Letters, We Get Mail, CCCXXV
by Orange



[ Link here = http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-letters325.html#Steve ]

Date: Fri, September 7, 2012 5:37 pm     (answered 10 September 2012)
From: "steve"
Subject: up with people

RE: Religious Roots: The Last Hurrah: Up With People

Dear Orange,

I happened upon your site by pure chance.

While you have some interesting, some fun and some correct information in here, you have some that is way out of context and simply wrong. To insinuate or relate anything to "Nazis" is not only misinformation and ridiculous, it's downright insulting. I think four high-ranking Democrats just did that to the GOP — what gives? Perhaps your just into tearing down our country as well?

And if I was guessing, it sounds like the "creative" writing of a disgruntled former cast member or a member of the fanatical organization who just completed their convention in North Carolina. We had no brown-shirts, but I've seen 'em all over the country supporting that idiot we have in office currently and the "ship of fools" who support him.

I spent 4-5 years traveling with Up With People in the early seventies and we raised not one flag, had no kumbaya gatherings around fires with white hoods or any hoods for that matter. We were mostly regular, mostly good kids who had a knack for meeting people, learning and performing. We had a blast traveling, exchanging ideas and well, just growing up with a great social experience, that's all. As far as protesting Vietnam or protesting the protestors, I for one never thought the Vietnam war was a good exercise, but I never was against the soldiers themselves or the principle behind the fighting (I hate communism) or the folks who were more mature and were protesting the war itself. They made total sense when I got to their age. Who wants to die for politics anyway? You can thank LBJ for that one! (we had no anti-protestor skits, only smiles for the ladies in the audience)

We had people of many colors, races, ethnicities, nationalities and backgrounds. Not everyone grew up, and not everyone got the same academic education. Ironically, while Up With People came out of MRA, which was formed (I was told) out of concern for the atrocities of WWII and yes, was very, very conservative, most alumni today (in my opinion) are a bunch of liberal whacks. The "MRA" thing was pretty much dead by the time I joined up in the summer of 1970. While I disagree with a few liberal bents they have today ("It Takes A Village" socialism & forced community service (more socialism/ feelgoodism), I had a fabulous time and said so to Blanton Belk a few years ago in a long-overdue thank you note.

I, myself am a Reagan conservative, have friends from many backgrounds who agree with me, including blacks, Africans, Mexicans, Palestinians, Jews, Israelis, Bosnians, Germans, English, and so on and so on. Embracing the failed policies of socialism, Keynesian economics and elitism politics is not my idea of progress. Progressivism is to move towards an October 17 revolution and the destruction of reason and mankind itself. Afghanistan is what? A place the Bamer can test his bombs and pretend to dislike muslims? Geez Louise!

Well, I know not your politics except that you masterfully (?) have taken a wonderful organization out of context and tried to paint it as fanatical. Who is a master of this? The Democrat Party that's who. Connect the dots?

I suggest you research further and put up the whole truth and correct some of the falsehoods and out-of-context information you have displayed. How about it?

Steve T.
Cazenovia, IL

Hello Steve,

Thank you for the letter. Alas, you are long on belief and short on facts.

  1. RE:

    To insinuate or relate anything to "Nazis" is not only misinformation and ridiculous, it's downright insulting.

    The evidence of Frank Buchman's connnection to the Nazis is overwhelming and undeniable, and documented. You can't get much more connected to the Nazis than going to Nuremberg Nazi Party rallies, and to the 1936 Berlin Olympics, as the personal guest of the Gestapo leader Heinrich Himmler, and then coming home to New York and declaring to a newspaper, "I thank Heaven for a man like Adolf Hitler...".

    Sorry if you feel insulted by someone telling the truth. By the way, the "Oh I'm so offended" drama queen ploy is a standard propaganda trick. When presented with undesired facts, just go into the "Oh I'm so offended and insulted" dance, and try to avoid an honest discussion of the facts.

    One of the really bad things about Frank Buchman is that he was teaching the Nazi philosophy of "just obey orders". Both Buchman and the Nazis taught that the average man is inferior and mentally incompetent, and cannot think for himself, so the best thing that he can do is just obey the orders of a superior who knows more than him. With the Nazis, that became "obey your superior officer", with the chain of command going all of the way up to Adolf Hitler. With Buchman, his teaching was ostensibly that you should "obey the Guidance of God". But then he declared that you were not spiritually qualified to hear the voice of God, so you should just obey your sponsor and other cult elders who will tell you what God really said. So that chain of command went up to Frank Buchman.

    Such slavery is of course the antithesis of American democracy and freedom. And blind obedience to any leader is one of the surest roads to hell.

  2. RE:

    I think four high-ranking Democrats just did that to the GOP — what gives? Perhaps your just into tearing down our country as well?

    Well that is certainly from outer space. I criticize an old pro-Nazi cult religion from the nineteen-thirties, and you accuse me of "tearing down America"? Since when is America equal to an old pro-Nazi cult religion?

    Apparently, to you, ""tearing down America" means that someone says something that you don't want to hear.

    I watched a bunch of the Democratic Convention, and I don't recall anybody accusing Mitt Romney or Paul Ryan of being a Nazi. Can you tell me precisely who said what, and when and where, and give quotes? Thank you.

  3. And if I was guessing, it sounds like the "creative" writing of a disgruntled former cast member or a member of the fanatical organization who just completed their convention in North Carolina.

    Now that is the propaganda trick of Ad Hominem: Don't offer any actual facts, just attack the speaker with put-downs.

    It's funny that you consider critics of "Up With People" to be "disgruntled former cast members". Are there a lot of them? Do you have a problem with disillusioned people who eventually saw through Frank Buchman's game? Like Glenn Close, who won't even talk about her years of touring and singing for UWP?

  4. We had no brown-shirts, but I've seen 'em all over the country supporting that idiot we have in office currently and the "ship of fools" who support him.

    I never said that "Up With People" had brown-shirts. I said that they were some well-meaning clean-cut young kids who got used by Frank Buchman to push his extreme right-wing political philosophy. (Which you obviously still believe in.)

  5. I spent 4-5 years traveling with Up With People in the early seventies and we raised not one flag, had no kumbaya gatherings around fires with white hoods or any hoods for that matter.

    Well you missed out on the NBC TV national television broadcast in 1968 where the clean-cut war-mongering UWP kids waved lots of American flags and chased those "dirty Hippie war protesters" off of the stage. Find a copy of that and watch it.


    Here is one of the UWP publicity photographs. No flag-waving, huh?

  6. We had people of many colors, races, ethnicities, nationalities and backgrounds.

    Right. That was the standard MRA party line. Now it is to Frank Buchman's credit that he was not a racist. Unfortunately, what that really meant was that he wanted everybody to be his obedient unthinking slave, regardless of their race, religion, sex, creed, or country of national origin. Frank didn't discriminate. He wanted everybody to be a "slave of God".

  7. Not everyone grew up, and not everyone got the same academic education.

    What on earth? That doesn't make any sense. Never grew up?

  8. We had a blast traveling, exchanging ideas and well, just growing up with a great social experience, that's all.

    Yes, I'm sure that you enjoyed the travel. (I grew up in the Air Force, so also I got to see a bunch of foreign countries, and I loved it.) Unfortunately, that does not change what Frank Buchman was, or any of his history.

  9. As far as protesting Vietnam or protesting the protestors, I for one never thought the Vietnam war was a good exercise, but I never was against the soldiers themselves or the principle behind the fighting (I hate communism) or the folks who were more mature and were protesting the war itself. They made total sense when I got to their age. Who wants to die for politics anyway? You can thank LBJ for that one! (we had no anti-protestor skits, only smiles for the ladies in the audience)

    By the time you were in UWP, the war was mostly over — and extremely unpopular and controversial by then — so obviously they took the war-mongering skits out of the show. By then, going to college campuses and putting on a jingoistic flag-waving pro-war show was the height of uncool.

    I'm glad to hear that you didn't approve of the Vietnam War.

    Actually, the situation is far more complex than just a mistake that LBJ made. Oh, he's guilty all right, but there is a lot more to it. President Eisenhower wrote in his memoirs that it was obvious in the nineteen-fifties that Ho Chi Minh was so popular that he would win any fair election in Vietnam by a landslide, so the promised elections to determine the future of South Vietnam were simply not held. Eisenhower betrayed his proclaimed belief in democracy when an election wouldn't turn out the way that he wanted. The Vietnamese people rebelled, and that is what started the Vietnam War. Then Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon all escalated and continued it.

  10. Ironically, while Up With People came out of MRA, which was formed (I was told) out of concern for the atrocities of WWII and yes, was very, very conservative, most alumni today (in my opinion) are a bunch of liberal whacks. The "MRA" thing was pretty much dead by the time I joined up in the summer of 1970.

    They gave you a false history of MRA. Actually, Frank Buchman started using the Moral Re-Armament name in 1938, after the Catholic Church banned his "Oxford Group" organization. That's a cute trick: if the Catholic Church bans your Oxford Group cult religion, change the name to "Moral Re-Armament", and claim that it's a different organization, so there is no ban. The name change had nothing to do with concern for the people who died in World War II, because those victims had not been killed by Frank's Nazi friends like Heinrich Himmler, yet. Look here: The Oxford Group Morphs Into MRA.

    The fact that they fed you a false history of MRA is just more evidence that MRA really is a cult. They think nothing of falsifying their history and lying to newcomers and inventing a totally fictitious history where MRA is very virtuous and did great things, rather than an organization that praised Adolf Hitler and Heinrich Himmler. Honestly, I ask you, what kind of a church lies that much?

    MRA was not dead in 1970, it was hidden. You were part of its publicity wing. And MRA still exists today. They still own that palace in Caux, Switzerland, and the center at Mackinac Island, USA. And they are still talking about reviving the Up With People show.

    Also see this list of links to their current web sites: http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-rroot750.html

    Are you telling me that most of the alumni of UWP are now liberals? How interesting. So they learned something from their experiences and wised up, huh?

  11. I, myself am a Reagan conservative, have friends from many backgrounds who agree with me, including blacks, Africans, Mexicans, Palestinians, Jews, Israelis, Bosnians, Germans, English, and so on and so on. Embracing the failed policies of socialism, Keynesian economics and elitism politics is not my idea of progress. Progressivism is to move towards an October 17 revolution and the destruction of reason and mankind itself. Afghanistan is what? A place the Bamer can test his bombs and pretend to dislike muslims? Geez Louise!

    It's nice that you have friends of all races. What you are really telling me is that you have not changed your thinking or learned anything since your days in UWP. You are still reciting the UWP/MRA party line.

    Your opinions on economics ignore the fact that 30 years of Reagan's "trickle-down" economics have destroyed our economy. George W. Bush did a great job of finishing off the economy. I don't know if the economy will ever recover. The answer is certainly not to do more of what killed the economy.

    Money does not trickle down. Piss trickles down, while the money goes to Switzerland and the Cayman Islands.

    Progressivism is not Communism. Geez Louise! Get real.

    Actually, it was Frank Buchman who threatened "the destruction of reason". He was one of those evangelists who insisted that the rational mind was a mistake and an illusion, and that people should just "have faith" (in his teachings, of course). The Oxford Group cult specifically demanded that people give up their rational minds. Ebby Thacher and Shep Cornell recruited Bill Wilson like this:

    Ebby and Shep C. were now asking him to give up the one attribute of which he was the most proud, the one quality that set a man above the animals — his inquiring, rational mind. And they wanted him to give this up for an illusion.
          ... what they were asking him to do represented weakness to him. How could a man so demean himself as to surrender the one thing in which he should have faith, his innate, inquiring mind?   ...
          It might be the last arrogant gasp of alcoholic pride but, miserable and terrified as he was, he would not humble himself here. On this point he would go out swinging.
    Not-God, Ernest Kurtz, page 18, and
    Bill W., Robert Thomsen, pages 213-214.

    Nevertheless, within a month, under the influence of delirium tremens, hallucinogenic drugs, and cult recruiting mind games, Bill Wilson flipped out and got converted into a true believer who insisted that everybody else had to give up reason:

    Some of us had already walked far over the Bridge of Reason toward the desired shore of faith. The outlines and the promise of the New Land had brought lustre to tired eyes and fresh courage to flagging spirits. Friendly hands stretched out in welcome. We were grateful that Reason had brought us so far. But somehow, we couldn't quite step ashore. Perhaps we had been leaning too heavily on Reason that last mile and did not like to lose our support.
    The Big Book, 3rd & 4th Editions, William G. Wilson, Page 53.

    It's sort of like getting infected with the Rabies virus, isn't it? Or getting bitten by a vampire. Frank Buchman's Oxford Group cult bit Bill Wilson and infected him, and now he has to run around trying to bite and infect others.

    George W. Bush got us into Afghanistan, remember? Barack Obama was still just a Senator from Illinois when George W. decided to go chase Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan, remember? Do all Reagan Conservatives suffer from memory loss? Is Alzheimers contageous?

  12. Well, I know not your politics except that you masterfully (?) have taken a wonderful organization out of context and tried to paint it as fanatical. Who is a master of this? The Democrat Party that's who. Connect the dots?

    That is the standard propaganda trick of claiming that something is "taken out of context", when it isn't. I have not taken Up With People "out of context" — the truth is just the opposite: I put it in its correct Frank Buchman — Moral Re-Armament context. Up With People had a parent organization that you are trying very hard to ignore, and pretend didn't exist.

    Are you actually so paranoid that you think that the Democratic Party is behind someone exposing the true history of Alcoholics Anonymous? You imagine that the Democrats are writing about the Oxford Group and Moral Re-Armament? Why would they even care about a cult religion that has not been very popular since the nineteen-thirties?

    In the interests of full disclosure, I am not connected to the Democratic Party in any ways except:

    1. I am a registered Democrat voter.
    2. I volunteered for the Obama campaign for a few days back in 2008, until Senator Obama broke his promise to prosecute the telephone company executives who had bugged the telephones of everybody in America.

    That's it. The truth is, the Democrats are looking at the next election, not the history of Alcoholics Anonymous or the Oxford Group or Moral Re-Armament or Up With People.

  13. I suggest you research further and put up the whole truth and correct some of the falsehoods and out-of-context information you have displayed. How about it?

    Oh, I have researched further. I have done many years of research. (And I'm still doing a little more, now and then.) Now you are using the propaganda trick of trying to claim that your opponent doesn't know what he is talking about, when in fact he knows far more than you do. That's more Ad Hominem.

    Now you should do some research. You can start by reading the entire history of Frank Buchman, the Oxford Group, and Moral Re-Armament, beginning with: The Religious Roots of A.A. and the Twelve Steps.

    Then examine the bibliography, and try reading some of those books, starting here:
    http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-bibliography.html#Oxford_Group_books

    You can get many of those rare old books with inter-library loans. And actually, you can download three of them here, for free:

    1. ) Soul Surgery, a manual for the Oxford Group

    2. ) What_Is_The_Oxford_Group, which describes most all of the common practices of the Oxford Group

    3. ) I Was A Pagan, by Vic Kitchen, an Oxford Group confessional. Note that Vic Kitchen was acting in Frank Buchman's theatrical productions long before you were. Look here and here.

    4. ) http://www.morerevealed.com/library/saints/saints.html
      == the book about the Oxford Group called Saints Run Mad, by Marjorie Harrison. She was there and attended O.G. meetings, and interviewed Frank Buchman.

    Now, in the interests of research and "putting up the whole truth", do you have any actual facts to offer? Real solid documented historical facts? Do you have anything that I don't already know that I should learn?

    • You have told me that you really enjoyed traveling with the Up With People show. Great, good fun, but so what? That doesn't make Frank Buchman and MRA okay.
      I remember a movie about Berlin in the nineteen-thirties called The Jazz Kids. The young people who joined the Hitlerjugend also had a real good time and participated in fun activities, and even got toys like motorcycles to ride. But that didn't make Adolf Hitler an okay guy. And it didn't make the Hitlerjugend an okay organization.
      Speaking of which, didn't you notice the similarity between the Up With People show and the show that the Chinese Communists put on at the Peking Olympics four years ago? They also had a big fluffy mindless song-and-dance show that said, "Up With Chinese Communist People".
    • You have shown that you actually still believe in the rabid right-wing philosophy of Frank Buchman and gang. That isn't good. Forty years and you haven't learned anything new? They really miseducated you.
    • You have said that you never participated in praising the War in Vietnam. Good. But that doesn't change the previous history when UWP did. I'm sure that you also never participated in praising Adolf Hitler. But that doesn't change the fact that Frank Buchman did.
    • You have totally ignored the reason why the Up With People show existed: To promote Frank Buchman's evil philosophy with a pretty song and dance show.

    So, do you have any historical information to offer?

Have a good day.

== Orange

*             orange@orange-papers.org        *
*         AA and Recovery Cult Debunking      *
*          http://www.Orange-Papers.org/      *
*       http://www.Orange-Papers.org/forum/   *
*
**      "I thank Heaven for a man like Adolf Hitler, who built a
**      front line of defense against the anti-Christ of Communism."
**         ==  Dr. Frank N. D. Buchman, founder and leader of the
**         Oxford Group and Moral Re-Armament, August 26, 1936.





May 28, 2012, Monday: The Fernhill Wetlands

More and more families with goslings are showing up:

Canada Goose goslings
A new family of 4, with another family of 3 in the background

Canada Goose goslings
Goslings of one of the families

Canada Goose goslings
More goslings

Canada Goose gosling
Gosling

Canada Goose gosling
Goslings
These little guys are looking at some floating pieces of bread. New goslings sometimes don't know what bread is, or what they are supposed to do with it. But they learn very quickly. A few nibbles, and they like it.

[The story of the goslings continues here.]





[ Link here = http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-letters325.html#Truman_S ]

Date: Sun, September 9, 2012 7:28 am     (answered 14 September 2012)
From: "Truman S."
Subject: I've been reading through your website

Hello Agent Orange,

Great website you have that I found a few months ago while looking into AA as a possibility for me.

I'm not going that route now though after everything I've read so far. It is a cult and it is a bunch of BS.

Truman.

Hello Truman,

Thanks for the letter. I'm glad to hear that you are awake. Good luck in your endeavors.

By the way, you might like this letter: How did you get to where you are?

Have a good day and a good life now.

== Orange

*             orange@orange-papers.org        *
*         AA and Recovery Cult Debunking      *
*          http://www.Orange-Papers.org/      *
*       http://www.Orange-Papers.org/forum/   *
**     You can't lie your way into Paradise.





[ Link here = http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-letters325.html#Ilse_T ]

Date: Sun, September 9, 2012 1:59 pm     (answered 14 September 2012)
From: "Ilse T."
Subject: Stanton Peele's New Venture

Hi everyone,

This is Ilse (ilse/friendthegirl/ftg from Stinkin' Thinkin' <http://stinkin-thinkin.com>) writing to you. I'm doing a little outreach for Stanton Peele's new venture — an online addiction treatment program — and was hoping that you could add our links to your blogroll or resource lists for AA alternatives. If it's not too much to ask, perhaps you could even do a post about it or place a small ad square in your sidebar ( for which I can promise you a monthly pittance — $20, which I hope might be just enough to cover your hosting fee plus a cup of coffee!).

Stanton created The Life Process Program several years ago, which is a non-AA addiction treatment program that had been used exclusively in residential treatment, with great success. He's recently taken back exclusive control of the program and has made it available online, for a fraction of the cost of formal treatment.

At the moment, the Life Process Gambling Program <http://www.lifeprocessgamblingprogram.com/> has launched.

Shortly, he's going to open the doors to the Life Process Drug and Alcohol Program <http://www.lifeprocessprogram.com/>.

And, the LPP will expand into all areas of addiction.

Since I know that you all are keenly interested in alternative philosophies about addiction and alternative approaches to addiction treatment, and are familiar with Stanton — many of you know him personally — and his ideas, I won't go into too much detail about what he has to offer. But I have attached a brief overview of the gambling site, which you are welcome to post online, if you're so inclined.

Please feel free to contact me <ilse@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.com> with any questions you have about the online LPP. I would be so happy to hear from you.

I hope this email finds you all well!

Ilse

PS — I'm not going to make a habit of spamming you all. If I don't hear from you, I'll assume you're not interested and won't contact you about this again.

Hello Ilse,

It's nice to hear from you. You know, I don't do link exchanges, ever, and I don't accept paid advertising, ever. And I don't think I should change those rules now. But I'll give a plug to Stanton for free. He's one of my favorites because he's been telling the truth about addictions and recovery for a lot of years now. So I'll at least give a little free publicity to whatever he's into next.

So here's your plug. Have a good day now.

== Orange

P.S.: For readers who are interested, here are some other links to Stanton Peele's stuff:

*             orange@orange-papers.org        *
*         AA and Recovery Cult Debunking      *
*          http://www.Orange-Papers.org/      *
*       http://www.Orange-Papers.org/forum/   *
*
**     The disease concept of alcoholism is historically ancient. Dr. Benjamin
**     Rush published the first edition of An inquiry into the effects of
**     ardent spirits upon the human body and mind about 1785, where he
**     designated addiction to spirits as a "disease of the will".
**     There was a counterpart in Britain: the Edinburgh physician Thomas
**     Trotter wrote in his doctoral dissertation, An essay, medical,
**     philosophical and chemical on drunkenness, submitted in 1788 and
**     published version in 1804, that "In medical language, I consider
**     drunkennes to be a disease..." He also wrote that "the habit of
**     drunkennes is a disease of the mind".
**     Now mind you, just because those doctors believed that alcohol abuse
**     was a disease does not make it so. Contemporary doctors had such
**     primitive ideas of medicine that they bled old George Washington to
**     death to get rid of "bad humors".


[ Link here = http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-letters325.html#Ilse2 ]

Date: Sat, September 15, 2012
From: "Ilse"
Subject: Re: Stanton Peele's New Venture

Thank you, Terrence! That is so kind of you to make this exception and give Stanton a plug on your site. So much appreciation to you for everything...

Ilse

Hi again, Ilse,

Well, it isn't really such an exception. It's just that I can't be accepting advertising because it implies that I'm endorsing something by allowing it to be on my web site, and the vast majority of the offers for ads that I get are for 12-Step-oriented rehabs.

And even when they say that they aren't 12-Step, I get letters that say that they really are, after you get past the buzz-words and the publicity fluff.

So I just don't accept any advertising because I can't possibly check them all out and figure out which are the good ones.

But Stanton is easy. I've been quoting him for years.

Have a good day now.
== Orange

*              orange@orange-papers.org       *
*          AA and Recovery Cult Debunking     *
*          http://www.orange-papers.org/      *
*        http://www.orange-papers.org/forum   *
**     "Now I know what it's like to be high on life.
**     It isn't as good, but my driving has improved."
**     == Nina, on "Just Shoot Me", 13 Jan 2006.


Date: Sat, September 15, 2012 5:37 pm     (answered 19 September 2012)
From: "Ilse T."
Subject: Re: Stanton Peele's New Venture

Hi. Still thank you so much for the exception.

I realized pretty quickly that these 12 Step treatment outfits were obscuring their real affiliation by claiming to be based in CBT, which they justified by somehow construing AA as essentially CBT (can't tell you how many times I heard that!). Of course, anything AA promotes as having some basis in CBT has nothing to do with AA proper. I mean, how does claiming free will over the direction of your life jibe with turning your life and will over to Whatever? When you land on their websites, they're all about CBT, but if you dig just a little (not much) deeper, you see that all they have to offer is 12 step. It's like how Creationism morphed into Intelligent Design.

The fact that they're consciously conflating the two seems to indicate that the're choosing to obscure, which is interesting.

My very best,

Ilse

Hi again, Ilse,

Yes, it really is disgusting, how they try to pass off 12-Step programs as CBT. That's another classic example of a con artist trying to sell his quackery as "scientific treatment".

The fact that they do that seems to reveal that they know that 12-Step therapy is discredited and unscientific, and they are trying to wrap their quackery in a cloak of scientific respectability by claiming that it is "just like Cognitive Behavioral Therapy", and "just as good as CBT", and "based on CBT".

And I guess it also means that they just don't have anything to sell to the customers, other than an old cult religion...

By the way, your point about free will is a good one. If we are "powerless over alcohol" like A.A. teaches, and Step One says, then how can we consciously, rationally, choose to live a healthier lifestyle, like how CBT teaches? Duh.... Danger Will Robinson, Does not compute!

Oh well, have a good day now, and good luck to Stanton's new venture.

I also put some links in the links page, here: orange-links.html#Peele.

== Orange

*             orange@orange-papers.org        *
*         AA and Recovery Cult Debunking      *
*          http://www.Orange-Papers.org/      *
*       http://www.Orange-Papers.org/forum/   *
**   The so-called "recovery industry" has more quacks
**   than a flock of ducks.





[ Link here = http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-letters325.html#iamnotastatistic ]

Date: Tue, September 11, 2012 8:03 am     (answered 14 September 2012)
From: "iamnotastatistic"
Subject:

Hi Terrance,

A few thoughts and observations

1. I just read this nugget from the General Manager of AA's General Service Office, Phyllis Halliday:

"One thing is certain, there would be no hope for any alcoholic anywhere if the collective pulse of this lifesaving spiritual fellowship were not lighting the way with love and trust."

== Phyllis Halliday, General Manager of A.A's USA/Canada General Service Office, addressing A.A.'s 16th European Service Meeting in Frankfurt, Germany, October 23, 2011. (file attached)

Her statement that there is NO HOPE FOR ANY ALCOHOLIC, ANYWHERE, WITHOUT AA is another clear example of AA's opinion that AA is the one and only solution for alcoholics.

2. Also contained in the ESM report were AA country reports from many European countries which showed:

Theft of €35,000 (~$44,000) from AA Italy by AA's "trusted servants", and

Theft of 15% of the annual budget of AA Portugal by the Chairwoman of Portugal's GSB.

Trusted servants indeed!

3. What I've also noticed is that Phyllis Halliday; alcoholic, AA member and General Manager of AA's GSO, is one of the most publicly well known "anonymous" members of AA in the country. Why is there one rule regarding anonymity at the public level for ordinary AA members and another for Phyllis Halliday? How will AA deal with this anonymity breaker?

The AA Service Manual outlines how to deal with an individual who breaks the Traditions, including traditions 11 and 12 regarding anonymity:

"Anonymity breaks: Upon learning that an A.A. member's anonymity has been broken in the media, G.S.O. communicates with the area delegate, who can either remind the member of the anonymity Tradition or ask G.S.O. to send a reminder."

== Bill Wilson, The A.A. Service Manual, page S73, AAWS Inc., 2005.

"...we cannot and should not enter into public controversy, even in self-defense."

"Privately, however, we can inform Tradition-violators that they are out of order. When they persist, we can follow up by using such other resources of persuasion as we may have, and these are often considerable. Manifested in this fashion, a persistent firmness will often bring the desired result."

== Bill Wilson, The A.A. Service Manual, pages 70 & 71, AAWS Inc., 2005.

So, a personal reminder from the area delegate or from GSO itself should bring the errant member back into line. If that doesn't work then AA can resort to *"resources of persuasion"* applied with *"persistent firmness"*.

Of course, a very different message is presented to the public, the clergy, corrections professionals and professionals in the treatment industry, regarding AA's treatment of its own members. In several publications AA insists that it does not follow up with or try to control its members:

"What A.A. Does NOT Do
A.A. does not: ...follow up or try to control its members..."

== A Message to Corrections Professionals (page 2), AAWS Inc., 1988
== Members of the Clergy ask about Alcoholics Anonymous (page 18), AAWS Inc., 1992
== If You are a Professional...(page 4), AAWS Inc., 1986

So, what is the truth? AA insists that it does not follow up or try to control its members yet the AA Service Manual encourages following up and trying to control AA members. The truth is that AA does what is beneficial to AA depending on the situation.

The fundamentalist's manifesto and its literature always contains both sides of every argument (sometimes presented on the same page). In this way the fundamentalist can support or oppose any opinion or behavior at any time while having a seemingly legitimate foundation for its (short term) belief since it is substantiated by what is written in the manifesto/literature. Some of the hundreds of examples in AA are:

"Upon therapy for the alcoholic himself, we surely have no monopoly."
== Big Book, Fwd to the 2nd Ed. —

[We don't have the only solution.]

"For most cases, there is virtually no other solution."
== Big Book, page 43 —

[There is no other solution.]

"...every A.A. group can manage its affairs exactly as it pleases..."
12&12, page 146 —

[Do what you want.]

"...the group, exactly like the individual, must eventually conform..."
12&12, page 146 —

[Do what you're told.]

So, what will AA do regarding Phyllis Halliday breaking her anonymity? AA will do what benefits AA — ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

And what will AA do regarding protecting AA members from harassment, abuse, assault and rape by other AA members? AA will do what benefits AA — ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

Thanks Orange,
Iamnotastatistic

Hello again, Iamnotastatistic,

Thanks for the letter. Those are some good finds. What double-talk — manuals that contradict themselves, even on the same page.

Oh well, have a good day now.

== Orange

*             orange@orange-papers.org        *
*         AA and Recovery Cult Debunking      *
*          http://www.Orange-Papers.org/      *
*       http://www.Orange-Papers.org/forum/   *
**     What's the difference between an Islamic fanatic in training,
**     diligently studying the Koran for justifications to be a suicide
**     bomber, and an A.A. member diligently studying the Big Book
**     for reasons to be a misguided A.A. fanatic and lie to sick people
**     about cures?





May 28, 2012, Monday: The Fernhill Wetlands

Canada Goose goslings
Three of the new goslings

Canada Goose goslings
New goslings beside Mama

Canada Goose goslings
Three of the new goslings, eating bread

Bald Eagles
Bald Eagles, finally!
I've been trying to get some good shots of these eagles for a long time.

Eagles Nest
These two eagles have a nest, up in the fork of a tree.

Bald Eagles
The pair of breeding Bald Eagles

[The story of the goslings continues here.]





[ Link here = http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-letters325.html#JB ]

Date: Tue, September 11, 2012 5:41 pm     (answered 14 September 2012)
From: "JB"
Subject:

Hey Orange,

First off I just want to commend you on such a great, well basically book, that you have written. I am also a non-believer although i maintain a prescense at AA and NA meetings trying to get people to see the truth. As you know most of them do not take too kindly to someone questioning their crazy self-righteous bullshit. I have been ostracized over and over, and am even on "Old timer" imposed bans from some meetings. But if it means that I convert at least one person from that cult to a better life it is all worth it. It is very nice to know there is a wealth of information available for people to see the truth about AA, I just wish it could go mainstream and expose it for the cult it is. Anyway, keep up the fight good sir.

Much Respect,
JB

Hello JB,

Thank you for the letter, and thanks for all you do. You sound like a good member of the Newcomer Rescue League. Congratulations.

I think that we actually are "going mainstream" right now, and exposing A.A. as a cult. Every day, there is more information available about the cultish nature of A.A., and about how it doesn't really work. More articles are showing up on the Internet all of the time. Heck, a couple of years ago, even NBC television and Newsweek magazine and the Washington Post newspaper were reporting how A.A. had degenerated into a sexual exploitation society. So the cat's out of the bag; it isn't a secret any more.

The A.A. propagandists are fighting back and trying hard to perpetuate the myth of "A.A. the Salvation of Alcoholics", but they are losing the war.

Have a good day now.

== Orange

*             orange@orange-papers.org        *
*         AA and Recovery Cult Debunking      *
*          http://www.Orange-Papers.org/      *
*       http://www.Orange-Papers.org/forum/   *
**     "If you think you are too small to be effective,
**      you have never been in bed with a mosquito."





[The previous letter from Amy_S is here.]

[ Link here = http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-letters325.html#Amy_S ]

Date: Thu, September 13, 2012 9:32 am     (answered 14 September 2012)
From: "Amy S."
Subject: Re:

Hi Orange,

I read your response berating me, and something that worked for me. It was a nice gesture, I suppose.

You said you are trying to fight AA, or the aa mentality~some kind of bullshit comment from the peanut gallery. As I was scanning your response (I graduated from seventh grade a long time ago, and I know drama when I see it) , it gave me a little giggle. I saw penn and tellers episode on AA (which was funny, because our traditions state we be anonymous~ at the level of tv and media)~ and I laughed the entire way through it. It was great entertainment. There is a reason we are anonymous.

I am wondering why you are trying to fight aa, or well, whatever it is you are fighting. You said you intend to expose our lies, or something close to this. Feel free. But, May I ask you a question? Are you happy in life? Are you happy in your own skin? Are you ok with who you are?

People who are comfortable with themselves don't need to fight anything, anywhere. I don't say that from an AA point of view. That is logic. If you were ok with yourself, you wouldn't have to do any of this. Maybe some drunk killed your cat. Maybe some drunk molested you, or maybe aa attempted to help you, and and you got hurt. Maybe a husband or wife left you because of some kind of addiction. Maybe you have a tiny wee wee, Or daddy beat you up. Personally, I don't care what it is. But no person who feels happy with themselves posts a bunch of stuff under an assumed name, and claims to be fighting the good fight.

I also noticed that, in anything I say, you felt obligated to add links to your response. That seems like a lot of work to me, knowing full well I won't read them. I actually have a life, and other priorities than to listen to some blathering idiot go on about nothing.I have worked all twelve steps, and as a result, my life improved. Also, AA did help millions get sober. People get thirsty all the time. They go, they come back, they try to get sober again. I would say only those who died are the ones we failed with.... and I don't really give a shit about whatever stupid fucking response you have researched for me. I see them every day.

So, go on with your fantasies and your resentment. I'm attending another meeting in a few hours, going back to work, and then going home and going to bed. Tomorrow, I am accepting a position that will give me forty thousand more, fully bennys, opps to travel the world, and my own company car... Ill be able to go to the gym whenever I want, make my own hours, and speak with pro athletes. That's not bad for someone who was homeless drunk working her way to rebuild her life in a shithole country with a shithole economy. But, hey, AA doesn't work.

The bad thing still happened to you, whatever that is... and however you cope with that is fine with me. If you feel that "fighting it" or fighting AA keeps away your personal demons, Keep on fighting. I hope you win that battle with yourself.

Hello again, Amy,

Now I'll repond to your statements.

I read your response berating me, and something that worked for me. It was a nice gesture, I suppose.

I did not berate you. I am very careful about not doing that. I attack bad ideas, I attack misinformation and lies, and I attack the Alcoholics Anonymous cult, but I do not attack the people who are unfortunate enough to believe in a pack of lies.

This is an attack on a person: "You are a stupid bitch."

This is an attack on a lie: "Alcoholics Anonymous does not have a success rate; they just lie about their recovery rate and try to count every sober person around as one of their success stories."

Do you see the difference?

You said you are trying to fight AA, or the aa mentality~some kind of bullshit comment from the peanut gallery. As I was scanning your response (I graduated from seventh grade a long time ago, and I know drama when I see it) , it gave me a little giggle. I saw penn and tellers episode on AA (which was funny, because our traditions state we be anonymous~ at the level of tv and media)~ and I laughed the entire way through it. It was great entertainment. There is a reason we are anonymous.

Yes, Penn & Teller are very entertaining, aren't they? The fact remains that A.A. still has no respect for alcoholics. You avoided mentioning that point.

Funny that you should mention anonymity. A previous letter was just revealing how the current General Manager of the GSO is not anonymous. Look here. These days, some A.A. members choose to be anonymous, but most of the celebrities and big-wigs do not. They even brag about their A.A. membership, like how Gary Busey did in that Penn & Teller show.

I am wondering why you are trying to fight aa, or well, whatever it is you are fighting. You said you intend to expose our lies, or something close to this. Feel free. But, May I ask you a question? Are you happy in life? Are you happy in your own skin? Are you ok with who you are?

Yes, I'm happy, and having a good time. You wonder why I'm fighting a lying organization that foists an old cult religion on sick people, and claims that it has the only cure for addictions? You can't figure that out for yourself?

I don't think you are that stupid. (And that is not a personal attack on you.)

People who are comfortable with themselves don't need to fight anything, anywhere. I don't say that from an AA point of view. That is logic. If you were ok with yourself, you wouldn't have to do any of this.

Now that is a load of bullshit. By that logic, happy people would never oppose immorality, or injustice. Or alcoholism.

Maybe some drunk killed your cat. Maybe some drunk molested you, or maybe aa attempted to help you, and and you got hurt. Maybe a husband or wife left you because of some kind of addiction. Maybe you have a tiny wee wee, Or daddy beat you up. Personally, I don't care what it is. But no person who feels happy with themselves posts a bunch of stuff under an assumed name, and claims to be fighting the good fight.

That is more bullshit. You are just making a lame attempt at an ad hominem attack, accusing me of having bad motives.

Can't you think of a good reason for someone to oppose harmful quack medicine?

I also noticed that, in anything I say, you felt obligated to add links to your response. That seems like a lot of work to me, knowing full well I won't read them.

You may not read them, but other people do. I don't answer these letters just for your benefit, because I doubt that you will learn anything. But other people do.

I actually have a life, and other priorities than to listen to some blathering idiot go on about nothing.I have worked all twelve steps, and as a result, my life improved. Also, AA did help millions get sober. People get thirsty all the time. They go, they come back, they try to get sober again. I would say only those who died are the ones we failed with.... and I don't really give a shit about whatever stupid fucking response you have researched for me. I see them every day.

If you have better things to do with your life, why are you still involved with an old cult religion?

And once again, there are no "millions saved by A.A.". That is just another standard A.A. lie. No truth to it. A.A. does not even have 2 million members in the entire world, and much of the A.A. membership is not sober, so they cannot possibly have saved millions.

The truth is that most of the A.A. membership is just churn — another 100,000 people are forced into A.A. meetings for a little while, and then another 100,000 drop out. And then another 100,000 go in, and then another 100,000 drop out. There are only a few hundred thousand committed A.A. cult members in the whole world. Look here for much more about the A.A. churn rate.

So, go on with your fantasies and your resentment. I'm attending another meeting in a few hours, going back to work, and then going home and going to bed. Tomorrow, I am accepting a position that will give me forty thousand more, fully bennys, opps to travel the world, and my own company car... Ill be able to go to the gym whenever I want, make my own hours, and speak with pro athletes. That's not bad for someone who was homeless drunk working her way to rebuild her life in a shithole country with a shithole economy. But, hey, AA doesn't work.

A.A. does not work. You work. Congratulations on your success in your career.

Speaking of success, how is that tobacco addiction going?

Why don't the 12 Steps work on tobacco addictions?

The bad thing still happened to you, whatever that is... and however you cope with that is fine with me. If you feel that "fighting it" or fighting AA keeps away your personal demons, Keep on fighting. I hope you win that battle with yourself.

I'm having a fine time Amy.

You have a good day too.

== Orange

*             orange@orange-papers.org        *
*         AA and Recovery Cult Debunking      *
*          http://www.Orange-Papers.org/      *
*       http://www.Orange-Papers.org/forum/   *
**  Look! Good fortune is around you.
**  It is better to be alone than in bad company.





More Letters


Previous Letters









Search the Orange Papers







Click Fruit for Menu

Last updated 9 March 2013.
The most recent version of this file can be found at http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-letters325.html

Copyright © 2016, A. Orange