Road to Recovery cult group Plymouth – Alexis K is outed!

Well Alexis K has finally come out of the closet! It would seem that he is a.... Stravinsky fan! In his latest “masterpiece” this ex-conference delegate (or “thug” as he is otherwise known – see An incident at Conference) has attributed the success (?) of this cult group (of which he is a member) partly to the scandal it has attracted within AA. According to our “maestro” such adverse comments serve merely to attract people rather than repel them much in the way (we suppose) one who lacking in discretion and taste might seek diversion by visiting a freak show by reason of its outrageous reputation: thus “success from scandal” is a good thing! In support of his thesis Alexis cites Stravinsky as an example. This is, however, perhaps an unfortunate choice for comparison, but for two basic reasons. Firstly the composer himself is said to have had a “taste for hard spirits” - but then we all need a bit of help don't we when the muse fails us! Then he was something of a Nazi. Oh dear! Now if Adolf had won the war then that would be a good thing as well. But he didn't, and being a Nazi these days (especially with the current trial going on in Norway) is probably not something you'd particularly want to advertise. But then we guess this is not so much of a problem in “Step Nazi” circles. Thus (as Stravinsky comments):

"I don't believe that anyone venerates Mussolini more than I... I know many exalted personages, and my artist's mind does not shrink from political and social issues. Well, after having seen so many events and so many more or less representative men, I have an overpowering urge to render homage to your Duce. He is the saviour of Italy and – let us hope – Europe". Later, after a private audience with Mussolini, he added, "Unless my ears deceive me, the voice of Rome is the voice of Il Duce. I told him that I felt like a fascist myself... In spite of being extremely busy, Mussolini did me the great honour of conversing with me for three-quarters of an hour. We talked about music, art and politics".[50]

Moreover In his general demeanour it would seem that “Stravinsky proved adept at playing the part of a 'man of the world', acquiring a keen instinct for business matters and appearing relaxed and comfortable in public”.

(our emphasis)

Now the similarities between our hero and the “stage managed performances” that characterise cult groups are really beginning to pile up!

And finally:

“Stravinsky was reputed to have been a philanderer and was rumoured to have had affairs with high-profile partners such as Coco Chanel.”

It gets better and better! We have complete identification!

But in a more positive sense, and focussing rather on his professional prowess, Stravinsky may be regarded primarily as an innovator:

“Stravinsky is known as "one of music's truly epochal innovators". The most important aspect of Stravinsky's work, aside from his technical innovations (including in rhythm and harmony), is the 'changing face' of his compositional style while always 'retaining a distinctive, essential identity'. He himself was inspired by different cultures, languages and literatures. As a consequence, his influence on composers both during his lifetime and after his death was, and remains, considerable.”

In other words he had what's called talent, was forward looking, and his “.... style ... always 'retain[ed] a distinctive, essential identity', something quite far removed from the 'cloning' activities of the R2R group. Now if we are going to draw any parallels at all between the Road to Recovery cult group and the “success through scandal” theme we far prefer Paris Hilton as a candidate, and her by now quite infamous sex tape. Now we don't have anything in particular against the poor thing; she is what she is and has to make do with her own unfortunate circumstances. But let's face it – her life is just about image and very little else! Bless her but her responsibilities are indeed limited! The R2R cult group's however are not and yet they behave in a similarly irresponsible manner, in pursuit always of the limelight, and by whatever means. Finally their message is composed entirely of “emotional froth” and lacking completely in weight or substance! In fact by comparison Paris is starting to look like something of a philosopher!

As for the references to Bill W in Alexis' 'oeuvre' we really don't think that our co-founder had “success through scandal” in mind when AA's public relations policy was being formulated. Nice try though!

(Sources: Wikipedia)

Cheerio

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

PS We are however more than willing to correct any inaccuracies in our reporting of what goes on in the R2R cult group.

For example: perhaps it is not the case that Wayne P (sponsor to both Alexis K and Jon F and himself sponsored by Clancy I (Pacific Group – who also sponsored Mike Q (now deceased) – Midtown Group Washington DC – see here for more on this delightful collective!) got one of his sponsees pregnant. Or maybe he only got her a “little bit pregnant”. He was (still is?) married at the time.

Or perhaps the numerous independent eyewitness reports we received concerning the abusive conduct of Alexis K and Jon F towards the General Secretary of AA were all mistaken in their interpretation of what took place! (see above)

Or that Wayne P did not refer to AA members as “Beano” readers ie. when it came to their grasp of the recovery programme. But then we have the audio file to prove it! Tricky eh!

Or that the R2R cult group never carried the following adverts on its website for outside organisations (in its breach – yet again – of the traditions).

And here

Or perhaps the lengthy rationalisations presented under the article: “Misconceptions about RtR” (an ever lengthening list itself!) , and carried on the group's website, are all quite justified, and it's all our fault for so misunderstanding these worthy fellows! Who can say? And why is that no other group feels the need to provide such an extensive defence? Puzzling!

But by all means correct us if we have got our facts wrong! In the meantime enjoy the “success through scandal”. If that's the only way you can carry “your message” you're welcome!

PPS We never thought Paris Hilton would make it on to our website! Ain't life strange!

Newbury Design for Living (affiliated with Wimbledon DFL)

The word is that the Newbury Design for Living group, which closed back in September 2011, has been resurrected as the Wednesday NEWBURY MIDWEEK RECOVERY group – same people and with a sponsee of Dorothy (Wimbledon DFL “grand fromage”) as GSR.

For those who may not recall the Wimbledon group runs a website which includes links to “outside organisations” (including at least one that has commercial interests). Additionally a plentiful supply of non conference approved literature can be found at the Wimbledon meeting (despite us being told that this had been withdrawn – naughty naughty!). The Where to Find entry for the Newbury group indicates that they are: “Group Not in A Region / GROUP NOT IN AN INTERGROUP / “ although an application has been put in with Thames Valley Intergroup recently to remedy this. We shall see though what we shall see.....

Cheerio

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

AA Minority report 2012 (continued)(13)

“Section 6

Examination of the difference between minority groups minority opinions, a tyranny of very small minorities.

There appears to be some confusion between protecting minority groups, minority opinion and protecting against a tyranny of very small minorities.

Minority groups are described in “Dr. Bob and the Good Old Timers” in chapter XIX, page 239, “Minority groups within A.A. gain acceptance.” The protection of minorities such as these, provided by Warranty Six refers to the all inclusive A.A. membership for the individual alcoholic under Tradition Three. Minority opinion is described in Concept V (. It is clear in A.A. Tradition that that the protection of the minority groups and of minority opinion does not extend to minorities forming special purpose groups, nor does it bear any relation to minority groups with malign dictatorships, who are in violation of Tradition 4. AA members who gather together as groups with a dual purpose or affiliation are described in “Language of the Heart” pages 222-225. A.A. Tradition and warranties of Conference serve to protect the A.A. name against such minority groups.

Any society which is indifferent to the abuse of the vulnerable is destined to corruption and collapse sooner or later, A.A. will be no exception unless the safeguards already available are put in place to prevent it. For a cult groups to exist in A.A. such as the Joys of Recovery, is not acceptable. It shows an immoral failure of duty of care, a failure of Traditions, Concepts and warranties of conference; especially Traditions One, Two,Concepts IX,  XII (warranties 5 and 6).

Generally how exclusive have A.A. meetings become? Doctors and lawyers meetings, women’s meetings, gay meetings; and the host of meetings with very strange titles. Of course, anyone is welcome, except those baffled newcomers who don’t know, who at first point of contact with A.A., might feel excluded simply by the title’s insinuation on the meetings list. Here leadership could be exercised.”

Comment: Now a BDSM AA(?) meeting can be added to the list of “special purpose” groups.

All such groups simply serve to emphasise how “special and different” their members are from the remainder of the fellowship. Alcoholics don't drink the way they drink because they're: female/male, black/brown/white, gay/straight, young/old, newcomers/old timers, of this profession/of that profession etc. We drink the way we drink because we're “powerless over alcohol” - it's that simple! The whole basis of these groups contradicts the injunction frequently directed towards newcomers – look for the similarities not the differences! Moreover a frequent defence offered on the part of “special purpose” groups is that the rest of wouldn't identify with their concerns. If these groups are adhering to their sole and “primary purpose” then the rest of us alcoholics should have no problem understanding at all! If they are not then what on earth are they talking about? Logically (and absurdly) the only outcome that can follow from the extension of this principle is a fellowship composed of a multiplicity of groups composed of one member each, and having, no doubt, a most engaging conversation with him or herself! In other words – no fellowship at all!

Cheerio

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

How can A.A. best assure its continued existence?

"A - Since the beginning of recorded time, many societies and nations of civilizations have passed in review. In those great ones that have left their mark for good, in contrast with those who have left their mark for evil, there has always been a sense of history, a true and high constant purpose, and there has always been a sense of destiny.

In the societies which failed to leave a bright mark in the annals of the world, there was always a false or boastful sense of history, always a mistaken or inadequate purpose and always the presumption of an infinite, a glorious and an exclusive destiny.

In the societies that left their mark of goodness on time, the sense of history was not a matter for pride or for glory; it was the substance of the learning of the experience of the past. In the purpose of such a society there was always truth and constancy, but never a supposition that the society had apprehended all of the truth -- or the superior truth. And in the sense of destiny there was no conceit, no supposition that a society or nation or culture would last forever and go on to greater glories. But there was always a sense of duty to be fulfilled, whatever destiny the society might be assigned by providence for the betterment of the world.

This is the crossroads at which we in A.A. stand. This is a good time to re-examine how well we have looked upon our A.A. history and how much we have profited by it, what false insights or false glories we may have been extracting from history -- to our future detriment. It is a moment to examine the purpose of this Society. Indeed, we are very lucky to be able to state as the nucleus of that purpose a single word: sobriety.

Quite early we saw, however, that sobriety in abstinence from alcohol could never be attained unless there was sobriety and more quietude in the false motivation that underlay our drinking.

When the Twelve Steps were cast up -- without any real experience and therefore under some Guidance, surely -- we were given keys to sobriety in its wider implications. We have been blessed with a concrete definition of purpose but, for all its concreteness, we could still abuse it and misuse it in a very natural way.

Some times we begin to think that perhaps, according to Scriptural promise, the first shall be last and the last -- meaning us -- shall really be first. That would indeed be a very dangerous presumption and never should we indulge it. If we do, we shall compete in history with other societies who have been ill-advised enough to suppose that they had a monopoly on truth or were in some way superior to other attempts of men to think and to associate in love and in harmony.

We may look out upon our destiny with no violation of our principle that we are to live one day at a time. We mean that, emotionally, each in his personal life is never to repine upon the past glory too much, in the present, or presume upon the future. We shall attend to the day's business but we shall try to apprehend ever more truth from the lessons of our history, not the lessons of our successes but the lessons of our defections, failures and the awful emotions that can set us loose upon us. For these, indeed, are the raw materials that God has used to forge this still rather little instrument called Alcoholics Anonymous. So we may look at destiny and we may ask ourselves about it and speculate upon it a little -- if we do not presume to play God." (G.S.C., 1961)

Bill W

(see aa tradition)

(our emphases)

Comment: The lesson for today: Learn from our mistakes and don't play God!

Alcoholics Anonymous, through its traditions, has formulated guidelines that seek to ensure we do not repeat the same errors endlessly. AAs tend to learn from these - the cult groups do not! The latter seek to convey the appearance of abiding by these principles, or, when this pretence fails, argue that they are merely guidelines and may therefore be safely disregarded (and moreover misrepresent Tradition Four by falsely claiming absolute autonomy in order to justify their abusive conduct). They even assert that they have THE RIGHT to be wrong – they do – but they also have A DUTY to correct their conduct when these faults are pointed out to them – which they don't! We continue to receive reports of abusive conduct on the part of cult members and groups eg. inappropriate “suggestions” on prescribed medication and counselling, coercive sponsorship, religious dogma etc on a daily basis. There is an evident and widespread failure on the part of our fellowship to respond in any meaningful way to these concerns, and a general abdication of responsibility in ensuring our message is not corrupted, and that our newest members can attend meetings safely and without interference. There really is little point to having guidelines on dealing with bullying (for example) without a willingness on the part of individuals and groups to implement them. Reading them out at the beginning of a meeting (which would be a start) is not the end of the matter. There has to be real action taken to put an end to this vicious conduct. Similarly sexual predators can no longer be allowed to act with impunity in the fellowship. They cannot insist that their recovery should not be placed in jeopardy by exclusion from meetings when they are apparently quite unconcerned about the rights of their victims. Good intentions are quite insufficient – they have to be backed up with decisive action.

As Bill comments above we cannot afford complacency. If we are to fulfil our purpose then we must constantly review our conduct (singly and collectively) and thereby remain true to our principles. Failure to act will result only in the demise of our Society. The choice is ours! And the clock is ticking.......

Cheers

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

Conference Questions (2012) forum discussion (contd)

Committee No. 1

Question 1:

“Would the Fellowship share experience and make recommendations on how to make AA more visible to the general public, particularly by increasing awareness and understanding of how the AA programme works?"

Extract

“I agree [with] …....’s comments (page 2, Fri Mar 16) with one exception. I think there is evidence of “a current movement against spirituality in the UK” when this is applied to AA. It is spreading from the USA with the promotion of outside published literature; star spangled big shot speakers from the USA being invited to speak at UK conventions and via the internet. This is inducing religious emotionalism into AA and replacing non religious spirituality. It is producing emotional experiences instead of spiritual awakenings. Dry alcoholics with half cracked egos, emotionally dependent on amateurish teachers and preachers, who are emotionally defensive of the dogmas they have been taught. They appear to have not yet experienced the truly open mind, humility and tolerance that is associated with ego deflation at depth.

The following definition of spirituality in AA is given on page 21 in the pamphlet “Questions and Answers on Sponsorship”:

“First of all, we can relax and remember that sponsorship does not mean forcing any specific interpretation of A.A. upon newcomers. Most men and women who have been in A.A. for more than a few months recognize that its program is based on spiritual principles. At the same time, they appreciate that some alcoholics have been able to achieve and maintain sobriety without any belief in a personal Higher Power. Perhaps the sponsor might point out the distinction between the words "spiritual" and "religious." As our Preamble says, A.A. is not allied with any sect or denomination, and no sort of religious belief is required for membership - only "a desire to stop drinking." On the other hand, the help offered by our program is certainly neither material nor physical; we do not offer money or medicine - only ideas and the A.A. love of one alcoholic for another. In this sense, the entire program, rather than just a "side" of it, may be called "spiritual," and almost any newcomer can appreciate a concept so broadly defined.” http://www.aa.org/pdf/products/p-15_Q&AonSpon.pdf

I don’t think Great Britain ought to take a lead from the USA in its public relations. Some of the high profile publicity undertaken by individual AA members and individual groups in the USA is now destructive. With some USA courts ruling AA is a religion, it is evident that in some parts of the USA AA groups have totally lost the plot with AA Traditions. Unless this religious impression can be reversed, this is an unfolding public relations disaster for AA as a whole. Potentially at least 75% of the world’s alcoholics could be turned away from AA because they already have their own religious, atheist, agnostic beliefs and would not want to be involved in something they might believe to be contradictory to their beliefs.

This departure from AA Tradition is undoing the work of over half a century of a carefully managed AA public relations policy, reflected in the extracts from articles by Bill W. and Dr. Bob below. It is worth noting the term “standard literature” in the first extract and also Dr. Bob’s comment that the steps are “simple in language, plain in meaning.” and “no special interpretations” have ever been necessary. These appear to rule out any notion that it is OK for AA groups to affiliate with the teachings of non standard, outside published literature.

“Suppose then, all these years, we had been without those Services. Where would we be today minus the A.A. Book and our standard literature which now pours out of Headquarters at the rate of three tons a month? Suppose our public relations had been left to thoughtless chance? Suppose no one had been assigned to encourage good publicity and discourage the bad? Suppose no accurate information about AA had been available? Imagine our vital and delicate relations with medicine and religion left to pot luck.” (Dr. Bob and Bill W. Extract from “Your Third Legacy” AA Grapevine December 1950. the Language of the Heart p 127)

“As finally expressed and offered, they [The Twelve Steps] are simple in language, plain in meaning. They are also workable by any person having a sincere desire to obtain and keep sobriety. The results are proof. Their simplicity and workability are such that no special interpretations, and certainly no reservations, have ever been necessary.” (Dr. Bob. Dr. Bob and the Good Old Timers page 227)

“…How well we shall always remember that AA is never to be thought of as a religion. How firmly we shall insist that AA membership cannot depend upon any particular belief whatever; that our Twelve Steps contain no article of religious faith except faith in God--as each of us understands him. How carefully we shall thenceforth avoid any situation which could possibly lead us to debate matters of personal religious belief." (Bill W. Extract from “We Came of Age” The Language of the Heart p 122. AA Grapevine September 1950)

“Any concept of the Higher Power is acceptable. A sceptic or an agnostic may choose to think of his inner self, the miracle of growth, a tree, man’s wonderment at the physical universe, the structure of an atom, or mere mathematical infinity.” (The Jack Alexander article about AA page 19) http://www.aa.org/pdf/products/p-12_theJackAlexArticle.pdf

“Alcoholics Anonymous is not a religion, nor is it a medical treatment, nor does it profess expertise in respect of unconscious motivations for behavior. These are facts all too often overlooked.” (Bill W. Extract from “Responsibility Is Our Theme” The Language of the Heart p 332. AA Grapevine July 1965)

“It is an historical fact that practically all groupings of men and women tend to become more dogmatic; their beliefs and practices harden and sometimes freeze. This is a natural and almost inevitable process. All people must, of course, rally to the call of their convictions, and we of AA are no exception. Moreover, all people should have the right to voice their convictions. This is good principle and good dogma. But dogma also has its liabilities. Simply because we have convictions that work well for us, it becomes very easy to assume that we have all the truth. Whenever this brand of arrogance develops, we are certain to become aggressive; we demand agreement with us; we play God. This isn't good dogma; it's very bad dogma. It could be especially destructive for us of AA to indulge in this sort of thing. Newcomers are approaching AA at the rate of tens of thousands yearly. They represent almost every belief and attitude imaginable. We have atheists and agnostics. We have people of nearly every race, culture and religion. In AA we are supposed to be bound together in the kinship of a common suffering. Consequently, the full individual liberty to practice any creed or principle or therapy whatever should be a first consideration for us all. Let us not, therefore, pressure anyone with our individual or even our collective views. Let us instead accord each other the respect and love that is due to every human being as he tries to make his way toward the light. Let us always try to be inclusive rather than exclusive; let us remember that each alcoholic among us is a member of AA, so long as he or she so declares.” (Bill W. Extract from Responsibility Is Our Theme” The Language of the Heart p 333. AA Grapevine July 1965)

“It is possible for us to grow or not to grow, as we elect. If we fight shy of entangling alliances, if we avoid getting messed up with controversial issues (religious or political or wet-dry), if we maintain unity through our central offices, if we preserve the simplicity of our program, if we remember that our job is to get sober and to stay sober and to help our less fortunate brother to do the same thing, then we shall continue to grow and thrive and prosper.” (Dr. Bob. Dr. Bob and the Good old Timers p 288)

"On Cultivating Tolerance” (Dr. Bob. AA Grapevine July 1944)

“During nine years in A.A. I have observed that those who follow the Alcoholics Anonymous program with the greatest earnestness and zeal, not only maintain sobriety, but often acquire finer characteristics and attitudes as well. One of these is tolerance. Tolerance expresses itself in a variety of ways: in kindness and consideration toward the man or woman who is just beginning the march along the spiritual path; in the understanding of those who perhaps have been less fortunate in educational advantages, and in sympathy toward those whose religious ideas may seem to be at great variance with our own. I am reminded in this connection of the picture of a hub with its radiating spokes. We all start at the outer circumference and approach our destination by one of many routes.

To say that one spoke is much better than all the other spokes is true only in the sense of its being best suited to you as an individual. Human nature is such that without some degree of tolerance, each one of us might be inclined to believe that we have found the best or perhaps the shortest spoke. Without some tolerance we might tend to become a bit smug or superior--which of course is not helpful to the person we are trying to help, and may be quite painful or obnoxious to others. No one of us wishes to do anything which might act as a deterrent to the advancement of another--and a patronizing attitude can readily slow up this process.

Tolerance furnishes, as a by-product, a greater freedom from the tendency to cling to preconceived ideas and stubbornly adhered-to opinions. In other words it often promotes an open-mindedness which is vastly important--in fact a prerequisite to the successful termination of any line of search, whether it be scientific or spiritual.

These, then, are a few of the reasons why an attempt to acquire tolerance should be made by each one of us.” (Dr. Bob)

“Suppose, for instance, that, during the last twenty-five years, AA had never published any standard literature--no books, no pamphlets. We need little imagination to see that by now our message would be hopelessly garbled. Our relations with medicine and religion would have become a shambles. To alcoholics generally we would today be a joke and the public would have thought us a riddle. Without its literature, AA would certainly have bogged down in a welter of controversy and disunity.” (Bill W “A Message From Bill. The Language of the Heart page 348. AA Grapevine May 1964)

“It was discovered that all forms of coercion, both direct and indirect, had to be dropped.” (Bill W. Pass it On p 172)

“We can never say to anyone (or insinuate) that he must agree to our formula or be excommunicated. The atheist may stand up in an A.A. meeting denying God, yet reporting how he has been helped in other ways.” (Bill W. Pass It On p172)

“In order to carry the principle of inclusiveness and tolerance still further, we make no religious requirement of anyone. All people having an alcohol problem who wish to get rid of it and make a happy adjustment with the circumstances of their lives, become A.A. members by simply associating with us. Nothing but sincerity is asked of anyone. In this atmosphere, the orthodox, the unorthodox, and the unbeliever mix happily and usefully together, and in nearly every case great spiritual growth ensues.” (Bill W. Pass it On p 173)

“For example, The Twelve Steps of our AA program are not crammed down anybody’s throat. They are not sustained by any human authority.” (Bill W. “Rules’ Dangerous but Unity vital” The Language of the Heart p8. AA Grapevine September 1948)

From Dr. Bob’s article on cultivating tolerance and his comments on “special interpretations” being unnecessary, I agree with ........ that Dr. Bob might well be vilified and ostracized in some meetings today; those that practice a certain precise dogmatic primary purpose Big Book Study/ Big Book sponsorship or Back to Basics classes. These are the teachings of “special interpretations” in non standard, outside published literature. Such rigid dogmas are not inclusive to unorthodox newcomers who may wish to interpret the programme in their own time and manner, nor are they inclusive to all alcoholics irrespective of their religious, atheist, agnostic beliefs; educational, cultural or social backgrounds.”

(our edits) 

Comment:

According to the AA forum administrator:

“This forum is now locked

As always at the beginning of Conference this forum is now locked. The discussion between our trusted servants is in progress and the results of their deliberations will be presented to the fellowship in good time.

Many thanks to all those who have contributed to the debate.”

Note: The questions and subsequent discussion can still be viewed by going to: http://www.aa-conference.org.uk/conforum/

You may, however, continue the debate at: http://forums.delphiforums.com/aacultwatch

For the next batch of conference questions we will be including a section on the aacultwatch forum specifically devoted to these but with considerably fewer constraints on members' contributions, and with considerably more licence to cite sources directly in support of their arguments (currently not possible on the AA website). Moreover members will be able to to exchange private messages via our forum (a facility which is currently denied on the AA website). Anyone may join in the discussion.

Cheers

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

Batman and Robin (aka Harry K and Harry A – East Kent)

Well ..... what can we say? The complaints about this particular dynamic duo continue to flood in! For those of you who aren't in the know these two self-appointed experts on the Big Book (and on little else apparently!) have been attempting to carry the message to the ignorant heathen of East Kent (otherwise known as AA members) for some time now (whether the latter want it or not). Harry A (aka Harry the Handbag) haunts the the Aylesham Wednesday meeting in Kent whereas Harry K (easily identifiable by the leather bound and name inscribed copy of the Big Book he carries around with him constantly - much like a baby pacifier) likes to spread himself around a bit more. This tag team can also be observed performing their double act at Dover Monday, Herne Bay Wednesday (both groups affiliated with an outside organisation ie. Primary Purpose – see Tradition 3) and Westgate Sunday. This odd duet is strangely effective, the reasons for which have eluded us for some time now. It certainly isn't because of the “message” they purport to carry. Anyone with even a superficial knowledge of the tome in question can easily discern that neither have a clue about its contents. Indeed the book itself hardly enters the equation. It rather serves as a platform upon which they can quite perversely promote their own inadequacies. We might have used the term “personalities” here but in both cases this again is peculiarly lacking. With Harry the Handbag the main impact he produces in the psyche of any hapless listener who wanders into his path is a kind of stunned nausea. He can drone on at length in a peculiarly hypnotic fashion rendering the victim incapable of either fight or flight, doomed to endure the experience to its bitter end, and quite helplessly paralysed by Harry's remorseless lecturing. On the other hand the Caped Crusader (Harry K) has an entirely different effect. Here his quite breathtaking arrogance is of such a degree that the observer is again paralysed but this time for another reason entirely. Indeed the listener is held in the grip of a kind of horrified fascination verging on disbelief, mesmerised by the prospect that anyone could possibly mistake their own profound stupidity for some form of knowledge. So assured is Harry K of his own masterful insight that the audience is quite captivated by the sight of such self-delusion in operation! Together the pair are quite insuperable and would no doubt by now have converted the entire world to their way of thinking (let alone AA!) if left unchecked! However nature as always comes to our rescue, and the effects of any contact with these two rapidly wear off once the victim is removed from their direct vicinity. Thereafter their stultifying influence is mitigated, sanity rapidly restored, memories of the ordeal fade, and full recovery is again assured. However, and as increasing numbers of AA members develop an immunity to their particular brand of fanaticism, the pair are becoming more and more desperate, their message correspondingly strident and extreme. Indeed no less a personage than Dr Bob (co-founder of AA) has recently been pronounced as “off the programme” by Harry K. Apparently the poor old doc was insufficiently attentive to the Big Book and therefore his recovery deficient (according to our 'expert'). Now we don't suppose Bob is going to be too worried about this (what with him having been dead for some time now) but he did manage to scratch together a few years sober before his passing, and he did help a few alcoholics along the way. Moreover he didn't feel compelled to shove his 'lack' of personality down anybody's throat, and there's still a few of us around who are rather glad he got together with Bill back in the day. So if we had to choose between Dr Bob's example and either/or both of the Harrys then it really is no contest. Bob's any time!

Cheerio

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

PS There's been some debate in East Kent about what to do with this obnoxious pair. The answer is simple – and really rather obvious! Treat them like the 'drunks' they are! Standard procedure is:

1. Ask them to behave themselves - that they cease to disrupt the meeting (see anti-bullying guidelines)
2. If they fail to do so invite them to leave – although making it clear they will be welcomed back any time they are able to conduct themselves appropriately
3. If again they fail to grasp the basics of civilised conduct call the police in and have them removed

End of problem

Cult-proofing

A few tips on how to ensure your group does not become contaminated (take note East Kent!): Cult proofing

Cheers

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

Plymouth Road to Recovery (international cult) group

Well there seems to have been an upsurge in audio file output from the 'recovery factory' in Plymouth. As if to demonstrate its internationalist credentials the site boasts contributions from as far afield as Los Angeles (the Venerable C) and Las Vegas (the more prosaic Bob D) but now they have added the Sydney franchise of the Road to Recovery to their list of credits. Their 'rep', Matt S, put in a reasonably creditable performance (according that is to cult standards) recounting in 'cult speak' their 'templated' version of the AA message. What is quite remarkable (or unremarkable depending on your point of view) is how absolutely nothing is lost in the translation. Even from as far away as the antipodes the programme 'a la cult' is still presented in the same bland, pre-digested fashion as its home-grown version. We're not going to bore you with all the details suffice to say it went something like this: “blah blah blah sponsor … blah blah .. steps....blah blah ..home group....blah blah sponsor... “ and so on. Well done Matt but don't give up the day job - yet! You're not quite up to “circuit speaker” standards but you've done your first international 'spot' so don't give up all hope! But now we come to Pat O-S (three guesses what the “S” stands for!). Now Pat (who hails from the less exotic clime of Dundee – BEGINNERS BIG BOOK TUESDAY Meeting, Chamber of Commerce Buildings, Panmure St) turned in a much more polished performance. Pat though we think suffers somewhat from a Scarlet Pimpernel complex as in:

They seek him here, they seek him there
Those Frenchies seek him everywhere
Is he in heaven or is he in hell?
That demned elusive Pimpernel

Quite mysteriously he can flit into town and out again, doing a quick Step Nine here, carrying the MESSAGE there, and all so unobtrusively! Indeed they don't call him the Tartan Pimpernel for nothing! We must admit our reviewer couldn't stand to listen to the whole recording and gave up after Pat wittily referred to driving in kilometres per hour as opposed to miles per hour, this being an indication of how sober he now is! This speaker however has some potential and should certainly consider a professional career in AA. He definitely has the capacity to get bums on seats to which the loud applause that greeted his introduction will testify! (Interestingly - or not - and purely as an aside - one of the aacultwatch team did have to sit through a Joys of Recovery group conscience once – but only once! At this particular session there was a lengthy debate as to whether speakers should be applauded or not. Here David B (Joys founder) posed the fascinating theological question ie. Were the audience responding to the speaker him/herself or to their Higher Power as he/she/it expressed him/her/itself through them! At this point someone (guess who?) mentioned rule 62 but all they got were a lot of dirty looks for their trouble. The cult do take themselves so dreadfully, dreadfully seriously!).

Anyway we come now to the blockbuster – the 18^th Anniversary address given by the three “big cheeses” themselves viz. Wayne P, Jon F and Alexis K – the “trusted servants” of the Road to Recovery (cult) group. For reasons (mostly self evident) Wayne's pearls of wisdom were not presented for the benefit of posterity (and for mere mortals like the rest of us “Beano” readers in AA) on this occasion. It might have been that his trousers had fallen down at an awkward moment and he was unable to reach the mike stand in time for the show! We shall probably never know (braces work quite well though or so we've heard Wayne!) but it was left to Jon and Alexis to plug the gap! Again we're not going to give a blow by blow account because that really would be too cruel, and even we are not that hard hearted or inconsiderate towards our readers. Again it can be condensed down into: “blah blah blah sponsor ….. blah blah blah home group.... blah blah ….. God (!!)” Goodness! What was that? God! God got a mention at the Road to Recovery! Is this possible? Yes indeed. It would seem that God (of your understanding) is making something of a comeback in Plymouth. After an extended absence the Deity is indeed the buzz word around town again. The Supreme Being even managed as many mentions as “sponsor” (and its variants) throughout our heroes' separate renditions of their programme. Indeed they sounded almost reasonable in their addresses (although Alexis K did seem to lose the plot towards the end of his rather rambling speech). Unfortunately cult speak was still very much to the fore with the word “passion” used a number of times in the latter's presentation. Now in cult circles the term “passion” is a euphemism for “thuggery” and the last time Jon and Alexis came over all 'impassioned' was at the AA conference. For the full gory details see here. Now of course we might be accused of digging up the past rather in making reference to this but then some things never change in the Road to Recovery. For example every attempt is being made at the moment to 'airbrush' Wayne P back to life (after that unfortunate incident where his trousers fell down – AGAIN). It would seem however that Wayne is not the only one who has serious problems with his trouser's 'vertical integrity'. Indeed the rumour is going round that yet another of the “trusted servants” is suffering from 'kegs imbalance'. Still – no matter – it's just another defect of character and we're quite sure that the miscreant is praying like mad for the “shortcoming” to be removed (or should we say for the “shorts” to be removed!). But then it's hardly a criminal offence and you can't get NICKED for it can you? After all – the SHOW MUST GO ON!

Cheerio

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

AA Minority report 2012 (continued)(12)

"Section 5

No police force in A.A.? An analysis of passive behaviour

A common argument advanced to avoid responsibility for taking action with regard to a group’s Tradition four violation is that there is no “police force” in A.A. We do not judge, there are no prosecutors or courts. There is no human power of authority. This argument is also used as a defence and an excuse to justify Traditions' violations and anti social behaviour.

Whilst there is no police force as such, this avoidance of responsibility is largely due to a misconception concerning the freedom granted to the individual A.A. member in Traditions One and Three. This same freedom is not granted to the group under the exception to group autonomy in Tradition Four.

“In AA, the group has strict limitations, but the individual scarcely any.”

(Bill W. AA Grapevine February 1958 - Language of the Heart pages 222-225).

The misconception also appears to arise from the following sentence in Concept Twelve, warranty five. This is often taken out of context and misinterpreted as “There is no police force in A.A.”

“Always remembering Group autonomy and the fact that A.A.’s World Headquarters is not a police operation, the most that can be done in most cases is to make an offer of mediation.” (Concept 12 warranty five)

It can be understood that in this context this guidance is directed at Headquarters; and in the concept it is made with reference to severe internal disputes between groups which pose some risk of attracting unwelcome public attention; and that it is not a function, responsibility or authority of Headquarters to police such matters. This concept bears no relationship to the concept of delegated responsibility and authority of trusted servants in Tradition Two, and their “right of decision” to carry out their elected duties according to A.A. Traditions. As demonstrated by Bill W. with the “alarming poser” and the “trusted servants” who faced Chuck D. in 1958. They judged a situation, decided to make an uncompromising stand on Tradition, and then took appropriate action; using their “Right of Decision” as stated in Concept III and their final authority in concept X.

“This means that we ought to trust our responsible leaders to decide, within the understood framework of their duties, how they will interpret and apply their own authority and responsibility to each particular problem or situation as it arises. This sort of leadership discretion should be the essence of the “Right of Decision” (Concept III)

“The principle of ultimate authority runs clear through our structure. This is necessary, because all our service affairs and activities have to lead up somewhere for final responsibility. Ultimate authority is also needed so that each worker or service classification of servants knows where and who the final boss is.” (concept X)

“This ‘right of decision’ should never be made as an excuse for failure to render proper reports of all significant actions taken; it ought never be used as a reason for constantly exceeding clearly defined authority, nor as an excuse for persistently failing to consult those who are entitled to be consulted before an important decision or action is taken.” (Concept III)

It can be understood in Tradition Two, that the spiritual power of “but one ultimate authority” is delegated to the human powers of responsibility and authority, exemplified in the latter half of the sentence “our leaders are but trusted servants;” and amplified in the Twelve Concepts for World Service. Though there are no police, there should nevertheless, be an actual force to Tradition Two if it is operating healthily, and when trusted servants and statesmen are fulfilling their responsibility and their duty as active guardians of our Traditions and of our fellowship.

This force for unification, and forces, “the ties that bind us together” are described by Bill W. on page 3 of “A.A. Tradition How it Developed.” Also described is the force for disintegration, “which would rent him apart” and forces which “would divide us if they could”. When applied, the genuine force for unification is powerful enough to rupture “deacons,” as illustrated in Tradition Two.

“A few haemorrhage so badly that – drained of all A.A. spirit and principle - they get drunk. At times the A.A. landscape seems to be littered with bleeding forms.” (Tradition Two, Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions page 137-139).

“So long as the ties that bind us together prove far stronger than those forces which would divide us if they could, then all will be well………But A.A. unity cannot automatically preserve itself, like personal recovery, we shall always have to work to maintain it” Bill W.

http://www.aa.org/pdf/products/p-17_AATraditions.pdf

In order to maintain A.A. unity, the power of “but one ultimate authority” in Tradition Two is trusted to be applied with a will and by our statesmen and trusted servants:

“And at times the Conference will need to take certain protective actions especially in the area of Tradition violations. This action, however, need not be aggressively controversial at the public level. Let us now consider some typical situations that may often require Conference consideration and sometimes definite action……..Individuals, sometimes outside organisations may try to use the A.A. name for their own private purposes. As A.A. grows in size and public recognition, the temptation to misuse our name may increase. This is why we have assigned to our Conference a protective task in respect to such conditions. The Conference is as we know the ‘guardian’ of the A.A. Traditions. There has always been some confusion about this term ‘guardianship’ perhaps we should try to clear it up. ………….Privately, however, we can inform Traditions violators that they are out of order. When they persist, we can follow up by using such other resources of persuasion as we may have, and these are often considerable……..we shall have to rely mainly on the pressures of A.A. opinion and public opinion…… And to this end we shall need to maintain a continuous education of our public communication channels of all kinds concerning the nature and purpose of our Traditions……….. Whenever and however we can, we shall need to inform the general public also; especially upon misuses of the name Alcoholics Anonymous. This combination of counter forces can be very discouraging to violators or would be violators. Under these conditions they soon find their deviations to be unprofitable or unwise………………. Feeling the weight of all these forces, certain members who run counter to A.A.’s Traditions sometimes say that they are being censored or punished and that they are therefore being governed……” (Concept 12, warranty five).

No police force here, but clearly there exists a genuine ‘force’, and a ‘power’ against Tradition violators, in order for them to “feel the weight of all these forces;” but this is only when there is a willingness on the part of those who are trusted and delegated to apply these forces. Conference delegates are there to lead, but final responsibility and authority lies with the statesmen and trusted servants leading the group conscience. This demonstrated by the Toronto intergroup and the trusted servants who faced Chuck D. in 1958.

When ultimate responsibility and final authority are acting in unison, and when they are uncompromising in stating adherence to the principles of A.A. traditions; and when this is implicit from the top to the bottom of the service structure; then this when the actively powerful and unifying force of “but one ultimate authority” in Tradition Two becomes fully operational.

“The main principles of Tradition Two are crystal clear; the A.A. groups are to be the final authority; their leaders are to be trusted with delegated responsibilities only” (Concept I)

“…All of this is fully implied in A.A.’s Tradition Two. Here we see the ‘group conscience’ as the ultimate authority and the ‘trusted servant’ as the delegated authority. One cannot function without the other” (Concept X)

“Hence the principle of amply delegated authority and responsibility to ‘trusted servants’ must be implicit from the top to the bottom of our active structure of service. This is the clear implication of A.A.’s Tradition Two” (Concept II)

“Trusted servants at all A.A. levels are expected to exercise leadership, and leadership is not simply a matter of submissive housekeeping” (Concept VII)

“The principle of ultimate authority runs clear through our structure. This is necessary, because all our service affairs and activities have to lead up somewhere for final responsibility. Ultimate authority is also needed so that each worker or service classification of servants knows where and who the final boss is.” (concept X)

“This ‘right of decision’ should never be made as an excuse for failure to render proper reports of all significant actions taken; it ought never be used as a reason for constantly exceeding clearly defined authority, nor as an excuse for persistently failing to consult those who are entitled to be consulted before an important decision or action is taken.” (Concept III)

This is why Headquarters is not a police operation and why there is no police force as such, because all A.A. members are responsible, and at all levels. It can be seen however, that if delegated responsibility and authority is not implicit from top bottom of our service structure and if the majority of statesmen at group level are part of a “tyranny’ of apathetic, self seeking, uninformed…. majority.” (Concept V), then the “but one ultimate authority” of Tradition Two will not be fully operational, and those forces which would divide us if they could, become stronger.

For example, if a situation were to occur such as the one encountered by the trusted servants with Chuck D in 1958 at intergroup level today; and where trusted servants were neither supported by implicit responsibly and authority, of the statesmen and trusted servants within A.A. groups, and the service structure; through intergroup, Conference, board, and regional recommendations; then their delegated authority would be diminished. There would be little stand against a “tyranny of very small minorities invested with absolute power” (Concept V); and little protection from “tyrannies great and small.” (Concept 12 warranty 6).

"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle." (Thoughts on the Cause of the Present Discontents. Edmund Burke)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Burke

In those intergroups experiencing strained relationships with some of their groups, there might well be some people in service who can identify with Edmund Burke’s statement. The one ultimate authority in Tradition Two can only hold A.A. unity so long as the good men are willing to associate in their combined responsibility and delegated authority. This is implied in concept V:

“Throughout his political speculation De Toqueville insisted that the greatest danger to democracy would always be the ‘tyranny’ of apathetic, self seeking, uninformed… … … majorities” (Concept V)

In other words:

“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”

It can also be understood that there would be little stand against a “tyranny of very small minorities invested with absolute power” (Concept V) if trusted servants serving at levels from intergroup, region to Conference delegates were not supported by responsible statesmen leading the group conscience at group level.

“The A.A. groups today hold the ultimate responsibility and final authority for our world services……..The groups assumed this responsibility at the St. Louis Convention in 1955.” (Concept I)

“I am responsible. When anyone, anywhere, reaches out for help, I want the hand of A.A. always to be there. And for that: I am responsible.”"

Comment:

“But A.A. unity cannot automatically preserve itself, like personal recovery, we shall always have to work to maintain it” (see above) (our emphasis); or to put it another way: “Faith without works is dead”

James 2:14-26 (New King James Version) (for the Christians among us)

Cheerio

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

Conference Questions (2012) forum discussion (contd)

Committee No. 1

Question 1:

“Would the Fellowship share experience and make recommendations on how to make AA more visible to the general public, particularly by increasing awareness and understanding of how the AA programme works?"

Extract

“US experience is not necessarily transferable to Great Britain, and specifically (and perhaps centrally) with regard to the greatly varying cultural attitudes towards 'religion' and religious practice between the two countries. Moreover membership in the US is static, and has been for some considerable time, standing currently at approximately 2,000,000. The situation (on a smaller scale) is the same in the UK. This would suggest that AA membership has reached an equilibrium point (in terms of growth) in both countries.

According to the GB Census flier (obtainable on the GB site at:

http://www.alcoholics-anonymous.org.uk/members/index.cfm?PageID=98&DocumentTypeID=8256 
(Census flier) 

the following observation is made:

"In business terms, the growth curve is characteristic of a product or process which has lost its novelty and is in need of some form of revitalisation. Perhaps this could be achieved by the Fellowship thinking more in terms of substance than of form - i.e. by looking perhaps more outwards at influences, rather than inwards at procedures. In this way, we may be able to improve how we carry out our Primary Purpose."

Apart from the rather unfortunate choice of words ie. confusing AA with a "business" and presumably the programme as some kind of associated "product" (not to mention the rather opaque mixture of terminologies) this would suggest that PR and advertising campaigns are not going to be effective in shifting the equilibrium point upwards; this is indeed a question of substance rather than form, which brings us back to the "substance" of the above discussion. AA does not require some form of 'rebranding' nor an appeal to “novelty” but rather that we direct our efforts towards ensuring the message we convey is both consistent and clear, and represents moreover a manifest consensus. To this end a body of literature has evolved (conference approved) which serves as the foundation (or the “substance”) for this approach. Individual members of course remain free to make whatever interpretation they may choose but groups (intergroups etc) have a responsibility to ensure that this consensus is sustained (according to the traditions). However it is clear that some groups (and even intergroups) have elected to pursue other (divergent) aims choosing to present a radically different programme whilst representing this as being the legitimate AA message, and moreover disseminating these variants more widely afield than their own group (predominantly via the internet). Whilst this situation prevails it is clear that little progress can be made towards reducing the increasing public scepticism about AA (see internet for various forums, magazine/newspaper articles etc relating to this). So long as groups continue to interpret Tradition Four as a licence to ignore these unifying principles then we will simply be wasting our time (and money) in employing dubious (and unproven) promotional strategies (quite apart from the latter's legitimacy – again according to our own traditions) to remedy the situation. (Incidentally at a time of growing austerity it would seem entirely inappropriate to expect AA members to expend even more money directed towards entirely questionable ends).

With regard to the statement “the current movement against spirituality in the UK” I am not aware of any evidence to support this. However if the contributor is referring to increasing “secularisation” (or decline in religious belief) this is quite a different matter. But neither of these necessarily imply a similar variation in the popularity (or not) of spiritual perspectives. The terms may overlap but they are not to be taken as synonymous. A study (meta analysis) has been conducted to examine the question of “religious” change internationally (and which may be found by putting the terms “Religious Change around the World” in any good search engine) which suggests the following in its conclusion:

“But this does not amount to a simple confirmation of secularization theory. The secularization hypothesis predicts a general and sweeping decline in religion. While the preponderance of evidence does show a secular shift across time, age cohorts, and levels of development, the pattern is very mixed and nuanced. Trends are not universal and vary greatly in magnitude and on how widespread they are. They differ both across and within religious traditions and geo-cultural regions. Also, there is considerable variation across different religious indicators. This diversity of religious changes clearly indicates that one fixed outcome is not inevitable.

Also, there are clearly elements of transformation rather than simply decline. In many countries some elements of “believing with belonging,” religious individualization, or “spirituality with religion” is prevalent. But on average it is hard to characterize the religious change as only transformative. The most common attributes of the religious change do entail declines in most meaningful measures of religious beliefs and/or behaviors. Thus, there are a variety of trends and a clear element of transformation, but on average a secular tilt to religious change.”

 ("Religious Change around the World", Tom W. Smith, NORC/University of Chicago Oct 23, 2009. Report prepared for the Templeton Foundation, p. 15)

This would suggest that it is becoming increasingly important to distinguish clearly (within the context of AA) the substantial difference between “religious” and “spiritual” perspectives, the latter being more inclusive, individualistic and frequently dissociated from set practices and dogma whilst the former tends to demonstrate the precise reverse. Again where groups adopt those practices which exemplify a “religious” bias eg. the use of the Lord's Prayer in meetings, kneeling etc, then we should hardly be surprised when our critics point out to us these divergences from our stated (inclusive) principles.

Again when it comes to the notion that AA is “free” this is not strictly true. There is no such thing as a “free lunch”. We are “self supporting through our own contributions”.

Possible strategies to address the above (and implemented mainly via the AA (GB) website):

A better designed site (given the increasing role of the internet in attracting potential members). The current one is badly laid out and even amateurish (and not in a good way!) in its formatting.

Free online access to ALL AA conference approved literature. Currently most of this is not available on the GB site (although the AAWS site does carry a lot of pamphlets (in pdf format). But none of the books (apart from Alcoholics Anonymous - the “Big Book” - and the 12 and 12) are accessible (free) via this medium. Such a facility would ensure that all members potentially have access to all conference approved literature and therefore may acquaint themselves more easily with the history and principles upon which the fellowship and programme are founded. Education is key to ensuring AA's continued integrity. (Moreover such provision would bring AA back into line with Tradition 7. We should not be subsidising our finances through literature sales).

The removal of all links (or directions) to individual group websites from the main AA website. There is no good reason for any group to “promote” itself (and “its message”) in this fashion over other groups, and more so where the formers' presentation of the programme is of doubtful provenance. eg. 'sponsor/”human power” centred' rather than 'God centred', anti-prescribed medication, anti-counselling etc. Website links for intergroups, regions etc may be retained but only for the purpose of communicating matters relating directly to their activities. eg. local Where to Finds, notices of IG meetings, IG sponsored conventions, officer vacancies. Otherwise information should reflect only what is published on the main website.

The publication of ALL the proceedings (and in full) of ALL the various entities within the service structure. eg. minutes, agenda etc for Intergroups, regions etc, and accessible to ALL members of the fellowship (and indeed the general public) via the GB website. This will ensure increased transparency of our activities (and deliberations). Anonymity may be preserved by the simple expedient of referring to members by their office rather than by name. However their home group association(s) should also be identified to point up any instances of 'over-representation' and thus ensure that a balanced distribution is always preserved throughout the service structure (a confidential list - available only to local members – should also be maintained where offices are attributed to named individuals). Such publication would serve to ensure that Tradition Four is fully effective, and that no part of the service structure (including at group level) may remain beyond the scrutiny of the entire fellowship, and where necessary, can be challenged should they exceed their authority or deviate substantially (and dangerously) from the guiding principles of AA

The establishment of a formal complaints procedure to ensure that grievances are properly heard and dealt with. A major part of the content of sites hostile to AA relate to such questions and - more specifically - our failure to respond. In this fashion abusive conduct (however it may manifest itself ie. sexual predation, exploitation, more subtle coercive conduct and so on) may be exposed and addressed. This does not imply that exclusion from AA generally will follow but that miscreants can no longer expect their conduct to be ignored or left uncorrected. In more serious cases ie. relating to criminal or tortious acts, the usual remedies remain available.

The above measures utilise existing resources, are easy (and practical) to implement, and would incur only a marginal cost (but saving money in the longer term). Moreover they would go a long way in ensuring that AA (at every level of the service structure) presents a cohesive, unified (and inclusive) message, and remove thereby the ambiguities currently communicated by too many disparate sources. Our fellowship should exemplify our own principles, that is to say we should seek to be responsible, accountable and honest, and “in all our affairs”. I believe this is what constitutes “attraction” rather than “promotion”.”

Join the debate at: http://www.aa-conference.org.uk/conforum/index.php

Cheerio

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)