Share Magazine – should it be renamed …... The Plymouth Express?

A member contacted us with regard to a recent issue of Share (spot the misspelling on the webpage!) magazine. In their perusal they had noted the predominance of contributions from the Plymouth area (usually from the local cult group: Plymouth Road to Recovery). This is not the first time that mention has been made of this phenomenon. Indeed Share magazine not infrequently resembles the official publication for that group so infested is it with the 'lack of experience, strength and hope' emanating principally from that source. Article after article from this cult group merely restates their central philosophy: get a sponsor and do what your sponsor says! No need to bother with all that God mumbo jumbo! A human power is the answer …. and make no mistake! However if you finally tire of the bland outpourings from Plymouth and find your 'psychic defences' crumbling under this avalanche of dross you can always take recourse in the ramblings of Happy Dennis (see blog for more). Now Happy Dennis is well known in the Ealing area of London. He is the founder of a series of meetings mostly based at the Centre for Independent Living, Bayham Rd. His sponsor is David “The Icon” C, a professional Roman Catholic and self-proclaimed aesthete based in the US (although formerly from the UK), and himself and ex-sponsee of David B (founder of the Joys of Recovery which itself has produced the Road to Recovery franchise ….. and so the incestuous circle is rendered complete!). But to return to the Happy One.... Dennis it would seem is straying more and more into the realms of total unreality. We thought he had reached his apogee in the Sunday meeting (at the above location) where the participants are exhorted literally to “jump for joy” at the end of the proceedings. But no... various pronouncements have now followed with respect to a number of alcoholism unrelated subjects including sex outside marriage, saunas and women, all of which seem to reflect some aspect of David “The Icon” C's rather extreme brand of Catholicism. Clearly 'fooling around' outside marriage is out of the question but one must wonder how the souls of our more distant ancestors are faring given that Roman Catholicism has only been around for the last couple of thousand years? Are we to take it that these ignorant unfortunates are condemned to do a 'bit of porridge' in purgatory to expunge thereby all traces of sinfulness from their souls or perhaps they are presently languishing in that hellish realm forever abandoned for merely doing what nature clearly intended? However given the present debate (and possible legislation) on same sex “marriage” we are eagerly looking forward not only to some pronouncement on the subject from the Vatican but also as to what David “The Icon” C (in his current manifestation as Dennis) has to say on these vexing questions! Any guesses? But when it comes to saunas it is obvious why such cautions have been issued. It is well known that these are the favoured resorts of those dreadful malefactors – THE HOMOSEXUALS – whose sole ambition in life is to seduce all innocents and lead them down the path of eternal damnation. Finally women …. well what more need be said? It was after all that awful hussy Eve whose fatal allure finally led us all to inhabit this vale of woe and misery. Mind you that Adam was a bit 'easy' wasn't he! All that for just a bite of an apple? Really? But such creatures fashioned thus from this flawed template should be avoided at all costs, and moreover without hesitation lest we too be cast down into the eternal pit! Etc etc blah blah blah...... and so it goes on and on and on ….ad infinitum.

So to return to Share..... Is it really that difficult to get contributions from the remainder of the fellowship? There are after all about 20,000 regular members of AA in Great Britain (but see *). Or is there something else going on here? When we previously contacted the magazine to ask for an explanation for their apparent bias towards this group (and indeed Happy Dennis) we were told that there was such a dearth of submissions that they had no other choice! We pointed out that we were aware of a number of articles sent in by members but which had subsequently never seen the light of day! What about these? Here we were pointed in the direction of the editorial policy which effectively rules out anything but the bland and 'politically' correct (even if this does only serve to mask a more insidious corruption!). But one only has to look at the I-Say forum hosted on the Grapevine site in the US to find out what AA members REALLY think about what's going on in their fellowship. Perhaps it's time for Share to grow up and follow their example. A more robust debate might serve to blow the cobwebs away and alert the fellowship to what's going on in their very midst? A little less censorship if you please!

Cheerio

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

PS The argument that a more lively debate necessarily leads to a weakening of unity …. We don't buy that for one minute! Indeed we believe the precise opposite! Obviously!

* Error - this figure refers only to a sample of groups.  See here

David B, David C "Icons" and the Catholic Connection

To quote:

“First of all I want to say that, although I am not a Catholic myself, I have no prejudice or issue with the Roman Catholic Church per se. The point of this report is not to denigrate the Catholic Church or debate its teachings, but to expose individuals within the Vision/Joys hierarchy who, having converted to Catholicism, are importing Catholic dogma and moral teachings into AA and presenting and imposing these upon newcomers and sponsees as AA-program in violation of the Traditions and the Preamble of our fellowship. I also wish to say that, as far as I am aware, the Catholic Church is not complicit in the activity of the Vision/Joys cult.

Around the mid-1990’s David B, founder of the Vision cult, began attending the Brompton Oratory, a large Catholic church in Kensington. This church is well known for its ornate Masses said in Latin, and its professional choir, who sing classical church music, and its very conservative Catholic outlook. I understand David B started going to the Oratory after a sponsee of his called John converted to Catholicism and invited him to go to the 11am high mass there. A number of David B’s sponsees began to attend with him also, including David C "Icons" and his sponsees, and after Sunday mass they would all have lunch at a nearby restaurant.

Around the same time as this was going on there developed a more judgmental and “Catholic” attitude to moral questions and issues. Sex before marriage was forbidden for David’s sponsees on the grounds that is was supposedly “selfish”. Then suddenly artificial birth control was also outlawed for any of David’s sponsees. This gross interference in personal liberty and conscience was enthusiastically reinforced later by David B’s successor, David C "Icons". David C "Icons" decided that promoting the moral teachings of the Pope, the head of the Catholic Church, on sexual matters was part of the message of AA. Thus unwary newcomers and sponsees were told, among other things:

1) No masturbation. It’s selfish. It’s a defect. A sin against “purity”, and something to feel guilty about.

2) No use of artificial birth control (contraception). Birth control was seen as a moral evil and "selfish" and encouraging "lust". Sponsees who used birth control were "off the program" and ran the risk of serious disapproval from David C "Icons" and co, not the mention the Pope.

3) No Abortion - abortion was described as "murder" and contrary to the program.

4) No sex outside marriage. Sex outside marriage was not allowed in the group and offenders would lose their sponsor. Thus the life saving message of AA was withdrawn from those who did not go along with this moral dogma.

5) Sex and relationships were only for the production of children within marriage. Homosexuality was frowned upon.

6) Extreme and outdated forms of sexual etiquette. For example; David C "Icons" thought that women should be chaperoned (accompanied by a responsible adult) on their early dates with men. He was uncertain a lady should even be kissed on her first date. Indeed he himself needed to consult his sponsor about this delicate matter when he had a date one evening. (It should be remembered that David C "Icons" was a man in his late 30’s and not a young teenager. This childish level of extreme sponsor dependency may make the reader laugh, but should not be surprising. Obedience to David B and the whole Vision/Joys cult style of sponsor worship definitely tended to infantilize the sponsee for life). Needless to say the lady concerned dumped him.

David C "Icons" also decided that if one was to follow a faith outside of AA, (which the Big Book suggests as a possible way of improving one’s spiritual life (pages 87 & 132) - then that faith should always be a WESTERN one. So, for example, Buddhism, Hinduism etc were strictly speaking not to be encouraged. In fact, people in the fellowship who turned to Buddhism to enrich the spiritual life tended to be mocked by David C "Icons". Only a western Christian faith would be acceptable, and of course, Catholicism was particularly to be favoured and embraced. It is noticeable that sponsees of David C "Icons" have also converted to Catholicism – Jim W for one, co-author of the big book website. And there are many others all the way down the line to the latest influx of recruits to the Vision/Joys cult.

Not long after I left the Vision cult, I was approached by a young man, whom I shall call Mr. C, who asked me to sponsor him. He was a refugee from Vision, his cult sponsor who was one of the Vision hierarchy had “sacked” him and consigned him to the ”outer darkness”. The “outer darkness” was an expression at the Vision cult which referred to the rest of the fellowship. In this case the reason was very interesting. Mr. C had been told by his Vision cult sponsor that he should consider becoming a Catholic. Rightly, Mr. C felt that this was a gross violation of his human rights and freedom of conscience, and this cult sponsor had no right on insisting upon conversion to a particular denomination. According to the AA Preamble, read out at every meeting, AA is not allied to any religious sect or denomination. However the Vision sponsor did not seem to agree with the Preamble. According to the sponsor, Mr. C’s refusal to become a Catholic was due to “a resentment against the institution of the Catholic Church” and he should look at his “defects” regarding this issue, and then pray to have them removed. This is typical Vision/Joys cult tactic. If you don’t agree with what they say, it’s because “you have a resentment”. They are always right (it’s their “humility”, you see!). Mr. C, having prayed a great deal, still did not want to become a Catholic, and so he was “sacked” or “consigned to the outer darkness” (might we even say “excommunicated”!) by the Vision cult sponsor. This incident was interesting because it revealed a tendency at the Vision cult which I had been aware of for some time - and that was the Catholic Connection.

Another incident I recall was when one of David C Icon’s sponsees (called Jim) was sponsoring a man who was Jewish and who wanted to date a Catholic girl. David C "Icons" ruled that this was not to be encouraged, as he had decided mixed religion relationships were not compatible spiritually.

David C "Icons" also produced a “Helpful Books” reading list as part of the Document he wrote called “Companion to the Big Book” – this was an early version of his current big book website. The reading list is interesting because almost all the books suggested for reading are exclusively Catholic. These include the hefty many-volumed Summa Theologica of St Thomas Aquinas, a medieval saint and theologian . David C "Icons" opines that St Thomas was the “biggest brain box ever”. I showed this list of “helpful books” to a friend of mine who happens to be a Catholic priest and he thought it looked like a reading list for someone who was studying for Catholic priesthood or seminary. It is certainly heavily biased in favour of a Catholic viewpoint.

Since all this happened, it would seem that David C "Icons" has become even more extreme, fanatical and bigoted. He has developed the “Way of Beauty” which is a concept inspired by a decree of Pope John-Paul II. David C "Icons" derides and condemns modern art as “selfish” (one of his favourite put downs of anything he doesn’t like or understand); and, indeed, for him, any kind of “self-expression” is regarded almost as a form of heresy. For David C "Icons" only the “Truth” matters. And the “Truth” can only be found within the Catholic religion. The high Art of other cultures may look beautiful, may even be skilfully produced, but it isn’t “True” so at best would only find a place in his back garden, (perhaps by the compost heap, or beside the garden gnomes). Belittling other religions, especially Buddhism (“everyone today is a Buddhist” he sighs sarcastically during one of his American Catholic TV broadcasts) is all part of his prejudice against anything that does not reflect the rigid and rigorous dogmas of his own one true faith. Clearly he isn’t a very secure person.

I don’t think I need comment on the mind-numbing arrogance, fascism, bigotry, selfishness, and sheer infantile idiocy demonstrated by the Vision/Joys cult and its leadership. It is self evident and beyond words. But perhaps I can conclude with some quotes from the literature – the real message of AA.

From the Preamble:

…AA is not allied with any sect, denomination, politics, organization or institution; does not wish to engage in any controversy, neither endorses nor opposes any causes. Our primary purpose is to stay sober and help other alcoholics to achieve sobriety.

Tradition 10 (Short form):

Alcoholics Anonymous has no opinion on outside issues; hence the A.A. name ought never be drawn into public controversy.

Tradition 10 (Long Form):

No A.A. group or member should ever, in such a way as to implicate A.A., express any opinion on outside controversial issues—particularly those of politics, alcohol reform, or sectarian religion. The Alcoholics Anonymous groups oppose no one. Concerning such matters they can express no views whatever.

And perhaps David C "Icons" much vaunted “humility” might extend to apologizing for his misuse and abuse of AA, and for having damaged the chances of recovery of many alcoholics who have, over the years of his influence and activity, been alienated from AA and the AA program by his extreme arrogance, his narcissism and his demagogy. Perhaps he might like to get off his well-worn knees, clean up his AA act, and practice some genuine humility. We won’t hold our breath. “

Cheerio

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

PS Thanks to our correspondent

Cult misquotes and distortions

Extract from our forum: http://forums.delphiforums.com/aacultwatch under thread: “Cults Misquotes and Distortions”

“Re: David C Icons website.

First of all, I apologize for having to quote from the pernicious site in question, but this is necessary in order to expose it for the fraud that it is. Here is what the Blessed Icon and Jim W (his side-kick/lackey) write concerning Step 3

This is a decision to go on with the program and the practical consequences are that we decide to do the other steps and try to behave in accordance with the spiritual principles of honesty, unselfishness, love and purity, and that we will follow the guidance of our sponsors.... (by David C Icons & Jim W)

Well, er.... NO actually! Reading the Big Book pages 62 & 63, which cover Step 3, there is absolutely no mention of following the "spiritual principles of honesty unselfishness, love and purity." These principles are, of course, the so-called Four Absolutes of the Oxford Group cult. But that is NOT AA. AA broke away from the Oxford Group because it was narrow, authoritarian and dogmatic. One of the aims of the Big Book authors was that it be as open, democratic and inclusive as possible. That was the intention of the writers in order to maximize effectiveness and appeal of the Program. And what exactly does it mean to follow the principle of "purity" anyway ?? What kind of purity? Religious purity? Sexual purity? Racial purity ??? (a legitimate question if we recall the time/era in which the Big Book was written, and the political events taking place at that time!) Purity indeed!

While the BB talks about following the will of a Higher Power (of MY understanding, an important caveat) and contributing more to life, and being unburdened of self ... there is no specific recommendation of the Four Absolutes. Neither does it mention following the "guidance of a sponsor". There is no reference in the BB here about following any kind of human power or personality, or anyone else needing to be involved at all.

"But it is better to meet God alone than with one who might misunderstand." (Alcoholics Anonymous page 63)

It is all about God, and moreover, God as I understand Him, again an important distinction. The "God" of David C Icons website seems to be the "God" of the Oxford Group cult. Certainly NOT my God ! This is a sly deception on David C Icon's part - trying to impose his god on everyone by cunningly inserting the 4 Absolutes and his sponsor nonsense.

And who exactly are the “We” referred to in this paragraph and elsewhere throughout site. Ah, yes, David C Icons and Jim W – they seem to be saying they represent the Book, The Program and the fellowship. Well, they need to get over themselves, because they sure don’t !

Next in David C Icons Big Book travesty we read this ...

If we have followed all the suggestions given in the before, and are ready to follow all that our sponsor suggests further, then we can answer this question with a firm, ‘Yes’. (As we said before, for most of us, we learn to trust our Higher Power by first placing our trust in our sponsor.) by David C Icons & Jim W

Really!!?? What planet are these guy on ? (Ah, yes, planet Icon.)

Let's be clear and rigorously honest. The Big Book at Step 3 makes ABSOLUTELY NO requirement of following a list of "Daily Suggestions" (largely invented by the sponsorless David B). No mention of reading the Just For Today card. No mention of having to obediently follow the whims, fancies and dictates of a human power (aka sponsor). No mention of having to trust a human being before being able to trust one's Higher Power. (I guess our more religious fellows would call this a blasphemy/idolatry?) It certainly IS sponsor-idolatry if we have to put trust in a sponsor before trust in the God of our own individual understanding. The BB talks about following the will of this Higher Power, not the suggestions of some cockamamie Vision/Joys sponsor !

Next, unbelievably, we read this...

And then we read out the prayer, while on our knees. .... (by David C Icons & Jim W)

We read out the prayer on our knees ?? Do we indeed ! Where does it say that ? Well, of course, it doesn't, but David seems to have a "thing" about getting on his knees. As the saying goes -it takes all sorts! The BB does talk further down the page about taking the step "honestly and humbly" but that does not necessarily equate with kneeling, which is a religious posture. And a posture abandoned by the early fellowship. AA isn’t a religion.

Then to cap it all..

This step was better done with a sponsor: “We found it desirable to take this step with an understanding person…” {p63} (by David C Icons & Jim W )

The Book ACTUALLY says that it "better meet God alone than with one who might misunderstand." (Alcoholics Anonymous page 63)

Well David C Icons clearly misunderstands! "Desirable" and "better" do not mean the same thing. In fact the BB seems to imply that taking the Step alone is the better option.

We do not retake Step Three as we go through the programmer. (David C Icons & Jim W )

Where does it say in the Book that "we do not retake Step Three.." Well, guess what, it doesn’t. Ain’t that a surprise ! (And I won't comment on the spelling error, we all make 'em!)

Two more points about this appalling website/travesty of the Big Book.

Prior the Step 3 prayer the Big Book says : "Many of us said to our Maker..." (Alcoholics Anonymous page 63)

Note it says - MANY of us, NOT all of us. There is no command here that we ALL have to follow this set prayer at all. This is further emphasised after the prayer with these words.

"The wording was, of course, quite optional so long as we expressed the idea..." (Alcoholics Anonymous page 63)

Thus the wording is not mandatory or compulsory in any way. The prayer itself is more a template, than a formula everyone has to slavishly follow. In fact, this whole section on Step Three in the Book seems to be saying that what really matters is sincerity and integrity, not dogma or posturing. AA does not ask us to do or believe anything that might go against our conscience or culture. This is, of course, all missing from David C Icons’ deluded epic.

CONCLUSION. So, after a detailed perusal, we have here in the section of David C Icons website concerning Step Three the following:

LIES - regarding 4 Absolutes, Daily suggestions, sponsor obedience - all allegedly needed prior to taking step 3 a la Big Book. Having to kneel while saying the Step 3 prayer. Not taking Step Three again if we wish.

DISTORTIONS and MISREPRESENTATIONS - regarding the step was “better” taken with a sponsor. Assumption by implication that the God of our understanding is the same as David C Icon's god. Assumption that this god requires a specific posture while praying. The ambiguous and misleading use of the word “we” – which doesn’t actually refer to AA at all, or the founder members, but in fact, just a couple of chumps who decided to set up the site and build up a cult around it.

OMISSIONS - the allowing of difference and diversity of wording within the context of taking Step Three according to the BB, completely overlooked and missing from David C Icons effort.

5 lies, 4 distortions/misrepresentations, and 2 omissions. Not a bad score when you consider that was in just one page of the wretched website.”

Cheerio

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

PS Later in the year/early next year we will be launching a mirror section in our forum to include AA conference questions (moderated). This will permit a more open discussion (allowing reference and links to “outside” sources) than is presently available on the AA website. Members will also be able to send private messages (and emails) to each other (also currently unavailable on the AA website)

A further miscellany (various sources)

“I would like to talk to you about the origins of the Vision cult and its connection with Brompton Oratory and Mother Theresa! David B [founder Visions cult UK] read a lot of Mother Theresa but seems to have got it all garbled. David C "The Icon" [similarly connected] proceeded to import fundamentalist Catholic spiritual discipl[ine] and moral teaching into AA (Vision) and present it to his sponsees and newcomers as being "real AA" when of course it isn’t. By the way the guy called "Derek" who was involved in the North London Intergroup meeting where his meeting was shut down a few years ago ?? His assertion that he didn’t know that the Step 4 material he was distributing came from a non-AA website is a lie. …......David C "Icon" [one of the authors of the website] is his sponsor! He would have known fine [and] well where it [had] come from.”

“I witnessed many regular members leave too, sometimes in the most hostile and acrimonious manner. David B. sacked sponsees for the slightest failure to obey his every whim. Not long before David B died there was another acrimonious split. The Vision meeting at Eaton Square was very well attended and the numbers exceeded the limit for the building fire regulations. Following a group conscience, (which, through sponsorship, David B controlled of course), it was decided that once a certain number of attendees had been reached the door would be closed not allowing any further people to enter. Some people had a problem with this, notably Tony M, one of David B’s chief sponsees. At that time, Tony M was openly disagreeing with David B at the Wednesday night meeting. Other differences developed between the two. Eventually Tony M and his sponsees and some others, broke away from Vision and they formed their own group called "Happy Destiny" which met on Wednesday night in Pimlico.“ [long time defunct]

Ealing:

“According to Dennis relationships are only for the production of children in marriage....so tough if you are too old, don’t want children, gay, or medically infertile.. David C "Icons "is the author of that one. He knows all about relationships - he's never had one in recovery.

This same person has been told by Dennis that the only reason for relationships is to procreate children within marriage. Any other kind of relationship is invalid and a distraction from "being spiritual". There you have it !! I told my friend that statement was about more about AVOIDANCE of relationships than real spiritual growth. Dennis got that nonsense from David C of course.

(our edits)

Comment: Thus the bigots flourish!

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

PS Our usual thanks to our correspondents

A miscellany of cult dogma and hypocrisy!

Did you know...

David B (founder of the cult in London) who constantly exhorted anyone and everyone in earshot to get a sponsor - and “do exactly what your sponsor tells you” – didn't have one himself!

Extracts:

“David B's non existent sponsor, or "The Invisible Man" as I call him. The identity of David's sponsor seemed to change depending on who he was talking to......he just couldn’t find a sponsor in the UK who was sufficiently informed or conversant with the Program to be his sponsor. ( !!!!! ) So, in other words, in all our fair, green and pleasant land there was not one AA member who was good enough to sponsor David. He tried and tried and tried but he just could not find anyone, poor chap! However he did eventually find a man in America called ........, with whom he talked over the phone to from time to time ( or so he claimed). This "......." upon later investigation ( after David's death) turned out to be drinking low alcohol lager and completely unaware of being anyone's sponsor. Yet this individual was good enough for David !! You really couldn’t make it up!

David B …... on cooking with alcohol:

“David B used to invite some sponsees/group members to his flat in Fulham for a meal. It was his practice to cook with alcohol ( using wine in a coq-au-vin recipe for example). He would say that it gave his food "a certain extra something". Well it sure did, because even after 2 1/2 hours of cooking at least 5% of the alcohol is still retained after cooking. I don’t think David was aware of this scientific fact. I wasn't myself until recently. However, in view of the fact that alcoholism is partly a mental obsession, I always thought it was totally inappropriate to present food to recovering alcoholics which had been cooked with alcohol and expect them to eat it as a fait accompli. In other words they were put in a position where it would have been seen as rude to refuse. It is certainly not something I would do myself. I felt David B was playing around with alcohol and with other people's sobriety, which David did without a care to the possible consequences to himself or others.

By the way, here is a link for further information regarding the retention of alcohol after cooking 

 

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

I was surprised myself to learn about this, as I too always thought that cooking boiled off the entire alcohol content. It doesn't.”

Roman Catholicism and the cult:

“The intrusion of Roman Catholic dogma, practice and moral teaching into AA and repackaging it to newcomers as if it were AA. The attendance of David B and his closest circle at the Brompton Oratory Catholic Church in Kensington, and the close and public relationship of David C with the Catholic Church. The importing of Catholicism into AA under the guise of "working the program"....... a young man …. [was] …. sacked by his Vision sponsor after this sponsor had suggested he should consider becoming a Catholic and the young man refused. This young man's experience of AA was completely ruined by this experience and in spite of many attempts to help him and reassure him of the real AA message, he eventually left the fellowship.”

Moreover:

“The promoting and intrusion of highly contentious and controversial opinions on many outside issues and presenting them as AA under the cover of being "spiritual" Including:-

MEDICAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL MATTERS - Medications for depression and other conditions were frowned upon and newcomers were told to come off medication or they could not proceed with the program. Similarly newcomers were told to discontinue any therapy or counselling. Also David C had highly contentious views on psychology, especially about Sigmund Freud, whom he often derided and rubbished.

RELIGION - David C "the Icon" said that if you wanted to follow a religious faith outside of AA you should select a "Western Faith" i.e. some form of Christianity - and especially Catholicism. The Icon was particularly scathing about Eastern forms of religion, philosophy, meditation and spiritual practice. This prejudice can be clearly seen in his recommended reading list of Helpful Books at the end of the "Companion to the Big Book" document (mostly written by David C), which is completely Christian in outlook and largely Catholic in flavour. Also his patronising and ignorant view about meditation as not being about seeking " altered states of consciousness, out-of-body experiences or the like " - revealed in his "bigbookrecovery" website section on Step 11.

MORALITY - sex before marriage, birth control and abortion - all were forbidden at Vision mirroring the Catholic church's stand on these issues) David C had skilful and lengthy arguments to justify these rules, all of which break AA Traditions

POLITICS AND SOCIETY – [according to] David B …... the best social system that had ever existed was the Feudal System ( !!!!!! ) The Feudal System if you recall from school history lessons, is the medieval social system where the King is the absolute ruler at the top, then come various strata of Lords, Nobles and Barons beneath him, and the poor serfs at the bottom ..... need I say more??

ART AND MUSIC. Modern Art and contemporary music were frowned upon, especially by the "Icon" who said that modern art and rock music were "unspiritual" and self-absorbed. ….... a young musician …. [was] …. told by his Vision sponsor that he could not play in a professional rock band because rock music was "unspiritual" and "against God" and therefore against the program. David C developed a theory which declared that all self-expression in art and music is "wrong" and that all art and music should be for the greater glory of "God". (...and which God should be glorified?? Why, The Icon's God, of course!!)

Misogyny, homophobia and religious apartheid. David B used to say that women were somehow "less able to get the message" than men. He said this as an attempt to rationalise the fact that the Vision group was so dominated by men, especially young men. This male domination is one of the hallmarks of the cult groups, even after David died. [Dave C also subscribed to this view]. Also David B would say the same thing about gay people that they were somehow less capable of accepting his wonderful message (perhaps they were simply as repelled by it as the women were!!). Also there was an incident after David died when a Jewish member of a Vision group was attracted to a young lady who was a Catholic. Dave C "the Icon", then in charge of Vision, advised him to stay clear of this potential relationship because the two faiths were, in his view, "incompatible" and there could be "problems" which could lead to drinking!! I really felt at the time that this would have brought AA into serious disrepute if, say, the media had got a hold of this story. The Jewish man eventually left AA. Who could blame him!

David B made up a rule that each group member should have 2 service commitments. This was in spite of the fact that David himself did not have a single service commitment for 10 years. A clear example of "do what I say and not as I do" (or don't do in David's case). His reasons for not having a service commitment were, he said, on account of his illness. Yet he was well enough to command and control an empire of sponsees that stretched from London to Plymouth, and from Ireland to the USA !! Also all group consciences were effectively controlled by David B through the mechanism of sponsorship and a group Steering committee which he directed. Yet he wasn't able to wash up a single coffee cup on account of "illness". Perhaps the "illness" in question was not the one he thought it was !

David B ruled that recovering alcoholics cannot become social workers, counsellors, therapists or ministers of religion. This is in clear contradiction to what is found in the chapter on Tradition 8 in the 12x12, where such as view is described as "anti-social". His reasons were that there might be a "conflict of obedience" or approach between AA and the organisation employing the AA member as a therapist, priest etc. This is tantamount to saying that AA is incompatible with the real world. The true reason of course was that knowledge and education on spiritual or psychological matters would reveal David B to be the charlatan he was. This was the real "conflict of obedience" - obedience to David and his madness.

David also ruled that no alcoholic can do voluntary work outside 12 step activity. Again contradicting conference approved literature which states clearly ( in the book Living Sober) that such activity is recommended as a possible way of being useful and distracting us from drinking.

Breaking confidences: After David sacked a sponsee. he would tell other members details of that person's life which justified him sacking that person. I felt this was an abuse of trust. Also because of the hierarchical nature of the Vision, private details about sponsees were "passed up the chain of command" if a sponsor felt it was necessary. This happened particularly if the sponsor was relatively new and not fully conversant with all the many rules and regulations practised at Vision.

The horrible cross-sharing and humiliation of visitors and guest speakers at Vision by members of the Cult. This included, on one occasion, the cross-sharing of a man with over 40 years sobriety.

The fierce opposition to any form of regulation regarding personal conduct, How the cult, led then by David C, vehemently opposed a discussion document on Personal Behaviour and Conduct which was circulated around the year 2000 (I cannot now remember the exact year this was circulated). The brouhaha regarding the dismissal of 2 Board members including the London Board Member ("American Mary" ) and how Cult members even considered leaving AA and founding a separate fellowship. Such is their loyalty to AA. “

Comment: Welcome to the cult's fascist agenda!

Cheerio

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

Hampton Wick (Friday)/Detroit Joys of Recovery connection!

Well anyone who might doubt the cult is an international movement need look no further than the Hampton Wick (Friday) cult group and the Detroit Joys of Recovery offshoot. The word is that the current secretary (Hampton Wick) is a chap who goes by the name John C (and who is married to someone called Kristin). Now of course this all might be an enormous coincidence but then wasn't it a John and Kristin C who played 'mummy and daddy' to the Detroit gathering? Over the past few years we've had a number of complaints about this group and its activities – the usual stuff: directive and dogmatic (cascade style) sponsorship (and with group consciences that are not quite what they seem), anti-prescribed medication, “shunning” (if you don't toe the party line) and so on and so forth. It would seem that their “mission” is to bring the 'true word' back to the dear old motherland, and to which end they moved here a number of years ago. We wonder how they're getting on with Billy the Kid? How many top heavy egos can a group contain before the usual 'falling out” happens?

But then we shall see what we shall see won't we!

Cheerio

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

PS There is a now a new grouping at Bayham Road - BRAG - Bayham Road Amalgamated Groups (?) They have one steering committee for all 18 meetings. Apparently not all the meetings are cult although cult members have a large presence on the committee. It includes people from the 'Happy Dennis/Jim W (David C)' sponsorship line, and someone from Road to Recovery too! Thus the virus spreads!

Another encounter with the cult

“Thank you for your reply,

When you mentioned the term 'ex-cult members', it made me realise that I have never told you my story around all this - you might find it useful for either the website or your own information.

Having been in contact with AA for about six weeks, I had my last drink on December 30th, 1989. I am an accountant and have worked on a semi-freelance basis since the late seventies.

The first meeting I attended was in Kingston-Upon-Thames in Surrey in November 1989. My memory isn't what it used to be, but, for whatever reason, I have no difficulty in remembering my first meeting, or seeing my doctor with regards to my drinking - I remember the latter, because it was the day the Berlin Wall came down. My doctor suggested I attended a few AA meetings and see if I liked what I saw. After stalling on the idea for a while, I went into Kingston on a Tuesday evening and attended an AA meeting in the Quaker Hall on Eden Street; this meeting no longer takes place here, but now at St. Luke's Church, Gibbon Road (also in Kingston). A man called Bob (who would eventually become my sponsor) gave me his number (all landlines back then), and invited me back the following week.

Some time after this, I began doing some contract work for a friend's company, so was travelling to his company's office in Elvaston Place, SW7 on Mondays and Wednesdays. I was informed, by someone within my local meeting, that there was a meeting in the Scottish Episcopal Church on Pont Street on a Monday night. From here, I was encouraged to attend a meeting in Collingham Road the coming Wednesday. As both meetings were very close to my office at the time, I couldn't think of a reason not to. I was two months sober or so at the time and felt that it would help. By this point, I had heard talk of sponsorship and the steps in the meetings I had been to so far but felt it was better to get my feet on the ground in AA before venturing in that direction.

There was a much larger crowd in this and the Pont Street meetings than in Kingston and Staines where I had previously attended, but I figured that, as we were in Central London, this was inevitable. I walked down to the crypt and sat to the side of the speaker's table, facing inward. the rest is all a blur but I remember people asking me for my number. I remember at my first meeting people gave me their numbers - at this one they asked me to give mine. I didn't find this particularly ominous at the time. One thing I did notice was that the sharing was somewhat harmonious, somewhat seemingly word-for-word. I didn't share in this meeting; nevertheless I went home, glad for having been to a meeting.

Things became slightly awry when, at around six o'clock the following morning, I received a telephone call from a man called David (whom I now understand to be David C)[aka “The Icon” – see site for more info] telling me he was calling me on the advice of his sponsor. I asked him what I could do for him (I, for a moment, thought he'd been pointed in my direction because of an accounting query!) his response was "I was just told to call you". That was pretty much it. After a brief exchange of how-are-you-s, the conversation was over, with my wife and our young son dishevelled after being awoken abruptly. I was working at home this day, and as the morning went on I shrugged off the incident and carried on with my day, before receiving a telephone call from an individual called John C which essentially took the same course. I got a third call that day from someone whose name I can't remember (who was also quite new into the programme), and thought this was all rather odd and maybe there had been some sort of mistake and that they thought I was someone else.

I continued to attend both meetings, as well as the Tuesday meeting in Kingston and occasional others in my area and decided that this man called Bob (who passed away in 2001) was the man I wanted as a sponsor. Shortly after this, I attended the Vision meeting one Wednesday and I was asked if I had a sponsor yet. I affirmed and said the name 'Bob the Beard' (as was his name). The people I spoke to did not know who he was, thus insisted that it would probably be best if I found a sponsor from this meeting. Before I could answer, I was 'paired up' with this man called Tony and was informed he would sponsor me. I declined the polite offer and went home after the meeting. The next morning I got the usual 'phone calls (albeit later in the day after I asserted six o'clock was too early). This is where things became conspicuous: I was asked what I had been up to so far that day. My response was that I had been doing accounting work all morning. My 'correspondent' seemed quite surprised that I hadn't got on my knees that morning and prayed, or that I hadn't called a newcomer that day, or that I hadn't called my sponsor. I ended the 'phone call feeling like I'd been slapped in the face and decided to call my own sponsor to discuss this. My sponsor asserted that, seeing as his physical health prevented him from getting down on his knees anyway it would be wrong of him to tick me off for not doing so. By the next day I had disregarded the whole thing.

Six months into my sobriety, my wife left me. She decided that she wanted to make a fresh start in her home town in Staffordshire. In spite of my emotional upset, I remained sober and the divorce procedures were relatively smooth and we sold the house and I moved to a smaller house in Ashford, Middlesex. On some days I found this more difficult than others and embarked on a series of counselling sessions. At Collingham Road one Wednesday I shared towards the end of the meeting that I was struggling with the emotional side of the divorce and that I was receiving counselling and asserted that I had not felt like drinking in this time thanks to my Higher Power, and this set off a number of murmurs from those in attendance. Once the meeting ended I got up to head for the toilet and was literally grabbed by the arm and was told by David C and one other that I shouldn't be sharing about my emotions in the meeting. Two more 'Joys' folk joined this and one man called Paul asked me why I was seeing a counsellor when I had a 'so-called sponsor' who would perform this duty for me. I told him that it was, in fact, my sponsor who suggested I began counselling. I was then told that I was being fed a watered-down version of AA, and that I would never be well if I continued this. "Great", I thought, "I've been attending AA for six months only to find I'm not going to get well". I told them that I would continue the counselling for the time being, at which point a man called Tony told me that I was "probably going to turn up next week, pissed out of my fucking head" (quote). The next morning I spoke to my sponsor and he was genuinely shocked and I was sickened. I shortly received a verbal amend from David C, which he read off a piece of paper.

I never attended the Collingham Road meeting after that, but, about three years later (and long after my contract in SW7 expired), I was informed that a meeting had been formed in Eaton Square after some individuals had left the Joys meeting. I decided to attend, thinking that maybe these people had left for the same reason. This was around 1994 and I recognised some of the people there and got talking to a few. I only attended this particular meeting on occasion (maybe once a month) until around 2001, when I moved away to South Wales. I also attended the infamous Richmond meeting between 1998, the year of its creation, and when I moved. It was attended by four men in particular: John B, Donald, 'Billy the Post' and a man interestingly known as 'Skittles' and their sponsees. I also attended Kingston Hill (now Hampton Wick)[Hampton Wick Friday – to be distinguished from the Monday and Thursday AA meetings at the same venue]. These were very similar to the Joys meeting, but, from my observation, less intrusive (or so I thought). These men had attended the Joys meeting and Donald and I had kept in contact during my 'sabbatical period'. What I didn't realise was that these meetings had a similar agenda of both sponsorship idolatry and dictated meeting structures. There were strong links between these people and David C (from the Joys) with his sponsees, among others Happy Dennis and Rupert (later sponsored by Donald). I remember Rupert being told not to pick up his young children from an after-school activity because he needed to be at the meeting an hour early. David C said the only thing he could do was to leave them waiting until after the meeting to be picked up, as his sobriety depended on him being an hour early for the meeting.

I lived and worked in Cardiff, whilst attending meetings until 2006, when I returned. The only times I left Wales were to visit my son over Christmas and his birthday, and to attend my sponsor's funeral in Hampton Court in 2001. I moved back to Twickenham in 2006 to find nothing had changed. Rupert had set up a meeting on Twickenham Green on a Thursday called 'One Primary Purpose' (possibly called such as an aim to condition the sharing, but it would appear to be a mainstream meeting with no involvement from Rupert these days), and the Tolworth meeting had also been formed. I have attended both meetings in my time. The Tolworth meeting worried me more as I heard that Newcomers were being assigned sponsors from this meeting, regardless of where they were in their voyage into AA at the time.

I still attend Richmond and Hampton Wick on occasion, more for observation than anything else. For my recovery I prefer meetings in Teddington, Twickenham and Staines. I have not had a sponsor since Bob died in 2001, but I have many friends and confidantes within AA with whom I can share and seek advice.

I'm sure none of this is new to you, but you may find it useful for background or your stories section.

Best wishes as always,

R..........”

(our edits)

Comment: none required

Cheerio

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

Which Big Book? AA's or the cult's?

A Comparison of Step 3 from David C Icons so-called”big book recovery“ website

with the book Alcoholics Anonymous

David C Icons/Jim W’s website	Big Book of Alcoholics Anonymous
This is a decision to go on with the program and the practical consequences are that we decide to do the other steps and try to behave in accordance with the spiritual principles of honesty, unselfishness, love and purity, (the 4 Absolutes of the Oxford Group cult) and that we will follow the guidance of our sponsors.	Not in the Big Book. No mention of having to follow the 4 Absolutes or having to follow the guidance of a sponsor, or any other person. N. B. Remember the words of the Big Book itself. “To show other alcoholics precisely how we have recovered is the main purpose of this book.” (AA; page xiv - foreward to the 1st Edition.) In other words - if something isn’t precisely there in the book, it wasn’t meant to be there.
If we have followed all the suggestions given in the before, and are ready to follow all that our sponsor suggests further, then we can answer this question with a firm, ‘Yes’.  (As we said before, for most of us, we learn to trust our Higher Power by first placing our trust in our sponsor.)	Not in the Big Book. No mention of having to follow a list of Daily Suggestions, or any other daily quota of tasks, prior to taking step 3. Again no mention of having to follow what a sponsor suggests or what anyone else suggests. No mention of having to “trust” any human being or human power, sponsor or otherwise.
And then we read out the prayer, while on our knees.	Not in the Big Book. No mention of any specific body posture required to say/read 3rd step prayer, or indeed any other prayer found in the book.
This step was better done with a sponsor Misrepresentation of the Big Book. Taking Step 3 with someone other than a sponsor is not mentioned as an option in the website. Misrepresentation of the Big Book. Taking Step 3 alone is not mentioned as an option in the website. It must be done with a sponsor	Not in the Big Book. The actual text says “We found it very desirable to take this spiritual step with an understanding person, such as our wife, best friend, or spiritual advise. But it is better to meet God alone than with one who might misunderstand…” (page 63) (for example, a sponsor may not understand my conception of a God who does not require kneeling, or other matters pertaining to personal faith, custom and culture.)
We do not retake Step Three as we go through the programmer	Not in the Big Book There is no clear instruction in the Big Book that we cannot retake Step 3 if we desire to do so.
Omission of the fact that the Big Book says that many used the prayer, thus implying that there were those who did not, yet were still included in the fellowship (Many of us, but not all of us). Omission of the option of using another prayer, or different wording, is not allowed in the website. Again misrepresenting the actual Big Book text, which allows for individuals to follow their own conscience.	Many of us said to our Maker, as we understood Him… (page 63) The wording was, of course, quite optional so long as we expressed the idea.. (page 63)

(our thanks to this contributor for their analysis)

Cheers

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

Joys of Recovery Detroit (US)

Over the past few years from time to time we've received a few emails in relation to the above group. The name is suggestive (although not necessarily) of some kind of connection with the Joys/Visions cult in the UK. It does seem though that there is more of a direct linkage than that. Indeed we are given to understand that David (The Icon) C has been a regular visitor over the years and is even sponsor to at least one of its members. We are told that he enjoys some status within the group hierarchy, this led apparently by a husband and wife double act who function as “mummy and daddy” to its members. (The latter two have moved out of the area but still continue to sponsor many members of the group “cascade style”” thereby effectively controlling the group conscience. See below). English by birth David C has is now a resident in the US. For those of you who are not familiar with the cult lineage the Icon took over from the founder of the Joys movement, David B, when the latter finally shuffled off this “mortal coil” in 1998. He is one of the central coordinators of the cult's activities in the Great Britain and Ireland, and co-author of one of the cult websites from which so much of their ideas are drawn (including this little sample – now withdrawn from the website). We are told that the Detroit group exhibit all the usual characteristics of the Joys cult. As mentioned above they operate a “cascade style” of sponsorship ie. a hierarchical system based on the notion that recovery is impossible without the “direction” of a sponsor and moreover that compliance must be absolute; the sponsee must ALWAYS defer to the will of the sponsor. This is an effective paraphrase of Step Three (see here for our ironic interpretation of the steps 'cult style') . This dogma driven approach results in a top down pyramid power structure with the main sponsor(s) “running the show”, and dictating the group conscience to successive layers of sub-sponsors (sponsees). Those who fail to fall into their appointed role within this schema will find themselves excluded and indeed subject to summary “excommunication” from the collective; dissent - unlike misery apparently - is NOT optional. Effectively the central principle of AA , that each person (in order to recover) should seek to establish some kind of conscious contact with a God or Higher Power of their understanding, has been displaced by “sponsor power”, this last concept a direct contradiction of both the Steps and of the second “pertinent idea” referred to in Chapter Five “How It Works”:

(b) That probably no human power could have relieved our alcoholism

leading to the conclusion:

(c) That God could and would if He were sought.

Note: the complete absence of the terms “sponsor”, “sponsee”, “sponsorship” throughout the entire basic text.

We shall see though what we shall see

Cheerio

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

(our thanks to our various reporters)

Whitstable (East Kent)/Ealing (West London)/Cambridge

The word is that the “pointy headed ones” from the Tankerton Tuesday cult group are 'sniffing' around Whitstable Wednesday AA meeting again. They've tried before to gain control of this group when one of their members became secretary, and shortly after which a whole succession of clones turned up at the meeting with the usual scripted sharing which went something like this: “blah blah …. my sponsor ….... blah blah blah … always do what my sponsor says... blah blah.....my sponsor took me through the steps...blah blah blah … happy, joyous and free.. blah blah blah.. sponsor this.....blah blah.... sponsor that.....blah blah...” and so on ad infinitum and ad nauseam. Otherwise the infestation in East Kent seems to be largely contained with the cult groups either stagnating or in decline. There is now a clear delineation between the cult (referred to variously as “Step Nazis”, “Taliban”, “Visions” (or even “Visionaries” … God help us!) or just plain “cult”) on one hand, and genuine AA on the other, a trend which we hope will continue long into the future.... And now ... talking of infestations....

… the news is that the Ealing Tuesday Green Man Lane (9.45am) cult meeting has closed due to lack of support. This is one of the thirteen or so (at the last count) meetings that 'Happy Dennis' (so-called) had started up to propagate his bizarre version of AA and its programme. Happy Dennis himself is sponsored by David “The Icon” C (successor to David B, founder of the Visions cult in the UK), “The Icon” being the author of a cult website promoted by Dennis in his very own printed literature (in probable breach of copyright), this “Little Yellow Book” being distributed not only in the Ealing meetings but even further afield eg. Eastbourne. We are informed that his efforts seem to focus rather on quantity than quality but even here many of the Ealing cult meetings fail to attract more than a handful of punters. The viability of the operation rests finally on the low rents charged for the use of the facilities. The landlords of the Bayham Rd location (Ealing Centre for Independent Living: http://www.ecil.org/) for example charge a mere £5.00 per session which makes it an attractive proposition for anyone wishing to start up their own franchise. We have also received evidence that Dennis is using contact information derived from Share magazine to further propagate his “message”. Incidentally we observe that the Happy One's response to the Eastbourne letter (see below) - when it was communicated to him as an email attachment – clearly demonstrates his irresponsible and arrogant attitude with regard to all matters pertaining to AA and its traditions. We quote:

“... the text [Eastbourne letter] you attached to the email has nothing to do with me. I don't see any reason why this is a matter I should be involved with in any way”

(This sounds like a response you'd get from a “Murdoch testimony” doesn't it! We know nothing, see nothing, hear nothing! Nothing to do with us!! A bad case of DENIAL perhaps!).

He goes on to argue that the 13 groups included in his very own Where to Find (printed and distributed in breach of the traditions) are “independent” groups. Now does he mean “autonomous” groups (but leaving out the second part of Tradition Four - a much favoured cult tactic!) or does he mean completely independent of AA (in which case why are these groups still presented in the local and national Where to Finds if they are in fact not AA groups at all? Another question for South Middlesex Intergroup to consider perhaps?)

.. and continuing with our whirlwind tour of GB (note: the cult is not a localised issue!)..... a communication from Cambridge. We quote from some email correspondence (with that individual's permission):

“Ok, so I was a bit nervous of letting you know about the Saturday meetings in Cambridge, but now I feel I have to - I went there in February as I was convinced nothing else would work. I was called by a seemingly very lovely lady and encouraged to attend the 'A Vision For You' meeting that night. Well! How loved I felt! How understood! How cared for! I continued going for a few weeks and attended the womens meetings on a Tuesday, the 'beginners' meetings on a Sunday and one 'Primary Purpose' meeting on a Monday night. It all seemed wonderful and I felt 'blessed' to have them, until...at one of the 'womens'' meetings, a clearly, very distressed and unhappy lady told about how she had succumbed to drink and how ashamed she was. Oh My God! I felt so sad for her but all she got were dagger glares, tuts and no sign of help whatsoever. That scared me to be honest. However, I continued. Surely it was just a bad night for everyone? The 'lovely lady' who had called me became my 'sponsor' and I began to go to her house for 'big book' study. Hmm. Interesting. she was full of 'love and laughter' but something felt wrong. This is about me stopping drinking yes? Not you telling me that the only way is God? Not you making me do 'homework' and telling me that there are 'many people who are not alcoholics as they do not have a spiritual issue'? These people must be ignored, hated, kept out of 'our meetings'. I was frankly terrified by the passion. I read the Big Book, I tried to understand these mad people. I couldn't. I was 'loved' by some, sneered at by others. I was hugged, ignored...I told everyone that I had been diagnosed as 'bi -polar, I was told that is wrong, you have nothing but a disease called 'alcoholism' stay away from these doctors. I had to leave. I cannot believe that such people are allowed to peddle their nonsense. I am never ever going anywhere near AA again. How can this be happening. I am more than happy for you to publish this.

…......”

(edited to preserve anonymity)

Cheerio

(our usual thanks to all contributors)

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)