|
Hi, Sounds like someone REALLY got a burr under your saddle! Yeh, I get pissed off when steppers hurt my friends with misinformation and cult dogma. You have all the sympathy that I can muster my friend. Being a retired military of the Viet-Nam era, your "agent orange" analogy/connection is very appropriate, since the effects of THAT particular agent didn't appear until years later.
I'm not sure that I follow your logic. So... AA "didn't work" for you. Boo hoo. That's life, suck it up!
Wrong. I have repeatedly
stated that I did not waste much time on the 12-Step program. I/We don't say "it works for EVERYBODY", or that it's the be-all of all programs.
Actually, steppers say that all of the time. That's how they rationalize using
counselors, therapists, judges, police, and parole officers to force more people
into the 12-step A.A./N.A. cult.
Pamela D. calls it
"FORCING US TO GET HELP."
I've already covered the issue of A.A. claiming to work, and
claiming it is The Only Way before, in one of
the previous letters.
Maybe RR, or some of the other programs wouldn't work for me...I've seen enough and heard enough to know I ain't interested when someone or something depends more on bashing what works "5% of the time" (your quote), that on showing me something positive. My friend, I've had one heart attack, and I didn't debate the treatment or the drugs that were given to me for recovery of that malady.
YOU may not have bothered to investigate whether the drugs or treatment
you were given were really
good medicine, but SOMEBODY sure as hell did. Otherwise, you would be dead.
The drug manufacturers and the F.D.A. had to do a lot of expensive
testing to prove that the drugs and treatment you were given were really effective.
On average, it costs about $300 million to get a drug through the entire approval
process. Everything you got to save your life had passed through that filter.
A.A. has never survived any such examination.
It has alway been proven ineffective and worthless. It has even been shown
to harm and kill patients.
And who gave you that medical treatment that saved your life?
And when you had your heart attack, did you choose to go to the Alcoholics Anonymous
faith healers to have them pray over you and do a miraculous faith healing, or
did you go to a real doctor?
I also HAD prostate cancer. I did the research, took the action, and follow up regularly. I DID have the time for research on that, just like I did on MY alcoholism. AA works for me. Plain and simple.
What works for you? Just what works?
Please explain precisely how voodoo medicine and cult religion keep you sober.
And how do you know that you aren't just another person who is being fooled by
quack medicine? Have you read
Dr. David Duncan's story
about quack medicine?
I would suggest that what really works to keep you sober is your
refusal to put a glass of alcohol to your mouth and drink it.
The rest is just a superstitious hobby that you waste your spare time on.
Your confusion about what works for you would not matter except that
you steppers then do an illogical jump to the conclusion that it will
also work for lots of other people,
"So let's
go tell the judge to
force all DWI's into A.A., because
everybody knows that A.A. is the best, most successful alcoholism
treatment program..."
And then, when you do your Twelfth Step work, you tell the ignorant, desperate, sick people
that cult religion is the best cure for alcoholism, with no doubts in your mind
about the truth of what you are saying, because you have convinced yourself
that quack medicine and faith healing are what really works for you.
You never tell new prospects something like,
If something else work(s)(ed) for you, I'm more than happy for ya. Keep on doing what YOU are doing, even if it includes the attempted trashing of what's been shown to work for a great many. Nope...I ain't gonna trot out statistics on ya, figures don't lie, but liars do figure...go figure, haha.
No, it has not ever "been shown to work for many." Not even close.
You're a rank amateur as far as I'm concerned in the AA bad-mouth game. Please see other (in)famous characters such as a "Mr. Ken Raggae" and another that comes to mind who goes/went by the name of "Rev(?). Colin James". Do you write comedy professionally?
Most Sincerely,
What does "rank amateur" mean, or have to do with it? The truth is the truth,
no matter who says it.
Did you know that the word "amateur" means that you do it for love, not money?
"Amateur" has the same root as the French word "amour". So I tell the truth for the love
of it.
Now that isn't such an insult, is it?
Oh well, have a good day anyway.
— Orange
in reading some of your propaganda, it occurrs to me that you would present a better image of yourself, and
possibly of whatever agenda you are trying to promote here, if you were to simply highlight your own good
deeds, if you can find such, instead of slinging mud at everyone else.
Mike S.
and no right way for me to drink
Hello, Mike,
When you ask that I only highlight my good deeds, what you are really asking is for
me to quit saying negative things about Alcoholics Anonymous, Narcotics Anonymous,
and the whole 12-step cult religion. You are asking me to stop telling the truth
about them. Sorry, no deal.
I would not have so much reason to criticize A.A. if it would quit:
Spiritual growth does not consist of fooling people into joining you in your
favorite superstitions, like
Bill Wilson teaches in chapter 7
of the Big Book.
You can't figure out what my agenda is? I have said it repeatedly.
Look at the previous letters.
Have a good day anyway.
— Orange
You have no idea what you are writing about. Are you an Addict? You have missed the point and miss informed beyond reason. Misinformed? Which of my citations or references is wrong? I research very carefully. Why so much angry? I don't like cults that harm my friends. If the program helps but one person.
Flip the logic over: If it kills just one person...
Well, A.A. does kill. A.A. has clearly, repeatedly,
been shown to kill.
What about that?
There are no other programs with any better success rate.
Totally wrong. A.A. doesn't have a success rate;
it has a failure rate, and a death rate. Good luck. I hope you find happiness. Al
Thanks for the good wishes. I've already found happiness.
You have a good day too.
— Orange
[ 18 Feb 2003: Second letter from Al B.: ] Why flip the logic around? To prove your point? The point as I see it is that addiction is a physical, psychological, and spiritual condition. I believe that is all AA is trying to help out with. Sure its a bit dated but show me a religion that is not. All religion that carry any dogma are cults so AA is another one? So what. I guess if you really want you can beat up anything. Are you an addict. I am and have not practiced for over four years. I believe the Spirit set me free. This was before ever going to a meeting. When I did go I was surprised to learn that mine and Bill s experiences were quit similar. So no I don't believe everything I hear at AA but some things do make sense. About your friends that died I am sorry to hear that. If it was because of an addiction that is even sadder. One thing that I did get from AA is that the life I live today is "Happy Joyous and Free" and wether that has anything to do with AA really is not that point. I am very grateful for my sobriety. I hope that you loose no more of your friends to addiction and that your life continues to be a happy one. Love Life And Laughter AL
It is grossly dishonest and deceptive to only point to
a few success stories while ignoring
20 times as many people
for whom the program did not work, and whom the program
actually hindered in
their attempts at recovery.
I dislike having to constantly repeat myself, but steppers don't seem to read
anything unless you shove it in their faces. So, once again,
one of the leaders of A.A., AAWS Trustee Prof. George Vaillant, found that A.A. had
the highest death rate of
any treatment program that he examined during his 8-year long test of
A.A. treatment of alcoholics. He called the death rate in the A.A. treatment program
"appalling".
I can believe that A.A. and cult religion really do help some people
to quit drinking — a rare few.
Out of the one hundred alcoholics whom Vaillant tracked through A.A. treatment, only 5
got and stayed sober for all eight years, but 29 of them got and stayed dead.
That is nearly a 6 to 1 kill-to-success ratio.
What kill ratio do you consider acceptable?
And remember that those terrible numbers came from somebody who loves Alcoholics Anonymous,
and is one of the leaders of A.A..
Prof. George E. Vaillant is so crazy that he thinks that we should send all alcoholics to
A.A. anyway,
even if it will kill them.
Vaillant says:
Now mind you, I do not just
automatically dismiss all drug-induced visions as invalid, any more than I would dismiss
all deliberately-induced visionary experiences that were triggered by fasting,
meditating, chanting, praying, breathing exercises, Sufi dancing, or yoga.
But let's be rigorously honest here, and tell it like it is.
(The Big Book, page 58)
Have a good day.
— Orange
Thank you for your web site. It has really opened my eyes. My sponsor in AA is a true believer Wilsonist. He told me every morning to pray on my knees on a made bed for God to "show me the truth about my alcoholism". Two hours later I was at your web site. How's that for guidance? Now that's funny. Thanks for the compliments. I got to your site because I wanted to search about Herbert Spencer's AA quote. Google returns your site pretty high on the list for a search on "Herbert Spencer Alcoholics Anonymous".
Bless Google. It took a long time to bubble up to that status. Three years ago I was told the quote attributed to Spencer could not actually be found in any of his work. There are other web sites out there asking where the quote comes from. So I was wondering how sure you are about the source you attibute it to (Principles of Biology)?
You know, that is an on-going problem. I have flip-flopped a couple of times on
that one, going from taking it at face value that it was a correct quote,
to also thinking that it was a
misquote, and saying so. Then I got an email from a woman who insisted that it was
in Principles of Biology, but she couldn't give me the page number because
her books were packed, in storage, because she was in the process of moving.
I went to the public library and actually found the real thing,
a genuine first edition, two-volume 1864-1867 printing of Principles,
and searched
it. I did not find that quote, but I found some other stuff close enough to it to convince
me that he probably did write it. See the quote at the start of the
Religious Faith web page.
(And the idea that he considered as not supported by a single fact was the idea of
Creationism.)
And then there is much like this:
Spencer repeatedly stressed examination of the evidence, looking at the facts, and
not jumping to conclusions without careful examination of all of the evidence.
One of his biggest complaints about those who advocated the divine creation of all of
the individual species was their stubborn refusal to consider all of the evidence
before them.
I went back and searched again, in response to your letter, feeling that it must be
somewhere in those two volumes. Still no luck.
Then something funny happened: I told the librarian that
those precious first edition books were not locked up in the Rare Books room
of the library; that they were publicly available.
She took the matter to the head librarian, and they promptly locked up
the books and now I can't touch them until next week at the earliest (after they do some
repair work to the bindings), and then only under
the watchful gaze of a librarian, for a few hours, a few days of the week.
Oh well, I shall keep on looking. I did manage to get First Principles,
Universal Progress, and a couple of books about Spencer, which I am scanning
now. (And I'm not going to tell the librarian that the First Principles book
is also nearly a century old (1912, fourth edition) until after I'm done with it.)
Second, do you have a quote proving his attitude towards alcoholics, or do you simply infer it from what a Darwinist would believe?
I read a bunch of stuff that implied such an attitude, but can't pull
up a quote right now, because I can't touch the books. But in general, one of the
things that really impressed me was just how clearly Spencer understood the principles of
evolution, through many dimensions, even without any knowledge of the workings of DNA.
(He simply called the innermost workings of the cell "inscrutable", which was
certainly an accurate description of the situation then.)
He repeatedly stressed the idea that genetic mistakes or defects were quickly
erased from the population by death,
and while that was a harsh fate for the individual, the species and
life as a whole was improved by the process. And he spoke of that happening with both
the lower animals and man.
But I don't know if I made it clear that he would
not have had contempt for alcoholics. He would not have said that they deserved to die.
He would have regarded them just the same as he regarded the slowest rabbit in the field,
whose fate is to become dinner for the wolf. (And you know, that is still really happening.
About half of the alcoholics
eventually wise up and quit drinking, but the other half don't — they die.
Mother Nature is still slowly culling something out of the species. My sick joke about
the
Übermensch Project is not entirely a joke.)
My interest in this is because in Australia, a favourite tactic of Wilsonists is to accuse anyone of "contempt prior to investigation" who doesn't understand or appreciate their religion.
Yes, that is indeed why Bill Wilson put that quote in the book.
In addition,
the argument that "You can't know the truth about our religion until you have
tried it for a while" is common to channelled religions and such cults.
By "channelled" I mean channelling messages from dead people or other spirits
as exemplified by the teachings of the American actress Shirley MacLaine.
I talked about that in the file
The Heresy of the Twelve Steps.
The cult claims to have special knowledge that is accessible only
to those who do the cult's practices —
chanting, praying, meditating, Scientology-style mind processing, whatever.
The gotcha is: if you try their religion for a year, to find out how their receiving
messages and wisdom from the beyond really works, then you will become
as brainwashed as they are.
Alcoholics Anonymous is undoubtedly
a channelled religion that
dabbles in the occult — Step Eleven explicitly tells
us to pray and meditate until we hear God talking to us and telling us what to do.
That is no different than a "medium" who goes into a trance and imagines that he hears
the voices of the dead talking to him. — Oh, and that is what Bill Wilson fancied himself
to be —
a skilled medium who heard the
voices of the dead.
Apart from all your other criticisms of the big book, I think using this quote from a secular thinker in direct opposition to its real context to be quite fraudulent. I agree. In Australia, I think we are a little bit lucky in that there are two major schools of thought in AA. One set are the complete Wilsonites. The others are those of us who say: First step, third tradition, don't pick up the first drink. This is borne out of scepticism of American religion. (I want to say "a very prudent and very healthy scepticism", but I don't want to be rude). Numbers on each side are about equal, but it's hard to be sure, since the latter group are usually less vocal about it. I think they don't want to upset the Wilsonists lest they need them one day. Most members find the meetings of the other camp intolerable.
Now that's interesting. There are no such two camps in the U.S.A., but that seems like it would be a good thing. However, the alternative groups like SMART, SOS, WFS and MFS seem to be growing rapidly. I noticed that on the rational recovery web site, the attitude seemed to be that drinkers are complete moral degenerates, therefore they make extremely bad company for someone seeking to take full moral responsibility for their behaviour. I wonder where you stand on this.
I'm so glad you asked that. That has to be one of the best questions I've received.
(At least, the best in my opinion.)
I like that question because it hits on the very core issues of what is addiction, and
what is an addict.
Both A.A. and Trimpey's Rational Recovery essentially say that addicts are selfish and
immoral. Trimpey has the honesty to just say it straight out front.
A.A. takes a deceptive round-about
bait-and-switch path of first declaring that you have a disease over which you have no
control, and then they morph it into a moral issue of "moral shortcomings",
"defects of character", and
sin.
You can't win either way.
I strongly disagree with both of them on that point.
From where I see it, we are all just trying to make it through the night.
We are all just trying to feel good. And it is not immoral to want to feel good.
See the file on
The Lizard-Brain Addiction Monster for more on that.
When we ask why people use drugs, cigarettes, and alcohol, the first answer is,
"Because they feel bad, and want to feel better."
(See the file "Rat Park, and Other Children's Stories"
for more on that.)
Some forty percent of all alcoholics and drug addicts were abused children.
One of the bad side effects of child abuse is that the children learn to shut
down their feelings, in order to avoid feeling so much pain. It's just a basic
survival strategy.
Unfortunately, that also cripples the child's ability to feel
pleasure or joy.
And it becomes a fixed habit, or way of living —
a mind set that is cast in concrete
because of genuine brain damage.
Then, sometime in their youth, someone gives them a taste of
alcohol or drugs, and they discover that they can use chemicals to change how they
feel, to open up and loosen up
and make themselves feel ecstatic or joyous as small children again,
like they once could, and that's that.
They are like born addicts — sold on it instantly. They feel like the discovery of
getting high is the biggest
revelation in their lives — the most advanced, intelligent, technology there is
— "Better Living Through Chemistry" — and they will endure
extreme hardships and privation to get high again and again...
We all know about that story.
And they are not trying to "escape from life", as the old cliché says;
they are trying to get into life —
to get back to being fully-functional, feeling, beings.
It is not immoral for those injured children — young adults — to want to self-medicate
and fix what's broken. Unfortunately, the drugs that are available on the open market
are terrible because of their bad long-term side effects. Alcohol, tobacco, heroin, speed and
cocaine — they are all killers. In addition, such mental damage is really a psychiatric
problem as well as
an organic disorder,
and it is a disorder for which there is no simple
appropriate drug treatment. At best, drugs can only treat the symptoms, not fix the disorder.
That still leaves the other sixty percent of the addicts and alcoholics who are getting
high for some other reason besides child abuse. Often, those people suffer from some
physical illness, either in the brain or the rest of the body, which they are trying to
fix by self-medicating with street drugs. Doctors are increasingly aware of just how many
addicts and alcoholics have underlying psychiatric problems and other medical disorders.
When the doctors get those
patients onto the right medications, the drug and alcohol problems disappear.
(Unfortunately, it isn't all that easy — sometimes the "right" medications
don't exist yet.) Some doctors go so far as to declare that all cases of alcoholism
and drug addiction are really Dual Diagnosis cases — that there is always some underlying
psychiatric or physical disorder at work.
In a way, such an attitude makes sense. Someone who insists on killing himself with
drugs or alcohol really does need his head examined.
Then there is the genetic factor in alcoholism. There is no doubt in my mind that it
exists. I have watched it at work in me for many years now,
and have seen how it changed how I reacted to
alcohol over the years (from "didn't like it and didn't want it" to
"one drink is highly readdictive — instant readdiction, in fact").
Now the genetic factor alone does not force anyone to drink,
but it does make them far more likely to become an addicted alcoholic.
Combine that with the child abuse that comes from having an alcoholic father
from whom you inherited the gene for alcoholism and you get a real double whammy.
I also suspect that when the human genome is really fully decoded, that we will discover
that there are some funny genetic twists in other kinds of addicts besides alcoholics.
I mentioned Kenneth Blum's work on "The Reward Deficiency Syndrome" in
the file "The Hazelden Coffee War".
He discovered that some people are born unable to feel enough pleasure to feel really
satisfied. And it seems to be a genetic disorder.
It is literally like the Rolling Stones song,
"I Caint Get No Satisfaction... Though I try, and I try, and I try..."
In a way, all of this stuff is just common sense. Those addicts must be using drugs and alcohol and
getting high for some good reason. They must be getting something out of it.
Some of them may be crazy because of organic disorders or psychiatric disorders;
others may be insane because they've been doing drugs and alcohol for far too long; but there has to
be some practical reason why so many people feel compelled to use drugs and alcohol to
excess. When you say, "The answer is, to feel good," someone
always asks, "Well, why can't they feel good without drugs?
Is there something wrong with them?" The simple answer is
a resounding "YES!"
Now, back to the issue of the morality or immorality of getting high:
I have known a great number of people who routinely used a little pot or beer to brighten
up their days, and they were wonderful people, not immoral at all.
And the vast majority of them never got addicted to anything other than coffee and
cigarettes.
Heck, the Grateful Dead concerts were infamous
for being some of the most stoned parties on Earth.
And they were wonderful.
And they were also popular with
the concert guards for being easy jobs — just nice, happily-stoned, non-violent parties.
One guard that I talked to said, "I just do this on weekends for extra money.
I really work in a bookstore. But I just dress up in a rent-a-cop uniform, and stand
around looking official, and then collect my pay and go home. We love Grateful Dead
concerts because there is never any trouble. The people just get high and groove on the
music."
But we also know of that junkie whom you can't trust at all. Don't let him know where
you live or everything you own will disappear.
And we all know of some alcoholic who gets drunk and terrorizes his family.
But what I think we are really objecting to most is the bad things that they do while
they are stoned, not whether they get high.
We also object to the apparent loss of control of one's life from using too much of something.
And we object to having to watch people slowly committing suicide before our eyes.
I think that we have to adopt an attitude of "people are responsible for their actions,
drunk or sober, stoned or straight." If someone gets drunk and commits a crime, the
sin is in the crime, not in the getting stoned. It isn't a sin to get high, but drunk driving,
picking drunken fights, terrorizing and beating women and children,
stealing, mugging, and other such things are.
And if someone says
that they just can't get high and not do those things, then the simple answer is,
"Then don't get high on that stuff. Being drunk or stoned is no excuse. Period."
And as far as the morality of addiction itself is concerned, I think that
addiction is
just using something until your mind and body become habituated to it, and it becomes
extremely difficult to stop using it. I found quitting drinking to be quite a struggle with the brain damage and emotional instability of the early days. Many drinkers have lost their family and friends and are lonely. I liked AA meetings for this reason. My favourite times in AA have been at AA as social club. I believed it really helped me.
I totally agree there. The company of other people who also want to stay sober
is often very helpful. It is true that sometimes you just don't find the
simple "Been there, done that" kind of
understanding and acceptance anywhere but in a group of other ex-addicts.
I've often said that A.A. would be a nice social club,
and even a helpful self-support group, if we could just dump Bill Wilson,
the Twelve Steps, the Big Book, the irrational cult religion nonsense, and
the medically incorrect information about alcoholism.
Personally, I'm going to SMART meetings for just that reason. That is, to
a great extent, what they are. They are full of refugees from A.A. who couldn't
stomach the A.A. program but who still want a recovery self-help group.
(Now SMART is also about teaching some common-sense techniques called Rational
Emotive Behavior Therapy (from Dr. Albert Ellis),
but the simple, sane, self-help group idea is the most
important thing that I see there.)
And then there is just the element of hope that such groups offer.
Seeing people who have succeeded in their quest for sober, unaddicted lifestyles
is inspirational to the newcomers.
I am surprised to find that some people
find just my existence to be helpful to them, because I have a couple of years now,
and they look at me and think, "Well, if he can do it, then maybe so can I."
Happily, that doesn't even require me to be any great fountain of wisdom. All I have to
do is keep on breathing, and stay sober.
Lastly, do you know the line in the book "Alcoholics Anonymous" where he says "we hope no one will consider these self-revealing accounts in bad taste" (p.29). I do find them to be in bad taste, although I'm not quite sure why. Can you shed any light on why Wilson thought the accounts may be construed as bad taste?
I suspect that that is just a hang-over from the Victorian era — the idea that one
does not air one's dirty linen in public.
I suspect that Wilson considered the stories to be too raw for general public consumption, in
spite of the fact that they were really highly sanitized and stylized.
The early A.A. members imagined that the book would be mostly read by men, and that the
faint-of-heart ladies probably shouldn't read it.
Doctor Bob didn't even want women in A.A., because, back then, everybody knew that ladies
didn't become alcoholics.
I know what you mean by finding the Big Book stories to be in bad taste.
I think the underlying reason is
because they have been carefully crafted to sell the A.A. philosophy and ideas about
alcoholism, as well as the Alcoholics Anonymous organization and the 12-step religion.
They are actually propaganda.
They were all carefully hand-picked and edited to make them consistently
support the dogma that was advanced in the first 164 pages.
Then they were sold as "true stories",
and as realistic pictures of alcoholism and recovery, which they are not.
They also insult the reader's intelligence. Some are pretty moronic.
Many follow the same dumb formula of "I drank too
much and was totally out of control, and life was hell, until a wise, kindly missionary from
A.A. gave me the Only Answer, which I was reluctant to accept because I was so stupid,
but I finally did wise up and accept A.A., and then we all lived happily ever after."
And in the third edition, the story by the "Indian" is undoubtedly a forgery.
(See Join The Tribe, page 474.)
I lived in New Mexico for over 20 years, and knew hundreds of Indians
(Native American peoples),
everybody from the intelligent and literate governor of a pueblo
down to the street drunks in Taos, and every last
one of them spoke better English than that fake Indian in the Big Book. Also,
when Indians do speak different English than white men, it isn't the kind of grammatical
errors you find in that Big Book story. Real Indians call that
kind of talk "Tonto-ese" because it's the kind of fake Indian talk that Tonto
spoke on the Lone Ranger programs (radio and television).
Apparently, that was the only kind of Indian talk that the white guys
at AAWS in New York knew (or thought they knew), when
they fabricated that story, probably in 1975 or 1976, so that's what they used.
It is just painfully obvious that the story was not written by an Indian, or even
by anyone who knew much about Indians.
I suspect that the reason you find the Big Book stories to be in bad taste is
because you get the vague feeling that someone is trying to feed you a load of bullshit
while telling you that it's a delicious steak dinner.
Have a wonderful day...
— Orange
Agent, I love your site! I attended my first A.A. meeting 24 years ago. I have been sober 23 of those 24 years. I had several binges during that time which was used against me by Thumpers and Old-timers to "Keep Me In My Place". 15 years was the longest continuous sobriety I've ever had. To sum it up I've been sober almost 3 times as long as I ever abused booze but I have no "equity" in the program because I went out and tied on a 4 day bender a year ago. I am convinced that critical thought is a necessary tool in the search for the truth. Objectively used of course.
There are three types of individuals present at A.A. meetings. Is A.A. dangerous? Your darn right it is! Is it productive in keeping people sober? I have yet to discover 1 grain of evidence to support that theory. Is it anti-science and anti-intellectual? Of course. That is its most powerful weapon against the truth! I have been reading your site for over a year and have noticed it keeps getting busier and busier. A.A. is going down fast! I predict within 10 years it will descend from its "Only Program That Works" status to being the butt of jokes at cocktail parties. It's already sliding downhill at an increased pace thanks to people like yourself, Ken Ragge and Dr. Jeffrey Schaler amongst others. Keep up the good work. Bob
Hi Bob,
Thanks for all of the compliments. I'd never considered myself in the same league
as Dr. Schaler, but it's certainly flattering.
Have a good day.
Oh, and by the way, congratulations on the recovery after the slip.
— On getting back on the wagon
after 4 days of binging, I mean.
I know how hard that is to do, because it took me 9 years to
get back on the wagon. How I wish it had only been 4 days.
— Orange
[ 2nd letter from Bob B., Fri 28 Feb 2003: ] Hi Orange, Thanks for printing my letter. Hi Bob. You're welcome. In response to your question about how I was able to sober up multiple times after Short Binge Drinking Episodes", I would refer you to a study I believe was done at Harvard. But I can't be positive. It basically stated that binge drinking was an extremely common occurrence amongst regular A.A. members. That was also my experience but since this particular study wasn't a double blind study I really can't ascertain it's validity.
The double-blind test is the holy grail of medical testing. After my last bender I was introduced to an A.A. member through my Big Book Thumper sponsor. My Sponsor was so brainwashed he was unable to understand exactly what myself and (call him Mr. Q) were talking about. This gentleman and I spoke for three hours non-stop. Here are the points he emphasized for me. He also had twenty years of sobriety, but he figured this stuff out three months after he had initially joined the A.A. program. 1. Alcoholism is NOT a disease it is in fact a behavioral problem! 2. He asked me to question EVERTHING in The Big Book. And by using logic and reason I would be capable of discerning the truth from the B.S. 3. Sobriety is MY responsibility! 4. Use honesty in all my actions and words guided by reason, logic and objectivity. Of course this is an ideal, we are all subjective in one way or the other. 5. Ask lots of questions at A.A. meetings. It drives old-timers and Big Book Thumpers nuts. Most of the time they are so brainwashed they have lost the ability to think objectively. 6. Always be prepared to help another drunk. An interesting point here is that when I last got drunk not a single one of my A.A. "buddies" would come to help me out or even visit me in detox. Their attitude was "that will teach him. When he crawls back here on his hands and knees, we'll let him back in. Incidentally, I did in fact return to that meeting and I ended up pissing everyone off sooo much they threw me out. So much for "Love and tolerance of others is our code". 7. In essence, live well and abstain from drinking at all times. It's that simple! Once Mr. Q placed the responsibility for my life upon my own actions I felt like a great weight had been lifted from my shoulders. I felt empowered! The most heinous lie told at A.A. meetings is that the individual is "Powerless over alcohol". This disempowerment lasted almost twenty three years for me. It prevented me from taking responsibility for my own life and actions. Dr Jeffrey Schaller pursues this topic in more depth on his website. I'm sure you are familiar with it. There are several meetings here in Florida where this new way of thinking is starting to take root. You are permitted to talk about any subject you want to. Sponsorship is discouraged, and if you make a statement you MUST be able to back it up with reason and logic. At the beginning of the meeting you are warned that a failure to do so could result in you being "ridiculed mercilessly". Needless to say , thumpers and old-timers usually only last one meeting.The meeting is more about philosophy as opposed to "scab picking". In other words endless A.A. self-flagellation. This movement is picking up speed! I don't go to many meeting anymore but when I do it is my purpose to try to protect "newcomers" from all the crap that's thrown at them. I certainly don't allow people to pawn their A.A. propaganda off on me! On a final note. I know you have read this book because I saw it on your reading list. But I will mention it again because it really helped me put this whole A.A. mass movement in it's proper perspective. The book is "The True Believer" by Eric Hoffer. If people read that, after attempting to wade through the contorted twisted "logic" that Bill Wilson promoted, membership in A.A. would probably drop by 30% overnight. Here's my program in a nutshell! 1. Does what this person is saying make sense? 2. If this information, is in fact true, is it possible to apply this knowledge somehow in my day to day existence? That's all I need combined of course with abstinence from alcohol. P.S. Orange, that nine years you spent out drinking after your "slip" was worth it! Your experience enabled you to get where you are today. I don't believe it would have been possible any other way! You have placed yourself in a unique position to help others but only because of you knowledge COMBINED with you experience. "There is no free lunch"! Keep up the good work! Bob B.
Thanks for a great letter. Sorry to take so long to answer, but I've been battling
some nasty cold or flu germs. Nothing serious — just enough of a hassle to get me behind
on my work and remind me that we really do live in a biological world where
there are some little bugs around whose idea of a real good time is eating me for dinner.
Yes, that book by Eric Hoffer is really a jewel, isn't it?
It's an all-time classic. Few books have such a high ratio of truth to filler material.
For the benefit of those readers who haven't seen it,
The True Believer is just
an unimpressive-looking little book, published in 1951. But book covers can be
deceiving. Hoffer lived through World War II, and saw the rise of the Nazis,
and describes a lot of that phenomenon in the book. But he goes a step further,
and ferrets out
the characteristics of religious or pseudo-religious mass movements in general,
which of course includes cults.
It really is a classic, a timeless book that sounds like it might have been written
last week about the current cults. Highly recommended.
That guy "Mr. Q" sounds great. It really is a shame that such
good, wise, knowledgeable, advisors are so rare. I get the feeling that you had
to wait 20 years to meet him.
Those new meetings you are describing sure sound a lot like the SMART meetings that
I like to go to. They are also intellectual free-for-alls, cross-talk encouraged.
Oh, and about my 9-year "training session" — it may well be true that I couldn't
have arrived at my present situation by any other path than experience, but with
a wry smile I have to say, "That really wasn't what I had in mind."
Oh well, I guess it's like that old saying,
"If life hands you a lemon, make lemonade."
Thanks for the letter. Have a good day.
— Orange
What a sad site. How ironic that the sadness, the smugness at imagining you have exposed something, and the ill-concealed anger and bitterness of your attack on AA is precisely a product of modern day religion. No truly spiritual person would construct a site like yours. You do not seem to understand spirituality at all. Indeed, your revealing nom-de-plume, (Special) Agent Orange, exemplifies the sadness of your soul. Are you unaware that Agent Orange is a chemical defoliant, one of the nastiest, deadliest, most heartless and unforgiving pieces of chemical evil humanity has created? Not only does Agent Orange destroy God's Creation, it also deforms and maims the innocent unborn. I do hope you were unaware of this when you adopted Agent Orange as your disguise. I pray that you may find peace healing and wholeness before you are consumed by your woes. Al
A.A. has it right? Please read the file
"Spiritual, Not Religious", and then
You believe that I cannot be spiritual because I am angry at some quack doctors and
cult religion fools hurting my friends who are in recovery?
Do you accuse Jesus Christ of being "unspiritual" because
He got angry and swung a whip and
drove the money-changers from the Temple?
Jesus raged at them,
"It is written in the scriptures that God said,
'My temple will be called a house of prayer for the people of all nations.'
But you have made it into a hideout for thieves!"
And then the whip came down.
Was Jesus' behavior "unspiritual"?
I don't think you know what spirituality is.
You have been hoodwinked into thinking
that spirituality is just sitting around, smiling and grinning mindlessly,
and yammering about
how you feel so full of "Serenity and Gratitude".
That isn't spirituality; that is blissing out on
spiritual make-believe.
True spirituality requires living life to the fullest while staying committed to
the highest of principles, not running away from the
agony and ecstacy that is real life. True spirituality requires that you feel all of
your feelings, including anger. (Now that does not mean that you fly into a
rage and throw a temper tantrum. Keep it under control. But if you don't feel some
anger when your friends are being hurt, then you are crippled inside.)
It is actually the height of unspirituality to sit
on your duff and do nothing when something is terribly wrong. And there is plenty wrong with
A.A. shoving its cult religion on people who are trying to save their own lives.
There is nothing spiritual about
the gross dishonesty and deceit of Alcoholics Anonymous.
And I know all about the defoliant Agent Orange.
I helped to keep Americans from being poisoned by it, back in the seventies.
I've explained that name before. See
this previous letter.
Have a good day.
— Orange
Last updated 28 September 2013. |
