Notice in the top menu, there are three
aspects of AVRT-based recovery — My Recovery (defeating the primary
addiction), Families of Addiction (protection and reconciliation of the
family), and understanding recoveryism (the peculiar, inverted
lifestyle common to all addicted people).
Definitions:
• Addiction: Persistent use of alcohol and other drugs against one’s own better judgment.
• Big Plan: A personal commitment to lifetime abstinence, “I will never drink/use again.”
• Addictive Voice: Any thinking that supports or suggests the possible future use of alcohol or other drugs.
• Recoveryism: The way of life arising from the Addictive Voice.
Although AVRT® automatically exposes recoveryism as a product of
the Addictive Voice, it is important to give that lifestyle a name, so
that recoveryism may be identified as part of the problem of addiction
rather than as part of any solution to addiction. Understanding
recoveryism aids addicted people in defeating the residuals of
addiction, and protects their families against the many cultural
supports for chronic addiction.
A very simple example of recoveryism is attending recovery group meetings. There, the Addictive Voice is taught
to addicted people, along with a constellation of character defects
that correspond to addiction, defend addiction, and perpetuate
addiction. There, addicted people learn to call their recoveryism,
“alcoholism,” and make their self-intoxication appear to be a result rather than the cause
of their personal problems. Another hard-core example of recoveryism is
one-day-at-a-time sobriety, looking good while retaining the option to
have “relapses.” Yet another example is the disease concept of
addiction, “Once an addict, always an addict.” These are simply ways of
putting off the painful decision to quit drinking/using altogether,
right now, for life.
Recoveryism extends addiction far beyond the time when an
addicted person would very likely discontinue his addiction altogether.
For example, many criminals would gladly surrender their drinking
licenses in exchange for court leniency, but instead of focusing on the
obvious need for abstinence, judges sentence criminals into recovery
groups where they are required to form subordinate relationships with
chronically addicted people and reserve the option of having
“relapses,” i.e., drinking/using. Indeed, recoveryism has destroyed
more lives and families than addiction itself, because recoveryism is
the very host of addiction — a system of perceptions,
beliefs, values, traditions, language, social attitudes, social
policies, and political causes surrounding addiction and recovery.
However, for our immediate purposes in AVRT-based recovery, recoveryism is the state of unresolved
addiction, when the problem drinking/using has been identified, and the
addicted person has, perhaps grudgingly, accepted responsibility for
the problem, but fails to take decisive action to end his destructive
self-indulgence. Because addiction is persistent, and mobilizes the
mind for its own long-term survival, the addict will openly take
measures to convey sincerity while he is privately reserving the
option, or actually planning, to eventually get drunk/high
under certain undefined conditions. Because he reserves the option to
continue intoxicating himself, he will rigidly avoid taking two key
actions, (1) he will not apologe for his past self-intoxication,
because he sees nothing wrong with drinking and reserves the option to
continue it, and (2) he will not guarantee permanent abstinence from
alcohol and other drugs.
In recoveryism, there remains much well-deserved uncertainty
about the problem drinker’s personal character, because in his private
thoughts, he believes that drinking/using is an innocent act, and that only his drunken behavior is subject to moral judgment. Of course, this is exactly
the moral issue which lies at the core of addiction. The problem
drinker’s denial that his drinking is immoral conduct opens the gate to
unbridled self-indulgence in addictive pleasures. Consequently, his
tears of remorse about the effects of his drinking may fall into the
beer in which he is attempting to drown his sorrow. Worse, he wastes
his life struggling with massive character defects that would promptly
fade and disappear if he were to summarily quit getting high.
Here are some examples of recoveryism, followed by a reality check:
1. Gerald has been attending recovery groups for about five
years. He’s been sober now for three years, after his first and only
relapse which followed the death of his beloved pet, Rover.
This is common recoveryism. Gerald has not quit drinking,
and he never will as long as he is only sober, one-day-at-a-time. Even
though he has caused his family much suffering by drinking, he still
has not figured out that, for him, the act of self-intoxication is
immoral conduct, in itself. He follows the impaired reasoning of other
addicted people like himself, who say that they drink due to an
unidentified disease, and drinking is just an innocent symptom of that
disease. He claims the privilege of having yummy relapses whenever he
really feels like it, and expects his family to accept the uncertainty
of not knowing how long it will be until he explodes once again into
drunkenness.
2. Patricia’s dad is an alcoholic and needs treatment. The family is planning an intervention because he’s in denial.
This is family recoveryism. Patricia’s dad denies nothing. He
knows he’s a problem drinker and has been to recovery groups but still
struggles to stay sober. Patricia's personal counselor referred her to
an interventionist, who will orchestrate a surprise party for her dad,
during which he will be abducted into a treatment center. The
melodrama’s cast will include family members from all over, friends,
and possily employers and clergy. The players are scripted and
rehearsesd to confront him with numerous examples of his disagreeable
conduct, punctuated with love bombs intended to fend off his
predictable anger. At the end, father will be tearfully led to a rehab
van idling outside. The family is loyally pitching in together to pay
for his very expensive treatment, but they aren’t yet aware that only
about half stay sober for six months, that only about 5% are
consistently sober after 5 years, and that interventions are highly
destructive to family relationships.
3. Sabrina is finally getting help after many years of
alcoholism. She’s been to about a dozen meetings, but doesn’t have a
sponsor yet. Her husband finally got her to attend meetings, after he
joined Al-Anon two years ago. He’s feeling much better that she’s
getting help, although she is still having relapses and sometimes talks
of suicide.
This is malignant recoveryism. Sabrina is becoming
hopeless, facing two equally unacceptable alternatives — active
addiction and life in recovery. In Al-Anon, her husband has become
remote from her, withholding affection on the condition that she attend
AA meetings. She hates AA because it violates her native beliefs and
values, because it gives zero information on how to quit drinking and
stay quit, because the recovery group lifestyle is weird and
depressing, and because she does not want to become like the others who
attend meetings. She is at risk of self-destruction by her own hand, by
drinking or by other means.
4. After spewing a bigoted, racist tirade upon a sheriff’s
officer who was arresting him for DUI, Mel Gibson has apologized for
his behavior, stating that he is not a racist or a bigot, but simply an
alcoholic who has struggled against the disease of alcoholism for many
years without succes.
This is cultural recoveryism. Mr. Gibson is a chronically
addicted man who would likely have quit drinking long ago had he not
followed his fellow Hollywood lemmings into the recovery group
movement. There, where the beliefs and values of addiction rule,
habitual vice is elevated to the status of disease, and perfect asses
like him become poster boys and girls for the disease of alcoholism.
Mr. Gibson has the morals of a snail, unable to figure out after
several DUI’s that, for him, the act of self-intoxication is profoundly
immoral conduct. Therefore, when he gets into trouble, he does not
apologize for turning himself loose upon humanity as a dangerous, wild
animal, but only apologizes for the animal conduct that invariably
results when he drinks. Everyone is impressed to some degree that he
apologizes for essentially harmless name-calling, but no one is
outraged that he excuses himself for the one, vile act that places
everyone in danger, over and over, year after year.
5. James takes Antabuse® every day so that he won’t resume
drinking. He says, “It’s like insurance. I take my ‘good-boy’ pills so
that I don’t have to keep deciding over and over to not drink.”
This is iatrogenic (harm caused by medical care)
recoveryism. James is not only gullible, lazy and stupid, but he’s
doomed to more troubles. Antabuse® is the brand name for disulphiram,
which, when mixed with alcohol, creates a poison. Disulfiram is an
industrial solvent used to vulcanize rubber. Its poisonous nature was
discovered when tire factory workers turned up sick, en masse, at a
Swedish hospital. The violently ill workers had all stopped for a drink
after work, where they had absorbed disulphiram through the skin. The
addiction treatment industry has borrowed from the tire industry to
create its perverted “Antabuse®” therapy, which is now prescribed by
physicians to fend off addictive desire, as if their patients are
actually powerless over addictive desire. Of course, addiction
treatment doesn’t work, whether by the spoken word or by using drugs to
fight drugs. It can’t work, because addiction is willful, purposeful,
immoral conduct, not a “treatable” affliction or condition. Addiction
treatment is a perfect example of iatrogenic recoveryism.
6.While out drinking with her friends, Susan has twice gotten
lost in the city while in a state of alcoholic blackout. Each time, she
was returned home by unidentified persons. On her latest outing, it is
likely she was raped, but she cannot recall her experiences. She is now
seeing a psychologist in order to cut back on her drinking. Once she
proves she no longer needs alcohol as a coping mechanism, her desire to
drink crazily will fade or vanish. Then she can carefully monitor her
blood alcohol content to make sure she doesn’t exceed a safe amount of
alcohol.
More iatrogenic recoveryism. Susan is being raped by our
social service system, which permits this kind of insanity to pass as
professional service. Susan must never drink again, as if alcohol were
cyanide. She will likely die of acute alcohol poisoning or violence
while under the influence long before she learns to drink “moderately.”
Recoveryism is just as deadly as addiction itself.
7. A high executive is found to be engaged in an office-based
sexual affair with a young employee. After lying to his board of
directors and outside investigators, he announces that he’s getting
personal counseling and talks about growing up with an alcoholic
father.
This is political recoveryism. Such public figures are
common, and exemplify the arrogance of recoveryism, e.g., they feel
entitled to behave in any fashion that is not concretely harmful, use
elaborate legal and political defenses, are quite resentful when caught
in serious ethical or legal struggles, and shift responsibility for
what they are “falsely” accused of onto remote conditions and
circumstances.
Recoveryism is actually a stage of addiction, a defensive
position when the addict has been found out, has gotten into serious
trouble with his family, employer, or the law, and is struggling to
solve those serious, practical problems while reserving the option to
continue drinking/using. One of the most significant strategies in this
struggle to guarantee perpetual access to alcohol and other hedonic
drugs is to enlist fellowships of other like-minded, addicted people in
the task of providing cover for the addiction’s hedonic
(pleasure-seeking) agenda. There are hundreds of these in the United
States — mostly non-profit organizations advancing the disease concept
of addiction, professional counselors offering “addiction treatment”
services, and social support networks to help “alcoholics” and other
addictive disease victims adapt to that allegedly crippling affliction.
There’s something wrong with “sober” people.
Recoveryism means about the same thing as “in recovery,” that delicate state when an addicted person is struggling
with the problem, trying to “work on the problem” by cutting back,
limiting drinking times, and very likely attending in recovery groups,
counseling, rehabs, or special readings. In summary, recoveryism is
trying to look good while doing nothing about the core problem, which
is the impending harm of continued substance abuse.
Recoveryism also means about the same thing as “sober.” The
word, “sober,” is a perfect example of how the Addictive Voice can
change the meaning of words to serve addiction. In its strict sense,
sober means “not drunk.” Sobriety checkpoints illustrate this meaning
well, simply making sure that drivers are not drunk while at
the wheel. However, in the world of recoveryism, the word “sobriety” is
foisted upon the human family as if it were a spectacular
accomplishment, possibly a miracle accepted from God Himself.
In recoveryism, sobriety exists only today, “one-day-at-a-time,” in the
current, fleeting moment, as if unseen forces may strike at any time,
resulting in renewed self-intoxication. In recoveryism, this daily
drama continues endlessly, as if it is entirely unreasonable for
others, such as one’s family, employer, or community, to expect a
personal guarantee of permanent abstinence from alcohol and other
drugs.
If you hear someone introduced as “sober,” you immediately
know that his personal history was otherwise. It would be unwise, or at
least quite risky, to vote for, to marry, to loan money, or to hire
someone whose personal history has caused such an unremarkable fact to
be mentioned at all, let alone included in his description or
introduction. If you were told that someone does not rob gas stations,
or beat children, you should certainly consider that comment as a
warning, and avoid close encounters with that individual. However,
learning that someone never drinks, or never uses drugs, would give you
little reason to doubt that person’s character or to discriminate
against him in matters requiring trust.
Recoveryism is a natural product of habitual vice, the mindset
that supports the antisocial, anti-family nature of addiction to
substances and other intense pleasures. Recoveryism can be heard on the
airwaves of mainstream broadcast media, seen on Internet support group
sites, received from our health care and counseling professionals, and
directly experienced by the families of chronically addicted people.
Having destroyed more lives and families than addiction
itself, recoveryism is dangerous, disgusting, and deadly. As long as
addiction remains unresolved, bad things can happen, and in recoveryism, Murphy’s Law is definitely in effect.
Because recoveryism is just another phony face of addiction,
AVRT-based recovery ends recoveryism altogether. The prizes of
AVRT-based recovery are freedom and dignity, neither of which may be
achieved in recoveryism. When you make your Big Plan, as in the Crash Course on AVRT®,
you will abandon your familiar, addict-identity and what’s left over is
you, the original soul you once were, but seasoned by your struggle
against the dark side of your nature.
When your addiction is over, it’s really over, and it’s for you
to know and for others to find out. You can help them find out by first
defeating the Beast of addiction, and then returning to your family,
employer, and community as a solid, predictable character upon whom
others can depend. If your family has a problem drinker or drug addict,
let it be known to him or her that one-day-at-a-time sobriety is not
good enough, and that common decency and family loyalty both demand a personal guarantee of lifetime abstinence from alcohol and other hedonic drugs.
