Bill Wilson talking about the Traditions - Tradition Four

Cheers

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous ...and rather fond of the Traditions too!)

Coming soon! In a departure from our usual theme (cult thugs and other psychopaths) aacultwatch presents its own in-depth analysis of the IN/OUT debate... yeah that one!

Violence and Personal Conduct (contd)

Committee 5 Q3 Violence and Personal Conduct Structure Handbook final version

Comment: Well here comes yet another version of the guidance on this particularly contentious subject. Who knows! Maybe if enough suggestions are proffered in the direction of sexual predators, cult thugs etc they might sit up and pay attention.... or then again maybe they won't.... they haven't so far. The problem isn't lack of guidance - it's lack of implementation. You can make up as many 'rules' as you like but if no one can be bothered to apply them then it's all so much hot air …... And in the situation where the sponsor is themselves the perpetrator, or the group (cult) has made bullying the 'norm' (eg. Plymouth Road to Recovery including Plymouth Intergroup), then you are well and truly stuffed. Until AA adopts a formal complaints procedure which applies right across the entire fellowship (and before the usual defence is raised about group autonomy take a look at what Tradition Four ACTUALLY says) then the thuggery will continue. And maybe while we're about reviewing our own conduct perhaps it's time for the yellow card to be consigned to the bin where it properly belongs. It encourages an entirely false sense of security in newcomers (who haven't yet 'wised' up to how pointless it is) and affords a perverse protection to those who seek to hide behind it ie. sexual predators, cult bullies and the like....

Cheers

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

London Euston: Gratitude in Action Big Book Study (contd)

See below

The ignorance (or duplicity perhaps?) displayed by the organisers of this “International AA(?) Gathering” might be excused on the grounds that they constitute yet another gang of clueless Big Book 'chancers'. But London South West Intergroup surely cannot raise the same defence. Yet if you read the minutes of the intergroup discussion on this issue (which we have) you will find a lot of questions raised but very few answers forthcoming. Indeed it is quite worrying to observe the general lack of awareness of AA Traditions (not to mention guidelines) throughout, Traditions which this intergroup is supposed to uphold. It should be said at this juncture that it is not uncommon for GSR attendance at London South West IG meetings to be as low as 25 per cent. Therefore the latter can hardly be considered a representative body by any standard you might wish to apply. Perhaps we can take some consolation in this fact whilst clinging to the hope that the remainder of the groups are not so blighted as this particular part of the service structure. As far as we can discern only one group (New Malden Sunday) seemed to inject any clarity into the discussion arguing (quite correctly in our view) that both the organisers and the Intergroup itself were in clear breach of Tradition Four ie. both had failed to properly consult with all interested parties viz. the two London regions and their constituent intergroups. Proper discussion was further hampered by the actions of both the outgoing Chairman and her current replacement. The former's grasp of the Traditions (specifically Tradition Four) can best be described as not even rudimentary. Clearly she believed that the statement “each group is autonomous” adequately summed up the substance and intent of this particular guideline. It does not (we invite you to read the Tradition for yourself, and ponder all of its implications) Moreover her main function in the debate seemed to be to act as both 'apologist' and 'cheerleader' for the “International AA(?) Gathering” position whilst 'ramming' through the proposal at the greatest possible speed, and in the process obstructing even minimal reasoning. Her departure from Intergroup might be considered as something of a blessing until you consider the actions of her successor, and her own blatant disregard of AA guidelines....

(to be contd)

Cheers

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

PS Thanks to our various correspondents

See also:

Plymouth (cult) Intergroup corruption

For AA Minority Report 2013 click here

The 'right to be wrong' gambit

See Tradition Four (12 Steps and 12 Traditions)

This is a much favoured defensive strategy employed predominantly by the cult groups which currently infest Alcoholics Anonymous. Whenever their twisted agenda is in any way threatened or brought to light they protest the 'right to be wrong' thereby obscuring their true intent under the guise of committing an entirely innocent mistake. Or to put it another way they plead ignorance, a defence which would fail entirely were it to be offered in a court of law. By these means any breach of the Traditions or guidelines may be committed with the ready excuse that should this be questioned they can immediately resort to the above stratagem. 'We didn't know', 'no one told us' they protest thereby neatly absolving themselves of all responsibility whilst placing the burden on others to clear up their mess.

Of course once the dust has settled they continue along their original path sure in the knowledge that should they again be discovered their defence still remains. After all an admission of error (at least in the cult's eyes) does not imply any requirement to mend their ways.

Bill Wilson's article (see above) although rather over-optimistically expressing faith in the ability of groups to be largely self-correcting in no way sanctions this approach. The “Middleton” group “had been humbly willing to apply the lessons it learned. It had picked itself up with a laugh and gone on to better things.” Not so the cult.....

Cheers

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

West Kent Intergroup – and yet another misrepresentation of Tradition Four!

Wandering around the internet we came across the official AA website for West Kent Intergroup (mostly famous for its hosting of the cult groups based in the Medway area: Strood, Rochester, Gravesend etc. See here and here). At one time this intergroup was effectively taken over by the cult (and for all we know still is). Certainly if the above website is anything to go by then ignorance still reigns supreme in this AA backwater.


 

According to West Kent IG (with respect to Tradition Four – or in their case with absolutely NO respect for Tradition Four) in their aide-memoire (there's posh for you!) to GSRs our West Kent experts on the traditions remind these group representatives that: 

“We wish to emphasize that the Traditions clearly state that ‘Every AA group is autonomous’ and can do as their group conscience decides., so there is absolutely no pressure being put on to any group to do anything – these are purely suggestions.”

Now you'll note that West Kent goes to great lengths to ensure that the GSRs in question are in “absolutely” no doubt about what the Traditions (or rather Tradition) states. We'll repeat it just in case YOU'RE in “absolutely” no doubt yourselves (but this time with emphases just in case you miss the good bits):

“We wish to emphasize that the Traditions clearly state that ‘Every AA group is autonomous’ and can do as their group conscience decides., so there is absolutely no pressure being put on to any group to do anything – these are purely suggestions.”

Fantastic! Couldn't be clearer could it. And it comes from the intergroup so IT MUST BE RIGHT!!

Only one problem though...... they're “ABSOLUTELY” WRONG!! “ABSOLUTELY”. We hope you didn't miss this bit so we'll say it again in …

REALLY REALLY BIG LETTERS!

THEY'VE GOT IT “ABSOLUTELY” WRONG!

What Tradition Four ACTUALLY says is as follows:

“Four – Each group should be autonomous except in matters affecting other groups or A.A. as a whole” (short form)

and

“4. - With respect to its own affairs, each A.A. group should be responsible to no other authority than its own conscience. But when its plans concern the welfare of neighbouring groups also, those groups ought to be consulted. And no group, regional committee, or individual should ever take any action that might greatly affect A.A. as a whole without conferring with the trustees of the General Service Board. On such issues our common welfare is paramount.” (long form)

(our emphases)

From these it is quite clear that each group is NOT autonomous in every respect. There is a significant qualification to their latitude of action. Perhaps West Kent IG might like to consult the basic text of Alcoholics Anonymous from time to time just to make sure they're quite up to speed on this one. Or maybe as a cult intergroup (?) it suits them to misrepresent this particular tradition?

Cheers

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous … and its ACTUAL traditions ….. “ABSOLUTELY”!)

Yet more misquotes of Tradition Four

(see AA Document Library – Guidelines Handbook)

From Chapter Nine: Probation/Criminal Justice Service of the above Handbook under “9:3 Groups”:

Here we are informed that: “ Each group is autonomous and how it chooses to co-operate (if at all) with Probation/Criminal Justice Service is for the group conscience to decide.”

Incorrect: What Tradition Four actually states is:

“Each group should be autonomous except in matters affecting other groups or AA as a whole” (our emphasis)

and in the long form:

It is clear from the above that each group is (contrary to the information provided in the AA handbook would you believe!) NOT unconditionally autonomous and therefore it is NOT simply down to the group conscience to decide whether it does or does not participate in the 'chit' (or court mandated attendance) system.

This misinformation is repeated in a later section (9:5 Setting up a Confirmation of Attendance/Chit System):

“Each group, intergroup or region is autonomous and free to use any method it sees appropriate.”

At this point we refer you to the Bill Wilson's discussion of this tradition in the 12 and 12 in particular the example (imagined) he cites of a particularly ambitious “promoter” in AA. We would suggest that the current ambitions demonstrated by some in the fellowship move well beyond cooperation with the probation service taking us in the process into some very treacherous territory indeed. We are not and never should be an adjunct of the sentencing system. If people are referred to us (or even compelled to attend) by the courts that's the courts' business not ours. But it is NOT OUR BUSINESS to facilitate this process beyond mere cooperation. The provision of chits etc in whatever form means we are quite literally endorsing government policy in this area – again something we're not supposed to be doing (see Preamble and relevant traditions). No matter how the system is designed no group, intergroup or region can implement such a system without breaching these principles. And as we've pointed out before the whole point of principles is you're supposed to observe them especially when it's most inconvenient …... otherwise they AREN'T principles! To act otherwise simply makes us hypocrites!

We don't often suggest revisions to AA literature but we believe there's one amendment to the above tradition which would do much to eliminate this form of error. Not exactly a rewording - more a re-ordering!

“Except in matters affecting other groups or AA as a whole each group should be autonomous”

Cheers

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

PS See here for more discussion on the chit system both in Great Britain and the US

PPS These misrepresentations are carried over into proposed revisions included in the following document:

Conference questions (GB 2015) Background Committee 6 Question 2 Revised Chapter 9

The AA Preamble

Here it is: 

“Alcoholics Anonymous is a fellowship of men and women who share their experience, strength and hope with each other that they may solve their common problem and help others to recover from alcoholism.

The only requirement for membership is a desire to stop drinking. There are no dues or fees for AA membership; we are self-supporting through our own contributions.

AA is not allied with any sect, denomination, politics, organisation 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.”

Source: AA (GB) website

We thought we'd take a little look at it. Firstly this is what is generally read out at the beginning of most AA meetings. It describes what AA - and that particular group - are and are not about. We say “most” because some meetings don't read out this form. Of course they're not obliged to but if the wording varies the question you've got to ask yourself is why? If the new form adds or subtracts anything again the question has got to be why? If the group when questioned responds by saying that they can use any wording they like, and add or subtract anything they wish, or indeed read out nothing at all they are quite correct … except according to Tradition Four – we quote: 

“Four—Each group should be autonomous except in matters affecting other groups or A.A. as a whole.” (our emphasis)

or if you prefer the long form: 

“4.—With respect to its own affairs, each A.A. group should be responsible to no other authority than its own conscience. But when its plans concern the welfare of neighboring groups also, those groups ought to be consulted. And no group, regional committee, or individual should ever take any action that might greatly affect A.A. as a whole without conferring with the trustees of the General Service Board. On such issues our common welfare is paramount.” (our emphasis)

So yes, it is true a group may do what it likes (according to its group conscience that is, and not merely at the whim of an individual or clique of individuals within the group) but this liberty is not unqualified. So if a group is using a different form of words in the preamble that's fine so long as that form doesn't misrepresent AA locally (ie. neighbouring groups) or “AA as a whole”. If it does again the question is why? And don't be afraid to ask!! Remember! We are responsible etc etc!

(to be continued)

Cheers

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

Conference Questions (2012) forum discussion (contd)

Committee No. 5

Question 2:

With specific regard to the history of our AA service structure, can the Fellowship share experience on how we can best strengthen unity by trusting and valuing the decisions of the group conscience at all levels of the Fellowship?

Background

‘The unity, the effectiveness, and even the survival of AA will always depend upon our continued willingness to give up some of our personal ambitions and desires for the common safety and welfare. Just as sacrifice means survival for the individual alcoholic, so does sacrifice mean unity and survival for the group and for AA’s entire Fellowship’.

AA Comes of Age, pp. 287-288 (Quoted in As Bill Sees It, p. 220)

Consider the contribution to the carrying of the message, financial and practical implications when deliberating each question.

See also:

The Traditions

Preamble

Concepts

Extract:

“The main points raised in relation to this question at my home group’s [Plymouth Road to Recovery (cult) group] Pre-Conference discussion meeting were:-
• By clear example of Concept 5 in action, by granting a voice to the minority opinion and not allowing the AA service structure to be a tool of simple majority. Extended discussion due to a minority opinion may well turn a simple majority into a more unanimous decision, or just show that the majority has taken everything into consideration.

• It seems that in the growth of AA in GB the insertion of 14 Regions into the structure in 1980 has created a distance between groups and conference. Thereby weakening Concept 1. ‘The final responsibility and the ultimate authority for AA world services should always reside in the collective conscience of our whole Fellowship.’ But the Fellowship has a duty to fully inform itself, and not rely on Intergroups and Regions to take their decisons [sic]. Information is available but not always read and understood, so that hasty, ill informed decision can become too frequent. We cannot allow ‘ignorance, apathy and power seeking’ to break down our democratic system.


• “Unity must come from a choice to tolerate, not from a demand to conform.”
Unity does not just come from conformity but from accepting non-conformity, especially in AA. The level of conformity required for AA to function effectively is remarkably low. The hardest thing in AA is to work successfully with people whose conscience contradicts my own. It is this difficulty which often leads fearful members cry out “We need more unity!” when in fact all we need is more courage and tolerance.

The whole point of the idea of a conscience is that we are not required to conform to another person’s or group’s conscience. As far as “trusting” a group conscience: trust can be earned through sustained successful leadership, not through pressuring people to trust the majority. Quite as important to our unity is allowing the voice of the minority to be well heard, and the voice to exist freely in opposition, no matter what the majority of people believe or decide.

It is the free decision of each individual in AA whether they will sacrifice their conscience on a matter to the conscience of another or to the majority, and peer pressure does not help this process, only education and experience does.”

Comment: Some admirable sentiments expressed here. Unfortunately in the case of this particular group (and not a few like it) these are hardly ever actually translated into action. Even the language employed within the cult has an entirely different and even contradictory meaning from that used within AA or wider society. 'Tolerance' in cult circles refers to that virtue practised by EVERYBODY ELSE. After all it's a well known fact that they (the cult) are ALWAYS RIGHT... and the remainder – AA – are ALWAYS WRONG. It is WE who should tolerate their bad conduct and never the reverse. It is we who should put up with their abuse of newcomers - never they who should amend their ways. If a cult group or member should elect to denigrate the fellowship and represent AA members as “Beano” readers ie. not quite up to grasping the profundities of the recovery programme unlike Wayne P (Plymouth R2R cult group) et al, then it's up to us to turn the other cheek and take it on the chin! (to mix only a couple of metaphors!). If the cult (the minority) don't get their way at conference what do they do? Do they smile and accept the conscience of the majority with good grace? Hardly.... Rather they react with anger and even threatening behaviour (An incident at Conference)(Jon F, Alexis K from .. guess! Plymouth cult group!). Or if that fails to work well there's always the 'bore them to death' strategy! c/o David “The Icon” C (yet another cult stalwart!). Tolerance in the cult is entirely a one way concept! Us to them!

Now we come to “conformity”. Well here at least cult members are probably the best qualified to comment on this concept (and the worst on its antithesis). In their mouths “suggested” means “directed”. Remember these groups engage in “glorification of the individual” and “sponsor worship” (Dr Bob's words). Their central tenet may be summarised thus: “do exactly what your sponsor tells you” (David “The Icon” C). In other words – CONFORM! The concept of non-conformity (or autonomy) only comes into play when it suits the cult agenda. Hence their emphasis on the “minority view” (if it's theirs) and their frequent reference to the first part of Tradition Four but rarely the second! We quote: 

“Each group should be autonomous except in matters affecting other groups or AA as a whole.”

(our emphasis)

The cult likes the first part – it gives them licence (apparently) to do what they like. But they really don't like the second part at all since their so-called 'internal' conduct frequently does affect “other groups or AA as a whole” ie sponsee abuse, interference in the doctor/patient relationship etc.

(see here for a further discussion)

Finally “education” and “peer pressure” are not necessarily two mutually exclusive notions. Unfortunately the latter is the only recourse when the 'students' remain so unwilling to learn (either from their own experience or from others)

Cheerio

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

PS We're thinking of bringing out an English to cult language dictionary. Any suggestions? We thought one entry might be: 

“leadership” (English): “dictatorship” (cultese)

Tradition Four, Grapevine, August, 1952, Bill W

See also Links and downloads

Conference Questions (2012) forum discussion (contd)

Committee No. 3

Question 2:

“Would the Fellowship review and re-affirm what constitutes an AA Group, within the Fellowship in Great Britain with specific reference to Traditions 4 - 6?

Background

The Traditions

Preamble

Concepts

Consider the contribution to the carrying of the message, financial and practical implications when deliberating each question.”

Extract:

“Tradition 4

Linking the subject of this post to the above posts and to my post on page 2 of Committee 1, Question 1, regarding the frequently asked questions by professionals on the GSO (GB) website and the bad press reports in the national press, what constitutes an AA group would consider what effect its own affairs have on other groups and AA as a whole.

It should be a serious concern to all AA members that some federal and state courts in the USA have ruled that "Adherence to the AA fellowship entails engagement in religious activity and religious proselytisation." and that “AA is a religion.” (Source: national press report, Great Britain); and that one of the frequently asked questions by professionals in Great Britain is: “Is it a cult? (Source: GSO website: Information for professionals: F.A.Q.s: http://www.alcoholics-anonymous.org.uk/professionals/?PageID=84

Something is going seriously wrong with AA public relations and some groups that call themselves AA groups are responsible for this. Many alcoholics of agnostic, atheist, or religious beliefs other than Christianity are being turned away from AA. This is because some groups that call themselves AA groups are adopting the doctrines of outside published literature which implicate the AA program as being evangelical Christian.

Although I do not know much about law, I think there may be legal implications for AA as a whole. If in future more courts continue to rule that AA is religious, then it will be increasingly difficult for AA to say that it is not religious. There could be a possibility that in future AA World Services and the General Service Board in Great Britain could be court ordered to remove statements in official AA literature which state that AA is not religious. Some AA groups or the General Service Board and GSO could be held in contempt of court if they then continued to distribute the official AA pamphlets where a court ruled AA is religious. How can an organisation state that it is not religious where the law states that it is?

Some information on court rulings can be searched on the internet by using the search terms: “USA court rulings AA is a religion” and “AA cult”

What constitutes an AA group would not give the impression that it is religious or that it is a cult. It would have the AA structure of an up side down triangle. Power in the group would be in the democratic majority vote of the whole group, inclusive to all group members, irrespective of their length of sobriety. According to Tradition Two an AA group would not have a pyramid structure of a cult. Power in the group would not be in a leading personality; a “guru” or “grand sponsor” or in a small steering committee composed of his or her friends. Nor would the group imply teaching of the 12 steps as a religious doctrine, or try to increase its membership by coercion or solicitation. This would give the appearance of it being a religious cult. Evidently, from the national press reports and courts, some groups are behaving in this manner and they are giving the public this impression; therefore they are affecting other AA groups and AA as a whole by damaging overall AA public relations. Such groups are outside the bounds of the General Warranties of Conference which safeguard AA as a whole, and therefore, they cannot call themselves AA groups.

Concept 12, Warranty 5: “We have no doctrine that has to be maintained. We have no membership that has to be enlarged. We have no authority that has to be supported. We have no prestige, power or pride that has to be satisfied.”

Concept 12, warranty 5: “If we recognize that religion is the province of the clergy and the practice of medicine is for doctors, then we can helpfully cooperate with both.”

Cheerio

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

Editorial: On the 4th Tradition, Grapevine, March, 1948, Bill W

See also Links and downloads

A Minority report (continued)(2)

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

“…All of this is fully implied in A.A.’s Tradition Two. Here we see the ‘group conscience’ as the ultimate authority and the ‘trusted servant’ as the delegated authority. One cannot function without the other” (Concept X) “Hence the principle of amply delegated authority and responsibility to ‘trusted servants’ must be implicit from the top to the bottom of our active structure of service. This is the clear implication of A.A.’s Tradition Two” (Concept II) “Trusted servants at all A.A. levels are expected to exercise leadership, and leadership is not simply a matter of submissive housekeeping” (Concept VII) “Leadership is often called upon to face heavy and sometimes long-continued criticism” (Concept IX) “All around us in the world today we are witnessing the tyranny of majorities and the even worse tyranny of very small minorities invested with absolute power” (Concept V) “that care will be observed to respect and protect all minorities… …That our Conference shall ever be prudently on guard against tyrannies, great and small, whether these be found in the majority or in the minority” (Concept XII: Warranty 6). “Feeling the weight of all these forces, certain members who run counter to A.A.’s Traditions sometimes say that they are being censored or punished and that they are therefore being governed. It would appear however, that A.A.’s right to object calmly and privately to specific violations is at least equal to the rights of the violators to violate. This cannot accurately be called a governmental action” (Concept XII, warranty 5).

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

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

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

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

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

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

Derbyshire AA Intergroup?

A while ago we received a series of emails emanating from the Derby area in relation to the activities of the local intergroup. It would seem from these that all is not well. Various allegations were made as to the conduct of this intergroup with reference to a number of meetings in the Derby City area. We visited the above mentioned intergroup's website to check some of the matters raised in our correspondents' emails and came across a number of features which we found somewhat surprising. We summarised these in one of our own responses. See below:

“Dear …...

Thank you for your email. Firstly we should begin by saying (and as a point of clarification) that our goal is as stated on the website and includes (although not overtly) our full support for the principles on which AA is based ie. the Steps, Traditions, Concepts, guidelines (albeit with some qualifications in the last instance) etc. We were somewhat dismayed therefore to note your reference to “genuinely autonomous” meetings since this in itself represents a misquote of Tradition Four, something which we have gone to considerable lengths to emphasise on our site. We quite categorically do NOT support groups that exercise their own autonomy BUT with a complete disregard for the impact this might have on other groups or AA as a whole, and moreover where such action undermines the effectiveness of the remainder of the Traditions. Although our primary focus is on “cult” groups (as we define them) there are plenty of instances where what might otherwise be described as legitimate AA groups also breach (and seriously) these Traditions, and not only to their detriment but also other groups and AA collectively.

With regard to the intergroup website we have checked through this and there are a number of areas of concern. Firstly the site itself does not seem itself to be directly linked into the main AA website (under Midlands region – Derbyshire). In connection with this we note the following:

Under the heading "Website" (Minutes Dec 2010):

"….. has received no further communication following the contact he made with GSO Electronic sub committee.

….. has also sent two emails to GSO asking if we could have our page back on the new site but has received no reply."

Also under same heading (Minutes Sept 2010)

"….. informed IG that the Derbyshire page had been removed from the G.S.O site because it has links to outside bodies- the body in question is Google maps, the page previously provided a link to Google maps so that a visitor to the page could see where exactly a meeting was located. He stated that he would re-organise the National page to comply with AA guidance, and asked the group whether the links should be taken off the Derbyshire website, which is separate to the national page on the AA website, or not?

It was agreed that the links to Google maps should be kept on the Derbyshire site."

Next: the templates available on the site do not have any indicated conference approved provenance. One of these (the 4th step inventory) seems to derive from the following site: http://aaworkshop.org/4th-step-inventory.php. [with “Back to Basics” connections. See here for more information on this grouping]. This site has no affiliation with AA as such (although it omits to mention this) and therefore the use of the material (and despite its relatively innocuous content) constitutes an implied endorsement (and affiliation) by Derbyshire Intergroup (a breach of the Traditions). Exactly the same may be said with regard to the 1944 sponsorship pamphlet (again no indication that this is conference approved). Most of the views expressed in this document are again relatively uncontroversial (although there are some with which we might take serious issue) but an AA intergroup really has no business carrying reference material which does not form part of the approved corpus of AA literature (and especially where the existing [AA] literature most adequately covers the areas under question). Under the section “What Happens at Meetings” again the content is relatively harmless but there are a number of statements included which seem to express the personal opinions (and preferences) of the author(s) rather than being purely observational. For example the view is expressed that: “We are not a religious organisation but we are spiritual and many of us (even the atheists among us) find this short prayer helpful.” Apart from the fact that this seems to be something of a broad assumption it is questionable how a prayer addressed directly to God could ever be regarded as “helpful” by someone who is a genuine atheist. Praying to something that you have no belief (or faith) in whatsoever would seem to us to be a rather bizarre activity. There is also something distinctly patronising about the qualifying condition ie. “EVEN the atheists....” (our emphasis). The only category of alcoholic in AA is – an alcoholic in AA! That is it! Again, the observation that: “..... we usually stand in a circle, join hands and say ….” is not as far as we're aware an accurate statement. It may be the case in the Derbyshire area but it is not “the norm” elsewhere. Further: “We do not talk or comment when someone is sharing and it is considered bad manners to comment negatively on an earlier share when it is your turn. (We call that "cross-sharing")”. The expression “cross-sharing” is a relatively recent 'fad' (or for those of us who have been around AA “for a little while” at least!) and we have found, on the contrary, a bit of “negative” sharing can be most instructive especially when it's somebody's life on the line! And of course the question arises: who is it precisely that considers it “bad manners” to “cross-share”? The author(s)? Other members? Who exactly are these “spokesmen for AA”? Indeed there is no guideline which may DIRECT how a member may or may not speak and therefore they should not be subjected to any form of censorship (implicit or otherwise) other than that governed by the relevant statutes. It seems quite unnecessary in our view to include such detailed “opinions” on an AA site which should contain only basic information relating to meeting lists, conventions, intergroup business and links to the relevant sections of the main AA website. This is a yet another example of unhelpful “micro management”!

With reference to the “Sobriety Breakfast” (advertised on the site) this is another clear breach of the Traditions (specifically Tradition Seven). Fund raising “events” (and we would include here profits derived from literature sales - an example of AA traditions being broken not only locally but even nationally!), raffles, dances, discos etc all represent “transactions” contributing to a profit. In exchange for the “goods” or “services” provided a specific charge is made (including generally that element of profit) and a contract comes into existence. There is no indication within the Traditions of Alcoholics Anonymous that such “contracts” are intended to be created between it, the Fellowship service structure and its members. The point of a “voluntary contribution” indeed is that no such contractual relationship is created. Both parties (if it may be put that way) are mutual donors and both are mutual beneficiaries, the rewards deriving solely from the relationship itself and not from any extrinsic and “superfluous” benefit.

Finally we would certainly be interested to hear whether the intergroup website has carried information about “informal” meetings (associated with a particular religious denomination) since this would be a clear (and extremely serious) breach of the Traditions. The only reference we can find in the minutes to such “informal” meetings relate to those held at the Derbyshire Royal Infirmary (and this seems to be due to some constraints on accessibility).

We would also be interested to hear specifically why the intergroup took the action you indicated with respect to your group(s) and what steps you have taken to remedy the situation, and what (if any) response you have had from the intergroup in this regard.

For our part we will pass on some of the above observations to both GSO York and also to Derbyshire Intergroup. In the meantime we would appreciate it if you would send us the group details (as they appear in the AA online Where to Find) of both your group(s) and also the groups you refer to as belonging to the cult. This will ensure that no confusion may ensue through misidentification. We will then follow up on the matter

Cheers

The Fellas”

We did subsequently contact Derbyshire Intergroup with regard to the above – no response. We also contacted GSO York who kindly acknowledged our communication.

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

(our thanks to the correspondents from Derby for drawing our attention to these issues)

Ealing again!

Well it would seem that Tim W has been elected (?) to the job of responding to South Middlesex IG's letter of complaint (see below: 31/07/11 “CULT THUG BULLIES DISABLED PENSIONER OUT OF EALING MEETING” for another of Tim W's initiatives!). Presumably the Happy One has been sent to convalesce somewhere else (or indeed anywhere else!) whilst a more “reasoned” defence for the cult groups' conduct is advanced. It all looks very impressive. The traditions are cited, bits of AA literature are mentioned, group autonomy is alluded to (but of course leaving out that inconvenient second part). All very reasonable … and all less than candid. And so …....

4. Each group should be autonomous except in matters affecting other groups or A.A. as a whole.

and of course Tradition 3 (which is not mentioned at all in this disingenuous missive):

3. Our membership ought to include all who suffer from alcoholism. Hence we may refuse none who wish to recover. Nor ought A.A. membership ever depend upon money or conformity. Any two or three alcoholics gathered together for sobriety may call themselves an A.A. group, provided that, as a group, they have no other affiliation.

(our emphases)

The cult groups in Ealing were set up with absolutely no consultation with AA groups or intergroup, and with no regard whatsoever as to their impact on legitimate AA meetings. These groups produce (and promote) their own literature (in probable breach of AAWS copyright) and moreover circulate a version of the Where to Find which contains adverts for the cult website referred to in this “spokesman's” letter. We have in fact had ample opportunity to study this website and contrary to the assertions made in Tim W's response there is much in there which is NOT derived from the Big Book and other AA literature (ie. the section: Alcohol in Solid Form). Here a number of assertions are made about the employment of prescribed medication (specifically anti-depressants) in relation to mis-diagnosis (or otherwise) of a putative underlying condition (ie. alcoholism). None of these statements is made by anyone with any professional qualification, and in fact represent purely the opinions of the author. Apart from the questionable views expressed (and the misquotes from AA literature) what is of greater interest is the discrepancy between what is evident and what is “inferred”. This latter term is employed with great frequency in the course of Tim W's rebuttal. Naturally one might infer anything about anything – in its extreme form this might be termed “subjectivism” or even “solipsism” - or to put it another way – everything is open to interpretation. So for example some people might take the term “suggested” to mean:

1. To offer for consideration or action; propose.

2. To bring or call to mind by logic or association; evoke.
3. To make evident indirectly; intimate or imply.
4. To serve as or provide a motive for.

In the cult circles however the word assumes an entirely different guise - it is “inferred” as an imperative, and worse still something that may be imposed by one person upon another. Here we remind you of that central imperative about which all cult sponsorship revolves:

“Sponsor

It is suggested that you phone daily and do exactly what your sponsor tells you. If you don't have a sponsor, look upon every meeting you go to as a chance to find one.

NB If anything is unclear, ask your sponsor.”

(our emphasis).

(an excerpt from another cult website linked to the one cited above)

So although the position adopted by the cult groups is presented by Tim W as being quite reasonable and entirely in accord with the Traditions etc it is in fact far removed. This may be exemplified by contrasting what is currently included under the present 'redaction' of the aforementioned website with its previous version. This throws some light on the covert, intrusive and indeed voyeuristic (some might say perverted) tendencies of its authors.

Under the section Step Four “Sexual Conduct” the original version contained the following statement:

“In the inventory we should be prepared to include sex with: men, women, children, animals..... . and bottles”

This has now been edited out.

Now it might be “inferred” from the basic text of Alcoholics Anonymous that such matters should be included in the Step Four inventory. However we would assert that this is an inference that may not be drawn and on two fairly obvious grounds: legal and therapeutic. Two of the sex acts referred to would fall under criminal jurisdiction and if revealed to a “sponsor” would place both individuals at risk of prosecution; the “sponsee” for the criminal act itself, and the “sponsor” as an accessory should they fail to report the incident(s). These communications are not legally “privileged”. Therapeutically it does not require an enormous leap of the imagination to consider the impact that such revelations might have on both parties especially where the “sponsor” may not be trained to handle such disclosures.

We include this example here as indicative of the cult's underlying agenda in Great Britain and elsewhere (quite apart from their deliberate – and overt - manipulation of the Traditions to promote their objectives). The façade that is presented by Tim W et al is precisely that – a show of unity but one without any substance. The letter may sign off with the traditional “Yours in fellowship” but actions do in fact speak so much more eloquently than words......

Cheers

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

(our thanks to our local reporter)

Bournemouth Road to Recovery cult group go into “victim” mode!

Recently we received a copy of letter emanating from the the GSR of the aforementioned group (which refers to itself as an AA group - although on what basis we have yet to determine!)

The letter is dated Nov 30th 2010 and is addressed to “the Chairpersons of Bournemouth and Poole Intergroups”. Essentially the complaint is based on the fact that both these intergroups have repeatedly refused to accept this cult group within their respective parts of the service structure. The GSR for this cult group argues that such a refusal amounts to “disregarding” the guidelines (an area with which he is probably most familiar since this is quite common practice amongst these rogue elements) and therefore illegitimate. In support of his contention he makes reference to AA literature (specifically Tradition 3 – long form) and as usual proceeds to offer a uniquely “cult” interpretation of the material. Tradition 3 is:

“3. Our membership ought to include all who suffer from alcoholism. Hence we may refuse none who wish to recover. Nor ought A.A. membership ever depend upon money or conformity. Any two or three alcoholics gathered together for sobriety may call themselves an A.A. group, provided that, as a group, they have no other affiliation.”

He argues, moreover, that he is “unable to find anywhere in A.A literature that it is within an Intergroups remit to decide which groups may or may not participate.”

He claims that the reason for his group's repeated rejection has been based on the allegation that his group has in fact “[an]other affiliation” and is thereby not an AA group at all. He rejects the claim but provides no evidence to support his rebuttal (in connection with this a friend of ours told us of a joke currently doing the rounds: “How can you tell when a cult member is lying? Answer: When you see their lips moving"). On the other hand one simply has to look to the name of the group itself for direct evidence of its affiliation (for example with the notorious Plymouth Road to Recovery cult group. A visit to the latter's website alone (Diary dates section) should be sufficient to demonstrate the existence of a network of “outside affiliations” ie. Primary Purpose etc (more on this later)). Moreover we are reliably informed that the grounds for this refusal do not rest purely on the question of outside affiliation but rather on the conduct of the group itself. He then goes on to misquote - and as usual in cult circles - Tradition Four, claiming that the group is an “autonomous AA group” and is “answerable only to the conscience of its members”. Tradition Four DOES NOT SAY this at all. We quote:

“4. With respect to its own affairs, each A.A. group should be responsible to no other authority than its own conscience. But when its plans concern the welfare of neighbouring groups also, those groups ought to be consulted. And no group, regional committee, or individual should ever take any action that might greatly affect A.A. as a whole without conferring with the trustees of the General Service Board. On such issues our common welfare is paramount.” (our emphases)

Clearly an application to join an intergroup is something which fits into the (emphasised) category above and is not simply a matter of a group's “own affairs”. Moreover, and using the GSR's own unsound argument against him, if it is the case that each group is autonomous (and answerable to no one at all) he can hardly complain when the other “autonomous” groups decide (within the context of their intergroup) to exercise their “autonomy” and refuse the participation of this cult group. Which way do you want to play this game? So for example if someone comes to your home, knocks on the door and represents themselves to be so-and-so (a claim which you know to be untrue) and insists that they have the right to enter your house, (because they have the right to do anything they like) and you then advise them to the contrary (because you in turn have the right to do whatever you like) it can be argued that a “consultation” has taken place, you have deliberated upon their claim, concluded it to be invalid, and invited them thereafter 'to go forth and multiply'!

The unfortunate GSR then goes on to argue (somewhat disingenuously we fear) that his group has been “asked to conform to the wishes of other groups although the precise manner of this conformity has never been clearly stated”. Might we suggest that this “conformity” might consist in abiding by the guidelines, traditions, concepts etc and maybe even listen for a change! (on reflection this might be way beyond any cult member's capacity; it's a case of “What an order! I can't go through it.”). He then proceeds to waffle on about the group's name arguing that the objection raised to its employment (and the request to discontinue its use) would lead to the group going against “The conscience of A.A. GB as outlined in “The Group” booklet.” Apart from this hardly being a novelty ie. a cult group breaking traditions and guidelines, here is the actual extract from the booklet “The AA Group”:

"Therefore, An A.A. Group that meets in a correctional or treatment facility or a church should take care not to use the institution's name, but to call itself something quite different. This makes it clear that the A.A. group is not affiliated with the hospital, church, prison, treatment facility, or whatever, but simply rents space there for meetings."
(pp.15-16)

The purpose of this advice is quite clear; to ensure that no other affiliation is implied. However this guidance does not mean that groups may only employ names derived from phrases in the Big Book. Moreover the fact that a group uses such a name does not guarantee that it is in fact an AA group.

(Note: other names employed by these groups include “Back to Basics”, “Primary Purpose”, “There is a Solution”, “Joys of Recovery”, “Vision for You” as well as more generic terminology ie. Newcomers (or Beginners) meetings, Big Book Study groups and various combinations of these etc. It is unfortunate that the cult groups have chosen to appropriate these entirely legitimate terms (in much the same fashion that the National Front hijacked the Union Jack in order to gain some measure of credibility) but finally there is more to AA than a name. (As usual be advised that not all groups that use these designations are necessarily cult run, and conversely groups that do not employ these names, and appear otherwise entirely innocuous, may in fact be cult based. In this connection inclusion of a group in the national or even local Where to Finds (either via the online site or in printed form) is also not necessarily a guarantee that the group listed is an AA group. Caution in all cases is recommended and in this respect local knowledge is paramount – as in the case of the Bournemouth cult group).

In fact this whole issue is something of a red herring, and one frequently employed by the cult to deflect debate away from matters of substance to mere form. Of course cult groups are mostly concerned with appearance rather than content so from their point of view anything which imparts some degree of legitimacy and authenticity to their activities is of great importance. What should be of greater concern to AA members, however, is the conduct of these groups, not only in terms of the message they purport to carry but also the means they employ to do so (which are frequently coercive, usually manipulative and sometimes downright abusive). What makes an AA group an AA group is its “spirit” (in the widest sense of the word) or its “conscience”, and not merely legalistic (mis)interpretations of the traditions and guidelines.... which brings us on to the next part of this GSR's advocacy: the concepts.

Our budding lawyer here makes reference to these and asserts that:

“Although the 12 Concepts were written for Conference, the principles can be applied throughout our service structure. Warranty 5 of Concept 12 states that no Conference action every be personally punitive and Warranty Six ends with the statement “To a man, we of A.A. believe that our freedom to serve is truly the freedom by which we live- the freedom in which we have our being”

The actual quote is as follows:

"There will also be seen in these Concepts a number of principles which have already become traditional to our services, but which have never been clearly articulated and reduced to writing. For example: the “Right of Decision” gives our service leaders a proper discretion and latitude; the “Right of Participation” gives each world servant a voting status commensurate with his (or her) responsibility, and “Participation” further guarantees that each service board or committee will always possess the several elements and talents that will insure effective functioning. The “Right of Appeal” protects and encourages minority opinion; and the “Right of Petition” makes certain that grievances can be heard, and properly acted upon. These general principles can of course be used to good effect throughout our entire structure.

In other sections, the Concepts carefully delineate those important traditions, customs, relationships and legal arrangements that weld the General Service Board into a working harmony with its primary committees and with its corporate arms of active service — A.A. World Services, Inc. and The A.A. Grapevine, Inc. This is the substance of the structural framework that governs the internal working situation at A.A.’s World Headquarters." (our emphases)

(Twelve Concepts for World Service - Introduction, p.3)

He then goes on to claim that such exclusion from Intergroup: “[Denies] members of my group the opportunity to participate in the service structure and serve the fellowship of Alcoholics Anonymous [and] is clearly a punitive measure. It also denies A.A, members a fundamental freedom”.

He seems to be assuming here that participation in the service structure (intergroup etc) is something of an automatic right, or conversely (implied), rejection as some kind of denial of a “fundamental freedom”, and even “punitive”. Now for our part we're not aware that such is the case. For example we may go along to our local intergroup and, exercising our rights, offer our services in some capacity. They may say yes or then again they may say no. That is their right, and the decision is theirs, not ours to make. We may not like the decision and we can argue our position. They still have the right to say yes or no. If we refuse to accept their answer and become disruptive they have the right to ask us to leave ie. in preservation of another fundamental AA principle: Unity (Tradition One) The Bournemouth cult group have applied to join two local intergroups and the latter have said no (repeatedly). They have given their reasons for saying no and these reasons still stand. No denial of the right to offer to serve exists, but for that matter nor does any automatic right to a service position either. It is rather a privilege and one which quite evidently the cult groups have not earned. The notion that somehow they are being “punished” is yet more evidence of the much favoured “victim” mode employed by cult members and groups when they can't get their own way. It is also exemplifies the arrogance of their perspective ie. the only possible reason that they are denied participation in the service structure is because we want to punish them. It never crosses their minds that they are quite simply not up to the job! But of course we should remember - “They are always right and we are always wrong!”

The GSR then proceeds with his gloss on the activities of this cult group and their generally 'exemplary' conduct, eg. conformity to guidelines, traditions (superficial) etc blah blah blah and this quite ad nauseam, and in the process further emphasising intergroup's wholly unreasonable attitude. We are left in no doubt whatsoever about how much AA is the poorer because of this cult group's continued exclusion from the service structure. Now we come to the 'threat':

“Due to our continued exclusion we have no option but to elect group service reps and take on our own service activities as a Group. We will cooperate with the existing service structure by attending all P.I. meetings and give full reports to the relevant Intergroup officers of all the work carried out by our group reps.”

The fact that they are running their own “service activities as a Group” should come as no surprise to anyone by now. The cult has already created an alternative service structure in GB with its own hierarchy of affiliations, websites, literature, “clustered” home groups systems, conventions, circuit speakers, and even in some instances taken over whole intergroups. Its members have managed to infiltrate every level of the AA service structure (even down to the conference delegate level) with its members voting in blocs and according to directions from “Central Command”. Cult members in the telephone service and on 12 step lists direct newcomers only to cult groups where they are 'advised' to avoid any contact with “sick” AA.

The GSR (cult) concludes:

“Finally, my group is clear that it would work within the local service structure should Bournemouth or Poole Intergroup at any stage reconsider their previous decisions. We would also like it noted that the support of some Intergroup members has been much appreciated.

In fellowship

Rik V.
GSR, “Road to Recovery” Group of Alcoholics Anonymous

Bournemouth”

How generous! And how arrogant! We particularly like the last sentence, and a classic cult tactic: Divide and rule!

We conclude with the following observations. The cult has now had close to thirty years to develop its “parallel fellowship” within AA in Great Britain, and this with virtually no effective, coordinated opposition. It is organised (its lines of communication having been greatly enhanced with the arrival of the internet) and its agenda is clear: the subversion of Alcoholics Anonymous. So far their conduct has been tolerated by AA members, this generosity of spirit deriving from the view that “all such things pass”, and then of their own accord. Mistake! This particular form of “alcoholic disease” has persisted, is spreading, and will eventually destroy AA in this country unless its members take ACTION. Evil is not defeated by tolerance but by resistance, followed in turn by countermeasures. The cult will not just go away. Appeals to GSO York - or any other perceived “authority” - to intervene are useless. They can do nothing. The choice is clear. Either we strive to preserve a fellowship which is inclusive, tolerant (but not passive), non-judgemental and non-directive, offering freedom to its members (no strings attached), and with no “political” structure or class of members who assume authority over others, or we sit back and permit its direct opposite, an alternative which is most clearly evidenced in every aspect of cult behaviour: exclusive, intolerant, arrogant, condemnatory, authoritarian, dogmatic and driven by personalities who are motivated solely by their own quest for power (see BB, How it Works, Step 3 for a full description of this type). The buck stops finally, and well and truly, with AA members and AA groups. aacultwatch will continue to do our bit for for as long as it takes. What are you going to do?

Cheers

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)