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)
