Rational Header
RR Logo
Flag Ribbon

Page Curl
Page Curl

Bill, Laura, Mike, and Me

(Reprinted from The Journal of Rational Recovery, July – September., 2002, Vol. 14, Iss. 4; Copyright, 2002, Jack Trimpey; All rights reserved.)

[This reprint is a reader’s reference for a forthcoming blog update on the conservative talkshow community. Ed. – JT]

Since Rational Recovery entered public consciousness, I have had the privilege of appearing on a good number – actually hundreds – of TV and radio talkshows. Some were tiresome affairs hosted by 12-steppers, others were single-station shows, sometimes at late hours when most listeners were in dreamland, but some talkshows were actually stimulating interviews with hosts who could understand AVRT on the fly and make great dialog and commentary. Thus, it was with great anticipation that we received invitations from several of America’s best-known media hosts, Bill O’Reilly, Dr. Laura Schlessinger, and Michael Savage.Each of these three very popular, radically-conservative talkshow icons have seemed to offer great hope for constructive social reforms. Their simple, shoot-from-the-hip approach to complex problems is more than entertaining; their industrial-strength chutzpah is powerful, if not demagoguery, and each of them has gained power in the media through their blunt-language critiques of liberalism. They have a lot in common, and, as we shall see, that includes a blind spot in the shape of “Alcoholics Anonymous.”

In 1997, I appeared on The O’Reilly Factor, along with a 12-step advocate to insure a “fair and balanced” presentation. At the beginning of the program, Bill O’Reilly made his opinion clear that he does not believe that addiction or alcoholism is or is caused by a disease. I debated a physician who argued very awkwardly that alcoholism is a disease, for which AA is the best form of help. I prevailed in the debate, but was caught off guard by Bill O’Reilly’s staunch, protective stance toward AA.O’Reilly is blissfully unaware that AA is the chief source of the disease concept of addiction, and he believes that the majority of those who attend AA are securely abstinent. He accepts AA’s figures claiming that 55% of those who attend regularly for five years are “sober,” but ignores or is unaware of the fact that the 55% is of the 5% who continue attending meetings for more than a year, which results in an actual “recovery rate” of about 2% of newcomers.

More recent O’Reilly Factor shows have had guests who are members of AA, gushing steptalk to the masses while Bill O paternalistically endorses AA’s humble program of coercion as the benchmark approach to recovery. He has not responded to several emails from me setting the record straight about AA’s record of abject failure. Mr. O’Reilly often uses academic trump cards to score points, including his Master’s Degree in public administration. I have learned from credible sources, however, that his master’s thesis was an argument for coerced addiction treatment. Thus, his frequent authoritarian outbursts against substance abusers is couched in the belief that coerced participation in “counseling” or “treatment” is the best remedy. I have my doubts that Mr. O’Reilly knows the difference between 12-step counseling and cognitive-behavioral therapy, and that both are equally ineffective in producing abstinence.


Michael Savage needs no introduction on the West Coast, where his daily diatribes are broadcast from San Francisco‘s KSFO talkshow, “The Savage Nation.“ He, too, eschews the disease concept of addiction, but like O’Reilly, he also believes that AA is the best resource for substance abusers. In a one-hour show in 1998, listeners were highly responsive to my message of hope for people who are repelled by AA, but, even when callers days later commented on the exciting show on Rational Recovery, Michael was unimpressed with their enthusiasm.

That brings us to that champion of hypocrisy, Dr. Laura Schlessinger. I like listening to conservative talk- radio, and I have admired Dr. Laura’s stance on such issues as child discipline, sexual morality, and professional guilds. On this last topic, she has set forth some very solid statements about how professionals often take advantage of the public trust for financial gain, and in that she is among a small group to complain about ethical standards within the professions. Like her other conservative talkshow compatriots, she has guts, tells it like she sees it, bluntly and in your face, e.g., “You don’t like it? Then you gotta problem.” Kinda like me.

laura.jpgIn April, 2002, I was a guest on her show, but not as an interviewed guest, as had been agreed earlier, but along with someone from AA, “for a balanced presentation.” I complained to the producer upon being informed of this, pointing out that AA has gained its monopoly by crowding out other viewpoints. “Why not just have a clear presentation of RR for once, without the gladiator thing,” I asked, to no avail.
Twenty minutes before showtime, I got connected to Dr. Laura off-the-air, and got this from her, “Her name is Fran. She’s from AA and she works here, but we won’t say anything about that, right? Tee-hee.” Nonplussed, I went on the air intending to make the best of a bad situation.

Fran was a typical 12-stepper, endlessly contradicting my statements of fact, and injecting nonsensical steptalk at every opportunity. She was a pest, but I didn’t blow her off, and I didn’t divulge Dr. Laura’s little dirty secret, that Fran worked right there in the office.

Near the end of the show, during which callers resoundingly supported my viewpoint, Dr. Laura took the liberty of directly contradicting me, when I said that in our view, addiction is driven by the desire for pleasure, and when people quit they become more moral. She said, “Oh, no! That’s not true at all, Mr. Trimpey. Psychological evidence shows very clearly that just quitting doesn’t result in one becoming more moral!” Morality, she implied, would result from psychological counseling!

My little ship listed somewhat, but I continued connecting with listeners with solid AVRT. Then, as the final minutes of the show were nigh, Fran lit into me, “I know that you’ve been setting up all of these calls supporting Rational Recovery. You’re such an angry person, and AA will always be there for anyone who really wants help.”

As if that wasn’t bad enough, what I learned after the show was over, topped it all — Fran of AA doesn’t just work there; she’s the office manager. I had been set up, manipulated, and betrayed.

The show was a success for Rational Recovery, because when people in need hear about AVRT, the message of hope gets through. Millions of people heard Dr. Laura lie about studies showing or proving that problems cause addiction, and they heard 12-stepper Fran first ambush me and then lose her cool when I failed to lose mine. Our phone rang for weeks from Dr. Laura Show callers, and we still get several a week saying, “I heard you on the Dr. Laura Show, and it was really great to hear that something else exists besides AA.”
When push came to shove, Dr. Laura served herself instead of her listeners. She wouldn’t resist Fran’s unethical intrusion, and she functioned well as a member of the addiction treatment industry, defending the psychological disease concept of addiction. Her rebukes of professional guilds are mere marshmallows thrown before the masses.

AA-Shaped Blind Spot
I wish I could report that the American media might do an about-face on the addiction tragedy, and start applying the founding values of American society to addiction, i.e., AVRT. I am convinced that professionals cannot comprehend the simple truth about addiction and recovery, and therefore they can provide no real guidance for substance abusers or the nation, other than blind acceptance of familiar clichés drawn from the culture of AA. I have been saying this about physicians and psychologists in particular for about a decade, and now, with the help of Bill, Laura and Michael, I am extending my caveat to the news and media professions as well.

All of them have academic degrees, espouse strong moral codes, and speak in strong language against all manner of social evils, but none of them can see the mother of the evil dancing before their eyes. I have considered that possibly they worship ratings to the extent that they would pull punches against America’s friendly foe, AA, but they all have waded neck-deep into the turbulent waters of other social storms.

The truth is that addiction is so unbelievable that just about anyone, any academic loser, any media hack, or anyone who can repeat clichés or grind out sophistry can transfix the public with mysterious explanations about the causes and remedies for habitual drunkenness or drug abuse. The cutting edge of the truth is just as ugly as addiction itself, so it is always nicer and neater to pretend that our learned class and its media shamans really know what they’re talking about. Could any of them learn AVRT, if they really tried? I seriously doubt it. They’ve made themselves so comfortable with the lie!

The Fall of ‘Bongo’ Phelps

©2009, Jack Trimpey. All rights reserved.

The all-time greatest Olympic star was photographed on November 6, 2008, sucking on a pot bong six weeks after winning eight gold medals at the Beijing Olympic Festival. In the frenzy of publicity following this debacle, many reports of habitual drug abuse are coming out, adding to his image problem stemming from an earlier DUI. At the peak of his career, Michael “Bongo” Phelps has crashed and is now burning down into a cinder-like has-been.

Of course, it’s painful to think of the pain Michael Phelps and his family will feel resulting from this astonishing display of stupidity. I hope he gets a grip and rehabilitates himself by quitting his use of alcohol and other drugs, so that he may go on to even greater heights of success. I believe he is capable of achieving future success, even greatness, because he has already set a course for himself at odds with the behavioral health industry.

As a restless, awkward child, Michael was diagnosed with the ‘spectrum disorder’ of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and prescribed a cocaine-like drug, Ritalin, at age 9. Michael rejected this drug therapy and his mother wisely complied with his objections.

Spectrum disorders, to be blunt, are bullshit diagnostic labels applied to people who present symptoms which are only suggestive or symbolic of actual rare, florid diseases and maladies. Examples are ADHD, dyslexia, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), autism, sensory processing disorder (SPD), bipolar disorder, panic disorder, anxiety disorder, and depressive disorder, to name a few.

The common ancestor of most of the popular “designer” diagnoses is miminal brain damage (MBD), which received exuberant attention of status seeking professionals and self-involved clients during the 1960′s. MBD fell into disrepute when it became apparent that the purported brain damage was so minimal as to be unmeasurable using any objective measures of brain function, structure, or activity. Not to be discouraged, creative science discovered that certain pencil and paper tests could be used to ‘prove’ the existence of MBD-like pathology, which they more carefully called learning disabilities. The stage had been set for eager professionals to provide magic to an eager public seeking explanations for their adult problems in the material world rather in their own character and consciousness.

The Phelps family backed out of the muck of designer diseases of childhood, hopefully before he acquired a taste for the mind-altering effects of Ritalin, which according to its customers also makes you feel really good for no other reason than having taken it. One would wish Michael understood the gravity of drugs better than he did, and would have backed away from the gravity-hole of addiction before getting sucked into it, as he obviously has been. Alas, he was identified as a hapless victim early on rather than a kid who needed firmer discipline, so it is understandable that he did not know what is known about the nature of substance addiction.

Anyone who knows Michael or his family should direct them to the Rational Recovery® website where information on AVRT-based recovery is freely available. Although we do not solicit individuals to quit their addictions, it is a very good thing for everyone else to make independent recovery a viable option for all addicted people.

WARNING: Marijuana Will Turn You Into a Liberal

©2009, Jack Trimpey. All rights reserved.

If marijuana is ever “legalized,” the packages should carry the warning, “Warning, cannabis is a mind-altering drug which can turn you into a liberal.” Liberalism is a predictable outcome of substance abuse, one first noticed by the user himself, and then by others in his family and community.� If you have any doubt about the liberalizing effects of pot, think of all the potheads you know and take a good guess at how they see politics and social issues, as well as their general outlook on life.

If you are a pothead yourself, then you are already quite aware of the transforming power of cannabis. You are quite a different person today than you were during the days leading up to your first trip into the wow-zone. Other than for some nagging doubts (lurking common sense), you see nothing really wrong with getting stoned, and you probably believe that marijuana is a boon to mankind, a wonderful medicine, a miracle drug that would make the world a much better place if everyone would just get stoned, and evil anti-marijuana laws were repealed. Those core, liberal beliefs are the immediate, direct result of getting stoned, beliefs which set the stage for life in left field. As an example of this phenomenon, I offer none other than Aldous Huxley, whose original, anti-communist sentiments were radically transformed by drugs toward another new, liberal world which we are now experiencing.

aldous-huxley1.jpgAldous Huxley was a prophet of his times, but his most famous work of fiction, Brave New World, was not his most influential. His seminal, nonfiction work, Doors of Perception (1954), has also been a best selling book over half a century. He wrote Doors under the influence of mescaline, using lofty, romantic prose to describe the drug’s vivid effects upon him. This book became the catalyst for the drug movement of the 1960’s, energizing an entire generation to pursue personal paradise through biochemistry. The popular rock band, The Doors, used Huxley’s book as their name and in the slant of musical lyrics, lulled an entire generation into the passive-dependent gutlessness of addiction.

Based on “spiritual” intuitions admittedly arising from his lifelong substance abuse, Huxley foretold over seventy years ago that a great religious revival would soon occur in America, and that this would come through drugs, and not from evangelists. He understood that drugs lower inhibitions and open the door to subjective experiences quite unlike the common, natural states of consciousness that accompany daily living. Huxley’s religion was the high-life; indeed, he died under the influence of LSD, as his tribute to the highest level of existence or experience he could imagine.

The drug movement of the 1960’s was a sharp left turn in national politics, dividing America into two political camps with profound, probably irreconcilable, differences. It’s the great divide between two rivers of human discourse, now loosely called liberal and conservative, human versus animal, barbarism versus civilization. Drugs have gripped the minds of successive generations, and now a procession of men and women who have gone through Huxley’s doors of perception have come to political power. They see an altered view of reality. An informed public will better understand future events, and Addictive Voice Recognition Technique (AVRT) is a fine stereoscope through which to observe history unfold.

Liberalism: a Natural Function of the Human Body
Let’s look at the word liberal, without political bias or condescension. At the core, liberal means “unbound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms.” Liberal means broadminded, open-minded, generous, even selfless, compassionate, but also means permissive and tolerant in contrast to being judgmental and moralistic. Liberalism is a constellation of beliefs and values which have, at their core, liberation from inhibition and moral restraint of bodily desires. A philosophical keystone of social liberalism is, “No act is inherently immoral, wicked or evil, and any act may be justified by a sufficient explanation of circumstances and/or by the intensity of one’s desire to perform it.” Add all that up, and you have the philosophical foundation of the addiction treatment industry, the Hollywood Empire, and left-wing politics.

There are two versions of homo sapiens, the animal version and the human version. We are born animals, free from internal restraints, freely indulging whatever impulses, urges, or desires may arise. Soon, however we must learn to restrain bodily desires, starting with potty training, followed by restraint of aggression, shrieking, lying, stealing, and other antisocial gratifications.

With maturity, comes consciousness and the human version of homo sapiens, with ever-increasing self-restraint of bodily desires, along with containment of related language. To cohabitate a human household, become employed, get and stay married, stay out of jail, and so on, we must restrain practically all of our bodily desires. Our success in life depends upon accepting a number of admonitions — yes, prohibitions! — which forbid certain acts and behaviors, most of which arise from the animal side of our nature. We are born “liberals” and maturity brings self-restrictive, ancestrally-mandated, “conservative” values.

However, unless addicted, we are not our bodies. Our consciousness occupies an animal being with the life-long agenda of fulfilling its biological agenda. Adapting to a world in which practically all of our bodily desires are constrained by morality, laws, regulations, and taboos is a supreme challenge, considering that we ride through life astride a wild animal (the body) which has survived over the eons by killing, stealing, deceiving, raping, and plundering. We acquire human consciousness from our families, and from the start there is an internecine struggle between the infant’s biological agenda and the family’s humanizing responsibility. The Beast rages against restraint (moral authority) from infancy on, but inevitably submits to the free will of human consciousness.

Because religions carry forward moral codes of conduct based mostly on self-restraint of bodily desires,� liberals are very often hostile to religion, or to any other source of moral or restrictive legal authority.� Anyone who has known an addicted person knows very well the rage to expect from any attempt to discourage or deter his self-intoxication. The dynamic is the same; the addict’s rage toward authority is the same as any liberal’s anger at restrictive authority — “Moralism, damned moralism!” Even the term “family values” is irksome to liberals, as they promote their long, juicy agenda of anti-family social policies.

Yes, many of these liberal social policies have to do with bodily functions such as sexuality, substance abuse, eating food, and public morality/decency. It’s fairly predictable who will be on which side of any conflict about those kinds of issues. Of course, not all liberals are addicts or substance abusers, but all substance abusers, especially the potheads of this discussion, are deeply liberal as proved by their actions. Many conservatives become addicted, but their addictions quickly induce liberal beliefs and attitudes, as explained below.

Doctrines of addiction recovery, such as the 12-step program of Alcoholics Anonymous, actually attribute the cause of addiction to one’s genetic ancestors, and provide an inverted morality in which addicts are victims of their “dysfunctional” families rather than the obvious opposite, and one creates a god of his own sodden imagination rather than comes to believe in a traditional God which is a source of moral authority.

In fellowships of addicted people, i.e., recovery groups, members form new, primary relationships to replace family bonds. Relationships among drug-users, including those “in recovery,” are dark relationships, eclipsed by the primitive drives normally suppressed by family values. These dark relationships bring a sense of closeness and emotional attachment which mimicks family bonds destroyed by addiction, plus a deep sense that their original families are by nature unreasonable, insensitive, unfair, and irrelevant, and the nuclear family is, in itself, a diseased entity responsible for transmitting the sacred disease of addiction through defective genes and “dysfunctionality.”

Notable liberals such as Bill Clinton and Barack Obama both smoked pot, the latter probably much more than the former, and the depth of their liberalism seems to follow their degree of use. Neither liberal president renounced his past pot use, although President Obama has predicted he won’t smoke in the White House. Was he speaking of Marlboros or pot?

The drug abuse of alleged conservative, George Bush, is well-known, but he did take responsibility for the problem and now abstains as a matter of principle. The legislative sponsors of addiction treatment funding are nearly all liberal addicts “in recovery,” such as Patrick Kennedy, James Ramstad, the late Ann Richards, and a host of others wanting to shield substance abusers from social policies requiring or demanding immediate, unfailing, perpetual abstinence (not one-day-at-a-time sobriety!) from each of them.

An earlier blog here explored the political and voting preferences of substance abusers, but this very recent article sheds more light on that topic.

Teen Monsters
Potheads of all ages can be called Teen Monsters because their indulgences both reflect and generate adolescent attitudes, fixations, authority problems, and anti-family feelings. Many adolescents and young adults begin to experiment with alcohol and other drugs, often as early as age 13 to 15, when they really should be learning the importance of self-restraint, delaying gratifications, personal discipline, acceptance of authority, managing emotions, and developing more mature character traits. As suggested by the old hippie song title, “Puff the Magic Dragon,” teen dopers are transformed, almost magically, from naive kids from good families into smoke-breathing slackers.

Already straining against parental authority by virtue of healthy, adolescent growth toward independence, they experiment with marijuana and other neuro-drugs which turn them into teen-age monsters fueled by a volatile cocktail of tetrahydrocannabis plus testosterone and/or estrogen. They become animals, unfit for family membership, but wear pathetic disguises of disease provided by the school and the health and counseling professions. Even liberal churches have sold out on the family, resigning to the Beast® by opening their basements to fellowships of addiction which use the forms and parlance of religion to convey the beliefs and values of addiction to newcomers of all ages.

It’s amazing how the world looks so different through the eyes of addiction, after abandoning your right mind. The onset of addiction always feels like a blessed event, quite unexpected by the substance abuser, but nevertheless welcomed as a wonderful surprise. Many potheads and slackers still recall their first lift-off, often as teenagers, into the Ozone, that zone of deep pleasure that evokes the wonderful insight, “Ohhhhhh, ohhhhhh, this feels sooooo good! Ohhhhh…” Anything that feels this good can’t be bad!” Thus sayeth the newborn Beast of addiction, in its first utterance of the Addictive Voice.

This sudden inversion of moral truth, that there is nothing wrong with getting high, very often occurs within a single session of being “stoned.” The inversion is a pivotal life event with profound implications and effects on one’s thoughts and behavior for the rest of his life. In AVRT-based recovery, we call this inversion, the denial of the moral dimension of substance abuse, original denial. Thus, in fellowships of addiction, the act 0f self-intoxication is always an innocent act, and any attempt to abstain based upon moral judgment is ridiculed and condemned as a disease symptom.

From then on, a new, counterfeit, survival drive has been added to the normal desires of hunger, breathing, and sexual desire — desire for addictive pleasures, the desire to get high. Original denial sets up a domino-style chain reaction in which all other truths are also up-ended, so they may appear consistent with the addictive mandate, which is that there is nothing wrong with getting high, there is nothing wrong with self-intoxication, there is nothing wrong in principle, nothing wrong with anything as long as nobody gets hurt, there’s nothing wrong at all.� Original denial is the formative insight upon which life in addiction is based, and which lays the foundation for a parallel lifestyle often called liberalism.

Addiction washes away one’s moral conscience, one’s original family values, one’s family identity, and one’s desire to compete for the good in life. Through the eyes of addiction, there is no greater good than the high life, which may be summoned forth by burning a number wherever you happen to be. Pot smokers are perpetual adolescents, with the ego prototype exhibited by radically liberal talkshow host, Bill Maher — ill-tempered, narcicisstic, obsessed with bodily functions, potty humor, sexual obscenity and perversion, i.e., “wet humor,” discussed and illustrated below.

Sadly, the Teen Monsters never know what hit them. Their world is transformed from a developmental struggle for success, freedom, and independence into a childish fantasy about how neat and super life will always be because their favorite fix will always be there. At last, newbie addicts find magic to quickly bail them out from uneasy, mundane feelings, the most frightening of which is boredom, horrible boredom. Of course, in the bubble of addiction, “boredom” is little else than the name addicted people give to reality, or “not high.” They take their boredom not to the library, not to the soccer field, nor into wholesome relationships, but they are drawn like magnets to the bad company of other substance abusers who share the inverted, antisocial, anti-family attitudes common to addiction. Why go through all the hassle and struggles of trying to be happy, when in a short moment, the magic dragon can sweep you away into the wow-zone?

Teen Monsters are very young and cannot know what they are losing to pot and other drugs — their right minds, their personal identities, their character, their families, their freedom, and their sexual future. Love is blind, but the Beast of addiction sees through hormonal fog well enough to narrow one’s sexual desires to other users, losers, batterers, bastards, dealers, lushes and crack whores and to others unfit for family life. In their right minds, they once knew about good and evil, right and wrong, but in what’s left of their minds after addiction sets in, there are no acts which are inherently immoral or evil; it just depends upon the circumstances. In that drug-liberated mind, the social scene is more important than family, psychological principles replace old-fashioned ideas of their ancestors, “spirituality” trumps religion, addictive pleasure equals happiness, and hedonic drugs are the sacraments of the only satisfactory life they can imagine — the high life.

Wet Humor of AVRT®
Wet humor is largely based upon bodily functions, bodily fluids and secretions, especially having to do with reproduction and eliminations of body wastes. Others expressions for wet humor are barnyard humor, potty humor, garbage mouth, foulmouthed, obscenity, vulgarity, and profanity, and antisocial attitude. Wet humor appeals to the animal side of our nature, which must be restrained in order to maintain social order. For the same reason wearing clothing in public is necessary for a civilized society, certain emotionally charged words are suppressed in public discourse. Liberal comedians have built very successful careers upon violating common standards of decency, most notably the late George Carlin, whose claim to notoriety was his “seven dirty words” act in which he titillated the audience with these exciting words: shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker, and tits.

Through our animal ears, it is very exciting to hear these words and to wish fervently that all of them and many more like them could be uttered anywhere, anytime, for any reason because that is obviously what the framers of the United States Constitution had in mind. However, neither addicted people nor liberals in general seem to understand that there are very good reasons for marginalizing emotionally-charged words. They are offensive, just as racial epithets are. Besides, if dirty words are used in common discourse, they will lose their gritty feel and their value as nonviolent ventilation of anger, frustration, or other passionate emotions. I first became aware of wet or Beastly humor while working in a residential center, listening to the residents’ evening conversations. I found that loud laughter was always about drunken behavior, antisocial ideas, sexual aggression and other violence. On one occasion, hearing a group laugh uproariously about an injury car crash, I just asked, “Is this funny?” A hush ensued, and one said, “No, I guess that was my Beast laughing at something really gross.”

Might the expression “wet humor” actually be a bit of dry humor? Possibly, but rather than laboriously explain what “wet humor” means, I will refer you TV’s most notorious liberal, wet humorist, HBO’s Bill Maher. An HBO picture is truly worth a thousand words. In Bill Maher, we can see the bridge between life in addiction and liberalism better than through labored discussion here. He strongly endorses the high-life, especially through the use of marijuana and other neuro-drugs, and romanticizes the lurid lifestyles of notorious liberals, starting with himself.

Mr. Maher is an eternal Teen Monster elevated by his peers into show biz so he can entertain them with squishy jokes about bodily functions, attacks upon the nuclear family concept, and defiance of moral authority. These are basic functions of the Addictive Voice, i.e., the anti-family character of the Beast of addiction itself. Maher’s primary tool in his battering of common decency is ridicule, nearly always in the absence of the one ridiculed, with ruthlessness and intentional cruelty. Maher pretends reasoned political discussion with conservative guests, always a minority of one in a panel of three Hollywood-type liberals, but when facing difficult encounters with outspoken guests, he winkingly incites braying, derisive laughter with images of feces, genitalia, gratuitous blasphemy, and sexual depravity. Other HBO comedy offerings actually surpass Maher’s “Real Time” program as measured by obscenity, profanity, vulgarity, and profoundly anti-social content, but sadly, those programs bring notoriety and shame to those who can least afford or benefit from it — racial and religious minorities who perform them.

Go Home for Wisdom and Recovery
So, think twice before trying out new drugs or returning to any drug which has awakened a strong desire to continue it. Because that addictive desire is anti-family at the core, you might lose your right mind, and end up a liberal out in left field. The good news is that it’s easy to abandon your addiction and return to your right mind, although you won’t be met by the magic of drugs. Very soon, you’ll have a grand sense of relief that the struggle is over, and an immediate sense that you are who you once were long ago, after wandering into the spiritual desert of addiction and recoveryism. Once you leave the jungle of substance addiction, you will soon experience the miracle of human consciousness, master at last of your own body.

Many of your liberal views may begin to dry out, and you may come to see the dignity and value of the original family values passed down to you by your ancestors, a value system in which certain acts may be defined as always wrong, thus creating a moral principle for stable, happy living. Secure, permanent abstinence feels much better than you can imagine because, in the bubble of addiction, addictive pleasure equals happiness — no happy hour, no happiness. In your right mind, you’ll find pleasant order and quiet, and you’ll go right side up again. Happiness will have nothing at all to do with any kind of physical pleasure, and your sense of humor will dry out. Once again you’ll discover the sweetness and lightness of wry, dry wit which prevails in the human family.

Here is your link to the Crash Course on AVRT, where you can learn to see human affairs in 3-D, to the amazement of your liberal friends.

In Case Democracy is Still Working, Vote NO on Prop 5

It still hasn’t been reported by our diligent public media that the Wellstone-Ramstad Mental Health Parity Act, successfully repelled for decades by commonsense politicians, was clandestinely rammed through to become law during the Congressional Panic of 2008. In addition to the bailout for Wall Street, the Parity Act simply removed the cap on the amount that can be spent on addiction treatment services. It added nothing to the up-front $750 billion bailout, but its effects will be seen in astronomical spending on addiction treatment services justified as crime prevention, cost-cutting, and compassion. Talk about inverted thought!
California Prop. 5 is one more example of the 12-step syndicate up to its usual gutter oriented programming. Here is a well-written rebuttal that will also explain what the proposal proposes:

The Sacramento Metro Chamber is one of many organizations opposed to the measure, including our regional law enforcement. This measure establishes two new bureaucracies with virtually no accountability, and will cost hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars.Proposition 5 weakens drug rehabilitation programs by allowing defendants to continue to use drugs while in rehab and softens the punishment of many of those accused of child abuse, domestic violence, fraud, identity theft, auto theft and a host of other crimes. This measure would reduce penalties for crimes against business, including property and white collar crimes, and would limit the ability of judges to hold parole violators accountable.


Click here for full text of Prop 5 Initiative

Proposition 5 shortens parole for methamphetamine dealers and other drug felons from 3 years, to just 6 months.

Proposition 5 is strongly opposed by Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) because it provides a way for those who kill or maim others while under the influence to avoid criminal prosecution.

Proposition 5 could provide, in effect, a “get-out-of-jail-free” card to defendants charged with crimes. For example, domestic violence, child abuse, mortgage fraud, identity theft, vehicular manslaughter, insurance fraud and auto theft, letting them effectively escape criminal prosecution altogether. If a violent offender is granted a hearing using “the drugs made me do it” defense, the burden of proof shifts to the prosecution to prove that the defendant should be held responsible for his or her crimes.

Under Proposition 5, someone who commits felonies, even violent felonies, and claims “the drugs made me do it” will be referred to country-club like drug centers, not jail or prison. These criminals will receive better medical-care than many hard-working Californians – costing taxpayers millions.

Proposition 5 goes far beyond the drug-dependent individual; it also applies to drug dealers. For example, those found with up to $50,000 worth of “meth” would be treated the same as an individual user. We need to keep focused on helping those who are drug-dependent, rather than dealers profiting off addiction. Prop 5 treats meth dealers the same as an individual drug user.

Proposition 5 changes the law so that paroled felons can keep abusing drugs without being sent back to prison. In fact, under Prop 5 if a criminal tests positive for drugs while on probation or parole they won’t face jail-time or new criminal charges.

Proposition 5 creates an “Express Lane” for drug dealers to get back on the streets and selling drugs to our kids.

Proposition 5 is designed to allow for paroled felons who commit new misdemeanor offenses, not be sent back to prison.

Under Proposition 5, paroled felons and drug dealers who ditch their parole will only receive, if captured, no more than 30 days in county jail.

Proposition 5 is universally opposed by organizations representing rank-and-file police officers, police chiefs, prosecutors and parole supervisors because they know that shortening parole for drug dealers will dramatically increase violent crime rates.

Proposition 5 sets up two new bureaucracies with no accountability, at a cost of hundreds of millions.

Proposition 5 falsely claims that it will save money, but in fact, costs will be shifted from the state to the counties, which may be forced to raise taxes.

Proposition 5 spending will continue forever, and can only be restricted by a future multi-million dollar voter initiative campaign. The Governor and Legislature cannot adjust Prop 5 funding, even in times of budget shortfall or state crisis.

Proposition 5 proponents want voters to think this proposition is about keeping non-violent drug offenders out of the prison system, but that’s based upon a false premise. Today, no first-time offender arrested solely for possession will be sent to prison – ever. The real beneficiaries of Proposition 5 are drug dealers and those accused of crimes such as domestic violence, child abuse, identity theft, mortgage fraud and others.

Proposition 5 undermines successful rehabilitation. Current rehabilitation and drug courts are set up with defined goals and consequences – these two elements are critical to effective rehabilitation efforts.

Some of the crimes that defendants can commit and qualify for “treatment” rather than jail under Proposition 5 are:

-Use of false citizenship documents
-Counterfeit of a registered mark
-Selling counterfeit products
-Crimes against elders or dependents
-Arson to inhabited structures or forest land
-Possession of incendiary devices
-Passing bad checks
-Non-sufficient funds
-Possession of counterfeiting equipment
-Receiving stolen property
-Hacking and computer crimes
-Impersonating a peace officer
-Identity theft
-Possession of counterfeit birth certificate
-Insurance fraud
-Petty theft with priors
-Possession of an illegal weapon
-Felon in possession of a firearm
-Carrying a concealed weapon
-Carrying a loaded firearm
-Statutory rape
-Driving under the influence
-DUI with bodily injury
-DUI with multiple offenses
-Reckless evading a peace officer
-Auto theft

Jack Trimpey

Splendor in the Sand

©2007, Jack Trimpey. All rights reserved.

A British couple visiting Dubai was recently observed warned by police against having sexual intercourse in a public place, a sandy, public beach which was obviously under the jurisdiction of Islamic law. Later on, they were once again found in their flagrant embrace, deterred neither by fear of arrest nor even by sand itself. As might be expected, they were arrested, charged with public indecency, and now face six years in prison, where they presumably will not have convenient access to each other.

News agencies have seized upon this lurid news story as an example of the intransigence and moral excess of Islamic law, as if one nation must accommodate the cultural traditions and moral standards of their tourists and other visitors. Although I do not endorse such draconian punishments for the crimes this couple committed, I strongly support Dubai’s sovereign right to punish any crime any way they so choose. If they chose to publicly execute this couple through whatever primitive means their traditions may call for, I would grieve for them and their families, and certainly look with moral condescension upon a theocracy so given to moral excess. I would feel great pride in my own ancestral heritage and in the founding traditions of the United States of America which preclude such cruel and unusual punishment. In the American tradition, we legislate morality by creating laws of justice tempered by reason and compassion. Our lawmaking is an inexact art, to be sure, but a sign of human consciousness at work.

An interesting side note to this is that the couple had been drinking, which adds a uniquely American dimension to this international incident. In American courts, this couple may have only faced minor, misdemeanor charges, drunk or sober. If drunk at the time of the offense, however, they may have found considerable leniency in that fact, and the judge may have compassionately sentenced them to “counseling,” or into recovery groups consisting of other lowlife suffering from mysterious biopsychosocial anomalies such as “alcoholism,” and “sexual addiction.”

Yes, we can see an oceanic gulf between “primitive” Islamic theocracy and the New Primitivism carried forward by the American social service system. In Dubai, sin is illegal. In America, sin has transmuted into disease. In Dubai, if you do the crime, you do the time. In America, you may do the crime, cop a disease, and do one day at a time in the spiritual shackles of recoveryism — for life. In Dubai, you are assumed to have free will, able to restrain bodily desires according to laws. In America, you are presumed unable to obey the law due to a constellation of biopsychosocial factors which dispose you to break the law, and referred into political re-education. In other words, our traditional judicial philosophy has come to deny free will, justifying antisocial conduct based upon the intensity of desire, resulting in a radical change in mainstream thinking and public behavior. More and more, we are animals in a large sanctuary regulated by social policies, rather than free souls seeking liberty and happiness.

Six years in prison for a roll in the sand will be a heavy penalty for stupidity, if this couple is convicted. But when they are free again in 2014, they will truly be free to continue their lives as free souls, emotionally battered of course by the ordeal, but nevertheless free to start over, climb back into their family trees, and make whatever they wish out of their terrible vacation in Dubai. I doubt they would be overweight from being provided imported fast-food based upon cultural sensitivity, nor would they be court-ordered to participate in programs delving into why they screwed up on the beach, nor would they be granted proactive forgiveness for future “relapses.” In fact, I imagine either of them might be executed for ever again defying the law of the land in this particular way.

Had they committed their erotic error on American sand, 2014 would see them six years “sober,” at best, or more likely, wound down from six years life on the wild side, and headed toward the docile, burnout state called, “in recovery.” They would hate their genetic origins and original, dysfunctional families, and have no identity higher than “grateful, recovering alcoholic.” More likely, they would not have been prosecuted at all, in the mistaken belief that public morality should not be legislated. That belief has resulted in radical social changes that only 20 years ago would have been uniformly rejected as improbable futurism or humanistic fantasy. Not long before that, the words “pregnant” and “brassiere” could not be said on TV, in strong contrast to current standards which broadcasts dinner-time drug ads which cutely suggest emergency medical services if the product evokes four-hour erections.

Although I disagree that the penalty for sexual error should ever be death, I believe that sovereign Dubai is entirely entitled to impose any sentence it chooses upon persons duly convicted, regardless of their personal values. When you travel into a sovereign, foreign nation, you are subject to the laws of that land, no matter how much you may disagree with them. It is most unwise to enter a foreign country with the idea that you are or should be exempt from the laws and taboos of that culture. Sadly, we have little expectation that our own citizens conduct themselves according to traditional cultural standards, much less those who cross our borders to escape the tyrannies of their homelands.

The Google Ban is Over

To All,

This evening, Mon, April 28, 2008, the Rational Recovery website is back in the Google index, ranking first on the key search terms as usual. For exactly one month, since March 28, 2008, we were invisible to searches for Rational Recovery and AVRT.

I haven’t got a clue as to what really happened, whether it was a fluke, an accident, or malicious prank. Many also wonder why Google would pick on Rational Recovery. I have only speculated that possibly a low-ranking employee committed an “oops” that wiped us off the Google index. A more likely explanation is proxy hacking, but I doubt I’ll ever know what really happened.

We have been busy for the last several weeks sending out inquiries, pleas for help, and filing complaints about the vulnerability of small businesses to Google error or negligence. I’m not sure what we’ve learned from this crazy experience other than how dependent we are on a giant corporation that has outgrown its original purpose.

Thanks to everyone who expressed concern, and particular thanks for the contributors who referred me to important resources for webmasters who have gotten banned. Yes, it truly was a ban, and the result some reported above was a paid/sponsored ad with a yellow background.

Existential crisis
Since discovering the ban, I pushed as many buttons as I could. Maybe one worked; I doubt I’ll ever know.

To me, the Internet is a mystery. The Google algorithm is a gigantic, self-serving monstrosity that is probably the closest thing I can think of to the sci-fi tales of artificial intelligence in cyberspace. Although it may be written somewhere in code, it travels autonomously as an electronic entity in a universe consisting of servers and clients, arranging data in such a way that its own existence is insured. It has an innocent skin, seeming to serve the clients, but ultimately has the predatory mission of corporate profits = power.

In sci-fi, the drama centers around man versus monster, and the AI entity, seeming to have consciousness, works its magic and destruction as it zooms through cables, antennas, and receivers while hapless humans fret, wildly pushing buttons and double-clicking to stop the madness before the entity gains control over the world.

Oh, well, crisis over for now. Back to work, but I keep searching for myself to make sure I really exist. Do I really exist, or am I a figment of Google’s imagination? Oh, dear! :)

Jack Trimpey

Rational Recovery?
You Can’t Get There From Here!

©2008, Jack Trimpey. All rights reserved.

I propose that this title, above, be adopted as Google’s corporate slogan. Their real slogan is “Don’t be evil.”

If you Google “Rational Recovery” right here, you’ll discover a truly frightening fact about today’s Internet. Bottom line: If Google thinks you’re evil, Google can get you. The famous, controversial, widely-acclaimed Rational Recovery website can no longer be found on Google!

Rational Recovery was a steady customer of Google for several years, buying key words to reach people desperate for information on independent recovery from addiction. Our ad campaigns were successful, bringing a message of hope to many thousands of families trapped in the world of addiction and recoveryism.

The ads were expensive, however, so as 2008 began, we discontinued our Google ads. As we expected, web traffic tapered down to a healthy baseline of activity that has made the Rational Recovery website a high-profile Internet resource since 1995, practically since the birth of the Internet, long before Google had even been thought of.

Then, on March 28, 2008, nothing. As far as Google clients are concerned, the Rational Recovery website, including the crown jewel of addiction recovery, AVRT®, do not exist. Our competitors, detractors, imitators, infringers, and critics now have top rank for those key words. This website is zeroed out, nowhere to be found, as you can see for yourself. Only a paid, “sponsored” ad may appear.

Google denies blacklisting Rational Recovery. Since that false reply, they will not respond to my emails, nor speak to me by phone. I don’t exist. Clients of Yahoo, MSN, AltaVista, and other search engines still rank Rational Recovery first or very high on the key search words people use to get help with addictions. However, the New Behemoth, Google, now owns 70% of the search engine market. Google is a virtual monopoly aiming at 100% market share. This is a new age when one giant corporation has enormous control over the business world, and occasionally uses that power by blacklisting sites it deems unworthy of existence. While this power can have beneficial uses, such as in the control of illegal operations, it can also be abused according to the whims of low-ranking employees possessed by a keen sense of social justice.


Continue reading ‘Rational Recovery?
You Can’t Get There From Here!’

Can the Beast® Vote?

©2008, Jack Trimpey. All rights reserved.

Think of the Beast as the embodiment of addictive desire, a ruthless entity, relentless in its pursuit of addiction’s unspeakable pleasures. Think of it as an intelligent, well-spoken Beast with clever, predatory mental processes that support endless addictive pleasure, regardless of the risks and costs to others. Imagine this Beast with the gift of language and the ability to speak intimately, with god-like authority, in the conscious minds of addicted people everywhere. Now, think of a few million such creatures going to the polls to vote for social policies and elected officials.

Yes, you may think of these voters as the barbarians at the gates, for that is quite literally who they are. They think and speak a special language called the Addictive Voice (AV), which is the sole cause of all addiction. The function of the AV is to create a world more tolerant of substance abuse, and an environment more hospitable to substance abusers. Voting can be a strong expression of bodily desire, when issues related to the pursuit of physical pleasure are on the ballot.

Who will this special interest group, the Beast Lobby, vote for? In other words, is Joe Sixpack more likely to vote for or against increased taxes on beer? Will they vote for stricter or more lenient legislation and law enforcement regarding alcohol and drug-related crime? Will they vote for legalization of drugs? Will they vote for increased funding for “diversion” programs that protect substance abusers from lawful punishments? Will they vote for an individual having a history of addiction, or for someone who is in recovery? What self-respecting Beast would not vote for the Mental Health Parity Act, which removes the cap on third party spending for addiction treatment services, as if addiction is a real disease, just like cancer and tuberculosis?

Friends of the Beast
Make no mistake — voters in the grip of addictive desire make up a significant portion of the electorate. Moreover, fellowships of addiction exist in the form of political action groups that mobilize the recovery group movement to come to the aid of one-day-at-a-time sobriety on election day. Join Together is one such organization, and there are thousands more like it. In all, there are over 8,000 non-profit organizations serving a population who are either actively addicted or in that delicate condition of suspended indulgence, “in recovery.” As might be expected, they are dependent organizations, relying upon charitable donations to combat the pretend disease of addiction with pretend treatments derived from pretend science. They glorify perpetual, adult dependence, chronic addiction, and submission of one’s will to addictive desire.

In effect these non-profit organizations are an enormous syndicate consisting of licensed counselors and health care workers, most of whom are chronically addicted themselves, i.e., “in recovery.” They comprise the base of the Beast Party, a loose, underground coalition of men and women who view human affairs through the eyes of addiction. Their millions of clients in the social service system are foot soldiers in a struggle toward social change that favors mass addiction.

AVRT® helps anyone to detect the Beast Party at work by applying the definition of AVRT® to their policies, publications, and social actions. The Addictive Voice is any thinking that supports or suggests the possible continued use of alcohol or other drugs by problem drinkers and other substance abusers. The Addictive Voice says, “Vote for Friends of the Beast!”

About the Addictive Voice
A prime example of the Addictive Voice is, “I have mysterious disease that results in my preposterous drunkenness.” If such a disease existed, it would mean that the act of drinking/using is a disease symptom, an innocent act, such as when someone with colon cancer soils the couch. Although we might be offended at the stinky mess, we would naturally be compassionate and tolerant toward the involuntary functioning of someone so afflicted.

However, if we discover that the individual who soiled the couch does not have colon cancer, but makes his deposit purely because it feels so good to do so, then our attitude toward him and his production might significantly change. For example, we might issue him an ultimatum, that he must never do that again, for any reason, or he will be put out in the barn yard where he belongs. Such an imposter would likely experience the natural, logical consequences of his antisocial behavior, such as eviction or even jail.

Fellowships of Addiction
Problem drinkers and other substance abusers naturally join together in bars, taverns, recovery groups, and elsewhere in the shadows of society. When two or more of them get together, they form a fellowship of addiction. They have a lot in common, and have an intuitive familiarity with each other based upon their common problems and experiences as addicted people. They share a common language, the Addictive Voice, so that their preposterous conduct and twisted belief system is quite agreeable, and their manner of speaking sounds quite reasonable. They commiserate and sympathize with each other, and the share a common viewpoint about the nature of addiction and the meaning of life.

However, they are also prone to develop strong attachments to recovery groups that lend respectability to the rules, beliefs, and values of addiction itself. Recovery groups typically create formal, pro-addiction doctrines based upon the familiar clichés of pop-psychology, science, and religion. Those arcane doctrines thinly veil their unwillingness to summarilly quit drinking/using, and mask their clear intent to continue drinking/using under certain conditions.

Elsewhere, I have referred to recovery groups as the Fellowship of the Beast, because they harbor and protect, rather than defeat, addiction. By diverting newcomers from principled abstinence into the endless loop of one-day-at-a-time sobriety, recovery groups actually convert problem drinking/using to chronic, lifetime addiction.

Politics of Addiction
The recovery group movement is a special interest group with the goal of making families and society more tolerant of substance abuse, and making their immediate environments more hospitable to problem drinkers and other substance abusers. This vast, politically-active special interest group uses the disease concept of addiction as the cutting edge for social change.

Appealing to the compassionate nature of families and society at large, recovery groupers induce their families, courts, and society at large to accommodate addiction rather than create conditions whereby addicted people would most likey surrender their right to intoxicate themselves with alcohol and other hedonic drugs. Through their political influence, they elect public officials and administrators who will set social policies that are pleasing to the Beast of addiction.

Whether individually or collectively, the Beast of addiction has strong political preferences and will naturally favor candidates who take a liberal stance on issues such as decriminalization of drugs, punishments for drug and alcohol related offenses such as drunk driving and possession of narcotics and controlled substances.

The Beast greatly fears and loathes any kind of authority, as seen in the structure of the recovery group movement, and in the beliefs and values of addiction recovery. Most of all, the Beast fears moral authority that would intervene, not with a comfy treatment spas, sensitive social workers, or love-bombing recovery groups, but with a zero-tolerance ultimatum backed with severe, punitive sanctions against any further self-intoxication. On the other hand, the Beast is quite comfortable with, and will likely vote for, officials and policies that increase leniency or permissiveness surrounding the satisfaction of bodily desires, particularly the desire for the high-life produced by alcohol and other drugs. In fact, the Beast is inherently soft on crime, viewing perpetrators as victims of background circumstances, just as in their recovery groups, where the immorality of addiction is believed to be an innocent outcome of one’s bad gene pool, a rotten ancestral heritage, a dysfuncional family of origin, and a multifarious coalition of triggers, codependents, enablers, and just bad luck.

Election Day
For example, the current menu of presidential candidates contains one person who favors legalization of marijuana to normalize his own past pot-smoking, and another candidate whose wife was addicted to opiates during the 1990’s.

When Cindy McCain was discovered stealing narcotics from the non-profit organization she was in charge of, she attempted to fire the potential whistle-blower, who had reported her theft to the DEA. She evaded criminal prosecution by calling a news conference to confess before the DEA investigation was made public. Through smarmy legal maneuvering, accusing the whistleblower of extortion, and publicly lying about entering a diversion program and addiction treatment (evidently she has not), her criminal history and moral turpitude has been expunged from her public image as a potential first lady. The press loved the melodramatic story http://www.commondreams.org/views/021400-102.htm of her struggle against addiction, even comparing it her husband’s stint in the Hanoi Hilton. The whistle-blower was nearly bankrupted in the protracted, agonizing legal battle.

If elected, Barack Obama will do his part to popularize the notion that pot-smoking is innocent and harmless and that criminal laws against it are more destructive than any harm done by the drug. Whether this emancipates the people he hopes to free from our terrible drug laws remains to be seen, but you can be sure that millions of Beasts will be stepping on each other’s tails waiting to vote for their candidate on election day.

So, in 2008 the Beast may get to pick between a Democratic or a Republican candidate to serve its interests. The Beast has never had it so good since the repeal of Prohibition, or that day when a pot-smoking, presidential candidate evasively claimed, “…but I didn’t inhale.”

Global Warming and Addictive Disease

©2007, Jack Trimpey, all rights reserved.

The moral of this story: Although you cannot fool all the people all of the time, you can certainly make a lot of money trying to do so.

I think most thoughtful people have been sanely suspicious of the politically-driven, global warming hype in the last few years. When you see massive political mobilization around a tenuous-at-best hypothesis, and then witness the rise of a new witch hunt for heretics, it seems only a matter of time until the whole idea melts down like a polar ice cap.

Here’s a good link showing how global warming hot air has blown back in the faces of greenies. It’s about time, which is not to say that some problems do not exist with regard to our planetary stewardship.

Sadly, however, the day of reckoning may never come for the massive fraud called the disease concept of addiction. If there is a point beyond which there is no return, we may have already passed it. The United States of America collectively made an error during the 20th Century — a well-intentioned act of trust, but still an error from which she may never recover. It was an error that may equal or even surpass the error of slavery, so great is the damage to the Republic.

We have chosen to turn over the great social problem of substance abuse to the fellowship of addiction, Alcoholics Anonymous, which is based upon the unique beliefs and values of addicted people, not of normal people from real families. This is like turning over the supervision of elementary schools to child molesters. We have put the inmates in charge of the asylum, and now the nation is steadily moving into the asylum.

Our physicians are foxes in the chicken coop, members themselves of Alcoholics Anonymous by mandate of their licensing boards. Essentially criminals, like AA co-founder Rober Smith, M.D., who drank while performing major surgery, today’s physicians “in recovery” have been politically rehabilitated in expensive rehabs like the Talbott Rehabilitation Center, founded by Douglas Talbott, M.D., himself a grateful, recovering alcoholic. Addiction is no longer immorality, but a disease symptom compassionately “treated” by grateful, recovering alcoholics who themselves claim to suffer from the terrible disease of addiction, which they say is just like cancer, heart disease, or diabetes. Right. Dr. Talbott is also the founder of American Society for Addiction Medicine (ASAM), which advances the disease concept of addiction within the medical profession.

The problem is, addiction treatment doesn’t work, and actually converts problem drinkers who should be required to pledge and fulfill lifetime abstinence, into chronic, relapse-prone, one-day-at-a-time sober “alcoholics” based solely upon the ghastly misuse of medical authority. Addiction treatment is truly an astronomically expensive introduction to the fellowship of addiction, Alcoholics Anonymous, a self-supporting, non-profit organization co-founded by its own great physician, Robert Smith, M.D.

Notice the non-profit organization status, here, as if irresolute substance abusers qualify for charity. It is this kind of bald deception that underlies recent legislation aimed at limitless public funding for the ever-expanding dependency of ever-growing addicted population. Such suckers, are we!

Under medical supervision, American-style recoveryism has destroyed more lives and families than addiction itself, producing a greater body count and economic cost than any of our military wars. There is simply no way that our social service system can be held accountable for such a catastrophic public health disaster as the addiction treatment industry, which includes all of the academic, social welfare, public health, and non-profit organizations that make up the 12-step syndicate. There may be a slow, cautious acknowledgement of error, such as “overdiagnosis,” or “deficiencies in treatment planning,” or other bureaucratic jive, but we will likely never see justice such as came out of the litigations for black lung, landfill pollution, breast transplant, and the asbestos and tobacco related illness. Too many bodies; too many iatrogenic casualties. Denial is so much easier.

Slavery? Really?

If you are still grating over my comment about slavery, think racism instead. The disease concept of addiction is worse than racism, in that it confers congenital inferiority upon individuals based upon thought content, without any use of laboratory data or physical traits such as in race. (Yes, the cardinal sign of addictive disease, “denial,” is purely thought content.) Racism is conspicuous compared to the disease concept of addiction parades as compassion itself. Thus, our social service system may mercifully consign you to a social ghetto for other congenital defectives like yourself based upon nothing more than the arbitrary opinion of another tentatively sober substance abuser. Addictive disease, e.g., “alcoholism,” is purely conjectural, a simple, unproven hypothesis based upon the very faulty, circular, self-serving reasoning of addicted people themselves.

If you are a substance abuser in trouble, no one, not even your family, your employer, the courts, or society at large will expect or demand that you quit drinking/using. They will think you are defective, unable to comply with Continue reading ‘Global Warming and Addictive Disease’

AA: Not What It Used To Be?

©2007, Jack Trimpey. All rights reserved.

The following essay by Danny S. was submitted as a comment to the earlier blog entry, “Pimps Anonymous,” but it is so cogent and relevant to this website that I will feature it here as a full blog entry. — Jack Trimpey, Editor

Jack, yes AA is a mess. That much is true. Unfortunately people are forced into AA by ignorance, by a generalized mis-characterization of the Fellowship, and without regard to their qualifications to become members.

The vast majority of these are non-alcoholic drug addicts; the rest are heavy drinking fools for whom counseling or some other less drastic means other than a spiritual awakening would suffice. Remember Jack, “spiritual awakening” is the sought after result of the Twelve Steps. Sobriety is just one of the consequences.

If folks were more knowledgeable about the Fellowship and its Program, they would see and admit that the addicted need a solution for addicts — a solution which AA cannot supply. (No one is “addicted” to alcohol past the normal seventy hours of detoxification)

AA is for alcoholics — not “addicts.” They are not the same. The mainstream “addictions” treatment industry would like us to think they are the same and has tried very hard to convince us of it, but it isn’t so. It just doesn’t jive with the experience of a real alcoholic. But POP-AA and the public at large has fallen for the scam. Make no mistake Jack, a large part of the “recovery business” is a scam, save for a small portion.

As far as evangelizing goes, in the sense that AAs are supposed to seek out other alcoholics to help — what is so horrible about that? I race thoroughbred pigeons. We love to get more people involved. So do the Boy Scouts, Free Masons and Model Rocketeers.

The AA juggernaut to which you refer is a cultish, subgroup of non-Twelve Step AA that has infiltrated society and spread as the result of ignorant judges, doctors and mainstream media They don’t understand that AA isn’t for every Tom, Dick or Harry with a drinking problem. AA is for true alcoholics only, but the fellowship is now flooded with impressionable, suggestive and successfully hypnotized AA zombies who didn’t need to go there in the first place.

All of this further justifies your comment that “AA is a fellowship of addicted people who know nothing about recovery because none of them, including their founders, defeated their own addictions. This is true, except for the “founders” comment.

Sadly, most AAs can’t tell you how to recover from alcoholism. How could they? They never have recovered themselves. No one has ever recovered from an affliction they didn’t actually have in the first place.

The founders did achieve victory over alcoholism, (not “addiction”, Jack) and this has been the experience of those who have followed exactly their procedures for doing so. It happened to me! – - and my experiences with AA are far removed from the popular characterization of AA that you detest so vehemently. Because they are not real alcoholics, many AA’s recovery and drinking experiences are essentially different from mine.

I have heard the “Relapse is part of recovery” kind of talk in treatment centers and unfortunately also out of the mouths of those 27 1⁄2 day wonders who graduate from such facilities – and bring that rehab-speak into AA. However, people such as myself who have recovered from alcoholism do not often relapse. If it does occur it is certainly not looked upon as “part of recovery.” It is looked upon as the result of absence of spiritual growth.

I know there are folks running around the AA fellowship saying crapola like “one-day-at-a-time,” but that is simply another one of those perverted pop-AA concepts that has nothing to do with the AA Program. The objective is permanent sobriety, forever. That is repeated over and over in Alcoholics Anonymous.

We may live a day at a time, but the ubiquitous idea of living with one foot on a banana peel and the other in front of a saloon is just not AA, but that brings us back to item one above: Why are non-alcoholics being taken into AA? It is our own ignorance, Jack. Too many generations of non-alcoholic infiltration has been going on and the new cult of aa interlopers is what has become most viable and prolific. It is probably the type of fellowship to which you have been exposed.

Jack, perhaps you will destroy aa. If you do, I hope it is not AA you destroy, but the aa that resides within it. If you are successful you will have helped AA in way unimaginable. You might even unwittingly go down in history as one of the co-founders of a new AA because you will have earned a spot as a true AA hero! I know you would be a hero of mine, because the Fellowship has become top-heavy with those whom you yourself see as hypocrites, liars and misinformed. Unfortunately, I fear that AA will collapse under its own weight. But maybe that’s good. Maybe it needs a shakeup. Because AA will never really die, you know. It is likely that it will just cleanse and reform – hopefully stronger, having learned from its errors.

Cheers, right back atcha, Danny S.

To the Reader:

This is an example of the, “AA isn’t what it used to be,” defense, which glorifies 12-step recovery while condemning current practices. Danny loves the idea of AA, but the reality of AA doesn’t match his own concept of AA. He is part of something he knows is wrong, so his criticisms of AA are sincere. His criticisms are also highy accurate, based upon his own direct observations and tempered by his loyalty to AA itself.

Danny summarizes a number of popular ideas I have written about for years, such as one-day-at-a-time sobriety, the 12-step syndicate (juggernaut), and the lack of abstinent outcome of recovery group participation and addiction treatment services. He sees the flagrant social cultism of contemporary AA, and takes notice of the low life that comprise the ranks.

I have searched for the kinder, gentler version of AA, the one old-timers like Danny wistfully recall, but when I look into the quality of AA in days of yore, I don’t find anything substantially different. I attended meetings in the early 1960’s, and I see a nascent social cult that would naturally become the American addiction tragedy it has become.

Even then, there was discussion of the “real alcoholic” versus the “problem drinker.” Then as now, it was a circular logic used to explain why some fit or don’t fit in AA, why some succeed in the steps and others don’t. I wondered then as now how a real alcoholic could be identified without waiting for self-destruction. As always, “real alcoholics” are simply self-identified; as with anyone else in the Imanalcoholic family. I’m one because I say I’m one. I suppose AA might split into Alcoholics Anonymous and Real Alcoholics Anonymous.

I still remember my shock at the idea that my self-indulgences in alcohol were not immoral conduct, and I remember myself taking the bait of addictive disease hook, line and sinker. I recall the rapid turnover of the group, so that few had more than a couple of months “sober,” and I remember the strained smiles of hopelessness and the snickers during drunkalogs. I also remember the group counseling me, “Your family won’t understand you because you’re an alcoholic. They won’t understand about your disease of alcoholism. You will have to teach them about alcoholism, and get them into Al-Anon.”

It’s the same now as then, only new generations have come in with a more nihilistic viewpoint that makes their evangelism less concerned with helping people quit drinking than with recruiting them into AA and getting magical protection against the evil spirit of alcoholism. Certainly, the self-stigmatization which is part of addict-identity continues today, not much different from the Halloween masquerading of old-time 12-steppers, pictured here.


The masquerade of addictive disease, which appeals the family’s compassionate nature, is more grotesque than any Halloween get-up. Saying, “Hi, I’m Bill Imanalcoholic, and don’t be surprised if I continue getting drunk because I’m diseased,” was no less wrong and no less a fabricated excuse sixty years ago than it is now.

Many have fought to the death defending their family’s name and honor; such is the importance of the family in human affairs. To conspire against the family, as all in recovery do by claiming addictive disease, is disgraceful and destructive. There can be no more abhorrent attack on the nuclear family than to trace your stupidity to your own gene pool, and hang your personal immorality on your own family tree.

Just think of what it means to America to have a de facto state religion which forces millions of addicted men and women to accept the stigma of congenital deficiencies and blame their ancestors for the suffering they cause to themselves and others.

Danny hopes I can destroy the part of AA he objects to, and save the baby, the AA of his dreams. AA has always been rotten to the core, giving with no redeeming qualities whatsoever. Like any addicted person, only AA can defeat its own base nature. Because it is founded on the lower nature of homo sapiens, it cannot change itself.

I can’t destroy AA, although I wish I could. I am an optomist, however. I believe in people, not programs, and I believe that human resilience will overtake the gloom and doom of recoveryism, and a younger generation will catch on that their elders have allowed a group of religious eccentrics to mutate into an evil tyranny that uses our social service system to funnel new members into itself.

AA members themselves carry the burden of destroying the 12-step syndicate which has invaded the social service system. Steppers such as Danny may pave the way for AA to tackle the greatest problem in its history, that of being an active participant in one of the greatest public health catastrophes in human history.

Perhaps when AA is expelled from the health and corrections systems, its members can regain their honor by providing all newcomers with clear information on how people normally quit drinking/using without making a big deal out of it.

Jack Trimpey

© Copyright, 2020, Rational Recovery Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.