Democracy? Almost - but not quite!

Well we recently trundled on down to the Plymouth Road to Recovery (cult group) site for one our periodic albeit infrequent inspections (after all 'misery is optional' isn't it!). These little trips are generally made in the hope that we might discover an outbreak of sanity had occurred amongst the 'pointed headed ones' - Ever the optimists! Apart from the usual banalities we discovered this 'gem' (?) which illustrates perfectly both the confused thinking that exists within the cult and their almost infinite capacity to mangle any idea to suit their own twisted agenda.

This particular example relates to the cult's version of Tradition 2. Firstly AA's version (short form – which incidentally in this instance is longer than the long form!): 

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

The cult's version, however, seems to be: 

“Two – For our group purpose there is but one ultimate authority – a loving God as He may express Himself in our group conscience. Our leaders are but trusted servants; they do not govern – except when they feel like it!” 

So according to the group's commentator (who goes to great (but unconvincing) lengths to demonstrate his own independence of thought and action): 

“As a group we may vote on these ideas and on occasions the decision may not go the way of the old-timer or elder statesmen of the group. This doesn't make the group conscience wrong; it is our loving God expressing himself in our group conscience.” 

So far so good. But he continues: 

“However, we do sometimes get the leaders standing fast on matters of importance and using whatever means possible (Concept 9). That sometimes means having sponsees vote the same way, or whatever means possible on things that will affect the group and/or carry a message. We sometimes don't agree but our leaders do tend to have good foresight.” 

(our emphases) 

Some questions arise here? 

Who decides what constitutes a matter of importance? (Go on! Take a guess!). Moreover if God's will is apparently (and correctly) made known in the first instance (where the decision “may not go the way of the old-timer or elder statesmen of the group”) how is it that this appears not to be the case in the second instance ie. “on matters of importance”? 

From this it would seem that for all trivial questions God can be relied upon to deliver 'the goods' via the group conscience. However on more substantial matters His judgement may be regarded as sometimes faulty and called into question by the “elder statesmen” (how pretentious can you get!). Moreover in the latter case it would appear that “whatever means possible” might need to be employed to correct the Omniscient Being's deficiency” 

“whatever means possible” is repeated twice in the above extract sounding to us quite chilling in its possible implications! This seems to equate to that most dubious of rationalisations employed frequently by the 'ethically challenged' ie. that the means justify the ends. Is there no constraint upon these expedient measures other than their 'possibility'? Certainly none is indicated. In this connection Concept IX is cited as the basis for this questionable approach. Naturally in our endless quest for the truth we decide to check out the aforementioned Concept in an attempt to locate this phrase. 

We were pretty thorough in our investigations (as you would of course expect) not only reading the relevant section (The AA Service Manual Combined with the Twelve Concepts of World Service, 2012-13 edn, pp. 34-40), but also using the “Find” function to look for the phrase and even its component words. Nowhere did we find the expression “whatever means possible” within this part of the document nor indeed in any other section. The word “means” occurs four times, “possible” the same, and“whatever” not at all. There is nothing to suggest therefore that “whatever means possible” (or anything similar) are at all sanctioned here. This expression is strictly a figment of this particular “elder statesman's” imagination - or perhaps we should say merely the 'wet dream' of a control freak fantasist! In fact a thorough reading of the Concept (and in particular its inclusion of the essay by Bill Wilson entitled “Leadership in AA: Ever a Vital Need”) suggests the precise opposite. 

Moreover it is interesting to note in this connection the following extract which serves to demonstrate the disparity between the principles presented in the Concept and the practices adopted by the cult 'leadership' generally: 

“Somewhere in our literature there is a statement to this effect: “Our leaders do not drive by mandate, they lead by example.” In effect we are saying to them: “Act for us, but don't boss us.” 

This is something of a contrast to the approach outlined by our cult “elder statesman” which includes “having sponsees vote the same way” '[having' is a cult euphemism for 'directing'] or indeed their whole ethos summed up in their dictat “do exactly what he [your sponsor] tells you”.

(screen shot from cult website run by David C) 

As for leadership “by example” it would probably be better to look elsewhere than seek such exemplars amongst the cult leadership. One need look no further than the antics of the so-called 'leaders' in the Plymouth Road to Recovery cult group (Wayne P, Alexis K, Jon F) to discover that there is nothing here of any value to emulate. 

Finally, the moral of our tale: If you wish to gain a good understanding of the Traditions, Concepts, Steps, guidelines etc you might try reading them for yourself rather than relying on such poor commentaries as those presented by the various 'experts' hailing from the Plymouth Road to Recovery cult group (or indeed any such anywhere!). And if you need some kind of template for recovery again we suggest you will probably be more likely to find this at almost any AA meeting than amongst the cult membership, a group who as a rule favour image before substance and for whom dogma and hypocrisy have become central guiding principles. 

Cheerio 

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

The Ninth Concept (Bill W's Twelve Concepts for World Service), Grapevine, July, 1972, Bill W

See also Links and downloads

A Minority report (continued)(2)

“The incidents with Chuck D. and “Our promoter friend” show that in the past, cult groups in AA have been stopped before they could even begin by active intervention of “trusted servants” and “elder statesmen” upholding A.A. Traditions. They recognised the link between figureheads and “degeneration into a cult.” (Jack Alexander article about AA, page 23) In other words, the rise of a “tyranny of very small minorities invested with absolute power.” (Concept V). These “trusted servants and” “elder statesmen” in the 1940s and 1958 were therefore evidently “prudently ever on guard against tyrannies great and small.”(Concept 12, warranty six). They also clearly understood the Traditions to be principles upon which the survival of the fellowship depends, rather than “just suggestions.” They evidently understood it to be their responsibility and duty to be active guardians of Traditions by informing “Traditions violators that they are out of order” (Concept 12, warranty five). They evidently understood their duty of care to protect a vulnerable minority from coercion and abuse, “That care will be observed to respect and protect all minorities,” (Concept 12, warranty 6). They evidently understood their responsibility and authority as “trusted servants” that they were trusted to actively guard the principles of AA Traditions and assert their leadership in Tradition Two, to perform the “duty of leadership, even when in a small minority, to take a stand against a storm,” (Concept IX), - The upholding of Tradition Two, of which Bill W. was later to go to great lengths to explain in the Twelve Concepts for World Service in 1962:

“…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) “Leadership is often called upon to face heavy and sometimes long-continued criticism” (Concept IX) “All around us in the world today we are witnessing the tyranny of majorities and the even worse tyranny of very small minorities invested with absolute power” (Concept V) “that care will be observed to respect and protect all minorities… …That our Conference shall ever be prudently on guard against tyrannies, great and small, whether these be found in the majority or in the minority” (Concept XII: Warranty 6). “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. It would appear however, that A.A.’s right to object calmly and privately to specific violations is at least equal to the rights of the violators to violate. This cannot accurately be called a governmental action” (Concept XII, warranty 5).

In contrast to the leadership described above, recent history reveals the apparent lack of it, perhaps a 20-30 year trend toward liberty above that of our common welfare, leading to a “tyranny of apathetic, self-seeking, uninformed, …..majorities” (concept V), this in turn, has led to the presence of figureheads, and the motivation for an “even worse tyranny of very small minorities invested with absolute power” (concept V), and in some groups, a “degeneration into a cult” (Jack Alexander article about AA, page 23). This has resulted in abuse of the vulnerable and bad press for AA, as reported in the Independent (UK) and in the Washington Post (USA).

The difference between good service leadership and no leadership at all in the face of rising dictators, spells the difference between future A.A. unity and anarchy. If A.A. continues the current trend in autonomous groups, “personality before principle” speaker recordings, lectures, guides and trinket business, then this may eventually lead to a systemic failing of the “but one ultimate authority” in Tradition Two. The experience of the disintegration of the Washingtonian movement (Language of the Heart page 5; Tradition 10, Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions page 180-183) predicts the future:

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

If, on the other hand, A.A. opts for A.A. Tradition, “Each group should be autonomous except in matters affecting other groups or AA as a whole”, then the exception to group autonomy in Tradition 4 implies that “elder statesmen” and “Good Service Leaders” (concept IX) will face their responsibility to intervene when necessary. As Synanon cult leader Chuck D recalled 1958: “They made things difficult for us… ... and we never went back to A.A. again.” And as Bill W. recalled his encounter with “Our promoter friend”: “We assured our well-meaning friend that we would certainly uphold his right to free speech. But we added that he ought to uphold ours, too. We assured him that if his “lectures” went on air, we would advise every A.A. group of the circumstances and ask them to write strong letters… ... … letters of a kind the sponsor might not like to receive.” (A.A. comes of Age page 131)”

Comment: The emphasis in this section is clearly upon the moral responsibility of “leaders” to LEAD (by example), to have the COURAGE to SPEAK OUT when they witness corrupt practices, to CHALLENGE those who would abuse their power, and finally to DEFEND AA and its principles against those “personalities” who would subvert our fellowship. However we would go further than this and argue that it is the duty of every AA member to actively uphold our traditions, and that when they witness evil they should oppose it; failure to act, to look the other way, is no longer an option. Cult leaders have demonstrated time and time again their utter contempt for our principles. They are more than willing to set these aside or indeed pervert them in pursuit of their sole aim: personal power. Their victims constitute the most vulnerable section of our fellowship - the newcomers. We are manifestly failing in our duty of care to these and if we continue to do so why should we expect others to place their trust in us; we simply would not deserve it. The writing is very clearly on the wall. If we do not learn from the lessons of the past then history will surely repeat itself..... Either we shape up or ship out!

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

A Minority report (continued)(1)

“One can only take an informed guess from the words of Bill W. in the article about “Our promoter friend” who turned “alarming poser” (AA comes of Age page 130-131), how he and those trustees would have responded to the rise of the figurehead Joe McQ; who elevated himself to "teacher" and author of the book “Carry This Message – guide to Big Book Sponsorship;” which carries his “message.” - a “strange mixture of AA and his own religious ideas” (AA comes of Age page 130) and his treatment centre Recovery Dynamics program.

The following are extracts from “Carry This Message – a guide to Big Book Sponsorship”, by Joe McQ:

“As sponsors we know, there are certain things we require of a sponsoree [sic]… … … he has to carry out his assignments and do the things you ask him to do” (page 25).

“… … we are working with an undisciplined person. Assignments should be given, and the sponsor should make it clear to the person that assignments have to be done by a specific time…..there are certain things we require of a sponsoree [sic]… … He has to carry out his assignments and do the things you ask him to do … … Dr. Bob said ‘Get down on your knees.’ And they took step 3… … But an alcoholic can do just about anything you make her do. If you insist that she do certain things, she’ll get them done. She has to go from the undisciplined to the disciplined… … At our treatment centre, Serenity Park, we require all the clients get a sponsor within the third week… The sponsor teaches discipline… … everything is working on this undisciplined person… …. An undisciplined person may fight discipline, but it has to be enforced to help the person….” (Pages, 26, 27) You can’t just say to the sponsoree [sic] ‘go start on your inventory’ because it might take him a month, maybe two. Create a schedule by saying something like, ‘We are going to work on resentments for two days’ then do the other inventories similarly, with a schedule for each one which doesn’t allow the sponsoree [sic] to skimp, but moves him or her along at a good pace….(Step Four assignment). You need to move your sponsoree [sic] along pretty fast…. but you need to keep the sponsoree [sic] busy and keep her moving… you should just move him right on through them bam, bam, bam, bam. Keep the momentum…..”  (Page 65)

“Remember that all the people in our fellowship groups are not really alcoholics… … … They aren’t really alcoholics – because an alcoholic can’t do that. They don’t usually stay; they just come in an out of our fellowship. But they don’t have a message to share…..” (Page 65)

The Online Oxford dictionary definition of brain wash:

verb [with object]

pressurize (someone) into adopting radically different beliefs by using systematic and often forcible means: people are brainwashed into believing family life is the best (as noun brainwashing)

victims of brainwashing http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/brainwash

Extracts from “The Steps we took”, Joe McQ. of the ‘Big Book Study Tapes’:

“There is a story in the Bible how all this conflict began. The Garden of Eden story… … the Bible says ‘we are God-like’… … So he created Adam and Eve and put them in Serenity Park…. One day a snake came up to Eve and he said… … ‘Hey Eve you’ve got self will’… … Eve had never heard such a thing so she said ‘What’s that?’… … So the snake ran it down to her. He said ‘You can do whatever you want to!’ She couldn’t wait, she ran to tell Adam, ‘Adam, Adam we’ve got self –will.’ He probably said ‘What in the world is that?’ So she explained it to him… …” (Page 40, 41)

“I think one of the mistakes many people are making today is this: not only as individuals, but groups of people, get together and talk about their problems. They never seem to talk about what to do about them… … … There is no growth in this way of doing; in fact they just magnify their problems. I call this ‘group sickness…’ (Page 128)

“I think Jesus may have been teaching the principle of the first step when he said ‘deny thyself.” (Page 19)

“Step 1 opens the door to Step 2. I like to use the parable of the prodigal son (Luke 15:11-32) (Page 24)

“The Bible says, ‘…ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free.’(John 8:32).” (Page 25)

“David said in the 23rd psalm, ‘The Lord is my shepherd.’ (Page 53)

“It’s like in the Bible, where it says there is time for everything. (Ecclesiastes 3:1).” (Page 64)

“Jesus said, ‘Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart.” (Page 124)

“I love the passage in the Bible that says, ‘ Thou shalt not be afraid of the terror by night; nor for the arrow that flieth by day; nor for the pestilence that walketh in the darkness; nor for the destruction that wasteth at noonday.’(Psalms 91:5-6)

“I also like the story of David the little shepherd boy and the giant Goliath.” (Page 146)

“..That they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly (John 10:10) (page 155)

“When we finish step 9 we get the promises.” (Page 123)

“Since Bill didn’t have the capacity to write like a great expert in spiritual things, he laid out a beautiful, simple daily exercise.” (page 137)

This program may well have worked in his treatment centres. But by mixing this outside enterprise inside A.A. and by placing the books in the hands of the still emotionally suffering alcoholic sponsors who barely understand how irrational they are, the dictatorial, judgemental and disciplinarian terminology he used therein, has now left A.A. with the legacy of a cult following and an abusive style of coercive sponsorship from which it will take a lot of effort to recover. - A legacy of the violation of Traditions four (long form) six and twelve.

A disaffected alcoholic tells his story:

“Thanks for this forum guys and gals. I am having grave difficulties with AA, as my experiences with it are not good, and I have been looking for a site to confirm my prejudices. I thought I had found it in the Orange Papers, but methinks that the author doth protest too much, and I am being turned off this site. I have been subjected to the primary purpose group by my sponsor whilst in treatment, and this was the tipping point for me. However, I was judging AA - all AA by the rantings of Chris R. Now I see that there ARE moderates in AA, people like yourselves, because whilst I realise that AA is not for me, I do respect the argument that it IS good for some people, and I look forward to reading the posts in this forum”. (aacultwatch forum subject entitled “AA cult.”)

http://aacultwatch.blogspot.co.uk/

In 1941 the good news was written in the press and A.A. began to take off:

“Because of the absence of figureheads and the fact there is no formal body of belief to promote, they have no fears that Alcoholics Anonymous will degenerate into a cult.” (The Jack Alexander article about AA, page 23)

http://www.aa.org/pdf/products/p-12_theJackAlexArticle.pdf

We wonder if the co-founders of AA would say the same thing if they were around today. Today our public image is not so good:

1998: The Independent: "Cult or cure: the AA backlash" ---- "Alcoholics Anonymous is under attack. Those who have been through its mill claim it is `authoritarian' and `fascistic', employs brainwashing techniques and is cultlike in its attitude to members. Ursula Kenny talks to the disaffected who have rejected its road to recovery...."

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/cult-or-cure-the-aa-backlash-1160113.html

2009: The Independent: "Tom Shone takes on the all powerful cult of Alcoholics Anonymous"

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/features/toby-young-tom-shone-takes-on-the-allpowerfulcult-of-alcoholics-anonymous-1739892.html

Washington Post: “AA Group Leads Members Away from Traditions” by Marc Fisher, July 22, 2007:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/rawfisher/2007/07/midtown_group_aa_group_leads_m.html

Newsweek: A struggle inside AA, by Nick Summers, May 6th, 2007:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2007/05/06/a-struggle-inside-aa.html

Cult Help and information library:

http://www.culthelp.info/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4960

The public debate moves on from the press into various A.A. member’s websites and forums and non-AA related websites, including the parent toddler website mumsnet.com. - The disaffected A.A. members posting their experiences:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090817093018AAgtZ3F  

http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-clancy_i.html

http://www.moonmac.com/Cult_Called_AA.html

http://aacultwatcharticles.blogspot.com/2011/12/sussex.html

http://www.positiveatheism.org/rw/ofcourse.htm

http://mrsponsorpants.typepad.com/mr_sponsorpants/2009/05/morality-is-not-recovery-custom-is-not-tradition.html

http://stinkin-thinkin.com/why-i-left-aa-stinkin-thinkin-stories/

http://www.wheremostneeded.org/2007/05/aa_group_accuse.html

http://stop13stepinaa.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/critics-say-washington-aa-chapter-is-cultlike-newsweek

http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/903392-to-consider-aa-a-dangerous-cult?msgid=26029338#26029338

There can be little doubt, there is evidence that coercive sponsorship is being deployed by a minority of groups in A.A. and this is beginning get A.A. the reputation of being a cult. To avoid further loss of public confidence in A.A. and if vulnerable people are to be protected from abuse, then we need to see more examples of the Santa Monica pro A.A. Tradition elder statesmanship of 1958. (Concept IX in action). --In this modern World however, to be of effect to meet the present day needs of the fellowship, this needs to be both communicated and operating throughout the A.A. World Service Structure, top to bottom, as soon as possible.”

Comment:

Prompted by the Minority report a member of the aacultwatch team was delegated the job of locating a transcript of the Joe and Charlie product and giving it the “once over”. Apart from a heavy ladening of Christian exegesis (something not to be found explicitly demonstrated in conference approved literature and which would be quite contrary to AA traditions by the way!) they did come across the following quote under the section dealing with Step 12:

“We don’t want to go through this next chapter (Working with Others) we don’t have the time, but I [Joe or Charlie presumably] do want to look at two or three things in it very briefly.”

and true to their word they did indeed very briefly consider this section. This would go some way to explain the dogmatic sponsorship style advocated above which is nowhere demonstrated in Chapter 7 Working with Others. Interestingly these two it would seem are as guilty as those they criticise, of approaching the programme “cafeteria style” ie. take what you like and leave the rest. In this instance in their so-called Big Book study they have managed to omit virtually an entire chapter. Not bad going! Now what's the word for this? Ah yes! Hypocrisy!

Cheers

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

PS For more coverage of the Joe and Charlie epic insert “Joe and Charlie” in the local Google search on the aacultwatch site.