A quote from Bill Wilson's spiritual leader and the source of A.A.'s spiritual principles
Ken
Back when Bill Wilson was a member of the Oxford Group where they had
essentially the same beliefs as today's Step groups such as "one
alcoholic (or addict or codependent or messy) working with another"
(O.G.'s "like working with like") Bill Wilson's spiritual leader, his
"grandsponsor", was quoted in a New York newspaper:
“I thank heaven for a man like Adolf Hitler, who built a front line
of defense against the anti-Christ of Communism ... Of course, I
don't condone everything the Nazis do. Anti-Semitism? Bad,
naturally. I suppose Hitler sees a Karl Marx in every Jew. But think
what it would mean if Hitler surrendered to the control of God.
...The world needs a dictatorship of the living spirit of God.
...Human problems aren't economic. They're moral, and they can't be
solved by immoral measures. They could be solved within a
God-controlled democracy, or perhaps I should say a theocracy, and
they could be solved through a God-control-led Fascist dictatorship.”
[from: /Hitler or Any Fascist Leader Controlled by God Could Cure
All Ills of World, Buchman Believes/. New York World-Telegram,
Aug26(1936). cited from Thornton-Duesbury(1964):130-133
Thornton-Duesbery JP, /The Open Secret of MRA: An examination of Mr.
Driberg's ‘critical examination’ of Moral Re-Armament/. London:
Blandford Press, 1964 Thomsen R, Bill W. New York: Harper & Row, 1975]
Ken Ragge
http://www.morerevealed.com/
Rich
Kenny, Kenny, Kenny,
Here we go again with your rank steam of consciousness. For years you
have simply proved what? - that you are a bore - it's tedious,
monotonous, lame and not interesting.
However, on the brighter side, you have become a well known figure of
fun through your unstinting effort to cause derision and unbridled
merriment towards yourself on both sides of the Atlantic.
This takes great effort from somebody with as little need of
credibility and a formal education as your good self.
If it can be revealed that in fact you are saving up for a sex-change
operation to reverse the previous cock-up (oops - a pun there) then we
may understand your frequent bad temper and psychosis which often
produces delusions of immense proportions.
I can sense the outrage and indignation from you already at my
comments - you never change - you cannot possibly laugh at yourself -
nobody takes you seriously.
Cheers or Bottoms up!
Rich
Bob
> Hello Everyone,
>
> Back when Bill Wilson was a member of the Oxford Group where they had
> essentially the same beliefs as today's Step groups
"I am always glad to say privately that some of the Oxford Group
presentation and emphasis on Christian values saved my life. Yet it is
equally true that other attitudes of the Oxford Group nearly got me
drunk again, and we long since discovered that if we were to approach
alcoholics successfully, these would have to be abandoned." Bill Wilson,
October 30, 1940 ... Source, "Pass It On" page 171
> such as "one alcoholic (or addict or codependent or messy) working
> with another" (O.G.'s "like working with like") Bill Wilson's
> spiritual leader, his "grandsponsor",
I find it hard to believe the title, "grandsponsor" or the reverence
some but definitely far short of all AA members attribute to it, even
arrived in AA vernacular before the fifties.
Regardless, compared to having "shaken hands" with Buchman, a Lutheran
protestant, Father Edward Dowling, a Jesuit priest, was clearly acknowledged
as Wilson's long term "Spiritual Sponsor" and close friend. They even
have a full page photo of Edward, along with the acknowledgment, in Pass
It On, page 240
"In my analysis of the dynamics of AA I have made every effort to be
fair" ... Ken Ragge
hahahahahaha
Bob
Rich
Bob,
Poor Kenny - he never formulated his ideas properly and to cement his
ignorance he has spent years attempting to prove his error.
For example - and this is a fundamental problem with his thought
process on all matters concerning AA - Kenny admits that AA's
anonymity principle represented a complete break with the Oxford
Group, but he does not see how central this rule is to AA's modus
operandi; it is the very core of AA's secular infiltration - this is
just one example of a lack of understanding.
Maybe he should have read and understood - Not God - A History of
Alcoholics Anonymous by Ernest Kurtz. This guy received his PH.D from
Harvard University no less in 1978. His doctoral dissertation was
published as the book above. The clue should be in the title - Not God
etc.
AA is NOT a cult as personally that would be news to me! A cult is any
set of beliefs and practises associated with a particular God or group
of God's. I never thought that AA was about God but something
different - a Higher Power - this is confirmed by a far, far more
learned chap than Kenny. The guy I mention above.
In earlier posts I went through with Kenny and extracted his paucity
of thought regarding AA as an organisation. It isn't, as I pointed out
- it's a fellowship and a loose one at that.
Kenny and others paved the way for HAMS Harm Reduction and Moderation
Management - of that I have no criticism. Quite why Kenny believes he
has to continually prove himself year in year out demonstrates only
one aspect of one's character any other sane individual would have
tried to correct - inadequacy in this particular field - anybody else
would have moved on years and years ago.
Rich
Bob
Although I refer to it occasionally to check out my own errors of fact,
I've only read Not God once. Apart from rolling my eyes to follow words
floating all over the page of AA's Big Book while I endured the alcoholic
withdrawal to which I had became monotonously familiar, Not God is by
far the most detailed tome I've ever persisted in reading all the way
through.
That book is so heavy that even if my comprehension was adequate, any
memory of the contents can undoubtedly let me down.
>
> AA is NOT a cult as personally that would be news to me!
I've long observed sub cults extant *within* AA, the most noticeable being
Sponsor focussed.
> A cult is any set of beliefs and practises associated with a
> particular God or group of God's. I never thought that AA was about
> God but something different - a Higher Power - this is confirmed by a
> far, far more learned chap than Kenny. The guy I mention above.
"For our group purpose there is but one ultimate authority — a loving
God as He may express Himself in our group conscience..."
>
> In earlier posts I went through with Kenny and extracted his paucity
> of thought regarding AA as an organisation. It isn't, as I pointed
> out - it's a fellowship and a loose one at that.
http://www.heise.nu/AALawsuit/
http://gsowatch.aamo.info/mex/javi1.jpg
>
> Kenny and others paved the way for HAMS Harm Reduction and Moderation
> Management - of that I have no criticism. Quite why Kenny believes
> he has to continually prove himself year in year out demonstrates
> only one aspect of one's character any other sane individual would
> have tried to correct - inadequacy in this particular field - anybody
> else would have moved on years and years ago.
>
> Rich
Rich, with the disagreement exemplified above, all it needs now is for
virtualoso to drop in here, complicate our contradictions, and it would
be the arfers turn to have most of the chuckles.
Nevertheless, not bothered if I'm elaborating or paraphrasing, seems to me
that basically Ken has failed to free himself of one of AA's most
universally favored compulsions. Amusingly, it's an attribute Ken seems to
particularly abhor, the compulsion to proselytize.
Apparently not content there, and as evidenced even in this thread, Ken
appears to lap up subservience in a manner which could be expected of
any "grandsponsor" who has successfully eschewed even remnants of
step ten, culminating in the disbursal of an incredible juxtaposition of
fact and fiction in hope of expanding a congregation of faithful.
Ken is often good for a chuckle, particularly if one has both time and
patience to splurge in deconstructing his dissembling.
Bob
gregg
"Rich" <richa...@hush.ai> wrote in message
news:2ecfc8e8-1efc-47bd...@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
Rich
How do you figure that anyone that is contrary to the AA way paved the way
for Harm Reduction and Moderation Management. While AA may be the largest
abstinence group, it is by no means the first and certainly not the only.
Matter of fact probably most every alcoholic in the world has tried to
practice "moderation management" and "harm reduction". If not we would
probably all be dead. :-) Harm reduction is what we try and practice before
we finally quit.
Gregg
Rich
> "Rich" <richardh...@hush.ai> wrote in message
Hi Gregg,
"How do you figure that anyone that is contrary to the AA way paved
the way
> for Harm Reduction and Moderation Management."
I am making a simple statement of fact. If you read through the HAMS
info. Kenny is credited with some form of unspecified influence -
that's all I'm highlighting.
I can see the point you make - however in my context HAMS or MM are
entity's in there own right not an event in the life of a drunk which
is how I read your piece.
Rich
Rich
>
>
>
> > Kenny and others paved the way for HAMS Harm Reduction and Moderation
> > Management - of that I have no criticism. Quite why Kenny believes
> > he has to continually prove himself year in year out demonstrates
> > only one aspect of one's character any other sane individual would
> > have tried to correct - inadequacy in this particular field - anybody
> > else would have moved on years and years ago.
>
> > Rich
>
> Rich, with the disagreement exemplified above, all it needs now is for
> virtualoso to drop in here, complicate our contradictions, and it would
> be the arfers turn to have most of the chuckles.
>
> Nevertheless, not bothered if I'm elaborating or paraphrasing, seems to me
> that basically Ken has failed to free himself of one of AA's most
> universally favored compulsions. Amusingly, it's an attribute Ken seems to
> particularly abhor, the compulsion to proselytize.
>
> Apparently not content there, and as evidenced even in this thread, Ken
> appears to lap up subservience in a manner which could be expected of
> any "grandsponsor" who has successfully eschewed even remnants of
> step ten, culminating in the disbursal of an incredible juxtaposition of
> fact and fiction in hope of expanding a congregation of faithful.
>
> Ken is often good for a chuckle, particularly if one has both time and
> patience to splurge in deconstructing his dissembling.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Bob,
Thank you - and very interesting too! Good to see rational argument -
there again you are not Kenny!
Rich
Kyle
His *what*? That was a direct quotation from Frank Buchman, without
whom AA would not exist.
It's curious, I have yet to meet a 12-stepper who is informed or
willing to become informed about Buchman. They *know* there's
something seemy and sordid about AA's inception -- but they lack the
courage and honesty to delve into it; they compulsively keep Frank
Buchman under the rug -- or should I say in the closet?
Ken
I don't know if I can blame them. If I was a member of a groups that
got its "spiritual principles" from a whackjob like self-loathing
pro-fascist homosexual who got his jollies by wresting confessions of
masturbation out of young men (from Frank Buchman and the Oxford Group
and nowhere else according to Bill Wilson), I too would be compulsive
about keeping myself and everyone else in the dark about it. Of course,
I wouldn't be a member of such a group. But if I was, I couldn't
reconcile A.A.s history and stay a member.
One thing that strikes me as funny, is that A.A.'s who know a _little_
about their fellowship's history like to quote the A.A. literature where
Wilson is complaining about the Oxford Groupers not sticking to Oxford
Group doctrine and treating those whose sin was "alcoholism" very much
like modern-day AAers tend to treat NAers.
Back to Frank B., from Time magazine, Monday, Nov. 01, 1926 (
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,722677,00.html ):
". . . until last fortnight when Mr. Buchman's approach to religious
problems, through his subjects' autoerotic tendencies was first made
generally public (TIME, Oct. 18). Princeton men remembered that Mr.
Buchman had been forbidden to practice his calling upon their campus two
years ago, but not until last fortnight did they realize why."
Ken Ragge
http://www.morerevealed.com/