Short form:
"Twelve—Anonymity is the spiritual foundation of all our Traditions, ever reminding us to place principles before personalities."
Long form:
"12.—And finally, we of Alcoholics Anonymous believe that the principle of anonymity has an immense spiritual significance. It reminds us that we are to place principles before personalities; that we are actually to practice a genuine humility. This to the end that our great blessings may never spoil us; that we shall forever live in thankful contemplation of Him who presides over us all."
Comment: In our view this is undoubtedly the single most important guideline, a perspective supported by its description as being the "spiritual foundation of all our Traditions", the bedrock upon which the fellowship as a whole rests. The scope of this precept is not limited simply to the notion that we should avoid identifying ourselves (singly and by full name)) as being members of AA in the public domain but rather that this particular instance is merely one relatively minor example of this principle applied in practice. The whole basis of AA rests on the notion of "the group", a collectivity of individuals who together carry the AA message of recovery. Of course some people are better communicators than others, they may have a better grasp of these principles, and moreover embody a broader and deeper range of experience than other members, but ALL AA members have something valuable to contribute in their own unique way and it should not be assumed that any individual message is necessarily of greater value than another's. More important than speech is action after all, and mere eloquence is never an adequate substitute for true endeavour. The member who simply gets on with the business of honest living, and with no accompanying fanfare, may be a more valuable exemplar of recovery than the prolific purveyor of fine words and phrases (and in which latter category of course we might even, with some indulgence, include ourselves!). When the newcomer comes to AA it is to be hoped that he or she is greeted with a breadth of experience, this conveyed by as many members of the group as possible, and that no one individual's interpretation of the programme of action takes automatic predominance over the remainder. For this reason it is desirable that newcomers not only be encouraged to attend one or other meeting but that they be explicitly advised to visit a broad range of meetings as possible to discover what suits them best (whether this choice be good or bad). Finally, of course, the integrity and depth of the message will always win out over the gloss …. which brings us quite naturally to the cult....
In their case it is quite evident that the cult's system of organisation itself is a direct antithesis to the principle outlined above. Remember (and we quote): “It is suggested that you phone your sponsor and do exactly what he tells you. If you don’t have a sponsor try each day to do something about finding one.” Here the entire emphasis is placed upon finding ONE individual and following their direction without question or judgement. The exposition of the entire recovery programme in this case derives from ONE person's experience and is by direct consequence wholly personality driven. It should not be necessary for us to point out the obvious dangers of relying too much upon a single interpretation no matter how insightful this might be (although in the case of cult members this redeeming faculty is almost entirely absent). An essential component of the recovery process for any member (new or not so new) is the development of a capacity to exercise their own judgement, and thereafter make choices for themselves as to what direction they might wish to take with their lives. The only manner in which this ability may be engendered, and then cultivated, is by its exercise, and not by constant reference to - and dependence on - the direction of another. Where advice does need to be elicited consideration should firstly be given as to whether its potential source has any verifiable knowledge and/or experience of the relevant areas. It should be obvious that no single person can possibly be the repository of all such information; to believe otherwise is to assign to them the role of “God” or “Higher Power”, something which is explicitly cautioned against in the book “Alcoholics Anonymous” (Chapter 5, How it Works, p. 60, 4th edn) under the three “pertinent ideas”:
“(b) That probably no human power could have relieved our alcoholism”
Here (and despite the prudent qualification of “probably”) it is acknowledged that no human power will suffice in such a case. The whole direction of the AA programme is to encourage the individual to place their reliance finally on a “Power greater than themselves” (however this might be conceived). It does NOT propose that this power should be another person, sponsor or otherwise. “Sponsorship idolatry” is the central theme of the cult ideology (if such an encompassing and coherent conception can be applied to their frequently adventitious if not entirely random pronouncements on what does and does not constitute the “programme”). They do in fact “suggest” (cult-speak for “Do as you're told!”) to the newcomer that they place all their reliance upon such a human power, and from which “advice” follow quite necessarily all the inevitable abuses that are so frequently witnessed within the cult groups. Moreover precisely the same dangers inhere within the proliferation of “circuit speakers” now appearing at various venues in Great Britain (and the US) where “personalities” are even being advertised as a “come on” together with all the accompanying paraphernalia of “minor celebrity”: CDs, books, study courses etc etc all with names usefully - and promotionally – appended. These phenomena are not new (witness the outbreaks of Father This, That and The Other back in the 70's and 80's where these members' 'professional spiritual credentials' lent them some supposed “authority”) but with the advent of the internet these sources are becoming ever more intrusive to - and destructive of - our central tenet of “anonymity”. The responsibility for these abuses lie firmly with their advocates and not with the impressionable newcomers who are unfamiliar with the core values of AA. These latter cannot be criticised for being “taken in” by the glib phrases and slick propaganda of the cult, nor for being seduced by the grandiose sloganising promulgated by this perversion of AA (“Never had a bad day”, “Misery is Optional” - tell that to someone who suffers from clinical depression! - etc), nor for the false hopes raised by these charlatans to induce their victims to abide by the “suggestions” laid down by a whole cadre of increasingly narcissistic “sponsors”.
It is unlikely that such dogmatists and fanatics as these will ever revise their own conduct (for that is after all the nature of their “disease”) and therefore the responsibility lies with the rest of us to ensure that this vital tradition is upheld, and that the reputation, and (more importantly) the integrity of our fellowship is defended against the corrosive threat posed by these counterfeiters.
Over to you
Cheers
The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)
Saturday, 26 February 2011
Wednesday, 23 February 2011
Back to Basics movement
Firstly some of the meetings included in the Back to Basics (cult) Where to Find
Back To Basics Meeting
St Simon's Church
Waverley road,
Southsea, Portsmouth
Southport Tuesday
8:00 pm-9:00pm. Back To Basics Meeting
Quakers Meeting Rooms
Court Road
Southport,
Barnoldswick, Lancashire Tuesday
7:30-8:30 p.m. Back To Basics Meeting
Holy Trinity Church,
Skipton Road,
Barnoldswick
Aberdeen Wednesday
8:00-9:30 pm Back To Basics Meeting
St Marks Church
Rosemount Viaduct
Aberdeen,
“We accomplish our objective by coordinating the recovery efforts of the numerous Back to Basics A.A. Beginners' meetings and groups, answering questions as they arise, following up on Twelfth Step calls, and assisting groups with their registration at the local, area, and General Service Offices. We also conduct one day and weekend seminars based on the Back to Basics A.A. program and distribute recovery literature and other materials on the A.A. Beginners' meetings.”
It can be seen from the above quote that this movement is deliberately (and explicitly) co-ordinated to create an alternative service structure to that of Alcoholics Anonymous. Similarly they are actively engaged in subverting the Twelve Step call out system and encouraging their groups to register with the various AA service offices to further undermine genuine AA. They also advertise their “programme” which is based in part on genuine AA literature but largely too on outside sources and non-conference approved material. Their “objective” is to undermine AA and replace both its fellowship and recovery programme with a 'mongrel' version, one based on a misrepresentation of AA recovery rates and the largely fallacious claim that they are returning AA to its 'original roots' ie. pre-Tradition – the outcome can only be disastrous for all concerned!
Cheers
The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)
Back To Basics Meeting
St Simon's Church
Waverley road,
Southsea, Portsmouth
Southport Tuesday
8:00 pm-9:00pm. Back To Basics Meeting
Quakers Meeting Rooms
Court Road
Southport,
Barnoldswick, Lancashire Tuesday
7:30-8:30 p.m. Back To Basics Meeting
Holy Trinity Church,
Skipton Road,
Barnoldswick
Aberdeen Wednesday
8:00-9:30 pm Back To Basics Meeting
St Marks Church
Rosemount Viaduct
Aberdeen,
“We accomplish our objective by coordinating the recovery efforts of the numerous Back to Basics A.A. Beginners' meetings and groups, answering questions as they arise, following up on Twelfth Step calls, and assisting groups with their registration at the local, area, and General Service Offices. We also conduct one day and weekend seminars based on the Back to Basics A.A. program and distribute recovery literature and other materials on the A.A. Beginners' meetings.”
It can be seen from the above quote that this movement is deliberately (and explicitly) co-ordinated to create an alternative service structure to that of Alcoholics Anonymous. Similarly they are actively engaged in subverting the Twelve Step call out system and encouraging their groups to register with the various AA service offices to further undermine genuine AA. They also advertise their “programme” which is based in part on genuine AA literature but largely too on outside sources and non-conference approved material. Their “objective” is to undermine AA and replace both its fellowship and recovery programme with a 'mongrel' version, one based on a misrepresentation of AA recovery rates and the largely fallacious claim that they are returning AA to its 'original roots' ie. pre-Tradition – the outcome can only be disastrous for all concerned!
Cheers
The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)
Tuesday, 15 February 2011
WHAT AA IS NOT
"1. AA is not an institutional clearing program. It does not promise that we will receive suspended sentences, probations, or paroles. AA does not promise conditional releases, stays of proceedings, or the early releases from prisons or hospitals.
2. AA is not a "dating game" nor is it a lonely hearts club or a place to find a temporary or permanent lover.
3. AA is not an employment agency or manpower training program. It does not promise that we'll all find jobs, get rich, or even become financially solvent.
4. AA is not a charitable organization like the welfare system or the Salvation Army. It doesn't promise that we'll be loaned money or given cigarettes. AA is not a bank or a credit union, and is not set up to provide funds for anyone.
5. AA is not a church program or a religious organization (although many groups rent church spaces to hold their meetings.) AA does not force religion down anyone's throat. It does encourage us to develop and nourish individual spiritual ways here and now, but it doesn't demand that we believe anything. Saving souls and making converts is not the purpose of AA.
6. AA does not promise that we'll never be hurt or feel pain. When AA talks about serenity, it is not talking about the absence of calamity but peace of heart, mind and spirit in the midst of calamity. AA is not saying that we'll have no more problems; it's saying that we'll be given what we need to deal with, and go through, those problems. The absence of troubles is not the purpose of AA.”
(1991 Grapevine Inc. January edition)
(our thanks to the AA member for sending us this extract)
Cheers
The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)
2. AA is not a "dating game" nor is it a lonely hearts club or a place to find a temporary or permanent lover.
3. AA is not an employment agency or manpower training program. It does not promise that we'll all find jobs, get rich, or even become financially solvent.
4. AA is not a charitable organization like the welfare system or the Salvation Army. It doesn't promise that we'll be loaned money or given cigarettes. AA is not a bank or a credit union, and is not set up to provide funds for anyone.
5. AA is not a church program or a religious organization (although many groups rent church spaces to hold their meetings.) AA does not force religion down anyone's throat. It does encourage us to develop and nourish individual spiritual ways here and now, but it doesn't demand that we believe anything. Saving souls and making converts is not the purpose of AA.
6. AA does not promise that we'll never be hurt or feel pain. When AA talks about serenity, it is not talking about the absence of calamity but peace of heart, mind and spirit in the midst of calamity. AA is not saying that we'll have no more problems; it's saying that we'll be given what we need to deal with, and go through, those problems. The absence of troubles is not the purpose of AA.”
(1991 Grapevine Inc. January edition)
(our thanks to the AA member for sending us this extract)
Cheers
The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)
Wednesday, 9 February 2011
Bournemouth Road to Recovery cult group go into “victim” mode!
Recently we received a copy of letter emanating from the the GSR of the aforementioned group (which refers to itself as an AA group - although on what basis we have yet to determine!)
The letter is dated Nov 30th 2010 and is addressed to “the Chairpersons of Bournemouth and Poole Intergroups”. Essentially the complaint is based on the fact that both these intergroups have repeatedly refused to accept this cult group within their respective parts of the service structure. The GSR for this cult group argues that such a refusal amounts to “disregarding” the guidelines (an area with which he is probably most familiar since this is quite common practice amongst these rogue elements) and therefore illegitimate. In support of his contention he makes reference to AA literature (specifically Tradition 3 – long form) and as usual proceeds to offer a uniquely “cult” interpretation of the material. Tradition 3 is:
“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.”
He argues, moreover, that he is “unable to find anywhere in A.A literature that it is within an Intergroups remit to decide which groups may or may not participate.”
He claims that the reason for his group's repeated rejection has been based on the allegation that his group has in fact “[an]other affiliation” and is thereby not an AA group at all. He rejects the claim but provides no evidence to support his rebuttal (in connection with this a friend of ours told us of a joke currently doing the rounds: “How can you tell when a cult member is lying? Answer: When you see their lips moving"). On the other hand one simply has to look to the name of the group itself for direct evidence of its affiliation (for example with the notorious Plymouth Road to Recovery cult group. A visit to the latter's website alone (Diary dates section) should be sufficient to demonstrate the existence of a network of “outside affiliations” ie. Primary Purpose etc (more on this later)). Moreover we are reliably informed that the grounds for this refusal do not rest purely on the question of outside affiliation but rather on the conduct of the group itself. He then goes on to misquote - and as usual in cult circles - Tradition Four, claiming that the group is an “autonomous AA group” and is “answerable only to the conscience of its members”. Tradition Four DOES NOT SAY this at all. We quote:
“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)
Clearly an application to join an intergroup is something which fits into the (emphasised) category above and is not simply a matter of a group's “own affairs”. Moreover, and using the GSR's own unsound argument against him, if it is the case that each group is autonomous (and answerable to no one at all) he can hardly complain when the other “autonomous” groups decide (within the context of their intergroup) to exercise their “autonomy” and refuse the participation of this cult group. Which way do you want to play this game? So for example if someone comes to your home, knocks on the door and represents themselves to be so-and-so (a claim which you know to be untrue) and insists that they have the right to enter your house, (because they have the right to do anything they like) and you then advise them to the contrary (because you in turn have the right to do whatever you like) it can be argued that a “consultation” has taken place, you have deliberated upon their claim, concluded it to be invalid, and invited them thereafter 'to go forth and multiply'!
The unfortunate GSR then goes on to argue (somewhat disingenuously we fear) that his group has been “asked to conform to the wishes of other groups although the precise manner of this conformity has never been clearly stated”. Might we suggest that this “conformity” might consist in abiding by the guidelines, traditions, concepts etc and maybe even listen for a change! (on reflection this might be way beyond any cult member's capacity; it's a case of “What an order! I can't go through it.”). He then proceeds to waffle on about the group's name arguing that the objection raised to its employment (and the request to discontinue its use) would lead to the group going against “The conscience of A.A. GB as outlined in “The Group” booklet.” Apart from this hardly being a novelty ie. a cult group breaking traditions and guidelines, here is the actual extract from the booklet “The AA Group”:
"Therefore, An A.A. Group that meets in a correctional or treatment facility or a church should take care not to use the institution's name, but to call itself something quite different. This makes it clear that the A.A. group is not affiliated with the hospital, church, prison, treatment facility, or whatever, but simply rents space there for meetings."
(pp.15-16)
The purpose of this advice is quite clear; to ensure that no other affiliation is implied. However this guidance does not mean that groups may only employ names derived from phrases in the Big Book. Moreover the fact that a group uses such a name does not guarantee that it is in fact an AA group.
(Note: other names employed by these groups include “Back to Basics”, “Primary Purpose”, “There is a Solution”, “Joys of Recovery”, “Vision for You” as well as more generic terminology ie. Newcomers (or Beginners) meetings, Big Book Study groups and various combinations of these etc. It is unfortunate that the cult groups have chosen to appropriate these entirely legitimate terms (in much the same fashion that the National Front hijacked the Union Jack in order to gain some measure of credibility) but finally there is more to AA than a name. (As usual be advised that not all groups that use these designations are necessarily cult run, and conversely groups that do not employ these names, and appear otherwise entirely innocuous, may in fact be cult based. In this connection inclusion of a group in the national or even local Where to Finds (either via the online site or in printed form) is also not necessarily a guarantee that the group listed is an AA group. Caution in all cases is recommended and in this respect local knowledge is paramount – as in the case of the Bournemouth cult group).
In fact this whole issue is something of a red herring, and one frequently employed by the cult to deflect debate away from matters of substance to mere form. Of course cult groups are mostly concerned with appearance rather than content so from their point of view anything which imparts some degree of legitimacy and authenticity to their activities is of great importance. What should be of greater concern to AA members, however, is the conduct of these groups, not only in terms of the message they purport to carry but also the means they employ to do so (which are frequently coercive, usually manipulative and sometimes downright abusive). What makes an AA group an AA group is its “spirit” (in the widest sense of the word) or its “conscience”, and not merely legalistic (mis)interpretations of the traditions and guidelines.... which brings us on to the next part of this GSR's advocacy: the concepts.
Our budding lawyer here makes reference to these and asserts that:
“Although the 12 Concepts were written for Conference, the principles can be applied throughout our service structure. Warranty 5 of Concept 12 states that no Conference action every be personally punitive and Warranty Six ends with the statement “To a man, we of A.A. believe that our freedom to serve is truly the freedom by which we live- the freedom in which we have our being”
The actual quote is as follows:
"There will also be seen in these Concepts a number of principles which have already become traditional to our services, but which have never been clearly articulated and reduced to writing. For example: the “Right of Decision” gives our service leaders a proper discretion and latitude; the “Right of Participation” gives each world servant a voting status commensurate with his (or her) responsibility, and “Participation” further guarantees that each service board or committee will always possess the several elements and talents that will insure effective functioning. The “Right of Appeal” protects and encourages minority opinion; and the “Right of Petition” makes certain that grievances can be heard, and properly acted upon. These general principles can of course be used to good effect throughout our entire structure.
In other sections, the Concepts carefully delineate those important traditions, customs, relationships and legal arrangements that weld the General Service Board into a working harmony with its primary committees and with its corporate arms of active service — A.A. World Services, Inc. and The A.A. Grapevine, Inc. This is the substance of the structural framework that governs the internal working situation at A.A.’s World Headquarters." (our emphases)
(Twelve Concepts for World Service - Introduction, p.3)
He then goes on to claim that such exclusion from Intergroup: “[Denies] members of my group the opportunity to participate in the service structure and serve the fellowship of Alcoholics Anonymous [and] is clearly a punitive measure. It also denies A.A, members a fundamental freedom”.
He seems to be assuming here that participation in the service structure (intergroup etc) is something of an automatic right, or conversely (implied), rejection as some kind of denial of a “fundamental freedom”, and even “punitive”. Now for our part we're not aware that such is the case. For example we may go along to our local intergroup and, exercising our rights, offer our services in some capacity. They may say yes or then again they may say no. That is their right, and the decision is theirs, not ours to make. We may not like the decision and we can argue our position. They still have the right to say yes or no. If we refuse to accept their answer and become disruptive they have the right to ask us to leave ie. in preservation of another fundamental AA principle: Unity (Tradition One) The Bournemouth cult group have applied to join two local intergroups and the latter have said no (repeatedly). They have given their reasons for saying no and these reasons still stand. No denial of the right to offer to serve exists, but for that matter nor does any automatic right to a service position either. It is rather a privilege and one which quite evidently the cult groups have not earned. The notion that somehow they are being “punished” is yet more evidence of the much favoured “victim” mode employed by cult members and groups when they can't get their own way. It is also exemplifies the arrogance of their perspective ie. the only possible reason that they are denied participation in the service structure is because we want to punish them. It never crosses their minds that they are quite simply not up to the job! But of course we should remember - “They are always right and we are always wrong!”
The GSR then proceeds with his gloss on the activities of this cult group and their generally 'exemplary' conduct, eg. conformity to guidelines, traditions (superficial) etc blah blah blah and this quite ad nauseam, and in the process further emphasising intergroup's wholly unreasonable attitude. We are left in no doubt whatsoever about how much AA is the poorer because of this cult group's continued exclusion from the service structure. Now we come to the 'threat':
“Due to our continued exclusion we have no option but to elect group service reps and take on our own service activities as a Group. We will cooperate with the existing service structure by attending all P.I. meetings and give full reports to the relevant Intergroup officers of all the work carried out by our group reps.”
The fact that they are running their own “service activities as a Group” should come as no surprise to anyone by now. The cult has already created an alternative service structure in GB with its own hierarchy of affiliations, websites, literature, “clustered” home groups systems, conventions, circuit speakers, and even in some instances taken over whole intergroups. Its members have managed to infiltrate every level of the AA service structure (even down to the conference delegate level) with its members voting in blocs and according to directions from “Central Command”. Cult members in the telephone service and on 12 step lists direct newcomers only to cult groups where they are 'advised' to avoid any contact with “sick” AA.
The GSR (cult) concludes:
“Finally, my group is clear that it would work within the local service structure should Bournemouth or Poole Intergroup at any stage reconsider their previous decisions. We would also like it noted that the support of some Intergroup members has been much appreciated.
In fellowship
Rik V.
GSR, “Road to Recovery” Group of Alcoholics Anonymous
Bournemouth”
How generous! And how arrogant! We particularly like the last sentence, and a classic cult tactic: Divide and rule!
We conclude with the following observations. The cult has now had close to thirty years to develop its “parallel fellowship” within AA in Great Britain, and this with virtually no effective, coordinated opposition. It is organised (its lines of communication having been greatly enhanced with the arrival of the internet) and its agenda is clear: the subversion of Alcoholics Anonymous. So far their conduct has been tolerated by AA members, this generosity of spirit deriving from the view that “all such things pass”, and then of their own accord. Mistake! This particular form of “alcoholic disease” has persisted, is spreading, and will eventually destroy AA in this country unless its members take ACTION. Evil is not defeated by tolerance but by resistance, followed in turn by countermeasures. The cult will not just go away. Appeals to GSO York - or any other perceived “authority” - to intervene are useless. They can do nothing. The choice is clear. Either we strive to preserve a fellowship which is inclusive, tolerant (but not passive), non-judgemental and non-directive, offering freedom to its members (no strings attached), and with no “political” structure or class of members who assume authority over others, or we sit back and permit its direct opposite, an alternative which is most clearly evidenced in every aspect of cult behaviour: exclusive, intolerant, arrogant, condemnatory, authoritarian, dogmatic and driven by personalities who are motivated solely by their own quest for power (see BB, How it Works, Step 3 for a full description of this type). The buck stops finally, and well and truly, with AA members and AA groups. aacultwatch will continue to do our bit for for as long as it takes. What are you going to do?
Cheers
The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)
The letter is dated Nov 30th 2010 and is addressed to “the Chairpersons of Bournemouth and Poole Intergroups”. Essentially the complaint is based on the fact that both these intergroups have repeatedly refused to accept this cult group within their respective parts of the service structure. The GSR for this cult group argues that such a refusal amounts to “disregarding” the guidelines (an area with which he is probably most familiar since this is quite common practice amongst these rogue elements) and therefore illegitimate. In support of his contention he makes reference to AA literature (specifically Tradition 3 – long form) and as usual proceeds to offer a uniquely “cult” interpretation of the material. Tradition 3 is:
“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.”
He argues, moreover, that he is “unable to find anywhere in A.A literature that it is within an Intergroups remit to decide which groups may or may not participate.”
He claims that the reason for his group's repeated rejection has been based on the allegation that his group has in fact “[an]other affiliation” and is thereby not an AA group at all. He rejects the claim but provides no evidence to support his rebuttal (in connection with this a friend of ours told us of a joke currently doing the rounds: “How can you tell when a cult member is lying? Answer: When you see their lips moving"). On the other hand one simply has to look to the name of the group itself for direct evidence of its affiliation (for example with the notorious Plymouth Road to Recovery cult group. A visit to the latter's website alone (Diary dates section) should be sufficient to demonstrate the existence of a network of “outside affiliations” ie. Primary Purpose etc (more on this later)). Moreover we are reliably informed that the grounds for this refusal do not rest purely on the question of outside affiliation but rather on the conduct of the group itself. He then goes on to misquote - and as usual in cult circles - Tradition Four, claiming that the group is an “autonomous AA group” and is “answerable only to the conscience of its members”. Tradition Four DOES NOT SAY this at all. We quote:
“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)
Clearly an application to join an intergroup is something which fits into the (emphasised) category above and is not simply a matter of a group's “own affairs”. Moreover, and using the GSR's own unsound argument against him, if it is the case that each group is autonomous (and answerable to no one at all) he can hardly complain when the other “autonomous” groups decide (within the context of their intergroup) to exercise their “autonomy” and refuse the participation of this cult group. Which way do you want to play this game? So for example if someone comes to your home, knocks on the door and represents themselves to be so-and-so (a claim which you know to be untrue) and insists that they have the right to enter your house, (because they have the right to do anything they like) and you then advise them to the contrary (because you in turn have the right to do whatever you like) it can be argued that a “consultation” has taken place, you have deliberated upon their claim, concluded it to be invalid, and invited them thereafter 'to go forth and multiply'!
The unfortunate GSR then goes on to argue (somewhat disingenuously we fear) that his group has been “asked to conform to the wishes of other groups although the precise manner of this conformity has never been clearly stated”. Might we suggest that this “conformity” might consist in abiding by the guidelines, traditions, concepts etc and maybe even listen for a change! (on reflection this might be way beyond any cult member's capacity; it's a case of “What an order! I can't go through it.”). He then proceeds to waffle on about the group's name arguing that the objection raised to its employment (and the request to discontinue its use) would lead to the group going against “The conscience of A.A. GB as outlined in “The Group” booklet.” Apart from this hardly being a novelty ie. a cult group breaking traditions and guidelines, here is the actual extract from the booklet “The AA Group”:
"Therefore, An A.A. Group that meets in a correctional or treatment facility or a church should take care not to use the institution's name, but to call itself something quite different. This makes it clear that the A.A. group is not affiliated with the hospital, church, prison, treatment facility, or whatever, but simply rents space there for meetings."
(pp.15-16)
The purpose of this advice is quite clear; to ensure that no other affiliation is implied. However this guidance does not mean that groups may only employ names derived from phrases in the Big Book. Moreover the fact that a group uses such a name does not guarantee that it is in fact an AA group.
(Note: other names employed by these groups include “Back to Basics”, “Primary Purpose”, “There is a Solution”, “Joys of Recovery”, “Vision for You” as well as more generic terminology ie. Newcomers (or Beginners) meetings, Big Book Study groups and various combinations of these etc. It is unfortunate that the cult groups have chosen to appropriate these entirely legitimate terms (in much the same fashion that the National Front hijacked the Union Jack in order to gain some measure of credibility) but finally there is more to AA than a name. (As usual be advised that not all groups that use these designations are necessarily cult run, and conversely groups that do not employ these names, and appear otherwise entirely innocuous, may in fact be cult based. In this connection inclusion of a group in the national or even local Where to Finds (either via the online site or in printed form) is also not necessarily a guarantee that the group listed is an AA group. Caution in all cases is recommended and in this respect local knowledge is paramount – as in the case of the Bournemouth cult group).
In fact this whole issue is something of a red herring, and one frequently employed by the cult to deflect debate away from matters of substance to mere form. Of course cult groups are mostly concerned with appearance rather than content so from their point of view anything which imparts some degree of legitimacy and authenticity to their activities is of great importance. What should be of greater concern to AA members, however, is the conduct of these groups, not only in terms of the message they purport to carry but also the means they employ to do so (which are frequently coercive, usually manipulative and sometimes downright abusive). What makes an AA group an AA group is its “spirit” (in the widest sense of the word) or its “conscience”, and not merely legalistic (mis)interpretations of the traditions and guidelines.... which brings us on to the next part of this GSR's advocacy: the concepts.
Our budding lawyer here makes reference to these and asserts that:
“Although the 12 Concepts were written for Conference, the principles can be applied throughout our service structure. Warranty 5 of Concept 12 states that no Conference action every be personally punitive and Warranty Six ends with the statement “To a man, we of A.A. believe that our freedom to serve is truly the freedom by which we live- the freedom in which we have our being”
The actual quote is as follows:
"There will also be seen in these Concepts a number of principles which have already become traditional to our services, but which have never been clearly articulated and reduced to writing. For example: the “Right of Decision” gives our service leaders a proper discretion and latitude; the “Right of Participation” gives each world servant a voting status commensurate with his (or her) responsibility, and “Participation” further guarantees that each service board or committee will always possess the several elements and talents that will insure effective functioning. The “Right of Appeal” protects and encourages minority opinion; and the “Right of Petition” makes certain that grievances can be heard, and properly acted upon. These general principles can of course be used to good effect throughout our entire structure.
In other sections, the Concepts carefully delineate those important traditions, customs, relationships and legal arrangements that weld the General Service Board into a working harmony with its primary committees and with its corporate arms of active service — A.A. World Services, Inc. and The A.A. Grapevine, Inc. This is the substance of the structural framework that governs the internal working situation at A.A.’s World Headquarters." (our emphases)
(Twelve Concepts for World Service - Introduction, p.3)
He then goes on to claim that such exclusion from Intergroup: “[Denies] members of my group the opportunity to participate in the service structure and serve the fellowship of Alcoholics Anonymous [and] is clearly a punitive measure. It also denies A.A, members a fundamental freedom”.
He seems to be assuming here that participation in the service structure (intergroup etc) is something of an automatic right, or conversely (implied), rejection as some kind of denial of a “fundamental freedom”, and even “punitive”. Now for our part we're not aware that such is the case. For example we may go along to our local intergroup and, exercising our rights, offer our services in some capacity. They may say yes or then again they may say no. That is their right, and the decision is theirs, not ours to make. We may not like the decision and we can argue our position. They still have the right to say yes or no. If we refuse to accept their answer and become disruptive they have the right to ask us to leave ie. in preservation of another fundamental AA principle: Unity (Tradition One) The Bournemouth cult group have applied to join two local intergroups and the latter have said no (repeatedly). They have given their reasons for saying no and these reasons still stand. No denial of the right to offer to serve exists, but for that matter nor does any automatic right to a service position either. It is rather a privilege and one which quite evidently the cult groups have not earned. The notion that somehow they are being “punished” is yet more evidence of the much favoured “victim” mode employed by cult members and groups when they can't get their own way. It is also exemplifies the arrogance of their perspective ie. the only possible reason that they are denied participation in the service structure is because we want to punish them. It never crosses their minds that they are quite simply not up to the job! But of course we should remember - “They are always right and we are always wrong!”
The GSR then proceeds with his gloss on the activities of this cult group and their generally 'exemplary' conduct, eg. conformity to guidelines, traditions (superficial) etc blah blah blah and this quite ad nauseam, and in the process further emphasising intergroup's wholly unreasonable attitude. We are left in no doubt whatsoever about how much AA is the poorer because of this cult group's continued exclusion from the service structure. Now we come to the 'threat':
“Due to our continued exclusion we have no option but to elect group service reps and take on our own service activities as a Group. We will cooperate with the existing service structure by attending all P.I. meetings and give full reports to the relevant Intergroup officers of all the work carried out by our group reps.”
The fact that they are running their own “service activities as a Group” should come as no surprise to anyone by now. The cult has already created an alternative service structure in GB with its own hierarchy of affiliations, websites, literature, “clustered” home groups systems, conventions, circuit speakers, and even in some instances taken over whole intergroups. Its members have managed to infiltrate every level of the AA service structure (even down to the conference delegate level) with its members voting in blocs and according to directions from “Central Command”. Cult members in the telephone service and on 12 step lists direct newcomers only to cult groups where they are 'advised' to avoid any contact with “sick” AA.
The GSR (cult) concludes:
“Finally, my group is clear that it would work within the local service structure should Bournemouth or Poole Intergroup at any stage reconsider their previous decisions. We would also like it noted that the support of some Intergroup members has been much appreciated.
In fellowship
Rik V.
GSR, “Road to Recovery” Group of Alcoholics Anonymous
Bournemouth”
How generous! And how arrogant! We particularly like the last sentence, and a classic cult tactic: Divide and rule!
We conclude with the following observations. The cult has now had close to thirty years to develop its “parallel fellowship” within AA in Great Britain, and this with virtually no effective, coordinated opposition. It is organised (its lines of communication having been greatly enhanced with the arrival of the internet) and its agenda is clear: the subversion of Alcoholics Anonymous. So far their conduct has been tolerated by AA members, this generosity of spirit deriving from the view that “all such things pass”, and then of their own accord. Mistake! This particular form of “alcoholic disease” has persisted, is spreading, and will eventually destroy AA in this country unless its members take ACTION. Evil is not defeated by tolerance but by resistance, followed in turn by countermeasures. The cult will not just go away. Appeals to GSO York - or any other perceived “authority” - to intervene are useless. They can do nothing. The choice is clear. Either we strive to preserve a fellowship which is inclusive, tolerant (but not passive), non-judgemental and non-directive, offering freedom to its members (no strings attached), and with no “political” structure or class of members who assume authority over others, or we sit back and permit its direct opposite, an alternative which is most clearly evidenced in every aspect of cult behaviour: exclusive, intolerant, arrogant, condemnatory, authoritarian, dogmatic and driven by personalities who are motivated solely by their own quest for power (see BB, How it Works, Step 3 for a full description of this type). The buck stops finally, and well and truly, with AA members and AA groups. aacultwatch will continue to do our bit for for as long as it takes. What are you going to do?
Cheers
The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)
Friday, 4 February 2011
Tradition Eleven
Short form:
"Eleven—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."
Long form:
"11.—Our relations with the general public should be characterized by personal anonymity. We think A.A. ought to avoid sensational advertising. Our names and pictures as A.A. members ought not be broadcast, filmed, or publicly printed. Our public relations should be guided by the principle of attraction rather than promotion. There is never need to praise ourselves. We feel it better to let our friends recommend us."
Another cracking good idea! (which is probably why it became an AA tradition). Moreover this guideline is closely connected with the last tradition (where the principle is well and truly hammered home). In this instance the key words to reflect on are “anonymity” and “attraction” (versus “promotion”).
Firstly - “anonymity” which may be defined as: the quality or state of being unknown or unacknowledged; namelessness. So for the purposes of our “public relations” (and in the context of AA) we are men and women “WITH NO NAME”. (We should point out here that this does not mean we all have to call ourselves “Clint” (as in Eastwood) from now on, or wear ponchos and ride donkeys, and it most definitely does not imply a licence to decimate the populations of local hamlets simply because their inhabitants have been rude to our “transport of choice”! These are not mandatory!) We would suggest that this definitely includes surnames and even forenames. In the case of “celebrities” of course this is quite impossible (and another good reason why they should not break their anonymity) but for the rest of us this is an easy suggestion to follow. Even if a forename has to be used (for the purposes of polite interaction) it can be assumed. So if you've ever fancied being called Hieronymus now's your chance - or even Bruce, or Sheila. Or maybe just plain John - as in John Doe (our personal favourite).
Secondly - “attract” means: to arouse or compel the interest, admiration, or attention of. “Promote” means: to attempt to sell or popularize by advertising or publicity.
The distinction between these two approaches seems to be based on “intrinsic value” as opposed to “extrinsic display”. ie. a service or product which is inherently valuable, and which fulfils the real needs of the consumer requires little or no “marketing” and can rely simply on “word of mouth” recommendations; it has "intrinsic value". On the other hand those products (and services) which have little or no “intrinsic value” will require correspondingly larger expenditures of time and energy (and money) to shift their inherently “worthless” output ie. “extrinsic display” (this latter category would probably include almost everything advertised by the mass media, ie. TV, newspapers, magazines, internet etc). Therefore, as a quick rule of thumb, the more a product or service is plugged by these media the greater the likelihood that it is of little or no real use. AA while it adheres to the former approach demonstrates it is in fact meeting the needs of its “consumers”. If there is any shift towards the latter tendency this would suggest that it is failing in this objective and is becoming more reliant on “display” than actual substance. Needless to say the cult groups put a lot of effort into the former, never stinting on new “marketing” techniques (including that good old standby – lying), promoting themselves at every opportunity via websites, local poster campaigns (with little or no liaison with other groups), producing their own Where to Finds (whilst 'forgetting' to mention the AA groups in the area), fabricating their own literature (some of which bears only the slightest resemblance to the genuine AA article), organising so-called “conventions” or “workshops” which usually feature some much lauded “guest speaker” (ie. cult celebrity) together with the time-honoured cult techniques of manipulation/coercion in order to retain their “target market” and so on and so forth … as we have said before this list goes on “ad infinitum”.
[In this connection we're rather puzzled that the pointed headed ones haven't got round to running an X Factor style talent contest. The budding “personalities” could do their “turns” and votes would be awarded accordingly eg. tastelessness, self-promotion, lack of ability etc. The contestant scoring highest in these “qualities” would go on to win (1st prize to include a fully promoted circuit tour, CDs, book signings (“How I got Sober with Six Easy Suggestions”) and a weekend in Dallas, Texas). For the judges we'd definitely include David “The Icon” C, a fellow who is never short of a few opinions (these largely being a substitute for any genuine personality). Then there's Wayne P (Road to Recovery Plymouth cult group)– currently on sabbatical but who we're quite sure will make a miraculous come back ie. after having seen the “light” etc. Of course no line up could possibly exclude the West Kent intergroup secretary Barbara (“Cults are a Good Thing”) K, already famous for her contribution to the growing market of “personality” CDs. Lastly there's the up-and-coming charismatic “leader”, The Pied Piper of Happy Clappy Land (otherwise known as Ealing), “Happy Dennis”, whose irrepressible good humour - and capacity to launch himself skywards at the least provocation - must surely lend to such an occasion the gravity it deserves. Anyway we digress....].
There is occasionally a fine line between the two approaches and we would suggest that if in doubt ... don't! Alcoholics Anonymous has managed perfectly well without the need for publicity campaigns and works best according to traditional methods. The fellowship has no need to “market” itself and indeed undermines it's own credibility and integrity by doing so. So let our friends “recommend us” and our detractors may say what they will!
Cheers
The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)
"Eleven—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."
Long form:
"11.—Our relations with the general public should be characterized by personal anonymity. We think A.A. ought to avoid sensational advertising. Our names and pictures as A.A. members ought not be broadcast, filmed, or publicly printed. Our public relations should be guided by the principle of attraction rather than promotion. There is never need to praise ourselves. We feel it better to let our friends recommend us."
Another cracking good idea! (which is probably why it became an AA tradition). Moreover this guideline is closely connected with the last tradition (where the principle is well and truly hammered home). In this instance the key words to reflect on are “anonymity” and “attraction” (versus “promotion”).
Firstly - “anonymity” which may be defined as: the quality or state of being unknown or unacknowledged; namelessness. So for the purposes of our “public relations” (and in the context of AA) we are men and women “WITH NO NAME”. (We should point out here that this does not mean we all have to call ourselves “Clint” (as in Eastwood) from now on, or wear ponchos and ride donkeys, and it most definitely does not imply a licence to decimate the populations of local hamlets simply because their inhabitants have been rude to our “transport of choice”! These are not mandatory!) We would suggest that this definitely includes surnames and even forenames. In the case of “celebrities” of course this is quite impossible (and another good reason why they should not break their anonymity) but for the rest of us this is an easy suggestion to follow. Even if a forename has to be used (for the purposes of polite interaction) it can be assumed. So if you've ever fancied being called Hieronymus now's your chance - or even Bruce, or Sheila. Or maybe just plain John - as in John Doe (our personal favourite).
Secondly - “attract” means: to arouse or compel the interest, admiration, or attention of. “Promote” means: to attempt to sell or popularize by advertising or publicity.
The distinction between these two approaches seems to be based on “intrinsic value” as opposed to “extrinsic display”. ie. a service or product which is inherently valuable, and which fulfils the real needs of the consumer requires little or no “marketing” and can rely simply on “word of mouth” recommendations; it has "intrinsic value". On the other hand those products (and services) which have little or no “intrinsic value” will require correspondingly larger expenditures of time and energy (and money) to shift their inherently “worthless” output ie. “extrinsic display” (this latter category would probably include almost everything advertised by the mass media, ie. TV, newspapers, magazines, internet etc). Therefore, as a quick rule of thumb, the more a product or service is plugged by these media the greater the likelihood that it is of little or no real use. AA while it adheres to the former approach demonstrates it is in fact meeting the needs of its “consumers”. If there is any shift towards the latter tendency this would suggest that it is failing in this objective and is becoming more reliant on “display” than actual substance. Needless to say the cult groups put a lot of effort into the former, never stinting on new “marketing” techniques (including that good old standby – lying), promoting themselves at every opportunity via websites, local poster campaigns (with little or no liaison with other groups), producing their own Where to Finds (whilst 'forgetting' to mention the AA groups in the area), fabricating their own literature (some of which bears only the slightest resemblance to the genuine AA article), organising so-called “conventions” or “workshops” which usually feature some much lauded “guest speaker” (ie. cult celebrity) together with the time-honoured cult techniques of manipulation/coercion in order to retain their “target market” and so on and so forth … as we have said before this list goes on “ad infinitum”.
[In this connection we're rather puzzled that the pointed headed ones haven't got round to running an X Factor style talent contest. The budding “personalities” could do their “turns” and votes would be awarded accordingly eg. tastelessness, self-promotion, lack of ability etc. The contestant scoring highest in these “qualities” would go on to win (1st prize to include a fully promoted circuit tour, CDs, book signings (“How I got Sober with Six Easy Suggestions”) and a weekend in Dallas, Texas). For the judges we'd definitely include David “The Icon” C, a fellow who is never short of a few opinions (these largely being a substitute for any genuine personality). Then there's Wayne P (Road to Recovery Plymouth cult group)– currently on sabbatical but who we're quite sure will make a miraculous come back ie. after having seen the “light” etc. Of course no line up could possibly exclude the West Kent intergroup secretary Barbara (“Cults are a Good Thing”) K, already famous for her contribution to the growing market of “personality” CDs. Lastly there's the up-and-coming charismatic “leader”, The Pied Piper of Happy Clappy Land (otherwise known as Ealing), “Happy Dennis”, whose irrepressible good humour - and capacity to launch himself skywards at the least provocation - must surely lend to such an occasion the gravity it deserves. Anyway we digress....].
There is occasionally a fine line between the two approaches and we would suggest that if in doubt ... don't! Alcoholics Anonymous has managed perfectly well without the need for publicity campaigns and works best according to traditional methods. The fellowship has no need to “market” itself and indeed undermines it's own credibility and integrity by doing so. So let our friends “recommend us” and our detractors may say what they will!
Cheers
The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)