiasm or indeed interest."

09/04/10

RELIGION AND REHABILITATION: THE REQUISITION OF GOD BY THE STATE - DEREK P. APANOVITCH

An interesting article (click here to download pdf file) on the role played by AA (US) within sentencing policy (in relation to drink related offences), and whether 'referral' to AA by the judiciary constitutes a breach of that individual's constitutionally guaranteed right to religious freedom (which itself raises the question as to whether AA constitutes a "religious" organisation).

Moreover the article points to the impact of AA (and similar 12 Step based support groups) on the religious culture (US). There is some indication (certainly in the UK, and this from direct observation) that the Primary Purpose movement (and other cult groups) contain elements of an overt religiosity (with a clear bias towards the Judaeo-Christian traditions), not only evolving its own "brand" (and forms) but in some instances displaying an evident hostility to other religious (and more traditional) systems, again in clear breach of AA Traditions. According to Tradition 10 - "No AA group or member should ever, in such a way as to implicate AA, express any opinion on outside controversial issues - particular those of politics, alcohol reform, or sectarian religion.  The Alcoholics Anonymous groups oppose no one.  Concerning such matters they can express no views whatever."

(Certainly, and in a somewhat tangential connection to the above, it is our view that AA's participation in the "chit" system both here in the UK, and in the US, goes way beyond "cooperation" with an outside agency, and shifts the Fellowship into an administrative role, thereby providing the mechanisms by which these agencies can monitor their referalls' attendance at AA meetings; the “chit” system has been devised solely to implement this process. On the part of AA itself there is no requirement for registration either as a member or for attendance at meetings. The "chit" system serves a purely external function, and moreover has the effect of creating a two class membership system, one "voluntary", the other "compulsory", and we believe this to be, in the latter case, to the detriment of the Fellowship, and a clear breach of our Traditions).

Enjoy the read!

The Fellas

our usual thanks to the AA member for drawing our attention to this article)

02/04/10

Grievance procedure

We are currently running a campaign to bring to the attention of AA members and the wider community some of the current abuses which are being perpetrated within Alcoholics Anonymous. Although AA as such (that is as an organisational entity) has neither the power nor the administrative mechanisms to deal directly with such complaints we do not believe that this removes from us - as AA members or AA groups - the responsibility (both moral and legal) for taking action to counter such conduct, and (where appropriate) involving the relevant law enforcement agencies. We have identified a number of areas of particular concern and these have been listed below. We would welcome any information relating to those specific issues (although we do not exclude any others that you may wish to bring to our attention), this preferably on the basis of first hand knowledge, and as far as possible with any corroborating information which can be provided. We appreciate that this is sometimes difficult but the more specific the complaint (dates, AA group, named individuals) the more likely action can be taken. None of the above excludes making representations on your own behalf and we would recommend the following:

Make the complaint in writing (recorded delivery) or by email (and asking for confirmation of receipt of mail):

Attn: The General Service Board of Alcoholics Anonymous (Great Britain) Ltd

Alcoholics Anonymous,

PO Box 1,

10 Toft Green,

York YO1 7ND

Email:

Attn: The General Service Board of Alcoholics Anonymous (Great Britain) Ltd

gso@alcoholics-anonymous.org.uk

There will then exist a documented record (both in your possession and in the hands of the General Service Board) for future reference.

Additionally, and where the person concerned has been referred to AA by another agency, a complaint may also be lodged with them. e.g. GP, probation officer, treatment centre, detox unit, counsellor etc. This will have the affect of alerting these agencies to matters which should be of concern to them.

In any instance where the complaint may include reference to conduct of a criminal nature then the matter should be reported to the police in the usual way.

The above measures, although they may not elicit a direct response from AA (for the reasons already stated), will serve to place additional pressure on the Fellowship to put its house in order.

The areas that we have identified to be of particular concern are as follows (though not necessarily in order of importance):

1) pressure placed upon an individual to desist from using medication prescribed by a health care professional

2) discriminatory behaviour against people with dual diagnosis

3) pressure placed upon an individual to desist from receiving counselling, or other forms of psychotherapy

4) pressure placed upon people to adopt a particular “religious” point of view, or engage in specific religious practices eg. attendance at church, praying in certain ways etc

5) pressure placed upon an individual to get an AA sponsor, and to take “directions” from that individual exclusively

6) pressure placed upon a person to attend only certain meetings, and associate only with certain prescribed individuals

7) sexually exploitative conduct eg. predatory behaviour

8) pressure to make financial contributions of a certain level to a specific group (or groups)

9) attempts to direct an individual to disengage from social contacts with friends, family etc

10) pressure placed upon an individual to embark on the 12 Step programme where they indicate an unwillingness to proceed

11) pressure placed upon an individual to attend events where an entrance fee is charged eg. so-called “workshops”, circuit speaker events etc

The “pressure” we refer to above may take many forms ranging from explicit and direct threats, to more subtle and implicit attempts to coerce the individual. In either case the key test is whether the individual feels they are being “bullied” ie. their perception is paramount.

We will endeavour to respond to all email enquiries individually and as quickly as possible. Please send these to the email addresses indicated on the home page of our website: www.aacultwatch.co.uk

For our part, (and where we are satisfied that the complaint is legitimate) we will endeavour to rectify this situation, both as an individual issue and as a general principle of conduct.

At the moment our efforts are primarily concentrated upon AA in Great Britain and can therefore deal only with that geographical region (we do not exclude widening that scope at a later date).

We cannot deal with grievances directed generally at AA (e.g. issues relating to the principles upon which AA is based etc). We accept that the AA approach does not suit everybody, and that moreover there are other means by which people may wish to deal with their alcohol problem.

We hope that the strategy indicated above will serve to give individuals with a grievance some sense that their concerns are being taken seriously by some members of Alcoholics Anonymous. We do not believe that such complaints can simply be dismissed as merely an outpouring of resentment by those for whom AA has not “worked”. We believe that AA members and groups need to understand that they operate in a wider social context and that they are accountable to the society in which they operate, and that anonymity cannot operate as a “mask” for unacceptable behaviour.

The Fellas

27/03/10

Updates on cult groups: Essex - Chelmsford

ESSEX

Chelmsford: Recovery
Friday 19.00 Chelmsford Cathedral Learning Centre, The Cathedral Office, New St.
 
Chelmsford: Broomfield Hospital

Thursday 20.00 Medical Academic Unit, Broomfield Hospital, Court Rd

It's somewhat worrying to see that a cult group has set up in a medical unit - in some respects this might be an entirely appropriate location for this particular gang - but given their stance on the use of prescribed medication, and on counselling generally (ie. anti) we wonder if the hospital is aware of their activities.  Maybe someone should have a word....

26/03/10

Updates on cult groups: Essex, Cambridge, Ealing

ESSEX
 
Witham: Big Book Recovery
Sunday 18.00 Methodist Church Hall, Guithavon St.

Plus there's appears to be yet another Primary Purpose outbreak in Cambridge - there is already one included in our existing Cult: Where to Find - though there seems to be some dispute as to which of these is the real thing??

CAMBRIDGESHIRE

Cambridge: Cambridge Primary Purpose
Monday 19.00 Abbey College, Station Rd

LONDON (West)

Finally we've been told that there's a nasty outbreak in the Ealing area of West London - we quote:

"In Ealing, West London, where I live we have a number of regular long established meetings at 7.30 in the evening. Now we find the numbers at these meetings are falling because other new meetings are being opened nearby, but at 6.00. This "other AA" is centred around one individual  - he even prints up his own literature on pink cards with the "six suggestions" and all his meeting times.

I don't know what to do about all this - it's like there's two AA's in Ealing. It just creates division where there should be unity. I went along to one or two of "their" meetings and there were people there I had never ever seen before, even though I have been in recovery for nearly five years. These people would never dream of coming to one of our meetings."

Over to you

Cheerio

The Fellas

(our usual thanks extended)

23/03/10

Sponsorship - is it necessary?

Join the debate at:

http://forums.delphiforums.com/aacultwatch

19/03/10

The cult within a "cult"? 

An interesting study on the notion of AA as a cult - and which sheds some light on the dangers presently threatening the fellowship.

Click here for pdf download

Cheers

The Fellas

(our usual thanks to the AA member who drew our attention to this article)

13/03/10

Fundamentalism

“Trysh Travis gives an account of the growth of the fundamentalists’ resistance to what they saw (and see!) as the dilution of AA’s message by liberals in her book “The Language of the Heart: A cultural history of the Recovery Movement from Alcoholics Anonymous to Oprah Winfrey” (University of North Carolina Press; 2009) viz: “Probably the largest body of traditionalist literature in circulation today takes the form of what might best be called sobriety guides – books and workbooks intended to move readers through the Steps, to deepen their understanding of the Big Book, and, above all, to increase the quality and durability of sobriety by aiding them in the surrendered life. … Their publications typically derive from or are intended to work in concert with talks by seasoned members, who travel (the United States) offering workshops on how to implement the insights they have committed to print; audiotapes of their talks form an important complement to their printed works. Sobriety guides are not monolithic – some, for example, make an explicit case for Bible study while others are more ecumenical – but their authors generally share the characteristics associated with the mid-western, mid-century version of AA, and incorporate reprinted pamphlet material from that place and time alongside original writing, charts and diagrams”. (Here her footnote says: “Joe McQ, of Little Rock, and Charlie P, of Maysville, Arkansas, who began to travel and promote their ‘Joe and Charlie Curriculum’ in the mid-1980s, are perhaps the best known of the traditionalist sobriety guide-authors [other authors named are Searcy W, Wally P, Clifford B, Myers R, Paul O and the born-again evangelist Dick B] ). She adds, “The audience (for this literature etc) has grown since the late 1990s, when the internet began to provide traditionalist authors and their partisans an efficient means of communication and a highly visible platform. Websites like Silkworth.net, The Primary Purpose Group, AA Big Book Study Group and GSO Watch (!) to name only a few, promote traditionalist authors alongside The Little Red Book and 24 Hours a Day. While such sites differ in the degree of vitriol (sic) that they hurl at the dominant AA culture, all of them tout amateur publications as counterweights to a cultural mo(ve)ment in which ‘the Language of the Heart has gotten all tangled up with drugs, pop psychology, clinical terminology, and emotionalism’. (Jim H) … According to Mitchell K, during the 1990s they (the fundamentalists) also helped support the creation of a growing movement [of] ‘underground’ meetings. As in early mid-western AA, admission is carefully controlled: ‘they are not advertised; and attendance at them is by invitation only. One has to be ‘sponsored’ into them … [and they] are open for alcoholics and their families only’. This rigor, Mitchell K argues, counteracts official AA’s misplaced ‘desire to help the greater number of people,’ which has ‘led to lower expectations and to diluting of the message to make it more palatable’.”

As I wrote in “Share” magazine (July 2007), these extra-mural, by invitation only workshops, Step weekends etc are a pestilential nuisance, setting member against member and sowing conflict among groups.”

LAURIE A.

(our thanks as usual to this AA member for their contribution)

05/03/10

Purley cult group

There's an absolutely scurrilous rumour doing the rounds that the Purley group (see our Cult: Where to Find) has finally been given the old heave-ho by North East Surrey Intergroup.  Apparently they have become such a right royal pain in the you-know-what that all patience has expired.  But never mind! They can always transfer their efforts to promoting that other side-line: the circuit speaker business. They now run a website advertising such notables as Bob D (whoever he is?) amongst others.  And the blurb:

"Theme:  Surrender

Acessing [sic] the power, spiritual principals [sic] in relationships, our primary purpose as the [sic] the way to freedom, how to survive the battle between ego and spirit, making amends  and the mending of our separation"

Do we detect the faintest beginnings of psycho-babble here, or is it just our natural paranoia surfacing again!! Anyway for a tenner you can get two days worth of Bob holding forth on the above themes - well not really two days - more like a day and a bit - but never mind - if you can't get enough of Bob you can always click on the link to an audio file site and listen to Bob absolutely gratis. But if even Bob can't get your juices flowing then fear not for help is at hand!  There's a whole procession of these worthies queueing up here, each one apparently quite desperate to impart their wisdom to us heathens. So following up on Bob's insight we'll be treated to Karl M (details to be announced), Mari G (tba) and finally, the crème de la crème, that well known import from the States, the venerable Myers R.  Now if that lot can't get you sobered up then nothing will.

Cheerio

The Fellas

PS One thing that is particularly amusing about the site is the countdown meter - as of today it's only 106 days (or three months and fourteen days) before Bob regales us with his erudition.  Can we hold out that long!!  We think so - but only just!!

01/03/10

Birchington Mini Convention (East Kent)

The word is that the convenor for this year's Birchington Mini Convention is a cult member - a regular at both cult groups - Tankerton Tuesday and Kearsney Wednesday. Still it should greatly simplify the choice of speakers for the event - we predict contributions from the local cult groups, maybe a showing or two from the Medway (Strood Thursday et al) gang, and perhaps even an import from the "smoke", with perhaps a suitably "co-opted" local "bleeding deacon" whose ego has been suitably massaged in advance, just to lend the occasion that touch of AA authenticity.  Or then again perhaps it would just be easier to play a few CDs from the "fly-in" circuit speaker brigade and maybe abandon the convention altogether.  Whatever happens we hope that the attendees at the event have a strong stomach - and an inordinate capacity to listen to prolonged, identical sharing as clone after clone rehearses those well known cult tag lines, demonstrating thereby an almost complete eradication of independent thought: "My sponsor says.....", "....happy, joyous and free....", "misery is optional" blah blah blah ad nauseam. That's all it takes to recover folks! - the ability to string a few clichés together, and play the part to the bitter end!!

Enjoy

Cheerio

The Fellas

26/02/10

aacultwatch forum launch

19/02/10

Honest (and dishonest) sharing

"The pledge : 'When anyone, anywhere reaches out for help, I want the hand of AA to be there, and for that I am responsible'

Tradition 5: 'Each group has but one primary purpose - to carry its message to the alcoholic that still suffers'

Something I have found key recently is the need for honesty. Honesty for me is one of the main components within recovery. To admit what we were, and are, is a huge step forward - only when we do this can we truly start to recover.

Honesty must also be carried forth when sharing at meetings. I have attended certain groups where the sharing is uniform and all too squeaky clean. It is important to be aware of what you are sharing and how this will affect the newcomer. I have experienced meetings where the sharing from the core of the group is all the same. Everyone has been rocketed into the 4th dimension. How everything is just perfect. How they have a life beyond their wildest dreams. Quite often there is a heavy emphasis on the book, sponsorship, with an undertone that if these avenues are not explored something unpleasant will happen to the poor newcomer. Though I am an advocate of the big book, the steps and a sponsor, ramming it down some poor newcomer's throat, in my honest opinion, serves as nothing more than repelling them away and damaging the reputation of the majority of AA people who genuinely care.

I have experienced people sharing about how the groups they were in were all sharing about how great things were - the person concerned was puzzled as they did not feel that way. In my view I don't feel that it is possible to have sunshine beaming from every pore all day every day. No one can never have a bad day. Sometimes when I hear this uniform drivel it smacks of religious frenzy. Whether the individuals are aware of the detrimental effect this manufactured, repetitive spiel has on newcomers is another debate entirely. I know it's not good though.

The obstacles and sometimes painful experiences that sobriety throws at us do not disappear simply because we have taken the steps and worked the programme. It is important to recognise that as we live life on life's terms we find that yes, real life can be bloody hard at times. It is important that we stay positive, but also reflect that this recovery business can be bloody hard work at times. What I have seen as a result of the uniform 'happy, joyous and free' gang is that newcomers come in, can't relate to feeling great all day every day and assume one of two things - 1) That whatever is going on they can't get it because they don't relate to the drones sharing and 2) That because they don't feel that way all day every day - AA must be a load of cobblers and they go on their merry way confused and back out of the door. In my experience, meetings where people are brutally honest are shunned and deemed 'sick' - their crime, telling it how it really is. Why is this?

There is no doubt in my mind that AA works, and life does get better, but a reality check is also needed.

On the level of personal responsibility, I feel that it is also our duty to be very cautious about becoming part of a group within a group. I feel it can be damaging on 2 fronts. It can alienate the newcomer entirely and lead to them leaving the group and possibly AA. I have also seen instances where the individual goes down the dishonesty route. They want to become part of the inner circle and therefore share dishonestly just to fit in. After all - the big book says ' no man wants to admit that he is bodily or mentally different from his fellows'. Being caught in this rut also discourages regular members from attending other meetings - thus denying them a mix and range of different views and sharing, denying them the experience or a bigger range of human experience in AA. In cases like this, the path really does become narrower, and eventually so do people's viewpoints.

Don't get me wrong, a good dose of common sense and balance is always a great remedy for the above, but we are talking about people who are new to the fellowship and may well be desperate.

I hope the above points are valid for anyone reading. “

(our thanks to the AA member who sent in this contribution)

Cheers

The Fellas

12/02/10

News from Eastbourne and Sheppey

"Hello. My name's ....I was in the fellowship since last January at the Eastbourne “There is a solution” AA group. I found that certain practices were being used and having looked at your site - it is a very big issue. I'm glad to say that this meeting has now moved ..... I would be happy to go into what has gone on within this group...

I feel very strongly about this situation within AA. I've seen quite a few people join the "There is a solution" meeting only to realise it seems to be a religious Christian only meeting. I myself have been intimidated to the point I don't go to real AA meetings. I stood up to the main GSR who takes the group as a whole to church - her choice of church, to meetings that they sit and try to take over - the sick meetings as they call them. I've been told by a person who was sacked twice from the group as being evil! - trying to stop their meetings .... this made me feel like leaving .....I've been told by them when I was part off to not go alone to SICK meetings, stop my medication prescribed by my GP, to keep ringing newcomers everyday, put pressure on them to stay in the group. You are instructed to read Joe Mq  [circuit speaker] 12 steps and other non AA material. Also forced to a talk given by American speaker in Croydon in the summer at a cost of £15 per ticket. A friend was forced to kneel and pray to god or leave group!  A person who was forced to go to church, baptised even though does not believe in god and then sacked when pressure was too much they drank again. The list goes on. I hope that this in some way helps you. Many thanks for your time"

05/02/10

"Here is the story about Irma Livoni....

29/01/10

VAUXHALL: LONDON BEGINNERS

The latest addition to our Cult: Where to Find

Area: GREATER LONDON
Town: VAUXHALL
Day: THURSDAY
Postcode: SW8
Time: 19.00
Group Name: VAUXHALL: LONDON BEGINNERS
Open or Closed: All mtgs 'open'.
Address: Ashmole Community Hall, 2 Meadow Rd SW8 1QB

This group is up to its old tricks again - yet another promotional event featuring named guest speakers and with a £7.00 charge for the privilege of listening to some "personalities" recycling the latest perversion of the AA message.  The colourful, if not garish, flyer (see above) promoting this event helpfully points out that:

"There are many AA conferences/conventions held around the world. A common misconception of these gatherings is that they are regular AA Meetings. Conventions and Conferences are special events, which require a substantial amount of funding. This convention is self-supporting. Attendance is voluntary and as responsible AA members, we pay our own way". 

Apparently this rationale is intended to justify charging for entry. Well they've got one thing right - this little shindig can by no stretch of the imagination be considered a "regular AA meeting" if an AA meeting at all!  Again an attempt is made to blur the lines between what constitutes an AA meeting and what might be considered a business meeting or a purely social event.  There is nothing to suggest in the promotional material that members are not in fact being charged to go to a meeting. In AA conventions there is a clear separation between the two, the cost of running the AA meeting met by "voluntary contributions" and any other charges (relating to the provision of entertainment, food, beverages etc) being separately itemised, and comprising a ticket price.  In this fashion no AA member is excluded from attending an AA meeting per se for whatever financial reason. It is open then for each person to decide whether they wish to attend any accessory activities but these latter fall within the province of "outside issues" and therefore subject to the usual economic constraints. 

Just for the hell of it we've listed the AA traditions this group has broken (and this purely on the basis of the flyer):

One, Two, Four, Five, Six, Seven, Ten, Eleven, Twelve

Not bad! Only 9 traditions out of 12 - must try harder!

22/01/10

"Criticism as Deviance and Social Control in Alcoholics Anonymous"

An interesting article from the Journal of Contemporary Ethnography

Click here to download

(our thanks to the AA member who drew this to our attention)

15/01/10

01/01/10

Gresham's Law and Alcoholics Anonymous - a critique

According to that age-old tradition – you're waiting for a bus and none appears – and then – just as you're about to give up – a whole convoy arrive!!! And so...

“Gresham's Law and Alcoholics Anonymous” was originally published in July 1976 in "24 Magazine" (author unknown), and subsequently updated in 1993 by Tom P, Jnr.

(The essay itself – henceforth abbreviated to GLAA - can be accessed via the internet by putting the title in a search engine. There are a number of versions available but they differ mostly in format rather than content)

Firstly, and to clarify the title, Gresham's Law states essentially: "Bad money drives out good". In this context this “law” is cited to exemplify the view (propagated by the Primary Purpose movement amongst others) that Alcoholics Anonymous' programme (and its application) has undergone a progressive weakening or dilution since the inception of the Fellowship, and this has been accompanied by a consequent reduction in recovery rates. According to some sources this essay serves as one of the crucial supports to that argument. We were somewhat surprised, therefore, on reading the piece, to discover how much of it was based on the author's opinion, and how little upon any evidence in support of its contentions. The few references to any kind of statistical data are, as far as we can discern, either unsupported by research (independent or otherwise) or gross misrepresentations (or perhaps, and more charitably, misinterpretations) of these figures. As a work of speculation it has little merit; as an analysis it has none.

Essentially the essay purports to demonstrates a number of factors which apparently “explain” why recovery rates (and quality of sobriety) are much reduced since the origination of AA in 1935.

Firstly - that in the early days of AA (ie. from its inception but prior to the publication of the book Alcoholics Anonymous in 1939) “a more rigorous and demanding” programme was practised, one largely derived from that of the Oxford Group and which consisted of their initial framework of six steps plus the Four Absolutes. Moreover this approach placed a great deal more emphasis on belief and reliance upon God (in the more orthodox use of the term since the Oxford Group was an attempt to return to, as they interpreted them, fundamentalist Christian principles), a practice which was intended to lead to a “spiritual experience”.

Secondly - that since this time the programme's presentation and application have been progressively “diluted”, “secularised”, its principles “sugar coated”, that it has moved from a “directive” to a “suggestive” mode of emphasis, that spiritual “experience” has been replaced by “spiritual awakening” as the primary objective and consequence of implementing the 12 Steps, and all this due to a shift within AA (by cause and effect) from this originally more demanding approach to the present largely watered down version. Moreover, the author of GLAA asserts that AA practitioners may be characterised as falling under three main categories: “strong”, “medium” and “weak” (also, by analogy, “strong-cup-of-tea”, “medium-cup-of-tea”, or “weak-cup-of-tea” types), the strong being closer to the original, the weak being virtually a substitution of the AA fellowship for the AA programme with almost little or no application of its principles ie. the twelve Steps, and the medium falling somewhere between the two. Furthermore, the “weak” type he also refers to as “COWD AA” (“copped-out and watered-down AA").

Finally - and as a consequence, this “dilution” has resulted in falling recovery rates, and even when these are sustained it is asserted the quality of recovery, or “sobriety”, falls far short of what it could be.

It should be commented here that the first clue as to the author's flawed perspective, (and more revealing perhaps of his underlying bias) lies in his use of the “cup-of-tea” analogy:

“By 1941 (which was the year my father, Tom P. Sr., came into the Fellowship) it was possible to distinguish three variant practices of the AA program, which we have labeled the strong-cup-of-tea, medium-cup-of-tea and weak-cup-of-tea approaches.”

He later goes on to expand on these categories which may essentially be boiled down to his own summary:

“There are three ways to work the program of Alcoholics Anonymous.

1. The strong original way - proved powerfully and reliably effective over fifty-eight years.

2. A medium way - not so strong, not so safe, not so sure, not so good, but still effective.

And,

3. A weak way, which turns out to be really no way at all but literally a heresy, a false teaching, a twisting and corruption of what the founders of Alcoholics Anonymous clearly stated the program to be.”

Firstly, the notion that these “variant practices” may be reduced to a comparison of “tea strengths” is dubious in itself. It cannot, for example, be asserted that there is any particular inherent virtue in whether tea be taken strong or weak; this is rather a matter of taste. It follows therefore that what the author may actually be illustrating in this presentation is not so much the efficacy of the respective practice but rather a reflection of his own predilections; his own tastes. Moreover, and underlying his assumption, that there can be only one effective way to practice the programme – the “strong-cup-of-tea” method - is the belief that every alcoholic must necessarily be of the same temperament, of the same constitution, at the same stage of the progression of the illness of alcoholism, and of course, and somewhat trivially, inclined towards the same tastes. This is quite patently a perspective at odds with actuality. For example, and as a comparison, it may be that an individual has a malign cancer. The condition may be labelled as a type of cancer, it may manifest in one part of the body or another, or many, and at varying degrees of progression. No one is going to suggest that the treatment administered is necessarily to be identical for every patient. Rather the remedial action, where this is possible, is applied according what is requisite rather than dependent on the mere inclination of the doctor, or at least we hope so. These variations are, in part, acknowledged in the author's “medium” category in which the programme is practised with some vigour but in a somewhat selective style but with the caution, that this practice may over time slip into the “weak-cup-of-tea” category. He does not seem to consider the possibility, though this is implicit in his discussion of the “medium” approach, that practitioners of the programme might just as easily shift from “strong” to “weak” as in reverse, this assuming of course that everyone needs to apply the “strong” or even “medium” approaches to remain sober in the first place.

However, this aside, we will now consider the line of his argument:

It is uncontested that there was a gap between the origins of AA and the publication of the basic text of our society, the book Alcoholics Anonymous. Moreover, that the original format of the programme similarly derives from the Oxford Group, which fact is itself evident from the structure and wording of their six step framework, is similarly accepted. Additionally his outline of the development of the Fellowship is non controversial. However, where we are inclined to part company with his interpretation of events is with respect to the grounds underlying the motivation behind this “alleged” dilution of the AA message.

At the outset he argues that the Twelve Steps as they were formulated “contradict the secular psychological axiom that where the level of performance is low, you must set a low level of aspiration in order to gain a positive result in life”.

Furthermore:

“According to the secular psychological view, the only practical approach for the early AA's to have taken would have been as follows: to put together a program which aimed certainly no higher than alcohol abstinence and a return to life as it had been in pre-alcoholic days, to life as ordinary men and women of the world.

However, these wild and woolly early AA's, these psychologically illiterate off-scouring and rubbish of the world, these newly-sobered-up drunks, set out to become totally committed men and women of God”.

It is evident from the above that the author sets little store by ordinary psychological methods. This low valuation would seem to revolve around the stated “psychological axiom” (an axiom, to remind those of you who have forgotten the definition, is: a self evident truth, a universally received principle, a postulate, an assumption). We are not aware of any such axiom, nor do we consider the statement above to incorporate anything within it which is at all self evident. In fact it seems rather to be an expression of prejudice more than anything else. At best it can be considered an assumption, a speculation, and one as yet untested. Additionally the idea that anyone within a social science would be prepared to present such a statement as being “axiomatic”, when even those within the pure sciences (their subject matter being far more amenable to such generalisations) would hesitate to accord to a fact such weight, seems to us entirely beyond credibility. Again we have to assume that this statement represents nothing more than an assumption, or more simply, an opinion. However, he goes on to argue, in contradistinction to this limited “secular” approach , and moreover, ironically, that these “newly-sobered-up drunks, set out to become totally committed men and women of God”. This, of course, immediately begs the question: If they were already sobered up then why was it necessary to commit themselves to God, or, for that matter, do anything more than they had already done? We have to assume that this preliminary “sobriety” comprised no more than mere physical abstinence from alcohol, and did not meet the criteria for something which he later on describes as “permanent recovery” (whatever that might be!) (It should be noted here that the term “sober” or “sobriety” within AA is applied sometimes to refer to physical abstinence, but also to the quality of life consequent upon that. The first is relatively easy to assess; it is objectively verifiable (or falsifiable). The latter, however, is rather a question of “value”, and therefore, by definition, impossible to “quantify”, other than indirectly, and by inference; we would argue finally it is a wholly subjective “fact”).

His argument proceeds in a similar ironical fashion, but now introducing the notion, that the authors of the Big Book would need to “sugar coat” this pill if it were not to dissuade newcomers from accepting this “God-centered,, psychological heretical....” and so forth. The relevant passages are cited from the book 'Alcoholics Anonymous' including that section from Chapter Five: “Many of us exclaimed, “What an order.... through to ….. We claim spiritual progress rather than spiritual perfection.” It is also proposed here that Bill and Dr. Bob (the co-founders of AA) further “sugar-coated” the pill by their repeated use of the term “suggested” (and its variants) throughout the basic text in order to avoid “frightening new prospects”, and again an extract is presented from Chapter Five: "Here are the steps we took, which are suggested as a program of recovery".

However we are then informed that:

“When the Twelve Steps were first being formulated by Bill and Dr. Bob and an editorial committee from Akron and New York - Bill, Dr. Bob and the entire committee conceived of the Steps as instructions, not as suggestions. When the idea of presenting the Steps as suggestions came up, Bill for a long time flatly opposed it.” But finally - and reluctantly - Bill agreed to the "suggestions" approach.

(It seems curious from the above that where there was such apparent unanimity with respect to the “directive” approach, out of of nowhere apparently, comes the “suggestive” mode, and it is this latter which is subsequently adopted, though apparently with some misgivings by Bill W).

The author then goes on to assert the language used in the first part of Chapter Five “would be utterly appropriate as a preamble to a set of action directions, but is not as nearly as fitting as an introduction to a group of suggestions.” He then goes on to quote that section:

“Rarely have we seen a person …....... Here are the steps we took...”

together with his own emphases to exemplify this more “directive” approach.

The author of GLAA then proceeds to give a brief account of the early expansion of AA including the period when the Big Book was being written. Apparently it was at this time, and seemingly quite spontaneously: “It suddenly became attractive, in a way it had not been before when the fellowship was smaller and more intimate, to ease up a bit on the idea that all the principles should be practiced all the time by all the members. More and more emphasis began to be placed on the fact that the Steps were to be considered as suggestions only. At this time, and through this set of circumstances, the "cafeteria-style" - take-what-you-like- and-leave-the-rest-out - approach to the Twelve Steps came into practice.

And it seemed to work. It turned out that many newcomers could get sober and stay sober without anything like the full and intensive practice of the whole program that had been considered a life-or-death necessity in the early years. In fact alcoholics in significant numbers began to demonstrate that they could stay off booze on no more than an admission of powerlessness, some work with other alcoholics and regular attendance at AA meetings.

This is not to say that all AAs began to take this very permissive approach to the Twelve Steps. A great many continued to opt for the original, full-program approach. But now for the first time the workability of other, less rigorous approaches was established, and a tendency had emerged which was to become more pronounced as time went on.”

The author then outlines his categories, ie, strong, medium or weak AA.

In brief:

Strong – a thorough going and continuing implementation of the 12 Step programme in its entirety.

ie. “Strong AA was the original, undiluted dosage of the spiritual principles.”

Medium – commencing perhaps with some verve, but subsequently employing an abridged version of the Steps, and generally easing up “....(due to encroachment of business engagements, social activities and other baggage that went along with the return to normal life in the workaday world).”

Weak – missing out “big chunks of the program totally and permanently. Their approach could be summarised as: "All you need to do to stay sober is go to meetings and stay away from the first drink".

And moreover,

“weak AAs who were successful in staying sober were pretty faithful meeting-goers. Since they were doing so little with the principles, their sobriety and their survival depended more exclusively than did those of the strong and medium AAs on constant exposure to the people of AA.”

He then goes on to argue that the medium approach is of some value, as a kind of springboard for the more “reluctant beginners”, but additionally that this can lead to “sliding back into weak AA”.

But:

“Weak AA has none of the redeeming features of medium AA. Weak AA is clearly at odds with the program as outlined in the Big Book. Weak AAs bases itself on a flat and un-negotiable refusal to work with vital recovery principles. Weak AA cops out and stays copped out on most of the Twelve Steps. Weak AA waters down the program to the point where there really is no program. A more accurate term than "weak AA" would be "copped-out and watered-down AA" - COWD AA for short.”

Now the author wades into even deeper speculations:

According to his interpretation “COWD” AA has, over time, come to displace strong AA and its message. He proceeds to account for this tendency by the increasingly confident and strident approach of the COWD adherents, and upon the “more relaxed and tolerant, less strident, less defensive,” strong AA adherents, as gradually the “weak AA” mode became the “in” thing; “…..;strong AA came to be regarded - not universally, but widely - as a bit stodgy and a bit passé.”

Annoyingly, or so it would seem, the adherents of the weak version of AA were able to remain sober, and this despite the “....introduction to the Twelve Steps”, where it is stated, “we thought we could find an easier, softer way, but could not”, which “was an unequivocal assertion that it was necessary to practice all the Steps.”

And now we have reached 1993, and according to the author “precious few AAs continue to attempt seriously and consistently to do these things on a daily basis - not after their first months of sobriety in the Fellowship.”; “weak” or “COWD AA” is the order of the day.

But then the surprise. After an earlier claim, that “many” weak AA adherents are getting (and staying) sober it now appears that this is no longer the case: “weak AA, in very many cases, really doesn’t work. Weak AA brings about a far less profound life alteration than strong AA does. In many cases, the change which weak AA produces is not enough to crack the alcoholic pattern, and results in an apparent recovery which does not last but sooner or later eventuates in a relapse into drinking. And in many cases where weak AA does succeed in producing lasting sobriety, these weakly sober AAs peter out into lives of depression, anxiety, bitter resentment and real despair, just like nearly all the other merely dried-out drunks in history.”

From this can now be seen the two (interrelated) interpretations of what constitutes sobriety, and the author of GLAA shifts from one to the other as the mood (and his argument) takes him. On the one hand we have “sober” as in simple, physical abstinence as opposed to “sober”, signifying a certain quality of life but contingent upon that physical abstinence. Moreover, there is no real precision advanced here for what constitutes the “many cases” in the above quote. We have to assume that it means a minority for otherwise the term should be replaced by “most” as in “a majority”. But how large is this minority? If it is a small minority then surely this cannot be used as a support for the argument; the larger the minority the more statistically valid that sample becomes. But then again no figures, not even approximations, are offered to support this contention. We have to assume that if there were such data they would be cited but, and from its absence, we are left rather with a estimate based on nothing but the author's impression (or opinion). However, if this imprecision fails to generate much confidence in the views expressed thus far, then the subsequent analysis can only provoke an even greater sense of disappointment. Again we are presented with the term “many cases” ( but still undefined) where “weak AA” although producing lasting sobriety ie. physical abstinence, leads only to an inferior quality of life. Even if one were to accept this was the case it is difficult to determine whether this undoubtedly miserable condition derives from failing to implement spiritual principles, or may rather lie in the objective circumstances of those concerned, or indeed upon their even more particular subjective condition i.e. underlying psychological states unrelated to prolonged alcohol abuse, or even simply a reflection rather of the emotional constitution of the individual in question. To apply a blanket diagnosis to all and sundry, and in such an indiscriminate fashion, simply exemplifies a overly simplistic assessment of the general, and particular, human condition. Or to sum it up: You can't blame it all on alcoholism.

The author moves on to further expound on the progressive undermining of the sudden “spiritual experience” mode, one which would result in “permanent abstinence [which] will automatically occur as a blessed and life-saving-by-product”, and further asserts that this was “ how it happened with Bill That was how it happened with Dr. Bob. That was how it happened with the first hundred members. That was how the authors of the Big Book saw it would have to happen with EVERYONE.” (our emphasis)

The point is then hammered home equating such an experience with only one result, this to be summed up as: “no spiritual experience – no recovery.”

It is at this point in his discussion that the following is presented: that a “major shift in [AA] philosophy occurred”. Apparently this was reflected in the respective roles of “recovery principles and the recovery Fellowship in AA”, this taking place apparently, “Sometime between 1939, when the [Cleveland] Plain Dealer articles were published, and 1941, when the [Jack] Alexander piece ran in the [Washington] Post”.

Essentially, as the fellowship of AA grew in numbers so did the availability of contacts, and gradually recovery became rather based upon meetings' attendance than “undergoing a real spiritual conversion”. Here the AA member rather stayed sober “largely off the power of the pack”.

It is at this point we are introduced to two more categories of alcoholics:

“One, the sober-by-conversion alcoholics - those who, as the result of working the Steps, had had a spiritual experience and become transformed human beings, seriously involved with regenerative life and ideas, as contrasted with the two, sober-by-imitation alcoholics - those who had remained essentially the same type of people they had been before coming into AA, except that they had joined a new organization, made a new set of friends, and given up drinking in conformity to their new social setup”.

Moreover, the term “spiritual experience” came to be supplanted by that of “spiritual awakening” reflecting, according to the author of GLAA, the view that the former was “ too narrow and prejudicial against the less-profound life changes resulting from the mimesis-oriented AA, which were coming to be the majority recovery pattern in AA” and he cites the relevant section 'Appendix II Spiritual Experience' beginning with “The terms “spiritual experience” and “spiritual awakening” are used …. this conclusion is erroneous …..”

This section is contrasted with the more forthright exposition of “God-commitment” as exemplified at the beginning of Chapter Five. Although there is some recognition that such a qualification is itself to be welcomed, that spiritual change need not necessarily be in the form of some “sudden upheaval” nevertheless this, together with the “clear, strong and unmistakable implication - by the indirect , defensive, almost apologetic treatment of the whole subject of religious and spiritual experience”, resulted in the aforementioned dilution of spiritual principles. Finally: “The founders of the Movement were responding to the spiritual problem by lowering the spiritual level of aspiration of the society, a move they could not make in the early days, but could make, and even felt they must make, now that the society had become large and gained a reputation for respectability and reasonableness.”

From this, it is asserted, that this qualified approach led to AA “dividing into two camps”, that of the strong-cup-of-tea and the weak-cup-of-tea, and this unnoticed apparently by everyone, that is, of course, apart from the author of the article.

The assumption underlying this argument is that these modifications occurred to accommodate AAs new found “respectability and reasonableness”. It might equally be asserted that the reasons for these shifts in emphasis (rather than in substance) might rather be attributed to:

a broader range of experience - as AA membership expanded in numbers and diversity i.e. to include those who did not derive their approach directly from the Oxford Group, or indeed from any outside religious organisation, but rather got and stayed sober (physical abstinence) within the context of the Fellowship, that their direct experience accordingly modified, and refined, the original model of recovery.

a greater depth of experience – this factor is related to the above but derives from an increasing average longevity of sobriety (again physical abstinence).

a recognition that if AA were to be an inclusive Fellowship it would have to drop those explicit references to - and associations with - theologies, practices, perspectives etc which were directly related to outside organisations (including religious, and therefore encompassing the Oxford Group and its fundamentalist Christian based approach).

a recognition that, as a result of the lessening stigma associated with alcoholism, (in part due to the efforts of AA itself) people were, and in increasing numbers, seeking assistance at an earlier stage of the progression of the disease (if one accepts the disease model) and therefore the therapeutic or 'spiritual' measures required to support a “remission” from this chronic condition were correspondingly less drastic, and that indeed, “half measures” might in fact “avail us” something after all, and moreover, that so-called “weak” or “medium” AA might be just as effective in some cases as “strong” AA.

an expansion in membership, together with a corresponding geographical dispersion, resulted in increased numbers of meetings, which in turn gave the membership easier access to each other via this particular medium. Whereas this did not eliminate the need for formal 12 Step work (ie. contacting potential AA members at their own homes (this always at the newcomer's request), or via a neutral venue, AA meetings became the main vehicle for transmitting its message. Therefore meetings became more significant than they had been in the past for carrying out this function, a fact which might account for the increasing focus on meeting attendance as a basis for sustaining recovery.

the displacement of spiritual “experience” by spiritual “awakening” again suggests a pragmatic reform, based upon the “experiences” of existing AA members rather than on some palliative compromise intended to ease less committed members into the recovery programme. It is, indeed, recognised by the author of GLAA himself that this modification was useful, and that not all spiritual experiences needed to be of some dramatic or sudden nature, that they could manifest in the another form, that of the gradual, “educational” variety. Therefore we are quite unable to fathom the author's objection to this redesignation, the terminology being essentially synonymous.

And now the consequences:

“The relatively superficial life change which weak AA produces is sufficient to get some alcoholics sober. It is not adequate - it is not effective - it simply doesn’t work - for a very large number of others. This situation is evident both in the “easy” cases and the “hard”cases, that is, those alcoholics who have been very badly damaged physically and mentally before they arrive at their first AA meeting, those whose alcoholism is complicated with drug abuse, crazy sex, criminal or psychotic tendencies, or a hard streak of socio-psychopathology.”

From this we now have some clue as to the use of the above term “many cases” - this can be translated more accurately into “a very large number”- still a little fuzzy for such a serious declaration. And yet again, from the context of the above passage, there is a shift in the use of the word “sober” - here it is being wielded in the qualitative sense rather than “physical abstinence”.

Moreover:

“weak AA simply doesn’t work with the very large population of AAs who are known everywhere as “slippers” - those alcoholics who have developed a pattern of hanging around AA, staying sober for periods, but relapsing repeatedly into drinking.”

Now we have moved from “a very large number” to “the very large population” - seemingly the numbers increase by implication as the author of GLAA warms to his subject; but still he appears unable to put a figure to these “guesstimates”.

The author then goes on to cite the experience of the “East Ridge Recovery Facility in upstate New York) Strong AA is standard practice in the East Ridge group, and this group has a recovery rate of over seventy percent with these so-called AA failures”.

At last we have a number: seventy percent. Unfortunately, and on consulting the website which relates to this facility, we find no such reference to this recovery rate. Furthermore, there is no indication of data collection relating to recovery rates etc. We are again left with a “percent” seemingly drawn out of thin air.

And now we come to those “many cases” of recovery where the “watered-down approaches to the Twelve Steps fails to hold up over the long haul. What looked in the beginning like an easier, softer way to maintain happy sobriety yields progressively less and less serenity and real happiness, finally ending in complete reversal of momentum and a relapse into serious personal misery. The end result may be a return to active alcoholism; or it may be a sinking-out into a life of discontented abstinence, marred by some combination of tension, resentment, depression, compulsive sick sex, and an overall sense of meaninglessness. It is a final failure to reap the benefits of the AA program; it is, in the last analysis,a failure to recover.”

In this section the author has fallen back on that old standby “many cases” and again the shift between the uses of the term “sober” proceeds apace.

Now we come to one of the few instances where there are any statistics deployed to support the above assertions, and naturally we hoped for some further clarification on those “many cases” or “a very large number”:

Apparently,

“Two ominous tendencies are noticeable in contemporary AA. One tendency is toward a lower recovery rate overall. For the first twenty years, the standard AA recovery estimate was seventy-five percent. AA experience was that fifty percent of the alcoholics who came to AA got sober right away and stayed sober. Another twenty-five percent had trouble for awhile but eventually got sober for good, and the remaining twenty-five percent never made a recovery. Then there was a period of some years when AA headquarters stopped making the seventy-five percent recovery claim in their official literature. In 1968’s General Service Board published a survey indicating an overall recovery rate of sixty-seven percent. The net of all of this seems to be that as AA got bigger and older, its effectiveness dropped from about three in four to about two in three.”

The first set of figures appears to derive from those cited in the Foreword to the 2^nd Edition of the basic text: the first printing of this edition was in 1955. As we have come to expect the figures quoted are presented unqualified, and state that they relate to “the standard AA recovery estimate.....of the alcoholics who came to AA...”. This seems to suggest that these recovery rates apply to anyone who came to the Fellowship. In fact the figures relate only to those who, in the words of the text, “really tried”. (This point has been made repeatedly elsewhere on the website so we are not going to 'belabour' it again here). The author of GLAA then adduces the 1968 GSB figures, which suggest an “overall recovery rate of sixty-seven percent”, a drop of 8 percentage points. However, in one analysis (How Well Does A.A. Work? An Analysis of Published A.A. Surveys (1968-1996) and Related Analyses/Comments - Don McIntire) it was demonstrated that the original estimates of 75 percent still apply, that is if one qualifies this assessment accordingly.

And now, apparently defeated by any substantial evidence for falling recovery rates, he shifts once more to the fall back position, a revaluation of the term 'sober' now to be employed in its 'qualitative' function, and moreover, which is “clear enough to any careful observer of the AA scene”: “As the Fellowship grows older its class of old-timers, alcoholics sober ten years and longer, grows. And the question of the staying power of an AA recovery looms ever larger. It is an unhappy fact that growing numbers of these old-timers find the joy going out of their sobriety. Many of them search around frantically for ways to recapture the old zest for alcohol-free living, and many of them end up in such blind alleys as lunatic religions, pop psychological fads, or chemical alternatives like psychedelics, pot, tranquilizers and mood elevators. And many end up either back drinking or sunk in despondency, hostility, bizarre acting-out patterns of one sort or another, or just plain, devastating boredom”.

So, and perhaps quite annoyingly for the author of GLAA, it would seem that there are “growing numbers of these old-timers [“ten years and longer”]”, itself something of a blow to the thesis of falling recovery rates, but, “It is an unhappy fact that … the joy is going out of their sobriety”. There follows an extensive list of where these unfortunate fellows are going wrong but, and not unsurprisingly, a dearth of any kind of data to back it up, not even anecdotal evidence; just more opinion.

And finally the solution:

“The answer lies in a return to original, strong AA. It turns out that the men who wrote the Big Book were right after all. It turns out that there really is no easier, softer way. The extra work and commitment demanded by the full-Program approach pays out in enormous and indispensable dividends. The extra work and commitment make sobriety fun, because they do not make sobriety an end in itself.”

Moreover:

“The majority of those who become addicted are people with a mystical streak, an appetite for inexhaustible bliss. We sought in bottles what can only be found in spiritual experience. AA worked in the first place because its Twelve Steps were a workable set of guidelines to real spiritual experience. The growth of the Movement made possible for a time a kind of parasitism in which partial practitioners of the spiritual principles were able to feed off the strength of full practitioners; those who had undergone real spiritual experience.”

Again we are presented with a figure, but one only slightly more specific than those alluded to above, and from which we can at least gauge the minimum value to be over 50 percent. Here it is asserted that a “majority of those who become addicted are people with a mystical streak”. Quite precisely what the author of GLAA had in mind by his use of the term “mystical” is not clear. It is to be assumed that this is in some way connected with the notion of “spiritual” but suggests again the writer's prejudice, in regarding valid “spiritual experiences” to be in some manner linked with this tendency. Both terms are, by nature, subject to considerable interpretation, and it cannot follow that such particular definitions will of necessity converge upon that one determined solely by the author of GLAA. Moreover, such a presumption on his part would suggest a remarkably obtuse perspective, or one which might even be regarded as verging on arrogant. From the remainder of the paragraph we would opt for “arrogant” for his withering contempt now becomes entirely evident, this for anyone who applies these principles – or not - in any fashion other than that which he deems to lead to, and to exemplify, a “real spiritual experience”; for it is these “partial practitioners” who “feed off the strength of full practitioners” thus inducing “a kind of parasitism” within the Fellowship and programme.

“But now, the parasites have already drained the host organism of a considerable portion of its life force, with no benefit to themselves.”

And finally, and rather confusingly, but reiterating the previous themes:

“Complacency, smugness in our record of success, is our greatest enemy. If we as a recovered-addict society are unwilling to reverse our present course, the outlook is clear enough. We stand to recapitulate in less than a century what the great religious communities of the world have spent the last two thousand years demonstrating: that even the very best and highest of human institutions tend to deteriorate in time; and that size in spiritual organizations is often achieved at the expense of the abandonment of original goals and practices.”

We would remind you that the author of GLAA has gone to some lengths (largely ineffective) to demonstrate the decreasing efficacy of “COWD AA” and yet apparently we are now to beware of a “smugness in our record of success”. This confusion is not only exhibited here but throughout the whole of GLAA. Finally, and again betraying the author's own prejudices, there is reference to the “great religious communities of the world [who] have spent the last two thousand years ….”. This may be a valid statement when it comes to one specific, religious organisation – that of Christianity - but we can think of at least three others, and of a comparable significance, which have been around for considerably longer than two millenia.

In conclusion the author of GLAA:

has failed to supply any evidence which lends credence to his argument. The data, where it is presented, is vague or misquoted.

shifts constantly between the two definitions of “sober” moving from the verifiable and quantifiable mode (when this evidence would seem to contradict his assertions) to the qualitative and subjective mode, an area by its very nature inaccessible to measurement, and only to be assessed by direct reporting on the part of those subjects, or inferred behaviourally, neither of which sources he provides.

asserts as fact what IN FACT are merely impressions, opinions, hypotheses, speculations, generalisations, assumptions and prejudices (all unsubstantiated), and all of which are quite legitimate areas of human activity, but hardly figure in any serious analysis of what is finally a serious question.

We would invite you to consider the following studies (click here for link) which do present the relevant data, and ask you to consider this material (and draw from it whatever conclusions you wish) as a basis for judgement rather than the “kite flying” exemplified by GLAA, and others of its type.

Finally, and on a personal note:

The author of this critique is a member of AA (by this I mean I have, and still retain, a desire to stop drinking – this being the ONLY membership requirement for Alcoholics Anonymous). I have been continuously sober (physically abstinent from alcohol in any form and in any quantity) for a period running into decades now (“one day at a time”). I account for this fact by my regular attendance at AA meetings (which frequency has varied over the years), and my implementation of the recovery programme (as it is presented in the book Alcoholics Anonymous 3^rd edn). My understanding of the principles it outlines is based upon direct study, and is, for the most part, unmediated by received opinion. Apart from the first couple of years of my recovery I have undertaken this particular journey without the services of a sponsor (“control freak” or otherwise) finding myself to be entirely capable of doing all of my own thinking, and making my own decisions (leading to successful outcomes or not) as it appropriate to one who makes claim to being an adult. That is not to say that I am unwilling to listen to the views of others, but I take quite seriously the notion that the only Higher Power upon which I can ultimately place any form of reliance is “probably [not] human”. For my part I do not believe in God (orthodox or otherwise), nor do I pray (on my knees or in any other position) for to do so would be to engage in an activity which I would regard as entirely meaningless. I have no difficulty whatsoever in accepting the fact that I am powerless over alcohol, nor that there are (innumerable) Powers greater than myself. In fact, and in my occasional moments of honesty, I would be hard pressed to find much which would constitute a lesser power, and, furthermore, would regard it as nothing short of insane, that I should believe the universe (and its component phenomena) should organise itself according to my will rather than the precise reverse. I have had no “spiritual experience” which could in any way be described as of the “sudden” type, nor am I (and necessarily following on from my statement above) aware of any kind of “God consciousness”, nor possess any sense whatsoever that such an entity exists in my particular universe. I would not even use the term “spiritual” other than according to its present currency within the Fellowship, a term which is so vague as to be almost useless as a means of communicating a concept. A more apt expression would be “holistic” in that my progress within AA has necessitated a complete revaluation of every area of my life, this process having taken place quite naturally, but utilising the structure and concepts presented by the programme, and leading, quite “educationally”, to some rather drastic realisations. None of these would I characterise as “spiritual” nor in any way were these insights associated with any form of “mysticism”. I am by nature a sceptic, and disinclined towards such tendencies unless it be in the form of fiction, which largely I believe to be its proper province. Moreover, and to utilise the categories so imaginatively employed by the author of GLAA, I would place myself in the “weak” to “medium” class of alcoholic, although I would baulk somewhat at applying the “COWD AA” brand to my back. As for the “quality” of my sobriety (the alternative mode) I have remained serenely “unrocketed” into any dimension, fourth or otherwise, being quite sure that an individual of my temperament would suffer greatly from the experience. (Interestingly, at least from my point of view, I am directly acquainted with three individuals – two still alive – all of whom have had what can only be described as dramatic shifts within their psyche – none of these are alcoholic, none are members of AA, and not one of them has any belief in a supreme deity). Otherwise my own life varies according to circumstance (both inner and outer, and therefore entirely as I conceive, and perceive, it), and replete with such profound questions as those which relate to the nature of existence, purpose, meaning, and, indeed, whether I should have a toasted cheese sandwich now, or go for the easier softer way, and just slap a couple of slices between some bread and to hell with the grill! To put it another way, my sobriety, the quality of my life, is largely my business – it suits me!!

Cheerio

One of the Fellas

16/12/09

"YOU THINK YOU HAVE MONEY PROBLEMS!!!

Due to the downturn in the economy, Alcoholics Anonymous will NO LONGER be dues and membership "Free" as has been the case for almost 75 years. Like many businesses, AA will now be charging for some things that used to be free, such as:

08/12/09

For people new to AA

A little while ago someone suggested to us that we produce a synopsis of what this site is all about. So here goes....

First we refer you to the "About Us" page of the site - that pretty well sums up what our aim is. But since our efforts are increasingly directed towards helping to ensure newcomers to AA are not misled about either the Fellowship or the programme, it makes sense that they be as well informed as possible. And so to that end...

Firstly - the reliable sources of information:

The first online resource available to anyone new to AA is the official website (Great Britain):

http://www.alcoholics-anonymous.org.uk/

Note: there is NO other official website for the Fellowship in Great Britain.

Apart from all the useful (and non-controversial) information made available here (eg. listing of conference approved literature including the AA booklet on sponsorship – also available as a download from the Links section of this site - meetings, general stats etc) there is an online version of the book Alcoholic Anonymous (4th ed). We draw your attention to this book specifically because it is described as the "basic text of our Society". It contains a detailed description of the 12 Step Recovery Programme together with a listing (in both short and long forms) of the guiding principles of our Fellowship - the 12 Traditions. In our view anyone with a thorough grasp of its contents will gain a good understanding of how to stay sober, and, furthermore, how to relate to other members of AA. This publication (together with other conference approved works) forms the basis upon which ANYONE may recover if they wish to use the method described.

And now the unreliable sources of information:

Unfortunately there has developed within AA a movement which we describe as a "cult" whose members represent an extremist and dogmatic tendency, and who advocate both a programme of recovery and a form of fellowship, which bear little resemblance to anything contained either in the above text, or the principles contained within the Traditions.

These extremist groups and members have sought through a variety of means to propagate a message which cannot be reconciled with these guidelines. Their methods include the introduction of literature (pamphlets, books, worksheets, websites etc) which purport to represent the AA programme but which diverge widely from its principles. These misrepresentations vary from - shall we say - an 'over-creative' interpretation of AA literature to downright lies. This warped perspective had led, amongst other abuses, to discrimination against dual diagnosis members (see below), those who are prescribed medication as a means of managing their co-existing psychological problems (however these may manifest), on the ground that such people will be “unable to recover” whilst they are still using these prescribed drugs. There is evidence, too, that newcomers are being put under pressure to discontinue other therapies such as counselling, this also being regarded as some kind of “obstacle” to recovery. One of the main mechanisms by which these “suggestions” are conveyed is via sponsorship, a function which has become devalued in the hands of cult members, shifting from a form of service determined purely by the principle of “enlightened altruism” to that of a manipulative and abusive power relationship (or even its mildest manifestation - co-dependency). We refer you to the chapter “Working with Others” in the book Alcoholics Anonymous as a guide to how AA members should relate to someone new to the Fellowship, and how they might introduce them to the recovery programme

The rationale for this authoritarian perspective is founded upon assertions (usually unsubstantiated) that AA has "lost its way", the AA message has become "diluted", and that this is reflected in falling recovery rates, and a retardation in the growth of AA membership. A number of "explanations" are advanced in support of these views. These are variously:

1) that AA has strayed from its fundamental principles (here reference is frequently made to the Oxford Group (previously known as "a First Century Christian Fellowship") - a movement set up in 1921 and attended by some of those who later came to form AA. The 12 Step programme is, in part, derived from some of the principles proposed by this Christian movement. Note: according to AA traditions we are not allied with any outside organisations, which would include such religious institutions, past and present.

2) that recovery rates have fallen since the early days of the Fellowship, and this is a direct consequence of a “diluted” AA message. Here reference is usually made to that section (misquoted) of the Foreword to the Second Edition of the book "Alcoholics Anonymous":

"50% got sober at once and remained that way; 25% sobered up after some relapses, and among the remainder, those who stayed on with A.A. showed improvement."

From this it would appear that a 75% recovery rate was the norm at the time, and the cult then goes on to contrast this with the alleged extant low recovery rates (again usually misquoted or misinterpreted) as a support for their argument. However, they usually omit (and we believe quite deliberately) a small but key qualification to these figures, a short phrase which precedes the above quote viz. "Of alcoholics who came to A.A. and really tried,.....". From this it is quite clear that the above percentages refer only to those who "really tried...", and not to every single person who ever came to AA. And so, for the sake of argument, if one were to estimate that only 20 per cent of those who attended AA fell into the "really tried" category (however one might define "really tried" - a problematic area in itself) then this would mean that the 75% rate would apply only to this subset of 20% ie. 15% of the total population. (We refer you to http://aacultwatch.co.uk/Documents/recout01%20(updated).pdf  for a more detailed analysis of recovery rates). From this study we can discern no evidence that recovery rates have fallen over time and therefore their argument fails.

3) that the AA message has become "diluted" because more AA members come into the Fellowship via treatment centres and therefore AA meetings have turned into "group therapy" sessions rather than occasions where the AA message is communicated. We refer you to the AA preamble which is generally read out at the beginning of any AA meeting (if something else is read out at the commencement of the meeting then perhaps you're not in an AA meeting). This starts as follows:

"ALCOHOLICS ANONYMOUS is a fellowship of men and women who share their experience, strength and hope with each other that they may solve their common problem and help others to recover from alcoholism."

This would seem to be a fairly unambiguous statement as to the purpose of AA, and, therefore, the goal of any meeting which uses this preamble. It does not, however, dictate how this message should be carried ie. style, content, format, with or without artistic licence etc - this is left to the discretion of those who attend the meeting. It is, however, the responsibility of those who have found a solution to present this to those who have not as yet found it, but again the fashion in which this takes place is very much up to the individual. Some guidance on this is given in the book 'Alcoholics Anonymous', in the chapter "Working with Others". We leave it to you to read this section if you wish, and draw whatever conclusions you will. None of these suggestions, however, includes a dogmatic approach, or assigns to any member of AA the right to direct, control, threaten, manipulate, or otherwise abuse any other member of AA - “no lectures to be endured” etc.

4) that attendees at AA meetings might not be “alcoholic” but rather "problem drinkers", "alcohol abusers", "alcohol misusers" etc. and therefore they do not need to apply the principles of recovery so rigorously because they do not face the same consequences as "real alcoholics", and therefore their message of recovery does not carry the same weight. This may well be the case but since one of the more significant factors which stands in the way of recovery is that of denial it is probably better that AA is open to anyone who thinks they might have a drink problem rather than seek to pre-screen those who do not neatly fit the "profile". There are, moreover, problems consequent upon such a policy ie. who decides who is an alcoholic? We prefer the current approach - self diagnosis.

5) that the AA message has become "garbled" because there are more people joining AA nowadays who are dual addicted - in other words, they may introduce matters relating to addictions other than alcoholism to the content of the meeting. However, if they have a “desire to stop drinking" they are eligible for membership, and this solely upon the basis of a self diagnosis. Again we refer you to the preamble, which clearly states the purpose of AA, and which we repeat, is read out at the beginning of every AA meeting.

6) that the message is becoming "distorted" by those members who attend the meetings who are "dual diagnosis" ie. dual diagnosis refers to the situation where an individual has two conditions to deal with: an addiction and a co-existing psychological (serious) disorder. Again we refer you to the Preamble. Furthermore this matter is dealt with directly in Chapter Five: How it Works. We leave it to you to discover the relevant section.

All of the above alibis are variously employed to justify the dogma propagated by advocates of the cult programme, and their members' controlling sponsorship styles. This intrusive approach is further rationalised under Step Twelve: “.....and to practice these principles in all our affairs”. This statement indicates that recovery extends far beyond merely observing physical abstinence from alcohol but includes an entire transformation of one's life style. However, there is nothing to suggest in any of the AA literature that this requires the services of an overseer (human power) to manage the process. Indeed, the cult, through its elevation of the sponsorship role to a form of what can only be described as 'idolatry”, subverts that most important principle of AA – a reliance upon “a Power greater than ourselves”, and, furthermore, as it is made abundantly clear in the second of the three pertinent ideas listed in Chapter Five: “b): That probably NO HUMAN POWER could have relieved our alcoholism” (our emphases).

We mentioned that the official AA website includes a meeting search engine. There are no vetting procedures (quite rightly) to determine which meetings should be included in these searches. However, a number of those included in the list are what we describe as cult meetings run by cult groups, those who advocate the approach indicated above. The aacultwatch site carries a list of some of the identified cult meetings so that AA members may have some kind of forewarning of what to expect should they choose to attend one.

We would remind all AA members that there is only ONE membership requirement – a desire to stop drinking, and that is determined by the individual concerned, and NO ONE ELSE.

Finally:

1.   Using prescribed medication is NOT an obstacle to recovery. Dual diagnosis members are just as capable as anyone else of recovering.

2.   Receiving counselling is NOT an obstacle to recovery.

3.   How you arrive in AA is not important (whether it be via prison, hospital, detox, treatment centre, off the street, your mansion in Mayfair etc – it's WHY YOU STAY that counts!

4.   Sponsorship is neither necessary nor essential for recovery – see the Appendix 'Spiritual Experience' for the “essentials”  - we would go so far as to say that in cult hands 'sponsorship' is a major hindrance to finding a solution to the alcohol problem.

5.   No one is OBLIGED to do ANYTHING by ANYONE in AA.

6.   If you are unfortunate enough to find yourself lumbered with a sponsor who thinks otherwise then say “bye bye” and find someone sane!

Cheerio

The Fellas

29/11/09

Some observations on the "Recovery Business"

"While your current plague of 'AA' dog and pony shows does involve money as a motive, many such groups don't. Prestige, authority, a sincere belief that the 'right kind' of AA needs to be carried to the heathen; these may be more common, and even more insidious.

'Joe and Charlie' acolytes and Pacific Group clones are recruited face to face more often than at 'shows.' Our local Big Book Comes Alive folks make a great to-do about not being paid (they sell and raffle CDs of AA swamis instead).

Whether they go into the biz or not, attendees at these events are lead to believe that there is a 'secret sauce' version of AA which is somehow more real or 'better than' the real article. The AA they advocate is always one that involves charismatic leadership, abusive styles of sponsorship, overt religiosity and requirements for conformity and obedience from the newcomer.

This is the AA of pre-Tradition power-drivers like Clarence S. of Cleveland, not the post-Tradition AA formed to avoid the tragic errors of such groups."

(as usual our thanks to this AA member (US) for their contribution)

25/11/09

Link to an article on dual diagnosis

http://www.mentalhelp.net/poc/view_doc.php?type=doc&id=9527

In particular it is interesting to note the prioritisation protocols applied by this clinical practice with regard to dual diagnosis:

"Our partial hospital program dealt with addiction issues and mental health issues simultaneously, but always prioritized the addictions, on the theory that you cannot benefit much from psychiatric or psychological attention when you are intoxicated".

This approach represents a 180 degree reversal of the cult's response to the dual diagnosis issue. These (unqualified) individuals insist that recovery is not possible whilst someone is still undergoing treatment (either through the use of prescribed medication and/or other therapeutic interventions). The author of the article, Dr Mark Dombeck, a health professional and a proponent of both the 12 Step approach as well as the Fellowships which employ it, seems to indicate that the primary issue to be tackled is that of the addiction (including alcoholism), which then allows the other part of the diagnosis to be addressed accordingly. It would seem, therefore, that dual diagnosis individuals (according to this perspective) should indeed have access to the fullest possible assistance within AA (and other fellowships) rather than have unnecessary obstacles placed in their way by those uninformed, unqualified and prejudiced dogmatists who are currently causing so much harm, firstly to those new to the Fellowship, and thereafter to the reputation of Alcoholics Anonymous itself.

(our thanks to the member who drew our attention to this article)

The Fellas

22/11/09

Bexleyheath Friday - still an AA group!

21/11/09

15/11/09

Cross examination of the Road to Recovery website‏

“RTR Website - veering away from mainstream AA

I should start off by stating that the below is my personal interpretation and viewpoint. I also have no issues with free speech via the world wide web - hence me coming across this site in the first place. The RTR site does unsettle me with regards to being linked in with mainstream AA as a whole. The below has not been constructed to draw promotion or additional attention to the particular group, only to highlight and draw out points for note and discussion, or maybe even 'how not to do things in AA'

Becoming a 'Member'

Anyone can view the site - you do not have to be logged in to do so. But you can become a 'member' which enquires a bog standard web application via email, and access is granted straight away. There does appear to be a 'Members' section however, which is reserved purely for 'RTR' group members only. One does wonder what lays in this particular section, and did enquire so via an email to the webmaster, below is what I received back when applying to have full access:

Hi ****

Thank you for registering on the Road to Recovery
group website, before upgrading your account we need to confirm that
you are a member of the Road to Recovery group.
Please could you make yourself known to the Group's Newcomer Officer
or Website Officer, or alternatively ask your sponsor to do this for
you.

many thanks, RtR

If the site is related to recovery and under the guise of AA, what should there be to hide? Why would you need to be a member only?

Upon receiving the note back some things stood out. What exactly is a 'Newcomer officer' and what does that entail? To the best of my knowledge, there is no such position with in AA. Secondly, a 'Website officer' is referred to also - again, not a position I am familiar with within the AA structure. One does wonder when these positions were created and what purpose they serve. Still - at least we can see that if it's too much to ask, you can get your sponsor to do it for you

On a base level, if a person subscribes to a site, they have to put in certain details. On this occasion it is just an email address and a password. However, this would also give the webmaster your email address and therefore a record of who has joined, though one can easily make up an email address from any free service the web provides, it still gives the webmaster a way of contacting you and also control over site member number details. I presume that if you have to approach certain 'officers' of the group then your anonymity may well be on a wire anyway, what if you decided after a while that you didn't want to be part of the RTR meetings any more and moved on? Where are email addresses stored ? Who is ultimately responsible for the data?.

'Exclusive' content

Furthermore, having 'exclusive' content does concern me. To begin with the UK AA homepage - http://www.alcoholics-anonymous.org.uk - doesn't have any 'exclusive' content that only 'members' can see, so what exactly is in there that cannot be placed out into the public domain? - 'the only requirement for AA membership is a desire to stop drinking' (tradition 3) - not a login! - you can't moan about being labelled a cult, yet have secretive areas on a website which is promoting your own AA group! Its asking for unwanted attention and questions from concerned AA members.

The site is impressive in both content and from an aesthetic level. People who are new in may well wonder why other AA groups don't have such a site. Its my opinion that its really undermining any AA group that does not operate via such a medium, does not having a site affect a groups ability to carry a message? Of course it doesn't - AA meetings were taking place a long time before the web came into the world, and will be a long time afterwards. What's wrong with the where to find?. Running a website can also incur a cost, I question whether this is funded for from the pot, if so, wouldn't this be best channelled to intergroup for official use?

This brings me onto content. The speakers section and the infamous quote from Wayne P has been well documented on the site already, so no need to go back there. My issue here with his speech is once listening to that guff, its hard to see it for anything else other than being in conflict with tradition 11 - 'Our public relations policy is based on attraction rather than promotion, we need always maintain personal anonymity at the level of press radio and films' - declaring that those at the RTR meeting were at the 'Heart of AA' and telling people to 'walk on by' if they didn't conform was very short sighted at best, but to go on and have your spoken word published on your own site is foolish to say the least - again - you cannot behave in a controversial manner and complain when you get the attention as a result of this. One wonders why this chair has not been taken off given the outrage it has caused. The comments he made are not ones I would associate with someone who has had their ego 'smashed'.

The suggested daily plan seems harmless enough, again I have issues with the contacting newcomers. I have had reports lately of a poor newcomer getting dozens of calls daily from group members trying to complete their daily suggestions, this is a short sighted suggestion - what if they don't want to be contacted? What if they feel harassed? What if they think this is what AA is about......and what happened to getting off of our backsides and attending meetings and discovering how they dealt with all of the curve balls being in recovery throws at you. Too much is laid out in a pre-formatted manner which makes it easy for the newcomer to be switched off, not think for themselves and be controlled.

There is also a real Gem in the service articles section about misconceptions regarding RTR. It really warrants an article on its own. After laughing myself into a stupor I would encourage readers to take a look for themselves. Sick bags are optional of course.

Finally, the diary dates section where there is a plethora of non AA approved goings on. The links to 2 websites are broken, so you are unable to see what they are about.

There is also the 'Relationships in recovery' Speaker dinner & workshop which frankly is astounding, I wondered if someone was taking the pi55. Normally, people come to AA to stop drinking - I didn't realise they can also take care of relationship advice / relationships in the rooms / your dry cleaning / thoughts / falsified moon landings./....... I have mailed the address twice requesting further information and what exactly I will be getting for my £15, but have had no response as yet.......... “

(as usual our thanks to the AA member for this contribution)

Update – it would seem that Wayne's audio files have been 'disappeared'

Cheerio

The Fellas

07/11/09

Road to Recovery Plymouth Cult group – not so happy, joyous and free these days?

The word is that all is not well in Happy Land. Apparently there has been something of a breakout amongst “Satan's Rejects” (and before you all get into a sweat about this choice of phrase these are not our words but those of the inestimable Little Wayne in his latest (recycled) article on the R2R website). Here he extols the virtues of sponsorship and even an admission of his own imperfection: “ I have never claimed to be humble nor perfect and I often fail in living up to the ideals that others seem to practice so well”. This might be a most encouraging sign if voiced by another but we're not at all sure that this particular article is directed towards any other end than a bid to hang on to control of the group by plugging sponsorship (for those of you who are not in the know this cult group practises the “cascade style” of control – Wayne sponsors those who then sponsor those who then sponsor those etc. So if the dictum “Do exactly what your sponsor tells you” is followed, essentially this amounts to Wayne “running the whole show”). Unfortunately - or maybe fortunately - we shall have to see how things develop - it would seem that a significant number of the gang have decided they no longer want to follow Little Wayne's direction. From what we can gather some twenty odd members of this little fraternity have decided to split off and form their own group. The schism seems to have been prompted by a “unity” meeting held recently at the R2R venue. Here it was put to the assembled ranks that it was a case of 'fall into line and back the leader' or go for the 'high road' option – as already indicated a score or so decided upon the latter course, and so this “unity” meeting concluded with the resultant split (more of a “disunity” meeting by the sound of it. It's worth remembering that this is a group whose members regularly lecture the rest of us on the value of AA solidarity??) It is not in itself an unusual event for a cult group to split – usually the fracture occurs around a clash between “personalities” (for personalities read “egos”) and the disgruntled ones head off to start their own brand of madness (usually more extreme – hence our caution in defining this event as fortunate or otherwise). On this occasion, however, it would seem that the issue may revolve around what might be called a disparity between what is said, and what is practised – or as it is more simply put in AA “Someone who talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk”. The danger of placing anyone on a pedestal is that sooner or later they topple off – and the higher the pedestal the bigger the drop, which, of course, illustrates the whole point of Tradition Twelve – the central importance of placing principles before personalities. But unfortunately the cult have not learnt this lesson, and through their advocacy of sponsorship idolatry fall easily and frequently into this trap.

Still – the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak ….. Man can but propose, only God may dispose.... To err is human, to forgive Divine....and finally … There but for the grace of God …..

And so, on that uncharacteristically spiritual and compassionate note (for us at least), we shall conclude

Cheers

The Fellas

05/11/09

All the signs of desperation!  But more publicity for us.....

They just don't get it! After the rather sad attempts of the anti-aacultwatch Twitterer - he's still Tweeting away like a good'un – last time we looked we'd been accused of homophobia, women abuse, charging for sponsorship, doing pills, etc etc - it's amazing we'd have any time to run the website with all that going on. Still, now the cats-out-of-the-bag, we'd like to 'fess up - to causing: the credit crunch, the MP expenses scandal, global warming, the success of John and Edward on the X-Factor, swine flu ….fill in the blanks ….. anyway we digress .... it would seem that a Google sponsored link has been set up advertising an anti-aacultwatch blog by “A lady member from Battersea”. The blog hit the ether yesterday with the opening shot in what we're quite sure will be a cogently argued counter-campaign to the aacultwatch site – NOT! If the first entry is anything to go by we've simply got ourselves a slightly longer version of the Twitterer. The banner declaims: “Who do you think you are?” Now we have to assume that the question is intended to be rhetorical rather than literal because if it were the latter then it is self-evident that we do, in fact, not only know who we think we are but simultaneously know who we are also; it is not even a matter of opinion but of direct experience (although it does imply some interesting epistemological questions – but we'll save that for another time – even now we can hear the huge sigh of relief heaving round the land!). Therefore it must be that the device is intended to be ironical – but surely not! One thing that can always be discerned within the character of your average cult member is that they've undergone 'wit bypass' surgery – but perhaps this is a clone mark II – an evolved hybrid version of the bog standard assembly line creation. Anyway we digress yet again …. the “lady member from Battersea” asserts the following:

“ I am a sober, grateful member of the amazing fellowship of Alcoholics Anonymous. I would like all AA's who surf the world wide web to know and understand that the majority of AA members here in the UK think aacultwatch is a farcical nonsense and injurious to AA.

Wow you can hear the clash of egos across the oceans... they are no more than self appointed internet police whose sobriety has clearly not advanced beyond the insanity of a failed step 2.

Let all sound AA members do as we are bidden and pray for our misguided friends and in particular that their ISP connection fails permanently..”

Well, all we can say is that we're mightily impressed by all this - only one day in operation and already she has gauged the pulse of the “majority of AA members”. Not only this but she's a mind reader as well – she knows what we “think” - this would be truly terrifying if it were not so awesome. Still at least AA has a spokesperson now – one who knows what the majority thinks – perhaps even before they do. Moreover she knows exactly what Step we're on (although she doesn't seem to understand what it refers to ie. alcoholic insanity). Anyway - we put our heads together and decided that we ALL, the entire aacultwatch team, want to be sponsored by this spiritual giant. And as for the “clash of egos across the oceans...” – we can hear that as well. Still it is quite heartening to learn that yet more people are being exhorted to pray for us – at this rate sainthood can only be a short step away, though we do think that bit about our “ISP connection failing permanently” might not be quite in accordance with the spirit of the programme – but then who are we to question such spiritual insight?

And now for the killer blow – the cartoon depicted on the blog. If anything sums up the cult's stance on sponsorship this production does it perfectly:

'Nuff said.

Cheerio

The Fellas

PS. No – we don't think we'll be wasting a lot of our time on this blog in the future

03/11/09

Latest from Eastbourne

Re: Eastbourne: There is a Solution

Friday 19.30 Elim Church, Hartfield Rd

“The "new" Thursday and Friday meetings in Eastbourne failed to get the required 2/3 majority to be voted out. The Hastings one was voted out. I have a feeling that this is not the end of the story - members of the Friday group in particular were not seen in "mainstream" meetings for a while, but have started popping up here and there, always in pairs.....”

This, by the way, is not an unusual tactic for the cult - when the going gets tough this lot go underground thinking that if they hide and keep very, very, very still we won't notice them any more. Then when the heat's off they get up to their little tricks again. Well - we've got news for you – that isn't going to work any more – the going's going to get tougher and tougher and ….

Finally it would seem that the aacultwatch Cult 'Where to Find' is not being greeted with universal approbation – hardly a surprise – but even so you'd think that the cult would be grateful to us for giving them all that free publicity – but it seems not – rather the reverse. So (and as usual in the spirit of seeking to be helpful) we can save all those outraged cult members the time and trouble of sending us emails containing those apparently standardised (and transparently emotionally manipulative) comments and questions flying our way.

Q: How can we sleep at night?

A: Like babies. We'd find it a lot harder to do so if we did stood by and did nothing while newcomers suffer (and in some cases die)

Q: Shouldn't we hang our heads in shame?

A: No. Rather the reverse in fact (see above answer)

Q: It's all just speculation and hearsay. You don't know what you're talking about?

A: Yes we do. It's all based on evidence supplied directly by aacultwatch members

Q: You're damaging AA unity and breaking the Traditions aren't you?

A: This is always an entertaining line of attack especially coming from the cult who are, after all, expert practitioners in both areas. AA unity is not going to be served by pretending that nothing is wrong with the Fellowship. The whole purpose of AA is to help the still suffering alcoholic. If we act in such a fashion that we not only fail to carry out this objective but indeed heap yet more suffering upon the new man or woman then what real function does AA have? Is there any point to its continued existence? Nor do we support the view that AA unity must be preserved at “any cost” - a ludicrous concept in itself and dangerous in its implications – we, as citizens, and as moral human beings, have a duty of care to our fellows which supersedes any adherence to a set of rules or guidelines. We operate within a wider community and are bound by its laws and by its socially and culturally defined principles. Any organisation that chooses to ignore the context within which it exists and fails to govern itself responsibly will finally come into conflict with those principles, and this to the detriment of all. Consequently the organisation degenerates to such a point that it functions only to perpetuate its own existence without regard to the welfare of its members or those it is supposedly serving, and is thus rendered both irreversibly corrupt and essentially redundant.

To conclude we would remind you of the AA pledge:

I am Responsible.
When Anyone, Anywhere
Reaches Out For Help,
I Want The Hand Of A.A.
To Always Be There.

And For That,
I Am Responsible !

The final question is: Do you want the hand of AA to be extended, or that of the cult? We've made our choice – it's up to you to make yours!

(As usual our thanks to the AA member for the info)

Cheers

The Fellas

01/11/09

A light interlude

A helpful AA member has suggested a formatted template for all those aspiring motivational speakers out there - here is the promo:

26/10/09

22/10/09

18/10/09

21/09/09

31/07/09

Dual Recovery Anonymous details

(see report dated 20/12/08)

"Dual Recovery Anonymous is a 12-step programme based on the principles of the twelve steps and the experience of men and women in recovery with a Dual Diagnosis.  The DRA programme helps us to recover from both our addiction and our emotional or mental illness by focusing on relapse prevention and actively improving the quality of our lives.  In a community of mutual support we learn to avoid the risks that lead back to alcohol and drug use as well as reducing the symptoms of our emotional or mental illness."

DRA link: www.draonline.org    For DRA pamphlet click here.   For DRA flyer (list of meetings) click here.

30/07/09

26/07/09

26/07/09

AAGRAPEVINE.org

The International Journal of Alcoholics Anonymous

Click here

24/07/09

20/07/09

20/07/09

"Road to Recovery" meetings (Kensington area)

KENSINGTON

MONDAY

W8

19.30

KENSINGTON: ROAD TO RECOVERY/AS BILL SEES IT

Kensington United Reformed Church, Allen St, Kensington W8 6BL

KENSINGTON

WEDNESDAY

W8

19.30

KENSINGTON: ROAD TO RECOVERY

Our Lady of Mt Carmel Church, 41 Kensington Church Street W8 4BB (entrance

Pitt St)

16/07/09

13/07/09

London area

We've had a couple of separate reports of meetings of dubious provenance - details as follows:

"There is a Visions for you meeting on Tuesday night, Ormond road, Richmond [Surrey], I had the pleasure of running into one particular gentleman (and yes I am a young female..) needless to say I have not attended for some time once I realised what was going on. My brother also witnessed the difficulties faced in Kent and warned me off".

Also:

W8 Notting Hill: Friday Road to Recovery (A Vision for You) 7.30pm

As time proceeds we shall be compiling a list of confirmed cult meetings throughout the country - hopefully this will serve as a handy alternative "Where to Find" directing cult members away from AA groups - and preventing AA members (and most importantly newcomers) from ending up in cult meetings.

PS  It appears that Whitstable (Wednesday) [Kent] has come down with a bad case of "swine" flu - the secretary seems to have developed the symptoms which manifest in a form of delirium - inviting cult members to do chairs at the meeting etc. Tankerton and Strood carriers may have introduced this unfortunate virus to the group - we suggest a rigorously enforced quarantine to extirpate the infection. Similarly Herne Bay (Sunday) also shows signs of the malaise - similar prophylactic precautions are suggested.

7/07/09

5/07/09

2/07/09

National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism

A useful (and science based) research resource for those interested in alcohol-related problems

http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/

Their mission statement:

NIAAA provides leadership in the national effort to reduce alcohol-related problems by:

1)  Conducting and supporting research in a wide range of scientific areas including genetics, neuroscience, epidemiology, health risks and benefits of alcohol consumption, prevention, and treatment

2)  Coordinating and collaborating with other research institutes and Federal Programs on alcohol-related issues

3)  Collaborating with international, national, state, and local institutions, organizations, agencies, and programs engaged in alcohol-related work