Joys of Recovery?

Healthy sponsorship boundaries

Note: We neither endorse nor oppose the above organisation

Cheers

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

Missing a moral 'compass'?

Have you ever encountered members who seem to have completely mislaid their ethical or moral 'compass' (if they ever had one in the first place)? You know the type ….. they'll happily lecture everyone else on how to practise the programme 'right' and then do the precise opposite themselves. People like David B (founder of the Joys of Recovery and its various offshoots - didn't have a sponsor but insisted everyone else had to have one!), David C (took over the reins after the welcome demise of David B - a grade A religious bigot and control freak – last seen down El Cerrito way spreading the 'disease'!), Wayne P (sponsored by Clancy – a serial philanderer – he seems to have a big problem keeping his trousers on), Clancy (Pacific Group - likes to play the big shot with a sideline in shaming others … in other words … a thug!), Wally P (a serial monogamist who runs Back to Basics – a nice little earner), Joe and Charlie (Primary Purpose – yet more control freaks who liked to bore AA members into recovery with their incessant lecturing), Mike Quinones (serial sexual predator who ran the Midtown Groups – also sponsored by Clancy) not to mention AA's innumerable (and growing) army of recovery 'experts' eagerly mimicking their efforts as they busily rush about organising AA (?) 'workshops', churning out yet more audio files on so-called 'fast track' recovery, each one desperately seeking the attention of anyone with a few bucks to spare, and the poor judgement to pass them in their direction...... You have! We thought so ….. And then you must have wondered what kind of guy would behave like that? What must possess them? Are they stupid? Or are they just sick.... or sicker than the rest of us? Well wonder no more …. all will be revealed – specifically Narcissistic Personality Disorder DSM-5 (pp. 9-10)

Cheers

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

PS An update on our new campaign to be published shortly …. we've been very busy behind the scenes!

The cult (per)version of Step One

Our correspondent writes: 

“David B and Step 1. 

In the 1990's I attended the Vision For You cult group held in Eaton Square, London. This was when David B, founder of the cult movement in the UK, was still alive and holding court with his harem of young male sponsees (not for nothing was he called the Queen of Chelsea, but I digress). One thing I learned was that David B's definition of step one of the AA program was different from what is to be found in AA literature, and totally confusing to newcomers and others. 

David B emphatically said many times that (I quote) “if you don't do everything your sponsor says you do not have step 1.” He taught that “doing what you are told by a sponsor” is what step 1 was all about. Part of that blind obedience was doing 6 or more Daily Suggestions which he had printed out on a small card of similar size to the Just For Today Card. Note: he was making group fellowship depend upon a card he had made up himself without any consultation with other groups or AA as a whole: thus breaking the AA Traditions (Tradition 4 in particular), which still to this day is a continuing source of disunity and confusion within the fellowship. I recall a young man who attended the Visions cult back then who was given the nickname “6 Things” because he always shared he did the so-called 6 things on the Daily Suggestion card every day and that is what he thought kept him sober. One evening he failed to turn up for the regular cult meeting and returning some weeks later he informed us that he had been drinking and the excuse he gave was that he had forgotten to do one of the 6 things. A number of the more experienced members in the meeting smiled when they heard him say that. They smiled because they knew it was a pretty lame excuse of the kind alcoholics make when they really just want to carry on drinking anyway. As it says in the Big Book (page 132) “Outsiders are sometimes shocked when we bust into merriment over a seemingly tragic experience out of the past... “ “Mr. 6 Things” stayed sober for a short while longer, then he disappeared altogether. Sadly we heard he was drinking again. It's a shame I cannot remember his real name, just his cult nickname “6 Things”. Clearly this poor confused young man had no idea what AA's step 1 really was, other than the obedience nonsense David B had made up. One of the 6 things was to ring your sponsor every day and do everything he tells you. I'm 100% certain David B didn't do 6 things every day. He didn't have a sponsor, so how could he? So by his own definition he did not have step 1 himself. The irony of that did not seem to dawn on him. However many of his followers eventually woke up to his dishonesty and hypocrisy and left the Visions cult, went into mainstream AA, and grew up. But Mr. 6 Things came to AA and never really heard the true authentic message of Step 1 as described in AA literature where there is no mention of blindly obeying sponsors or following made up suggestion cards. Instead Mr. 6 Things was just another human guinea pig for David B's colossal ego. David B thought he knew better than AA and could concoct his own literature on a whim and dishonestly pass it off as AA to the newcomer. To this day the fraud continues within the cult groups that are descended from his sponsorship. His bad example with regard to breaking the Traditions by composing his own literature is now being copied and continued. The card itself mutates, getting ever more complicated, I saw one recently that had over 20 daily tasks for the newcomer to worry about. No more pretence of “six things”, it was a neurotics charter for imprisoning newcomers in the author's Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. Not so much relax, take it easy, and easy does it (sayings to be found in the Big Book pages 86 & 135), and, of course “Keep it Simple” - but rather “Make it More Complicated and fret about it”. I feel sorry for newcomers who stumble in on these lawless cult groups. What they are encountering is not AA at all, but a dangerous warped mutation founded upon lies.

I doubt David B had step 1 at all in any real sense. It is known that he invited newcomers and sponsees to have dinner with him at his flat in Chelsea. Guests at these dinners noticed that there was always a bottle of red wine in his kitchen. He freely boasted that he added red wine to his recipes “to give it that extra something” in his words. Well, it certainly gave his dishes something extra - it's called alcohol. It is a scientific fact that in spite of cooking, even for a long time, a significant percentage of alcohol still remains after cooking.......

Alcohol content after cooking – see highlighted column
Source: USDA Table of Nutrient Retention Factors 

….....Remembering that alcoholism is an illness of physical allergy and mental obsession, one has to consider how a man, who was an alcoholic himself, was not only experimenting with wine in his own food at the very least, but also feeding it to other alcoholics who came to him for help and trusted him. This, combined with his nonsensical and unfounded claims that step 1 was all about obeying sponsors (i.e. him) and doing tasks on a card he made up himself in defiance of AA Tradition and protocol, It seems conclusive to me that not only did he have delusions of grandeur, and was a selfish narcissist who did not truly care at all for the welfare of others (all symptoms of alcoholism), but, as a compulsive alcoholic, what really mattered to him was feeding and playing around with the prime object of his obsession, namely alcohol. And this was the founder of the AA cult movement in the UK.” 

Comment: There is NO safe level of alcohol for an alcoholic .. 100% abstinence is what AA is about ….. So much for the recovery 'experts'!! They'll end up killing you!

Cheers

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

PS Thanks to our correspondent 

See also A new campaign

“London Calling”: AA (?) (or Rent-a-Gob) contd

Continuing with our “London Calling” saga you will observe from the following links the striking similarities between the London Calling “Gathering” promotional website and another AA (?) set-up (Gallup) located in New Mexico (with some of the same speakers appearing). These events serve primarily a 'missionary' function imparting what is claimed to be an esoteric knowledge which is the preserve (or so it seems) of only the chosen few. The rest of us unfortunates - blind as we are to the 'one true message' (or so it is implied) - are deemed to need this 'elect' to communicate their special insights into the programme in order that we heathens might benefit from their unique knowledge blah di blah di blah ….. Of course no such event would be complete without the presence of the UK's foremost 'rent-a-gob', no less a personage than Plymouth Road to Recovery (cult) group's Wayne P. Wayne, despite suffering from a chronic condition know as 'keg displacement' or 'falling down trouser' syndrome, bravely made his way from the south west to Wimbledon to impart his own incomparable vision of recovery. For those of you who have not come across this cult group's self-appointed guru before (and let's face it - you can number only a few!), and were unfortunate enough to miss this groundbreaking event, fear not! With only a couple of clicks you too can witness the pearls of wisdom as they slide oleaginously from Wayne's lips! It's rather unfortunate perhaps that their lustre has faded somewhat with the passage of time. As far as we can tell Wayne's progress along the Road of Happy Destiny seems to have got stuck somewhat in a 'retrogressive groove' – or to put it another way – he's coming out with the same old 'pony' (Cockney rhyming slang – pony and trap rhymes with ….!) as he was in the mid-eighties. His 'message' (if you can call it that) consists solely of 'get a sponsor' and 'do what your sponsor says' - that's it! No more! We're at a loss somewhat as to why precisely he was asked to 'do a turn' at the Wimbledon International Gathering. After all it was promoted as a Big Book event, and what Wayne knows about the Big Book can easily be put on the back of a postage stamp with room to spare. Still ours not to reason why! Who can doubt the veracity of such a sage's utterances, and especially with his pedigree – or rather that of his sponsors. Firstly there was David B, a man who displayed such stunning hypocrisy as to almost defy belief, who would ceaselessly exhort anyone who wasn't able to get away in time to 'get a sponsor' and 'do what your sponsor says' but somehow managed to do without one himself – and then lied about it! And then there was Clancy – but the less said about him the better! But it would seem neither of these have been able to help Wayne with his dreadful affliction, the aforementioned keg displacement. Still we live in hope! The age of miracles is not dead! In the meantime we're quite sure that Wayne's latest 'squeeze' (a newcomer) will console him after the departure of his previous partner (impregnated but now redundant), not forgetting, of course, his ex-wife. We know that we have in the past advised Wayne to 'go forth and multiply' but not for one moment did we think he'd take it literally!

Cheers

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

See also:

Plymouth (cult) Intergroup corruption

For AA Minority Report 2013 click here

Portrait of a 'schmuck'

What a word is 'schmuck'! How much meaning is so mellifluously even onomatopoeically conveyed in that one (or is it two?) short syllable ….. ssschhhmmuuck! How evocative is the collision of the softened sibilant with the staccato conclusion intimating a confluence of sheer stupidity with utter contempt.

But we must abandon our aural appreciation here and turn to a more mundane but no less important consideration of its meaning, and even manifestation.

Schmuck - a stupid, contemptible person. An oaf. A Yiddish word meaning 'penis'. In this context: a 'prick'. A dull, stupid, fatuous person. An ass, fool, idiot, imbecile, jackass, mooncalf, moron, nincompoop, ninny, nitwit, simple, simpleton, softhead, tomfool...... (pause for breath) …... cretin, ding-dong, dip, goof, jerk, nerd, schmo, turkey.

See 'schmuck'

By now we're certain you must be quite intrigued as to what these creatures might look like? Surely theirs must be a degraded existence, their vacuity expressed in every moral lineament? For your instruction if not edification, and as an introduction, we present merely the precursory stages tending towards this awful affliction. To go further we fear would endanger your very souls, a venture we would not even dare to contemplate!

Firstly: our mystery, trainee 'schmuck' (1^st Dan)

In this instance you will observe the narcissistic traits nearly fully expressed: a 'selfie' layered with the Vatican Flag (a hint of grandiosity perhaps)! Not quite an imbecile but well on the way!

A third Dan 'schmuck' (but cut off in his prime):

David B (on the right) with our mystery, trainee 'schmuck'

Here you will note the 'happy, joyous and free' rictus grins which mimic smiles but are merely overlays presented to the world to obscure a near complete moral bankruptcy

A fifth Dan 'schmuck' (on the phone). A very VERY VERY IMPORTANT SCHMUCK!:

Clancy (on the left) accompanied again by our very own grinning moron!

A hopeless case well beyond any possibility of redemption! But you'll note that our trainee 'schmuck' has been working hard on his smile. And if he had a tail he'd be wagging that too! Bless! You almost feel sorry for the poor.....schmuck! …... Nah! Not really!

Down boy! Down!

Cheers

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous …...)

PS What do you call a collection of 'schmucks'? A 'gaggle', a 'bellowing' or even a 'murder' (sometimes feels like it!)? No..... the correct denomination for a collection of 'schmucks' is a “Road to Recovery'.

PPS Anyone guessing the identity of our mystery 'schmuck' send in your answer and you'll receive from us a great big …... SMILE!

PPPS Plymouth Intergroup corruption

The voice of experience....

“Hallo chaps

Thanks for all you do

I write this in a fit of writing pique on reading a piece in The [F]Ix and wondered whether it may be of any use or relevance to the AA cult watch site?

Regards and fellowship ….... _____________________________

I got sober in 1985 and used to frequent meetings around Pont Street [popular with the cult back then] etc.

I was crazy coming in but I still retained some type of innate smarts about the peeps I was meeting in AA. I wanted AA to be full of angels and after going on 30 years continuous sobriety I realise exactly what AA is, which for me is very helpful

Around that time I met the very creepy David B, possibly around 1986 or 1987 I think. He asked me if I had a sponsor and I blanked him. I remember going to meets where I felt very creeped out by the goody-goody vibes and the automaton responses to various dodgy guys, including the celebrated David B. I think there was a portly American there called Frank [now a Clancy acolyte], who was also hero worshipped and generally revered. There was a type of collective orgasm every time this guy shared and he sounded like he self worshipped his pronouncements as well, a happy family of yes men in recovery. All lapping up the same robotic responses.

It's funny but where I live now, I know a guy that sponsored David B before he got "famous" in AA as a Joys promoter and thus elevated himself to a much higher ground than the average AA goer.

I did not know back then I was dealing with bonkers "Joy boys" as we subsequently  called them but soon found out and continued to get sober well away from this arrant nonsense.

One of the things I have noticed strongly in AAs ( both male and female) is that as soon as they get a bit of sober time, is the overarching need to control everything around them.

The Big Book speaks of this phenom (??) I believe in the Chapter 5 [pp. 60-62] segmen [sic]

........begin quote.....
Most people try to live by self-propulsion. Each person is like an actor who wants to run the whole show; is forever trying to arrange the lights, the ballet, the scenery and the rest of the players in his arrangements would only stay put, if only people would do as he wished, the show would be great. Everybody, including himself, would be pleased. Life would be wonderful. In trying to make these arrangements our actor may sometimes be quite virtuous. He may be kind, considerate, patient, generous; even modest and self-sacrificing. On the other hand, he may be mean, egotistical, selfish and dishonest. But, as with most humans, he is more likely to have varied traits.......end quote.....

This rigidity and control is a defining and common factor that I became aware of pretty early on. The self proclaimed experts in AA deciding what course people's meds should take for example, the would be doctors in AA with a few years ( if that) early recovery. All of this coming from people usually not gifted with great intellect and in many cases seemingly downright thick.

The "joys" people have generally dwindled in the area of the UK (Sussex) where I live. Their obnoxious antics at Intergroup and time wasting drivel has produced nothing locally, except rancour and tedious boredom.

Another individual called Dennis from Ealing, London popped up in Sussex a couple/few years back and was laughably and totally insane.

He did his "hopping for Joy" routine which made my skin crawl at this ludicrously oblivious tosser who is obviously suffering with borderline ( or more pronounced) mental health issues.

What is alarming, is the potential effect of this junk on newcomers to the rooms; a supposed haven for the broken and the needy.

I have stayed sober in AA in spite of certain things .......joy boys, control freaks, sociopaths, rude individuals who think they can take the mick, abusive cross sharing and over the years I have seen loads of that. Passive aggression dressed up as cross talk in AA rooms.

I have also benefitted from good AA friends (very few though) an initial good non-control freak sponsor and my own inability to KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid and other abuse laden crap doled out by you guessed it - the truly stupid).

AA is a potentially great fellowship, marred by many inner (cultic?) forces attempting to impose their own agendas, I hope it survives and I am sure it should and will.

However; if God forbid it did get riven and broken from within, I believe my recovery could continue and stay and develop without it as it is not my Higher Power.

I'm not perfect and have a hopefully healthy view of AA unvarnished by sentiment or over optimism. I am also glad I came in pre- treatment centre era too.

Anyway here's to some good days ahead for one and all.”

Comment: None needed really but all very familiar! And the above section on control freaks in Chapter Five should be made compulsory reading for our cult friends!

Cheers

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

PS Thanks to our contributor

“The Things They Say” – or should it be “The Lies They Tell

Extracts from the aacultwatch forum (old)

“Think up your own conception of God, put it on a pedestal, kneel in front of it and ask it for a sober day"... Happy Dennis, Ealing.

This is the idiotic message the "happy one" of Ealing carries to all who have the stomach to listen to him.

Well folks, of course, real AA suggests we do no such thing. Kneeling in front of something that you have made up yourself is little short of narcissism. It is also idolatry.

It is well worth remembering that Happy Dennis (Dennis F.) has a long history of mental illness. I for one have no intention of following made up suggestions from such an individual, none of which are found anywhere in conference approved AA literature.

"You must get a sponsor who has a sponsor" - message carried by various cult groupies in the Ealing area.

Well, if that were the case, AA would never have got off the ground. Bill Wilson didn't have a sponsor who had a sponsor! Nowhere in the Big Book or any other AA book does it say that we must have a sponsor who has a sponsor.

It is interesting to note that the promoters of this non-AA message are descended from the David B line of sponsorship. David B didn't have a sponsor, so the whole house of sponsorship cards falls flat. This particular "sponsorship line" narrative ends in a lie.

What the Big Book and other AA books do suggest however, is that we acquire and develop a faith and trust in a Higher Power of our own understanding. That means of course that we have to reflect upon spiritual matters for ourselves and think about what we are doing, rather than constantly deferring to a human power.

"Don't think! Don't use your brain - it's defective!" - message heard in meetings in Richmond area, no doubt inspired by a sponsor who had a sponsor who was connected to David B who didn't have a sponsor!

AA says - THINK THINK THINK.  (official AA sign)

AA also says - "Just for today I will try to strengthen my mind I will study, I will learn something useful. I will not be a mental loafer. I will read something that requires effort, thought and concentration."

You can't strengthen your mind if you don't think!

Thinking is discouraged by the cult. Why? Knowledge is power and people who think cant be so easily manipulated and controlled by the cult sponsor. The Truth will set your free.

"My sponsor said he was sober 22 years and had never had a bad day because he always did everything his sponsor said"   - David C Icons.

Well now, when you sponsor yourself I guess you do everything your sponsor says! Lol

"David B tried to find a sponsor in the UK, but just couldn't find anyone who was sufficiently informed or on the program."  -  David C Icons circa 2000 sitting in McDonalds, Victoria, after a Vision meeting sucking on his strawberry milkshake.

OK lets get this straight - he couldn't find a sponsor good enough for him, but he did everything his sponsor said??  That just doesn't add up. Later on David B claimed to be sponsored by a guy named "Frank" in USA. However when this was investigated, the "Frank" in question was drinking and had no idea he was sponsoring anyone. Clearly David B could not be trusted to tell the truth!

David C Icons, however, swallowed David B's porky pies, hook line and sinker.

Dial D for Dumb... or D or Denial... or D for Dishonest. .. take your pick. All three apply.

"People call me God and I think they are afraid of me" - David B (founder of the cult movement in AA in the UK) talking to a Catholic clergyman (and AA member) outside an AA convention in Eastbourne circa the early 1990's.

No comment is needed.”

Cheers

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

PS To use “comment” system simply click on the relevant tab below this article and sign in. All comments go through a moderation stage

PPS For new aacultwatch forum see here. Have your say!

Only ANGRY people 'CROSS-share'!

Extracts from the aacultwatch forum (old): 

“Hi ….....,

Thanks for that. I have never encountered any Primary Purpose goons. I guess I just dont get to enough meetings! Hmmmm, well, at least not in the Essex area anyway. 

So you were in your first year, made a mistake in a quotation and some smart ass from out of town thought he would humiliate you in front of 60 people, and more or less hold you personally responsible for the alleged decline of AA. And this joker reckoned he was sober and had been restored to sanity ??  lol.  It is good that in spite of him, you persevered and stayed in AA, and that you were able to put it to the back of your mind. 

I can remember being cross-shared in my first year by someone. I can't remember now what exactly I said to merit the honour (probably some nonsense) but, as  I was sharing an American guy shouted at me and said "Keep it simple stupid" . That stopped me in my tracks and I just wilted inside completely. I felt humiliated, and furious at the violation of my "sharing space"  in the meeting. However I now consider I got off lightly. A few years ago a sponsee/friend of mine visited Alaska, USA. He attended a meeting in a remote town on the Northern Slope and what he experienced there chilled me as he was telling me about it. He was asked to speak at the podium during a large late Saturday night meeting. While he was sharing he was both applauded, cheered, ignored, cat-whistled, booed, laughed at, insulted and heckled. He said the meeting was like an AA version of the Jerry Springer show. The experience really shocked him at first. Luckily he was sober a good while and generally good humoured too, and he was able to see the funny side of it all. But I do feel sorry for any newcomers in THAT part of the world. I guess you need to have really thick skin to survive there, as well as a bear skin to keep warm! 

I, of course, have been guilty of cross-sharing others myself.  This happened  mainly when I was part of the Vision cult. After I left the wretched cult, I have fortunately been able to make amends to (some) of my victims. Cross-sharing was a particularly nasty way of abusing and humiliating others who dissented from Vision cult dogma. I witnessed much cross-sharing of "outsiders" or "heretics" who worked the program in a slightly different way to the Vision. The sponsorless  David B, founder of Vision/Joys cult (now deceased),  would openly cross-share people AS THEY WERE ACTUALLY SHARING, interrupting them to put them down. I remember him doing a chair in Sunday Joys of Recovery Step meeting (then held at Lilly Road nr Earls Court), and after he finished he said that if anyone didn't share the message correctly (as he saw it) he would stop them! Sober behaviour?? I think not.

Another thing I experienced at Vision was if anyone in the group openly started to question the ludicrous cult dogmas of the sponsorless David B or his chief henchman David C Icons, the response would be a torrent of cross-sharing from the sponsorless David B, David C Icons and their little gang of mindless robots (sponsees). This cross-sharing was often planned and orchestrated.  For example I recall someone who was somewhat "out of favour" sharing that he did voluntary work outside of AA. David C Icons then came in immediately after saying that  voluntary work outside AA is "not allowed" if you're "working the program correctly" - his sponsor (David B) had told him, so it must be true. (Yes, David C Icons really is as childish as that.)

Well,  evidently David B had not read the AA literature  which clearly states that voluntary work outside AA is suggested, even recommended, in the AA book Living Sober.  But the twisted message of David B always trumped AA's message as far as David C Icons was concerned. Sure enough, the following week David C Icon's sponsees all shared about how not doing voluntary work outside of AA was "against the program". David C Icons had clearly lobbied them into a virtual lynch mob. Thus, the out of favour "heretic" was further humiliated and isolated. Needless to say the guy left the group.  Then, to add insult to injury, David C Icons gleefully seized on the fact that the poor chap had stopped attending the group to further justify his (false) dogma that doing voluntary work outside of AA was "off the program" and instil in others a (false)  fear that doing so could lead to drinking. He even laughed about it. "He has gone. Rejoice!" he told one of his followers. So a picture developed in my mind of a good fellow AA member, trying his best to work the AA program and help others, yet being hurt, isolated, humiliated and rejected by Vision, while David C Icons was laughing away merrily in self-righteous satisfaction. Horrible. Horrible. Horrible. Certainly not the "will" of my Higher Power, or any other Higher Power that represents goodness, justice and love.”

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

PS To use “comment” system simply click on the relevant tab below this article and sign in. All comments go through a moderation stage

PPS For new aacultwatch forum see here. Have your say!

Adopt the position!

Extracts from the aacultwatch forum (old):

“.........

I have found the advice given on page 95 of our basic text Alcoholics Anonymous to be most sound and helpful in the matter of sponsorship. It also runs counter to the actions and attitudes of the Cult in its various forms. Here it is (with my emphases underlined):

..Never talk down to an alcoholic from any moral or spiritual hilltop; simply lay out the kit of spiritual tools for his inspection. Show him how they worked with you. Offer him friendship and fellowship. Tell him that if he wants to get well you will do anything to help.

If he is not interested in your solution, if he expects you to act only as a banker for his financial difficulties or a nurse for his sprees, you may have to drop him until he changes his mind. This he may do after he gets hurts some more.

If he is sincerely interested and wants to see you again, ask him to read this book in the interval. After doing that, he must decide for himself whether he wants to go on. He should not be pushed or prodded by you, his wife, or his friends. If he is to find God, the desire must come from within.

If he thinks he can do the job in some other way, or prefers some other spiritual approach, encourage him to follow his own conscience. We have no monopoly on God; we merely have an approach that worked with us. But point out that we alcoholics have much in common and that you would like, in any case, to be friendly. Let it go at that.

(From Big Book page 95 - working with others.)

The exact opposite is practised by the Cults!

For example - people in the Vision cult are told they MUST get on their knees and pray to a God they may not really believe in. This, it seems to me, goes against freedom of conscience and may also be a denial of human rights. To coerce people into a religious act is a denial of basic human rights I would say.

I used to be involved in the Vision cult and I remember a sponsee  I had at the time who asked me what was the point of going through the steps to stay sober - if all you had to do was pray on your knees for a sober day. God either gave you a sober day or he did not. If he did, then any further steps were irrelevant.  And if God didnt give you a sober day, then kneeling and praying for a sober day was a waste of time. I can remember thinking at the time that he had a very good point. When I asked my Cult sponsor why exactly we had to pray on our knees for a sober day - he said that it was an act of "humility". This didn't make sense to me either. It reduced humility to being a mere "pose" easily feigned.

Indeed it is easily faked for it also struck me that the leading members of the Vision cult - David B and David C (Icons) and others, were VERY FAR from being humble in their interactions and attitudes within AA. Also it struck me as somewhat a contradiction to be kneeling in the morning and then jumping around AA telling everyone all about it and coercing others to do likewise.

"True humility doesn't make a presentation of itself" was what one real AA oldtimer told me later. And its true.

Today in the west london area of AA, we have a deranged individual - "Happy Dennis" (sponsored and directed by David C Icons - Happy Dennis is one of his "successes" by the way LOL !!) - who has set up over 20 meetings in one area which he controls with no democratic mandate. His performance/sharing usually involves a overly long lecture about how many times a day he kneels and how humble he is, (he even writes "poetry" about it! ). Meanwhile this same man ignores the decisions of the local intergroup, publishes his own literature which is a total distortion and travesty of AA , and indeed contradicts it in many respects. Recently he told a sponsee that he couldn't have a relationship because " relationships were only for the production of children in marriage". He dictates, bullies and coerces newcomers on matters of life-style, work, sex, relationships, morals and medication etc - matters on which he has absolutely no legal authority or warrant to direct others.

It would seem to me that Cult "humility" is really nothing more than an ego-inflating pose, a charade - a self-satisfied self-righteous posturing, closely followed up by arrogance, attention-seeking, lies, fraud, boasting and bullying.

…....”

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

PS To use “comment” system simply click on the relevant tab below this article and sign in. All comments go through a moderation stage

PPS For new aacultwatch forum see here. Have your say!

The 'Ploys of Recovery'!

Extracts from the aacultwatch forum (old):

“I had the misfortune to be sponsored by David B a number of  years ago.  I fell for the spiel being a somewhat impressionable newcomer.  He was certainly charming enough and could "talk the talk" no end. But show any sign of independent thought, even dare to express your own viewpoint, and you rapidly enough saw the other side of that particular coin.  For someone who preached sponsorship till your ears bled he was notoriously evasive when it came to the subject of his own sponsor.  Turns out he didn't have one which pretty much fits his profile - all image and not much else.  As for other meetings he was pretty open in his contempt for these and only encouraged people to go to them to "spread the word" or rather the  morally defective and emotionally enfeebled version of the programme which was his stock-in-trade.  The guy was even terrified to go to them himself fearful that if he got caught "off his turf" he might be presented with a few home truths by those who had a real recovery under their belts. The guy didn't even get beyond Step 3.  There was only one HP in David B's life and  that was .... guess who!  But it would be dishonest for me to say I learnt nothing from him.  On the contrary he was a teacher beyond parallel when it came to instructing people on how NOT to carry the AA message, how NOT to relate to other members, and he quite definitely didn't have anything that I wanted.  My recovery took place after I had parted company with him and the "Ploys of Recovery". When I heard that he had finally shuffled off apart from a large measure of indifference on my part I was just glad that no one else had to endure his tedious moralising.  Unfortunately what he has spawned is actually worse than the original hence my support for aacultwatch.”

“I too remember David B sitting at the front of the meeting facing the audience in a “commanding” position. I attended the Vision for You group at Eaton Square around the same time as you did. The Vision was a breakaway from the Joys of Recovery. I cannot now remember the exact reason for the breakaway, but I think it had something to do with not responding when people introduce themselves and “keeping the serenity prayer as it was originally written” i.e. not adding “it works if you work it”. This was the so-called “original” format that David B wanted for his group/cult. There was no democracy at that group, the steering committee was controlled by David B through the pyramid sponsorship system. I saw many abuses and lies being told at that group. David B himself did not have a sponsor. He claimed that a man called Frank who lived in America was his sponsor. However after David died some enquiries were made, and the Frank in question turned out to be someone who was drinking and had no idea he was sponsoring anyone. I do know that leading members of the Vision group, including David “the Icon” C, knew about David B’s deception in this matter but chose not to rock the boat or betray their Great Leader. I witnessed David B sack a number of his sponsees who questioned David’s lack of a sponsor. Also, for someone who promoted service to the hilt, he was remarkably inactive himself. Around the time of his death he had not had any service commitment for nigh on 10 years. This from a man who told others they should have at least 2 service commitments. Nor did David ring any newcomers to my knowledge, in spite of demanding that others ring 2 per day! No, David was very much a “do as I say and not as I do” man. He made up arbitrary rules that contradicted AA approved literature. For example one of his edicts ordered that no one should do voluntary work outside AA. In other words if, for example, you wanted to do some voluntary work in a homeless shelter for a few nights per week, or something similar, this was forbidden by David B. Only service work for AA, (or more accurately for David’s cult) was allowed. This contradicts suggestions in the AA Book Living Sober which David clearly had not read. Another rule he made up was that his sponsees/group members were not allowed to work or train as social workers or counselors or religious clergy. Because what they might learn or practice “might contradict AA” (=might contradict David B). This of course goes against AA literature too, and is even described as being an anti-social attitude in the 12x12. It places AA in conflict with wider society. David wanted his sponsee-puppets to be as ignorant and superstitious as possible – much more easy to control that way.

The mantle of ignorance and superstition is now being ably carried on by David C “the Icon”, who now works in the USA as a Catholic iconographer and broadcaster. He is the chief author of 2 websites which have been mentioned in several places in the aacultwatch site and have brought AA into disrepute. The “Handbook to the Big Book” and associated website is one of his masterworks. This ignominious tome contains the instructions for step 4 where the sponsee has to write a detailed account of his sexual exploits including sex with children, animals, bottles etc and sexual positions and fantasies. It is a voyeurs charter. This sick evil garbage has already caused problems in AA in North London, and I recently discovered that the same document is being circulated in Ealing – most likely by Happy Dennis who is a sponsee of David C. Happy Dennis also promotes David C’s website on his “suggestions” card and the “book of Big Book Quotes”. All in breach of AA Traditions of course.

David C "Icon" is never short of an opinion or two, usually conceited, ill-informed, and based upon an extreme fundamentalist version of catholic dogma. His recent broadcasts in the USA for Catholic TV were a set of programs on art where, among other things, he attacks Picasso and rubbishes all modern art while craftily alluding to the “humility” of his own efforts and approach to art. On another show he visits a Museum and goes on to insult some Buddhist and Hindu statues there, saying that they are not fit to grace his home or garden, but assuring us that he will not take a hammer to them and smash them up (how good of him!) Apparently this is because the statues in question do not represent or follow “Catholic faith and truth”. It’s a pity his concern for “truth” didn’t extend to the matter of David B’s imaginary sponsor. David C ("Icon"/"Way of Beauty") is an arrogant elitist opinionated bore and a religious bigot. He scarcely disguises his contempt for eastern religions - "everyone today seems to be a Buddhist" he sneers sarcastically. His somewhat dour personality is as frigid and one-dimensional as the Icons he paints. In spite of his alleged “humility” he is a perverter and subverter of AA in the UK.

As for Happy Dennis, indeed he is a strange man. One does not have to be in his presence for long to realize that something is amiss in the sanity department. He has adopted the practice of “jumping for joy” every time he meets you or talks to you. From a distance it looks comical - like he has bad case of the hiccoughs - as he greets people attending his groups in Ealing. He is wont to ludicrous repetitions and exaggerations for example he will say “I am very very very very very very happy .. and I’m even happier than that” One is left wondering if he is more trying to convince himself of how “happy” he is, than his audience. He also sometimes speaks very rapidly – in the manner of someone suffering from a form a mania. As for his Book of Big Book Quotes, I’m not a legal expert, but I think there is a strong possibility that it breaches copyright as he has taken extensive quotes not just from the main text of the BB but also from the personal stories section and from later editions which are still, I believe, under copyright. When he shares he often misquotes the literature, so it wouldn’t surprise me if his next effort will be to re-write the entire Big Book itself. The man is a self-willed goon. But he has completely polarized and divided the fellowship in the Ealing area, undermining long established local meetings.

These sick narcissistic personalities are damaging and perverting AA in this country and I am glad that there is now a forum and website exposing them and defending AA. Knowledge is power!”

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

PS To use “comment” system simply click on the relevant tab below this article and sign in. All comments go through a moderation stage

PPS For new aacultwatch forum see here. Have your say!

Sponsorship? We think not

Extract from the aacultwatch forum (old)

“There is much more emphasis on sponsorship in AA today than used to be in the past. I can remember in my early days hardly ever hearing the word. It wasn’t until I heard David B. (founder of the cult movement within AA in the UK) do a chair on Step 4 around 1986 that I heard sponsorship being promoted so avidly. From then on sponsorship was promoted more and more. Incessant indeed. It has almost become a religion in its own right. The dangers of this are obvious. Unregulated, unmonitored, unaccountable individuals setting themselves up as gurus, teachers, lecturers and therapists. The damage has been done and is still being done. Vulnerable new members of the fellowship are pounced upon and subjected to bullying, psychological blackmail and other kinds of coercion and abuse, by certain well-known sponsors and self-appointed group "leaders". Websites, like David C Icon's effort, have been concocted which carry a message that is all about putting sponsorship on a level that was clearly never originally intended when the sponsorship idea was first introduced within the fellowship. We now have cults of sponsorship, sponsor-worship, sponsorship "lines", a riot of self-willed individuals who have invested themselves with infallibility and godlike powers over others.

What is to be done about this? In my opinion AA needs not only to take its own inventory regarding this dangerous out-of-control sponsor juggernaught, but we need to enlist the help of outsiders too. As our fellowship was founded with the help of outsiders in the medical and religious professions, we also need to enlist persons in the medical, legal, political, religious and media domains.  The scandals that have engulfed the Catholic church in recent years would not have come to light had the victims of clerical abuse relied solely on the mechanism of church hierarchy and procedure. Indeed the ecclesiastical hierarchy concerned tried their best to cover it up and sweep it under the carpet. No. It took a concerted media campaign and the help of medical, legal and other professionals to make change happen, and to stop the abuse.  And to develop and put in place procedures to prevent abuse happening again.

I remember a time many years ago in the fellowship when there was constant controversy about smoking in meetings. There would be hard effort to get a meeting to be non-smoking for those who suffered from serious lung problems (like me!), only to have Traditions quoted, and group consciences turn and overturn previous decisions. This controversy went on for years, and generated much heated debate, with little satisfactory outcome for those who felt excluded from many meetings because of choking cigarette smoke. The fellowship was largely incapable of solving this problem unaided. Then the law of the land intervened. All meetings are now non-smoking because it is now illegal to smoke in public buildings. People who want to smoke can still do so, outside.

Likewise I think it will require a change in the law to stop sponsor/cult abuse within AA. In my opinion the sort of sponsorship practiced by the likes of Wayne P, David C Icons, Happy Dennis et al, should be illegal. No unaccountable person should have that kind of power and control over a sick and vulnerable person. Sponsorship, if it is to exist at all, should be carefully monitored, possibly even licensed. An outside agency should be involved if possible. Clear boundaries should be set, and those breaking them prevented from sponsoring ever again at the very least.  Let them practice Step 12 in another and harmless way.

Prior to his death in 1997, the sponsorless David B did not have any AA service commitment for over 10 years. His excuse was that he was "ill". However he wasn’t so "ill" that he could not establish and command an empire of sponsees, and control meetings and group consciences through a "steering committee". The man was a fraud. It would have been better for him, and for AA as a whole,  had he washed up a few cups at the end of a meeting, rather than play at being God in other people's lives. So, as I said earlier, let these deluded and self-appointed avatars of "God's will", do some other less harmful and truly more humble service if they want to practice Step 12.

It is vitally important to expose the abusive behaviour of individuals such as those mentioned above, and others like them. We must have more stories of victims of sponsorship and cult abuse within AA. These must be sensitively publicized as much as possible, with of course, the approval of the victims.  We must enlist the help of as many allies and professionals as possible, and get them on our side.

10 years ago there was nothing about the abuse taking place daily within AA. Now there are websites, magazine articles, and forums. I feel optimistic that history is on our side and this problem will be eradicated one day. But, like the 12 step Program itself, we must keep working at it !”

And check this out:

http://www.thefix.com/content/sponsorship-levels6010

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

PS To use “comment” system simply click on the relevant tab below this article and sign in. All comments go through a moderation stage

PPS For new aacultwatch forum see here. Have your say!