Re: AA Denial (of consciousness): was Recovery etiquette... la ti dah

[Guest guest]

Bjorn:

The AA denial of consciousness has been called three things by three of us

here. I implied it was funny. Amy said it was extremely scary. You refer to

it as interesting. I think Amy is closest to the truth.

As to the AA testimony in Congress, I have no experience in searching the

Congressional Record. I don't know if it's available online, but it's got

to be accessible somehow. I'd be interested to know what they said.

The post WW II decade on the infancy of the AA/Treatment monstrosity? Huge

topic, I don't know where to start. From everything I've seen from that era,

my general conclusion is that AA didn't work then any better than now (ie.

worse than nothing), but there was a vacuum that the Buchmanist cult zealots

filled and society went along with it. That was the era of HUAC, the bomb,

and the birth of the cold war. AA's propoganda based growth was part of all

that, I think.

It may sound crazy, but there's a good chance AA has been used by numerous

governments and industries over the years to host spy contacts. I heard

first hand from someone in the early 1980s (when I was in AA) who'd been

approached by someone in an AA meeting to be a courier when they were on a

business trip in Europe. AA is ideal for such contacts. I think the Soviets,

the Americans, and all the governments in between kind of liked AA back

then.

Now the " enemy " has shifted. Commies and pinkos have become terrorists and

drug king pins, and lo and behold, there's AA still right in the middle of

it all. The Perverted Christian Cult (preying upon the vulnerable) gone

mainstream big business - government, corporate, and academic. YEAH, Amy's

right, IT IS SCARY!

My recommendation. Whenever you see or think of AA (XA), think of Buchmanism

too. The cover of Kens first edition is right on. Buchman's Alcoholics

Anonymous (BAA). Sheeps clothing on a wolf. BAA BAA. It reminds me of a

scene in Oh Lucky Man with young Malcom McDowell discovering where the govt

transplanted peoples heads onto sheep.

Dave Trippel

Re: AA Denial (of consciousness): was Recovery

etiquette... la ti dah

> Hello Dave.

>

> The historical background for AA and the disease concept is very

interesting.

>

> For some time ago I found Ron Roizen's dissertation about the disease

concept on

> the net.

> http://www.roizen.com/ron/disshome.htm

>

> Here he gives the background for the establishment of the disease concept,

which

> served several interests. The question is after reading this dissertation,

if

> the word 'grassroots movement' covers the realities.

>

> After the repeal of the amendment USA was divided in almost to equally

half, the

> dry and the wet.

> Besides depression had spread distrust towards science, and therefore the

> combination of Rockefeller, Yale University could create or 'discover' the

> alcoholism as a disease. Jellinek, who BTW is a scientifically fraud, was

> appointed as the man that should popularize this new concept.

>

> He invented the so-called X-factor, which should state something like

this: " We

> know it's a disease, but we haven't found the scientific proof, yet. It

will be

> discovered in due time. "

>

> When I read Roizen's dissertation a lot of blanks were filled out, because

I had

> always wondered about how USA solved the aftermath after Prohibition.

> But here we have a Trinity of 1. The people. 2. Big business and 3.

Science.

> Therefore the fairy tales about grassroots movement should be taken with a

grain

> of salt. This was in 1939-40. Before W.W.II.

>

> But I still have some blanks with regard to the period between 1946 and

1956.

>

> Yours transcript seems to be a part of a broader trend towards 1955, when

(IIRC)

> the American Medical Association declared alcoholism a disease.

>

> In 1956, WHO did the same, and through the UN the disease concept spread

to

> Denmark in 1958. This means, of course, that the Danish concept of

alcoholism

> has been defined as a disease as early as 1958 as a result of among others

AA.

> Actually AA was a crucial component behind the expansion to other parts of

the

> world. This is one of the reasons why I find the American discussion so

relevant

> for my own country.

>

> I know that prior to AMA's acceptance of alcoholism as a disease, there

was a

> Congress or a Senate hearing, where a lot of AA'ers testified about the

disease

> character of 'alcoholism'. This of course means, that only AA'ers with

some time

> got the chance to testify, and we all know that they would say the same

thing

> with small variations.

> Yours transcript shows that the religious society should be convinced too,

but

> there must be some transcripts from the hearing. I've heard different

years, but

> as I remember it was 1954.

>

> Is it possible to get access to these transcripts?

>

> Does any know any historical literature describing this period with regard

to

> the question about alcoholism?

>

> I think it's interesting for several reasons. But one of the really

interesting

> questions are. How could this happen so fast, what were the joint forces

behind?

> The Cold War? Well, anyway: Religion, science, popular movement and big

business

> with the same interests. Must be something beneath the surface!

>

> This trend is still prevailing in spite of massive scientific evidence

that runs

> contrary to the disease concept.

> It's still religion, it's still medical science and it's probably still

big

> business.

> But are there some national interests behind. Like those behind

'globalization'?

>

> When arguments no longer counts, there must be something rotten somewhere.

>

> Therefore, to think that by helping people away from AA and into another

belief

> you can beat AA; you are a fairy tale believer. AA did not become popular

> because of 'attraction opposed to persuasion'. That's just another AA lie.

To

> believe in it distorts your focus from the essentials, and therefore there

is a

> need for a great variety of lists discussing different aspects of this

huge

> complex.

>

> Best

>

> Bjørn

>

> Dave Trippel wrote:

>

> > Traditional AA propoganda tries to convince people that they are

powerless

> > over even the FIRST drink.

> >

> > Here's the standard line as reported in the

> > Proceedings of the First National Clergy Conference on Alcoholism, 1949,

St.

> > Anne's Church, Lafayette, IN

> >

> > " From Aug 23-25, 1949, more than 100 priests gathered at St. ph's

> > College, Rensselear, Indiana. "

> >

> > " Many of those in attendance were active members of Alcoholics

Anonymous. "

> >

> > p. 41-42

> >

> > " Father No. 5:

> > ... if we begin to say that this is a disease with some

qualification,

> > we do not say whether it is a disease inherited or a disease incurred,

that

> > we are winding right up to the point of where there is no imputability.

Is

> > that right?

> >

> > Father No. 3:

> > That's right.

> >

> > Father No. 5:

> > And he asked another question which was ignored. He said the

question

> > is not what happens to a man after he drinks but what happened to that

man

> > that he is determined to drink. That's the question.

> >

> > Father Pfau:

> > You probably are conscious of the fact that there are many

alcoholics

> > who couldn't answer that question. They don't know what happened. Is

that

> > imputability?

> >

> > Father No. 5:

> > That a man doesn't know why he drinks?

> >

> > Father Pfau:

> > Right here and now he didn't realize that he was taking the first

drink.

> > I can verify that with many men who are here who have seen what

happened.

> >

> > Father No. 5:

> > The only way in which a man would not realize that he was taking a

drink

> > would be that he is unconcious.

> >

> > Father Pfau:

> > Very well he was wrong in his thinking. Why, we don't know, but it

has

> > happened.

> >

> > Father No. 5:

> > But if a man takes a drink without realizing he is taking a drink,

of

> > course, he is not performing a free act and, of course, it is not

imputable.

> > But that would be an extreme.

> >

> > Father Pfau:

> > That happens frequently.

> >

> > Father No. 5:

> > That he doesn't know he is taking a drink?

> >

> > Father Pfau:

> > That's right. Ask any man here who has been a member of A.A.

> >

> > Father No. 5:

> > The first one he doesn't know?

> >

> > Father Pfau:

> > The first one, yes. That is what we mean when we say we are

powerless,

> > that only God can stop me at that moment. Doesn't that make sense?

> >

> > Father No. 5:

> > No. Do you mean to tell me that a man in cold sobriety --

> >

> > Father Pfau (interposing):

> > Cold sobriety. Pours a drink and he is not conscious of it. Any

man

> > here--has seen that happen time and again.

> >

> > Father No. 5:

> > Well, maybe so. If it's an unconscious act, the man is not

conscious.

> >

> > Father Pfau:

> > Yes, there are many cases where the taking of that drink is

absolutely

> > an act of the subconscious.

> >

> > A Layman:

> > Definitely.

> >

> > endquote

> > I've got an even funnier one from the same proceedings which I'll send

along

> > later.

> > Happy Thanksgiving!

> >

> > Dave Trippel

[Guest guest]

Dave,

Would you know where I could find a scan of that book cover on line? I

don't have a copy of More Revealed, though I'd like to.

Anyway, you mentioned HUAC (which is, I'd guess, off-topic, but I'll try

to tie it in) and I thought that would be interesting to read about on the

net and I found a quote that semed to fit my thoughts about this list's

focus better than the intended subject (the McCarthy era)...

" As a rule, our memories romanticize the past, " wrote Arthur Koestler. " But

when one has renounced a creed or been betrayed by a friend, the opposite

mechanism sets to work. In the light of that later knowledge, the original

experience loses its innocence, becomes tainted and rancid in

recollection.... Those who were caught in the great illusion of our time,

and have lived through its moral and intellectual debauch, either give

themselves up to a new addiction of the opposite type, or are condemned to

pay with a life-long hangover. "

Amy might be right, perhaps this whole thing (AA denial of consciousness)

is scary. I've already survived longer than I had anticipated, and don't

have the patience for fear, so I will cautiously side with Bjørn and call it

interesting. But you... you used the wrong word - it is not funny! In the

quote above, it seems to me, fear could be the root cause of the " new

addiction of the opposite type. " Unless that fear is well managed, the new

addiction could be as detrimental as the original illusion that has been

escaped. Right now, I think its possible I spend time reading this list and

literature like it, as sanctuary for the fear that AA (and my growing

knowledge of it) causes... perhaps I spend too much time in this security,

or maybe I am just addicted to it. To go back to my days in treatment for a

moment, perhaps I spend too much time rationalizing and intellectualizing

about XA - not to beat myself up though, at least I am not ranting and

raving! Not that that would be bad, as ranting is a semi-decent non-violent

way to deal with anger once in a while - yes this is reminiscent of

treatment - just going in circles...

Anyway, back to HUAC, I find it humorous that Communists today are still

upset about that whole McCarthy thing... I mean they feel that the 1st

ammendment's right to free speech of various Communists were trampled by a

government committee that was out of its bounds... But they want more (lots

more) government committees, and no rights to free speech for all Americans.

Yeah, that is funny!

more about HUAC...

http://namingfacts.aynrand.org/

http://www.english.upenn.edu/~afilreis/50s/navasky-social-costs.html

Re: AA Denial (of consciousness): was Recovery

etiquette... la ti dah

> My recommendation. Whenever you see or think of AA (XA), think of

Buchmanism

> too. The cover of Kens first edition is right on. Buchman's Alcoholics

> Anonymous (BAA). Sheeps clothing on a wolf. BAA BAA. It reminds me of a

> scene in Oh Lucky Man with young Malcom McDowell discovering where the

govt

> transplanted peoples heads onto sheep.

>

> Dave Trippel

[Guest guest]

>

> Bjorn:

>

> The AA denial of consciousness has been called three things by

three of us

> here. I implied it was funny. Amy said it was extremely scary. You

refer to

> it as interesting. I think Amy is closest to the truth.

>

Dave.

Scary,funny or interesting.

What about mr. E.M. Jellinek. He´s supposed to be the creator of the

modern, scientific concept of alcoholism.

I once read in a medical periodical, as a comment in the debate about

alcoholism as a disease or not, that one person suggested

that 'alcoholism' should be called " Jellinek's Disease " !

Well, here is what Ron Roizen found when he searched the academic

records of this man:

http://www.roizen.com/ron/rr11.htm

Seems some had a strong interest in making Jellinek into something

really big. Even so much that he himself was a bit uneased by it.

Is this scary, funny or interesting :-)?

Seems we are up against a scientific fraud of cosmic proportions.

Not funny, but both interesting and scary, I think.

Best

Bjørn

[Guest guest]

Dave:

My understanding was that the Soviet government banned AA as a subversive

religious cult. There were secret AA groups just as there were secret

churches. AA was percieved as a challenge to the authority of the state and

it was repressed along with everything so viewed. The Soviet goverment had

a whole recovery industry of its own that included barbaric and bizarre

treatments such as cycling an alcoholics blood through a clear plastic tube

and blasting it with UV light then re-infusing it into the poor drunk.

Intractable alcoholics were (are) simply locked up in mental hospitals or

shipped off to Siberia or just show up missing one day. AA has evangelized

the former Soviet Union with a vengeance according folks I talked to at GSO

a few years back.

Don

Re: AA Denial (of consciousness): was Recovery

> etiquette... la ti dah

>

>

> > Hello Dave.

> >

> > The historical background for AA and the disease concept is very

> interesting.

> >

> > For some time ago I found Ron Roizen's dissertation about the disease

> concept on

> > the net.

> > http://www.roizen.com/ron/disshome.htm

> >

> > Here he gives the background for the establishment of the disease

concept,

> which

> > served several interests. The question is after reading this

dissertation,

> if

> > the word 'grassroots movement' covers the realities.

> >

> > After the repeal of the amendment USA was divided in almost to equally

> half, the

> > dry and the wet.

> > Besides depression had spread distrust towards science, and therefore

the

> > combination of Rockefeller, Yale University could create or 'discover'

the

> > alcoholism as a disease. Jellinek, who BTW is a scientifically fraud,

was

> > appointed as the man that should popularize this new concept.

> >

> > He invented the so-called X-factor, which should state something like

> this: " We

> > know it's a disease, but we haven't found the scientific proof, yet. It

> will be

> > discovered in due time. "

> >

> > When I read Roizen's dissertation a lot of blanks were filled out,

because

> I had

> > always wondered about how USA solved the aftermath after Prohibition.

> > But here we have a Trinity of 1. The people. 2. Big business and 3.

> Science.

> > Therefore the fairy tales about grassroots movement should be taken with

a

> grain

> > of salt. This was in 1939-40. Before W.W.II.

> >

> > But I still have some blanks with regard to the period between 1946 and

> 1956.

> >

> > Yours transcript seems to be a part of a broader trend towards 1955,

when

> (IIRC)

> > the American Medical Association declared alcoholism a disease.

> >

> > In 1956, WHO did the same, and through the UN the disease concept spread

> to

> > Denmark in 1958. This means, of course, that the Danish concept of

> alcoholism

> > has been defined as a disease as early as 1958 as a result of among

others

> AA.

> > Actually AA was a crucial component behind the expansion to other parts

of

> the

> > world. This is one of the reasons why I find the American discussion so

> relevant

> > for my own country.

> >

> > I know that prior to AMA's acceptance of alcoholism as a disease, there

> was a

> > Congress or a Senate hearing, where a lot of AA'ers testified about the

> disease

> > character of 'alcoholism'. This of course means, that only AA'ers with

> some time

> > got the chance to testify, and we all know that they would say the same

> thing

> > with small variations.

> > Yours transcript shows that the religious society should be convinced

too,

> but

> > there must be some transcripts from the hearing. I've heard different

> years, but

> > as I remember it was 1954.

> >

> > Is it possible to get access to these transcripts?

> >

> > Does any know any historical literature describing this period with

regard

> to

> > the question about alcoholism?

> >

> > I think it's interesting for several reasons. But one of the really

> interesting

> > questions are. How could this happen so fast, what were the joint forces

> behind?

> > The Cold War? Well, anyway: Religion, science, popular movement and big

> business

> > with the same interests. Must be something beneath the surface!

> >

> > This trend is still prevailing in spite of massive scientific evidence

> that runs

> > contrary to the disease concept.

> > It's still religion, it's still medical science and it's probably still

> big

> > business.

> > But are there some national interests behind. Like those behind

> 'globalization'?

> >

> > When arguments no longer counts, there must be something rotten

somewhere.

> >

> > Therefore, to think that by helping people away from AA and into another

> belief

> > you can beat AA; you are a fairy tale believer. AA did not become

popular

> > because of 'attraction opposed to persuasion'. That's just another AA

lie.

> To

> > believe in it distorts your focus from the essentials, and therefore

there

> is a

> > need for a great variety of lists discussing different aspects of this

> huge

> > complex.

> >

> > Best

> >

> > Bjørn

> >

> > Dave Trippel wrote:

> >

> > > Traditional AA propoganda tries to convince people that they are

> powerless

> > > over even the FIRST drink.

> > >

> > > Here's the standard line as reported in the

> > > Proceedings of the First National Clergy Conference on Alcoholism,

1949,

> St.

> > > Anne's Church, Lafayette, IN

> > >

> > > " From Aug 23-25, 1949, more than 100 priests gathered at St. ph's

> > > College, Rensselear, Indiana. "

> > >

> > > " Many of those in attendance were active members of Alcoholics

> Anonymous. "

> > >

> > > p. 41-42

> > >

> > > " Father No. 5:

> > > ... if we begin to say that this is a disease with some

> qualification,

> > > we do not say whether it is a disease inherited or a disease incurred,

> that

> > > we are winding right up to the point of where there is no

imputability.

> Is

> > > that right?

> > >

> > > Father No. 3:

> > > That's right.

> > >

> > > Father No. 5:

> > > And he asked another question which was ignored. He said the

> question

> > > is not what happens to a man after he drinks but what happened to that

> man

> > > that he is determined to drink. That's the question.

> > >

> > > Father Pfau:

> > > You probably are conscious of the fact that there are many

> alcoholics

> > > who couldn't answer that question. They don't know what happened. Is

> that

> > > imputability?

> > >

> > > Father No. 5:

> > > That a man doesn't know why he drinks?

> > >

> > > Father Pfau:

> > > Right here and now he didn't realize that he was taking the first

> drink.

> > > I can verify that with many men who are here who have seen what

> happened.

> > >

> > > Father No. 5:

> > > The only way in which a man would not realize that he was taking a

> drink

> > > would be that he is unconcious.

> > >

> > > Father Pfau:

> > > Very well he was wrong in his thinking. Why, we don't know, but it

> has

> > > happened.

> > >

> > > Father No. 5:

> > > But if a man takes a drink without realizing he is taking a drink,

> of

> > > course, he is not performing a free act and, of course, it is not

> imputable.

> > > But that would be an extreme.

> > >

> > > Father Pfau:

> > > That happens frequently.

> > >

> > > Father No. 5:

> > > That he doesn't know he is taking a drink?

> > >

> > > Father Pfau:

> > > That's right. Ask any man here who has been a member of A.A.

> > >

> > > Father No. 5:

> > > The first one he doesn't know?

> > >

> > > Father Pfau:

> > > The first one, yes. That is what we mean when we say we are

> powerless,

> > > that only God can stop me at that moment. Doesn't that make sense?

> > >

> > > Father No. 5:

> > > No. Do you mean to tell me that a man in cold sobriety --

> > >

> > > Father Pfau (interposing):

> > > Cold sobriety. Pours a drink and he is not conscious of it. Any

> man

> > > here--has seen that happen time and again.

> > >

> > > Father No. 5:

> > > Well, maybe so. If it's an unconscious act, the man is not

> conscious.

> > >

> > > Father Pfau:

> > > Yes, there are many cases where the taking of that drink is

> absolutely

> > > an act of the subconscious.

> > >

> > > A Layman:

> > > Definitely.

> > >

> > > endquote

> > > I've got an even funnier one from the same proceedings which I'll send

> along

> > > later.

> > > Happy Thanksgiving!

> > >

> > > Dave Trippel

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

You're right, what I meant was they probably utilized it in other countries.

Dave Trippel

Re: AA Denial (of consciousness): was Recovery

> etiquette... la ti dah

>

>

> >

> > Bjorn:

> >

> > The AA denial of consciousness has been called three things by three of

us

> > here. I implied it was funny. Amy said it was extremely scary. You refer

> to

> > it as interesting. I think Amy is closest to the truth.

> >

> > As to the AA testimony in Congress, I have no experience in searching

the

> > Congressional Record. I don't know if it's available online, but it's

got

> > to be accessible somehow. I'd be interested to know what they said.

> >

> > The post WW II decade on the infancy of the AA/Treatment monstrosity?

> Huge

> > topic, I don't know where to start. From everything I've seen from that

> era,

> > my general conclusion is that AA didn't work then any better than now

(ie.

> > worse than nothing), but there was a vacuum that the Buchmanist cult

> zealots

> > filled and society went along with it. That was the era of HUAC, the

> bomb,

> > and the birth of the cold war. AA's propoganda based growth was part of

> all

> > that, I think.

> >

[Guest guest]

Dave,

I understood what you meant and agree that AA can be used as a front for

spy type activity. Also, it could be a good place to breed subversive

ideology in enemy states, because while steppers aren't exactly inclined to

hear anything bad versus AA, they are inclined to believe bullshit and take

it to extremes. Meaning communists (or any other anti-American group) could

use charismatic plants in US AA groups to sway a large number of people

rather easily. The same thing can happen in a bar or any other social

organization, too, though. Just that the people in AA may be more open and

gullible to their ideas because of thier obvious sheepishness.

Re: AA Denial (of consciousness): was Recovery

> > etiquette... la ti dah

> >

> >

> > >

> > > Bjorn:

> > >

> > > The AA denial of consciousness has been called three things by three

of

> us

> > > here. I implied it was funny. Amy said it was extremely scary. You

refer

> > to

> > > it as interesting. I think Amy is closest to the truth.

> > >

> > > As to the AA testimony in Congress, I have no experience in searching

> the

> > > Congressional Record. I don't know if it's available online, but it's

> got

> > > to be accessible somehow. I'd be interested to know what they said.

> > >

> > > The post WW II decade on the infancy of the AA/Treatment monstrosity?

> > Huge

> > > topic, I don't know where to start. From everything I've seen from

that

> > era,

> > > my general conclusion is that AA didn't work then any better than now

> (ie.

> > > worse than nothing), but there was a vacuum that the Buchmanist cult

> > zealots

> > > filled and society went along with it. That was the era of HUAC, the

> > bomb,

> > > and the birth of the cold war. AA's propoganda based growth was part

of

> > all

> > > that, I think.

> > >

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

----- Original Message -----

> Dave,

> Would you know where I could find a scan of that book cover on line? I

> don't have a copy of More Revealed, though I'd like to.

[snip]

www.abebooks.com has several copies of More Revealed (complete with Sherlock

and the wolf) starting at $8.50.

--wally

[Guest guest]

Wally,

Thansk!

Re: AA Denial (of consciousness): was Recovery

etiquette... la ti dah

>

> ----- Original Message -----

>

>

>

> > Dave,

> > Would you know where I could find a scan of that book cover on line?

I

> > don't have a copy of More Revealed, though I'd like to.

> [snip]

>

> www.abebooks.com has several copies of More Revealed (complete with

Sherlock

> and the wolf) starting at $8.50.

>

> --wally

>

>