Letters, We Get Mail, CCCLVII

[ Link here = https://www.orange-papers.info/orange-letters357.html#Avo ]

Date: Wed, April 3, 2013 2:15 pm       (answered 11 June 2013)
Subject: A new photo
From: "exposingtruth.aa"


Hi Orange,

I got this photo and thought you would be interested. Link — From the collection of Ernie Galbraith Jr. found online. Oddly, there are no pictures of Dr. Bob or Anne Smith. Not any others of Sue Smith either. They would be key family members, am I right?

Take care,

Bill, Lois, Sue Smith 1951 Stepping Stones.jpg 65 k

Bill Wilson + Lois + Sue Smith


Sorry Orange, I got that wrong. Apparently Ernie Gailbrath remarried and had children. That would be a good reason to not have any photos of the Smiths. I believe that Sue Smith would have been Ernie Jr.'s fathers' ex-wife.

Interesting regardless.


Hello Avo,

Thank you. That is a good find. I'm not sure whether Ernie Jr. was the son of Susan Smith or the second wife; I'll have to check that. I know that Ernie and Susan's first child (maybe only child) was a daughter who got pregnant at 16, and then committed suicide with Ernie's shotgun when she was a very young adult, also killing her own daughter in a double murder-suicide.

And Robert Smith Jr's son also committed suicide, so two of Dr. Bob's grandchildren committed suicide. What the heck?

It can't be genetic, because Susan was an adopted daughter. Apparently, there was something about Dr. Bob's neurotic way of raising and abusing children that so emotionally crippled his own children that the grandchildren killed themselves. There is much more about that here. Especially see the quote where Dr. Bob's son, Robert Smith Jr., a.k.a. "Smitty", who spent his life in and around A.A. and Al-Anon, talked about "I thought I was a very shallow person, because I didn't seem to be able to love my fellow man."

Tragic. Buchmanism is really poisonous.

Oh well, have a good day now.

== Orange

*             [email protected]        *
*         AA and Recovery Cult Debunking      *
*          http://www.Orange-Papers.org/      *
**     The biggest truth to face now — what is probably making me unfunny now
**     for the remainder of my life — is that I don't think people give a damn
**     whether the planet goes on or not. It seems to me as if everyone is
**     living as members of Alcoholics Anonymous do, day by day. And a few
**     more days will be enough. I know of very few people who are dreaming
**     of a world for their grandchildren.
**         ==  Kurt Vonnegut

[ Link here = https://www.orange-papers.info/orange-letters357.html#Monica ]

Date: Wed, June 12, 2013 12:08 am       (answered 14 June 2013)
From: "Monica R."
Subject: AA GS Conference report from 1950

have you seen this?



Local copy here: GSC51 (pdf)

Hello Monica,

Thank you very much for that. That historical document says a lot.

  1. The first thing that I noticed is the grandiose self-congratulatory language, which sounds just like the Oxford Group and MRA:

    The Conference which began as en experiment in faith was, at the conclusion of the three-day session, most assuredly an experience in faith.

    "Experiment in faith". No. Actually, the previous paragraph said that the purpose of the conference was to organize A.A.:

    The Conference was, in truth, the beginning of action, designed to preserve and strengthen A.A.

    But in A.A., all events, even business meetings, have to be "spiritual experiences".

  2. On page 4, Bill Wilson said that "Works Publishing" was formed to create the book:

    That decision was to form a publishing company to produce the book as the property of the move- ment, rather than thorough conventional publishing channels

    Wrong. The 100 Men Corporation was formed to write and publish the Big Book. Bill tried very hard to rewrite history and pretend that The 100 Men Corporation never existed.

  3. Page 4: Bill said that he was supposed to get $1500 for writing the opening chapters of the book. Not true. The stock prospectus for The 100 Men Corporation says that Bill was to be paid $1000 for writing the opening chapters of the book, not $1500. Bill kept on helping himself to more and more of the money, so he kept changing the story.

  4. On page 4, Bill erased Henry Parkhurst from history:

    Thus Works Publishing, Inc. was formed with 600 shares of stock---" par value" $25 .---200 shares held by Bill, 200 by another early member and 200 distributed among less than 100 alcoholics.

    Henry Parkhurst was the unnamed "another early member", and he was the co-author of the Big Book. But Bill Wilson cheated Henry out of any share of the royalties, and then Henry relapsed, so Bill made Henry Parkhurst into a Stalinesque "non-person". Henry Parkhurst never existed.

  5. Page 4 says that Ruth Hock was paid out of book receipts. Untrue. Bill's fiction says:

    An office was set up ---the first national service office---to handle the growing stream of inquiries. Ruth H., the first secretary, was supported out of income from the book

    Wrong. What Bill Wilson wrote in Alcoholics Anonymous Comes Of Age, was that Ruth Hock was given "meaningless stock certificates" in a "defunct" publishing company — which had to be The 100 Men Corporation, because "Works Publishing" had not been incorporated yet, never mind already gone defunct:

    It was April, 1939. Henry, absolutely broke, was trying to get work. Ruth, living at home, was given meaningless stock certificates in the defunct Works Publishing as pay. She cheerfully accepted these and never slackened her efforts. All of us were going into debt just for living expenses.
    Alcoholics Anonymous Comes Of Age, page 173

    Again, it was the 100 Men Corporation that went defunct. Works Publishing was never defunct.

  6. Bill Wilson completely rewrote the story of the securities fraud:

    It also became clear at this stage in the growth of A.A. services that the book should not be controlled privately. Bill and the other early members each turned over to the Foundation their blocks of 200 shares of Works Publishing, Inc. A loan from Mr. Rockefeller enabled the Foundation to buy up the remaining 2C0 shares in the hands of 49 other alcoholics.

    What really happened was, when actual money started coming in, Bill Wilson got greedy and wanted all of the money for himself. He did not want to be distributing the money to the stockholders, so he floated the story about how the "Alcoholic Foundation" should own the publishing company. And of course the biggest "office expense" of the Alcoholic Foundation was supporting Bill Wilson in comfort.

    That is felony securities fraud. The buyers of the stock were promised a share of the profits in order to entice them to buy the stock. In fact, the 100 Men Corporation stock prospectus even teased prospective investors with the statement that, if things went really well, the stockholders would get back $900 for each $25 share that they purchased.

    But then Bill yanked back all of the stock and refused to distribute the profits to the stockholders. That is felony fraud, and securities fraud.

    Again, Henry Parkhurst was not mentioned, and Bill neglected to tell the story of how he cheated Henry out of his shares in the publishing complany.

  7. Page 6 contains this interesting tidbit:

    ...the lawyer studying the problem reported that if A.A. ever had to sue, inevitably the suit would have to be brought in the name of the Foundation. This posed the related problem of whether or not A.A. should ever go into court. A number of the Trustees feel strongly that it should not. It is felt that a new Tradition on this policy matter is now developing as a guide for future action.

    Well A.A. General Manager Greg Muth sure changed that, didn't he? He issued a Grant of Authority authorizing A.A. lawyers to fraudulently sue A.A. members in Mexico and Germany for publishing their own translations of the old, out-of-copyright, first edition of the Big Book. A.A. representatives even committed perjury against the A.A. members in the courts of Mexico and Germany, declaring that the book was still in copyright, and caused them great expense and injury.

    That's A.A. "spirituality" for you. Money before principles.

  8. Page 6 continues:

    The question of whether or not to accept gifts also had to be considered by the Foundation, as the only custodian of traditions and policies up to now.

    This document does not say what they decided. Bill's fairy tale says that they refused to accept $10,000 that some old widow bequethed to them. But modern A.A. had no problem with taking $100,000 from the city of San Diego for holding a convention there. Now they take in money however they can get it.

  9. Page 6 continues:

    The motion picture industry's interest in A.A. has similarly produced specific problems no other agency was prepared to cope with. Delicate but firm negotiations with a major studio during the past year were successful in preventing unfortunate exploitation of A.A., Mr. Smith pointed out.

    Well, that has changed too, hasn't it? Now they have no problem with the Hallmark made-for-TV movies "My Name Is Bill W." and "When Love Is Not Enough". And then 28 Days, Clean and Sober, The Days of Wine and Roses... And planting plugs for A.A. in Cagney and Lacy, Hill Street Blues, ER, Dr. Phil, Dr. Drew, The West Wing, The History Detectives... It's not a problem anymore.

  10. Page 7 contains this joke:

    The Foundation makes up deficits incurred by the "Grapevine" but has no control over its editorial policy.

    Oh sure, right... It's the Golden Rule: He who has the gold makes the rules. You know that the flow of supporting money into the Grapevine will stop immediately if they ever depart from the party line and print the truth.

  11. Page 8 says something that is true:

    The "Grapevine" operates at .a deficit. Income from circulation has increased ---but these monies have been used for quality printing, more engravings for better art work, more attractive layouts---and a bigger magazine.

    As a service to all A.A.s ---and to prospective A.A.s--the "Grape- vine" is not expected to produce a profit. But the money to make up deficits has to come from somewhere. Up to now it has come from the "General Funds" reserve of the Alcoholic Foundation. We must, however, face the fact that it may no longer be prudent or possible to deplete the Foundation's reserves in this manner.

    That is a real problem, and it has gotten worse in the following 60 years. Subscriptions are down, and expenses and losses are up. The Grapevine has been laying off staff. They may have to shut it down.

  12. Page 8 says:

    It was reported that the Trustees of the Foundation, following Dr. Bob's death, had voted to increase Bill's royalty on the Big Book from 10 percent to 15 percent. This author's royalty would also apply to other Books the Trustees are anxious to have Bill prepare for their consideration in the future. The chairman reported that Bill insisted that this increase be approved by the General Service Conference. A motion approving the action of the Trustees was approved unanimously by the delegates.

    Once again, Bill was helping himself to more money. He took Dr. Bob's (undeserved) share of the royalties as soon as Dr. Bob died. (But what about Mrs. Anne Smith? What did she get? Did Bill leave her destitute?)

    Then Bill had the Conference rubber-stamp the action. It's called "Cover Your Ass". ("I didn't just take the money. The Conference voted for me to get it.")

  13. The next page answers part of the question:

    In addition, the Conference approved unanimously a motion recommending to the Trustees of the Foundation that steps be taken to insure that Bill and Lois receive book royalties so long as either one shall live. This motion was adopted after it was disclosed that under the existing arrangement Bill would have no legal basis for claiming royalties upon the expiration of the Big Book copyright and that no provision exists for Lois in the event of Bill's prior death.

    No mention of Anne Smith.

    Note that all authors have the same problem that when the copyright has expired, it's gone and that is that, and they often don't get any more royalties (unless it was written into a contract with the publisher, and if the publisher keeps on printing the book). Better go write a new book. But Bill was special. The Alcoholic Foundation had to support him and Lois for life, regardless of the copyrights.

  14. Page 13 contains more falsified history:

    When war broke out, with the possibility that he might be recalled to active duty, Bill suggested, on the basis of his authorship of the Big Book, that he be granted a royalty on book sales, as a means of providing income for Lois.

    Oh how noble of Bill. "I have to provide for Lois in case I heroically die in the service of my country." There is no truth to that. And in another story, Bill said that the Army refused to take him because he was too old, but Bill still kept the money.

    The truth is that Bill Wilson blackmailed the Alcoholic Foundation way back in 1940 and demanded royalties in trade for the stolen (and invalid) copyright on the Big Book. Here is the assignment of rights where Bill Wilson signed over the copyright in trade for royalties:

    Original Big Book assignment of copyright to Works Publishing, Inc. document.

    assignment of copyright document
    (click on image for larger picture)

    Notice how Bill Wilson traded the copyright for "$1 and other good and lawful consideration." Yes, a whole lot of other consideration, like royalties for life.

  15. Then the poor, impoverished Bill Wilson sucked even more money out of A.A.:

    ...it was discovered that Bill's annual income for the preceding seven years had averaged $1,700--- slightly more than $32. a week. The Trustees thereupon made a grant to Bill equivalent to $1,500 for each of those seven years, out of which he was able to purchase his Bedford Hills home.

    So where was it written that Bill Wilson was guaranteed a comfortable living for life, just because he co-authored a few chapters of a book? What about all of the other co-authors? How much money did they make in those seven years? And especially Henry Parkhurst, how much did he get?

  16. Then Bill rationalized his naked grab for more money:

    Inflation and the decline in book sales have combined to cut Bill's income practically in half in the past year. The five percent increase in royalty means that his earnings will once more approximate those of three years ago.

    Oh poor Bill. Funny how it was the responsibility of the Alcoholic Foundation to insure that Bill gets plenty of income. Did the Foundation also support the other alcoholics who were working hard to make A.A. a success? No.

    And did Bill ever recommend that his royalties be reduced after he became a millionaire from the A.A. royalites? No.

  17. Then Bill again hid behind Lois, and declared that he had to get lots of money because of poor Lois:

    The possible implications of "professionalism" in his relation to the movement have troubled him deeply, Bill reported. He concluded that "there was no other way to go" and that as long as he is devoting his full time to the movement, even though he would not object to a hair suit himself, "he had no business putting one on Lois."

    Notice the grandiose language: the A.A. cult is a "movement".

    The above argument begs the question: "Bill, why don't you just get a straight job? The 'movement' doesn't need you that much."

  18. Page 18 lists the non-alcoholic Trustees. It describes Dr. Leonard V. Strong, Bill's brother-in-law, as "'the oldest Trustee of all,' a vital link in the chain of development that enabled the movement to survive." Well, that "vital link" resigned in protest against Bill Wilson's chicanery.

  19. Page 20 says that A.A. ran a deficit of $20,000 for the previous year. And Bill's response was to demand more money for himself (and Lois).

Thanks again for the document.

Have a good day now.

== Orange

*             [email protected]        *
*         AA and Recovery Cult Debunking      *
*          http://www.Orange-Papers.org/      *
**     Oh what a tangled web we weave,
**     when first we practice to deceive.

June 01, 2013, Saturday, downtown Portland:

I got into Portland this day:

Portland Oregon, Old Town Max Stop
The Old Town Max Stop

MAX train
A Max train

Japanese Garden
The Japanese Garden

Burnside Street Scene
Burnside Blvd. Street Scene
Because of the layout of the streets, they have several wedge-shaped buildings along Burnside. Here, the pizza shop is shaped just like a slice of pizza.

[More gosling photos below, here.]

[ Link here = https://www.orange-papers.info/orange-letters357.html#Tom_H ]

Date: Mon, June 10, 2013 9:50 pm       (answered 15 June 2013)
From: "Tom H."
Subject: Strange thing happened a while back....

I have a question for the readers of Oranges site.. Are there any alcoholics that were truly addicted to alcohol and simply woke up one day and had their mind "forget" they were alcoholic never to drink again ? Please be honest about your drinking past being a full blown alcoholic in terms of serious, serious, debilitating consumption levels. And I am referring to a total lack of cravings or thoughts of "picking up." I had this strange experience with my serious smoking addiction and being a 2-3 pack a day smoker of Marlboros for 45 years. I failed every smoking program known to mankind, from psychologists to patches to gums and countless sessions of hypnotism.

I attempted to quit smoking with serious efforts for almost 40 years. (then one morning I woke up and had "forgotten" about smoking) My quitting alcohol was a 12 year effort in and out the doors of AA while still drinking and I finally got sick enough to quit alcohol 13 years ago. But to be totally honest, I am confused to this day what happened for me to make that decision. I think I am in the category of a spontaneous remission in terms of decision. Like thousands of others I had to stay stopped one day at a time until the cravings went away.

I believe that within 50 years we may have medications to help this alcoholic malady see its last days. Then again nothing would surprise me at all.

Hello Tom,

Contratulations for quitting smoking and drinking. And thanks for an interesting question. I don't have any simple answer to that question. Personally, for me, quitting both alcohol and tobacco was a real fight, and took some determination and will power to quit and stay quit. But I can believe that when someone is done with it, he is just done with it. When you are sick and tired of being sick and tired, then you don't desire it any more.

Readers, any experiences there?

Have a good day now.

== Orange

*             [email protected]        *
*         AA and Recovery Cult Debunking      *
*          http://www.Orange-Papers.org/      *
**     Giving up smoking is the easiest thing in the world.
**     I know because I've done it thousands of times.
**       ==   Mark Twain (American Humorist, Writer and Lecturer. 1835—1910)

[ Link here = https://www.orange-papers.info/orange-letters357.html#David_M ]

Date: Tue, June 11, 2013 9:51 pm       (answered 15 June 2013)
From: "David M."
Subject: Alrighty Then. CULT?... Really...


I do respect one thing. Your diligence to your beliefs are relentless.

As far as A.A. being a cult, your absolutely wrong, in evidence by the first current, in general defenitons, that are used these days that I could find.

And just these 2 points I make will disqualify your defening A.A.as a cult. If need be I can take a random poll and ask 100 people that are strangers if they think A.A. is abnormal or a cult? But that would be stupid. Its a given that A.A. is not abnormal or bizaree. In fact it is about the most normal thing their is for battling Alcohism. And again these are the first defenitons I could find that is realistic in the way society views what a cult is in the general public.

Hello David,

  1. Asking 100 uninformed people what their opinion is only gets you 100 uninformed opinions. That is the same stunt as political pollsters use. Then they are surprised when their predictions are wrong.

  2. You are making a huge assumption, and ignoring a lot of evidence, when you say that "Its a given that A.A. is not abnormal or bizaree." Actually many A.A. groups are. Read the A.A. Horror Stories.

And then where is the hierarchy? Where is the guidance from the teaching and guidance coming from the people at the top? Random members volunteer to guide meetings. And in general. I could not tell you the names of chairman of the last 10 meetings I went to. There is no one "at the top". The people that are in the administration etc. I have never even seen or heard of. I have never studied the names of them. If I had to go to the administration I would have to research and ask questions to where "the hierarchy" is. AND THEIR IS NO BULLSHIT MIND CONTROL ETC. Get real orange papers. I just unbiasedly researched this. It is the first thing that I saw That looked of intrest to try to validate in your paper.

Whether a group is a cult is not solely determined by the heirarchy. A hierarchical power structure is just one of a hundred cult characteristics.

Nevertheless, A.A. has a hierarchy, even two of them. The first is the pyramid of sponsors that goes up to Bill Wilson or Dr. Bob or Clancy Imusland. The second is the pyramid of Intergroups and Area Intergroups and Conference and GSO and AAWS, topped off by the offices in the Interchurch Building in New York City, with the President of AAWS and General Manager of the GSO being the bosses (or boss). Greg Muth held both positions.

Yes there is mind control. Read Dr. Robert Jay Lifton's Eight Conditions for Thought Reform, that is, for brainwashing, and see how they resemble the practices in the 12 Steps.

A.A. is not considered "abnormal" or "bizaree".... It is far far from that. It is normal. It is what is known as the first thing available for alcoholism, secondary to treatment.

Bad logic. You are using the passive voice, a standard propaganda trick where things get said or thought or believed by invisible people. Who does not consider A.A. "abnormal" or "bizaree" [sic.]? I do. And so do hundreds of people who have written to me. Again, read the A.A. Horror Stories for many examples of that.

DEFENITON OF CULT: The word cult in current popular usage is a pejorative term for a new religious movement or other group whose beliefs or practices are considered abnormal or bizarre by the larger society.[1]


DEFENITION OF A CULT — Any group which has a pyramid type authoritarian leadership structure with all teaching and guidance coming from the person/persons at the top. The group will claim to be the only way to God; Nirvana; Paradise; Ultimate Reality; Full Potential, Way to Happiness etc, and will use thought reform or mind control techniques to gain control and keep their members. This definition covers cults within all major world religions, along with those cults which have no OBVIOUS reomligious base such as commercial, educational and psychological cults.

That describes A.A. very well.

Ya see that is what you are MISSING and have to include. The oddity of cults. Cults come and go. Why dont you get realsitic and use the standard interpretations of society and how they define a "cult"...And the way society sees it.

On the contrary, I do. Why don't you read the Cult Test, and get a more detailed description of a cult? A.A. passes the Cult Test with a very high score. Alcoholics Anonymous is a cult. The evidence is overwhelming.

Please state where all your evidence and all these figures are coming from and reference them. If you even want me to read your paper with an open mind with one eye even open. I can make shit up really really good. Your whole writing has all these things you state, but where is it coming from?

I have already done that. Read the entire Cult Test, both the questions and answers. It is all referenced. There are footnotes and quotes from authoritive books and links everywhere.

(Note that, when you are reading the Cult Test, you can flip back and forth between the questions and answers for A.A. by clicking on the number of the question and answer.)

If you don't like my answers and my scoring, go ahead and put A.A. to the test and score A.A. on those 100 questions yourself. Let's see what you come up with.

Then you can read the bibliography, starting here, to see the list of books.

Also, all of the statements in the file that you referenced, https://www.orange-papers.info/orange-not_good.html, have links to supporting evidence and documentation. When you see a statement that interests you, or with which you disagree, click on it to get more information.

Have a good day now.

== Orange

*             [email protected]        *
*         AA and Recovery Cult Debunking      *
*          http://www.Orange-Papers.org/      *
**     "Wanting to believe is perhaps the most powerful dynamic
**     initiating and sustaining cult-like behavior."
**     The Wrong Way Home: Uncovering the Patterns of Cult Behavior in
**     American Society, Arthur J. Deikman, M.D., page 137.

[ Link here = https://www.orange-papers.info/orange-letters357.html#Jon_K ]

Date: Tue, June 11, 2013 9:05 pm       (answered 15 June 2013)
From: "Jon K."
Subject: Hey there

Been in and out of AA a bit. Had a year and a half. I seem to be turning a stone and being able to have one or two drinks and stopping. AA said that's not possible. Do you find any redeemable qualities in aa? Feels like a mind fuck for sure.

Enjoy your writing

Sent from my iPhone

Hello Jon,

Thanks for the compliments and the question.

Can you "just turn a stone"? Yes, for sure. Lots of people just outgrow their bad habits and their addictions. It happens all of the time. The fancy name for that is, "Maturing out of addictive behavior." And it sounds like it happened to you. Congratulations.

  1. The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism of the National Institutes of Health found that 75% of the people who recover from self-destructive drinking do it by themselves. They just get over it one day, and stop doing it. (Click on the links for the details.)

  2. The Harvard Medical School said that 80% of the alcoholics just quit on their own one day.

  3. The Rand Corporation, the famous government think tank, did a study of alcoholics that found that half of the alcoholics who recover from "alcoholism" do it by just tapering off into moderate, controlled drinking, while the other half do it by total abstinence. Different strokes for different folks. (Needless to say, A.A. pundits totally flipped when that report was released.)

Yes, A.A. is dead wrong when they say that is impossible. They just don't want to admit that you don't need them.

And yes, I also consider A.A. to be a mind fuck. It's just an old pro-Nazi cult religion from the nineteen-thirties, not a cure for alcohol addiction.

Have a good day and a good life now.

== Orange

*             [email protected]        *
*         AA and Recovery Cult Debunking      *
*          http://www.Orange-Papers.org/      *
**     Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot
**     change their minds cannot change anything.
**       ==  Ralph Waldo Emerson

[ Link here = https://www.orange-papers.info/orange-letters357.html#Andre_P ]

Date: Wed, June 12, 2013 2:38 am       (answered 15 June 2013)
From: "Andre P."
Subject: [Anti — 12 step programs] A gem by Id Powers — I just love this one!!

Andre P. posted in Anti — 12 step programs

A gem by Id Powers — I just love this one!!

AA, now I am talking about the book that Bill Wilson takes full credit for, AA or Alcoholics Anonymous. Bill states or challenges all his readers to become "his followers." This is one of the monumental mistakes of AA, of AA past, present and future victims of AA, the blind leading the blind. Did anyone stop to ask, hey Bill, what did you have? When you asked me if I wanted what you had?

How does Bill do that? He challenges all his victims when he says "if you want what we have".

Now, to move on you first have to understand, "who is" the "we" when Bill says "if you", meaning you reading this, do you want what "bill had?"

So to answer that, you really need to find out who is Bill?

And... You are hooked without notice, if you are tricked into AA by "not looking at what they had".

To decide "if" you want what they (he) had, you would have to know them, to see "do I want what Bill had?

What did Bill have? Well he had Lois, poor woman, she must have been one tired piece of ass, Bill did not really want her, he wanted all the new strange AA pussy... and he took it... so, now, does that sound like a good deal? "Sign here if you want the pussy power of Bill?" sorry women, no lesbians allowed, in AA, fuck you're really lucky they let women attend, bring me some coffee bitch... oops... lost my head there... I must been taken over by the spirit of Billy.

What about working? Do you want Bill's job? Oops.. Bill never worked a day in his life after he wrote his book, and that fucker was rich!

So... endless pussy and money. So far so good.

How about drugs? Bill loved him some LSD? No way... have you said... way I say... he loved him some "mind drugs"... and took LSD "under medical supervision of course... for ten years... is that the same as medical marijuana? I don't think so... pot has less kick I think, fuck let's ask Bill that nutter loves experiments...

So... Endless pussy, Rich and now drugs... what is missing? Rock and Roll? Was Bill, Keith Richards's dad?

Fuck... no... Keith has too much class for the AA cunt...

But what else did "Bill have" that you may want? Ahhhhh yes his "thoughts" he sold his thoughts in "as Bill sees it"... funny stuff how Bill sees things. Say what you?

The best part of AA is how no one ever stopped to look at the fucknuts that founded it. They never did any of the shit they claim but made it look fun. Two fundamental questions you need to stop and ask, who are they and "what was it they did"? Fuck even Bill the fucknut admits he never confessed until he meets the Jesuit Dowling, in '41. So Bills "5th step" is not in '34, '35, '36, '37, '38, '39, or even '40... But seven years after he quit drinking he take the sacrament of confession from a catholic priest. Things that make you gooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo hummer.


Hello Andre,

Thanks for the essay. He has a lot of good points. And you know, after careful consideration of the facts, I really don't want what Bill had. Or Dr. Bob.

Heck, there is increasing evidence that they relapsed repeatedly. I received letters where it looks like Bill Wilson got hospitalized for alcohol poisoning in Akron when he was supposed to have years of sobriety, and Dr. Bob had to go visit Bill Wilson in Bedford Hills to stop drinking again, years after he supposedly had his last drink.

Oh well, have a good day now.

== Orange

*             [email protected]        *
*         AA and Recovery Cult Debunking      *
*          http://www.Orange-Papers.org/      *
**    And the believers said, "If you want what we
**    have, and are willing to go to any length to
**    get it, then, here, drink this koolaid."

June 01, 2013, Saturday, downtown Portland:

Street Art
Street Art. It's an illuminated "something".

Starlight Parade
Starlight Parade. It's an annual Portland thing, part of the Rose Festival.

A strange one-eyed octopus. Just the thing that you need for a parade.

More Marchers

[The story of the goslings continues here.]

[The previous letter from Jim is here.]

[ Link here = https://www.orange-papers.info/orange-letters357.html#Jim ]

Date: Wed, June 12, 2013 10:17 am       (answered 15 June 2013)
From: "Jim"
Subject: Re: Hi

I can only tell you about my own experience with the 12 steps.

One, as a Christian, I find that the 12 steps dovetail with the Bible and the teachings of Jesus. I did not have to embrace syncretism. I believe Bills intention in allowing one to define God as they see fit is so that those without faith can still use the program. By the way, even if they look to the group for their strength, it cant hurt. The people I have met in recovery are typically very supportive and non judgmental. In most every group there are one or several old timers with a ton of wisdom.

Hello again, Jim,

Another way to explain Bill's intention is to notice that Dr. Frank Buchman invented all of that fake theology with the intention of recruiting people from all religions. Buchman considered everybody fair game for induction into his cult. And Bill Wilson copied that, and did the same. Of course Bill did not explain how atheists could have a non-existent "god" performing miracles for them on demand.

And yes, using the A.A. group as one's "G.O.D." has hurt a lot of people. It is also blatant idolatry.

No matter whether you "had to embrace syncretism", A.A. does. Any religion that says that you can worship anything from a doorknob to a bedban to a group of drunks as your god is obviously not right.

You spend a lot of time anaylizing Bill Wilsons writings and other hand picked quotes from recovery literature. But I wonder if you have ever personally tried actually participating for a good length of time in any kind of 12 step recovery program to see what it is like?

Absolutely not. That is the standard come-on for most cults. "Just do our mind-bending brainwashing practices for a year, and you will see that it is all true." If you do their practices for a year, you will be so brainwashed that you believe whatever they say. No thanks.

The 12 Steps are psychologically harmful. They even drive people to depression and relapse and suicide. No way am I going to do that to myself. I won't drink Jim Jones' koolaid, either.

Speaking of which, why don't you read about Dr. Robert Jay Lifton's description of Chinese Communist brainwashing, and notice the similarity to the 12 Steps? Look here: Dr. Robert Jay Lifton's Eight Conditions for Thought Reform, that is, for brainwashing.

Two, I have attended AA meetings, Al Anon meetings, Celebrate Recovery meetings, one SLAA meeting, and many ACA meetings. I have met people in AA who did not quit drinking through AA but regularly attend meetings because they find it helpful. I have also met several people who have been in it for 20 years plus and did quit drinking through AA. I dont have research on how many chips were bought by AA in the state of Texas, but I have met a lot of people who have been helped by a 12 step program. As an ACoA, I have been able to see some major transformation in my life due to reading books about codependency, working through the steps using the ACA workbook, attending meetings, talking to my sponsor, and through the grace and love of God.

That is interesting, you are obviously well-indoctrinated, but does not say anything about whether the A.A. program actually makes people quit drinking alcohol, or what the success rate is, or how Frank Buchman's goofy heretical religion could possibly work as a cure for alcohol abuse.

Three, the 12 step programs that I have visited could not be defined as a cult. A cult always operates based on control, usually issuing from one person. 12 step recovery programs as they exist today, typically do not have any leader. Whether or not you attend meetings, do the step work, give money, have a sponsor, talk to your sponsor, quit completely, rejoin, etc is all totally voluntary. No one in the program has ever attempted to tell me what to do or what I must believe to continue being part of the group. I am free to disagree with anything I want, particpate to the degree I want, or totally drop out. That does not fit the definition of a cult.

Yes, A.A. is a cult. Please read the Cult Test, both the questions, and the answers for A.A. Alcoholics Anonymous scores high as a cult.

The fact that the crazy corrupt leader of A.A., Bill Wilson, is now dead, does not make A.A. suddenly stop being a cult.

  • Scientology is still a cult, even though L. Ron Hubbard is now dead.
  • And the Hari Krishnas (ISKCON) are still a cult, even though Swami Prabhupada is now dead.
  • And the Moonies (the Unification Church) are still a cult, even though Rev. Sun Myung Moon is now dead.
  • And the People's Temple is still a cult, in spite of the fact that Jim Jones is now dead.
  • And the Branch Davidians still exist, and they are still a crazy cult, even though "David Koresh" is now dead.
  • Having the leader die does not suddenly change a cult into a non-cult "because there is no leader".

You are mistaken about the "voluntary" nature of A.A. First off, many people are forced into A.A. The previous two triennial surveys showed that almost two-thirds of the membership had been coerced, sentenced, pressured, blackmailed, forced, or shoved into A.A. Look here.

Then there is the issue of informed consent. People who have been lied to and fooled into believing that they will die if they leave A.A. are not there voluntarily.

And people who are there to get a piece of paper signed are not there voluntarily.

You seem concerned about the harm that could be happening from people following the 12 steps. I am equally concerned for the small number of people who read your writings, that you might discourage people who really could be helped. I understand your method of quitting an addiction and I am not opposed to it. But I dont understand your need to attempt to discourage people from something that you have little personal knowledge. Much of what you write is not based on what is really happening in 12 step meetings around the country.

A.A. does not have a program for quitting drinking. A.A. has an old pro-Nazi cult religion from the nineteen-thirties that Bill Wilson sold as a quack cure for alcoholism. That is why I criticize it. A.A. harms a great many people. Read the A.A. Horror Stories for many examples of that.

Then look at the actual results of 12-Step treatment:

  1. Dr. Brandsma found that A.A increased binge drinking.
  2. Dr. Ditman found that A.A increased the rate of rearrests.
  3. Dr. Walsh found that A.A increased the cost of hospitalization of alcoholics.
  4. Drs. Orford and Edwards found that having a doctor talk to the patient for just one hour was just as effective as a whole year of A.A.-based treatment.
  5. Dr. Vaillant, who went on to become an A.A. trustee, found that A.A. did not increase sobriety in alcoholics at all, not even a little bit, but it did raise the death rate in alcoholics.

Furthermore, much of what you write is skewed because you already had your conclusion decided before you wrote. You offer mostly examples that support your preformed conclusion and ignore so many obvious examples that you are blinded to. Your research is biased and is not based on accepted social science research methodology.

Wrong. I did not start off with the conclusion that A.A. was bad. I started off thinking that A.A. was a very good thing, the biggest and best self-help group in the USA. I found out different from seeing what was really going on. Read the introduction to the web site.

You are painting with a very broad brush when you accuse me of prejudice and biased research. Please pick out specific items where you think that I am wrong, and tell what you think the truth is, and come up with some real hard evidence that I am wrong and you are right. I research very carefully.

Speaking of facts and research, since you have several years in A.A., you should be able to answer these simple questions:

What is the REAL A.A. success rate?

Out of each 1000 newcomers to A.A., how many will pick up a one-year sobriety medallion a year later?
Or even several years later?
And how many will get their 2-year, and 5-year, and 10-year coins? Ever?
How about 11 years and 21 years?

No qualifiers are allowed, like, "We will only count the people who worked the program right, or we will only count the people who really tried, and kept coming back." Everybody counts. No exceptions.

No excuses are allowed. When the doctor gives a patient penicillin, and it fails to cure the infection, the doctor doesn't get to say, "But he didn't work the program right. He didn't pray enough. He didn't surrender. He held something back in his Fifth Step." No excuses.

So what's the actual A.A. cure rate?

HINT: the answers are here and here and here.

If you can't even say what the A.A. cure rate is, then you don't have much of an argument for saying that A.A. is a good thing.

Have a good day now.

== Orange

*             [email protected]        *
*         AA and Recovery Cult Debunking      *
*          http://www.Orange-Papers.org/      *
**     Rev. Jim Jones said, "Drink the red koolaid. It
**     has cured millions. RARELY have we seen it fail...
**     But then again, the green koolaid is good too.
**     Take what you want, and leave the rest."

[The previous letter from Randaron is here.]

[ Link here = https://www.orange-papers.info/orange-letters357.html#Randaron ]

Date: Wed, June 12, 2013 6:31 pm       (answered 17 May 2013)
From: "Ran"
Subject: RE: FW: I hope this helps...

Once again you made a statement that alcohol is and always has been extremely addictive!... and history states alcohol has existed in society for as much as 10,000 years! so by your statement and history the entire world should be completely addicted to it by now..

Hello again, Randy,

That is ridiculously bad logic. First off, not all people drink alcohol. Then only a small percentage of the drinkers drink so much that they get addicted to alcohol. Then the addicted alcoholics die prematurely, so the number of addicted alcoholics does not accumulate over the centuries.

and that it can only be cured completely by a psychologist!

I never said any such thing. Where did you get that? What I have said repeatedly is that Do It Yourself is the most effective recovery program in the world.

thing is I read your horror stories of some people in AA, yet you fail to state the obvious and that is, any and all history portrays these very same horrors through the history of mankind they did not start in AA

That is a very lame argument. The fact that there are bad people in other organizations, like the Communist Party or the Nazi Party or the Ku Klux Klan, and in other countries, does not make it okay for A.A. to treat people badly. Two wrongs don't make a right.

as a matter of fact, the hippy movement of the 60s have much worse horror stories. or was it a couple of renegade AAs that started the Hippy movement. And my own simple observation as I watched all that so called free love turn to free hate and pure greed, many of those same people now run the largest companies in the US and have no qualms to abusing the girls or boys around them as proven throughout history, nor would they have any dismay driving this country into complete ruin because no one listened in the 60s.

You are pushing a huge sweeping generalization without any specific facts. I lived on a hippy commune in northern New Mexico for years, and yes, I saw all of the problems, and I saw the end of a dream, but I also saw a lot of good people, but none of those people, good or bad, are running big corporations now. No, the big evil corporations, and the government agencies, are being run by the straight kids who went to the Harvard Business School and Yale (like George W. Bush), not by the kids who lived on the communes.

you say AA is a cult yet all that can be proven is that regardless of history there will always be someone that despises someone else. from sticks and stone too nukes. whom so ever has the greatest weapon or resource has the final opinion or they will kick it down another's throat.

That attempt at avoiding the facts is just the propaganda trick of setting low expectations, as in, "People are bad all over the world. How can you expect A.A. to be any better?".

Yes, there are bad people everywhere in the world, but that does not make it okay for felonious creeps in A.A. to shove an old cult religion on sick people as a quack cure for alcohol addiction. Remember that A.A. was supposedly a wonderful recovery program that Bill Wilson got from God.

no matter how many pretty words we use the ugly truth will prevail.....

Now that is a very good description of Alcoholics Anonymous. The pretty words that they publish cannot hide the truth about what A.A. is now.

Have a good day.

== Orange

*             [email protected]        *
*         AA and Recovery Cult Debunking      *
*          http://www.Orange-Papers.org/      *
**     When we had won World War 2, a lot of people thought that we had won
**     the big fight and killed the monster Hitler, and that the war was over.
**     It turns out that the monster is impossible to kill, and that the war
**     never ends. The monster reappears in various forms and disguises, again
**     and again, always with a good excuse for another war, and sometimes the
**     monster even dares to appear to be your friend and savior who will save
**     you from war and evil.

More Letters

Previous Letters

Search the Orange Papers

Click Fruit for Menu

Last updated 2 August 2015.
The most recent version of this file can be found at https://www.orange-papers.info/orange-letters357.html