Initial commit of ebook 78922 filesHEADmain

1 files changed, 7528 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/78922-0.txt b/78922-0.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..16b8662
--- /dev/null
+++ b/78922-0.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,7528 @@
+*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 78922 ***
+
+
+
+
+  Transcriber’s Note
+  Italic text displayed as: _italic_
+  Bold text displayed as: =bold=
+
+
+
+
+THE LAW OF SUGGESTION
+
+[Illustration:
+
+  Photo by Rentschler, Ann Arbor, Mich.
+
+Santanelli]
+
+
+
+
+  _IS MAN A FREE AGENT?_
+
+  THE
+  LAW OF SUGGESTION
+
+  INCLUDING
+
+  HYPNOSIS
+  WHAT AND WHY IT IS, AND HOW TO INDUCE IT
+
+  THE LAW OF NATURE
+  MIND, HEREDITY, ETC.
+
+  BY
+  SANTANELLI
+
+
+  _THOSE WHO SEE SHOULD LEAD THE BLIND_
+
+
+  LANSING, MICH.
+  THE SANTANELLI PUBLISHING CO.
+  1902
+  BURNS & OATES, 28 ORCHARD ST., LONDON, W.
+
+
+
+
+  COPYRIGHT, 1902, BY JAMES H. LORYEA
+
+  ENTERED AT STATIONERS’ HALL
+
+  ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
+
+
+  Printed and Bound by
+  Robert Smith Printing Co.
+  Lansing, Mich., U.S.A.
+
+
+“A friend in need is a friend indeed.” Oh! how true; touch a man’s
+pocket and you instantly touch his heart, which seems to be at the
+other end of the nerve. Like the elevator boy, I have had many “ups
+and downs,” but unlike him, I feel that my “downs” have been twice or
+thrice to every “up.”
+
+Acquaintances I have by the score, friends but two, therefore am at
+least a hundred per cent better off than most of mankind. These two
+friends have had their faith tried many and many a time, yet were
+always ready to respond.
+
+Many the hour, both day and night, have I thought of them; many the
+resolution have I formed, but my good intentions availed them not.
+’Tis said that Hades is paved with good intentions, but they are of
+no commercial value and repay no material loans. Some day “when my
+ship comes in”—if it be laden with other than air castles,—I may have
+something other than good intentions to repay my true friends, Frank H.
+Doolittle, of Lansing, Mich., and Col. Le Gage Pratt, of East Orange,
+N. J. To them, with all my heart, is this book dedicated.
+
+[Illustration:
+
+  Santanelli
+]
+
+  (J. H. Loryea.)
+
+  Lansing, Michigan,
+  January, 1902.
+
+
+
+
+Contents
+
+FOREWORD       7
+HYPNOSIS      11
+MIND         104
+HEREDITY     132
+SUGGESTION   156
+WORDS        216
+
+
+
+
+FOREWORD
+
+
+_A word of itself_ puts no thought into action, though a series
+of word sense-picturing may. Thoughts are made up of associated ideas
+through the different senses; two senses must be affected to put a
+thought in action. I must arouse a sight memory (picture), a feeling
+memory (picture), as well as a sound through words, to have my reader
+gain a thorough understanding.
+
+Though accredited with an extensive vocabulary and having a large
+dictionary at hand, I will have trouble in making you comprehend.
+
+_There are no synonyms_, as no two things are the same. Therefore,
+all words used here must have but one meaning. The following words and
+phrases will be used to mean only the here-affixed definitions.
+
+_Suggestion_, anything that arouses an action (environment, bodily
+or external).
+
+_Hypnosis_, a simulated sleep, the subject having the “thought of
+sleep.”
+
+_Inspiration_, a thought forced by an operator after Hypnosis
+has been induced. Man is ruled by suggestion; we inspire a hypnotized
+subject.
+
+_Personal suggestion_, where a thought is deliberately forced
+upon a person free from Hypnosis—exemplified by Christian and Mental
+Scientists.
+
+_Post-hypnotic suggestion_, a misnomer. It is a deferred action,
+and will not happen if the subject is actually awakened.
+
+_Inspired awakening_, “the thought of being awake,” the opposite
+to Hypnosis,—“the thought of being asleep;” commonly known as the
+waking state.
+
+_Auto-suggestion_, can only mean a “sleep walker.”
+
+_Pre-inspiration_, an act decided upon by the subject to be done
+after Hypnosis has been induced, (erroneously called Auto-suggestion).
+
+_Mind_, the consensus of all actions acquired during gestation,
+and seated in the Sympathetic System. As it is inconceivable for
+anything to happen without an intelligence to guide it, I believe that
+intelligence to be within all matter, call it Mind and show its action
+to be forced by external (the only kind) suggestion.
+
+“_Mind_,” what is commonly believed to be the seat of intelligence.
+
+_Sympathetic System_, all brain matter contra-distinguished from
+the cerebrum.
+
+_Thought_, two or more associated ideas. Thoughts are forced not
+chosen.
+
+_Idea_, a percept through any sense. Ideas transform into action.
+
+_Thinking_, transforming of energy,—man only realizes.
+
+_Memory_, registration of ideas. Man never forgets, but fails to
+recall.
+
+_Negation_, an inconceivable word. Everything is positive;
+positive for or positive against.
+
+_Abnormal_, impossible. Everything is normal or a natural result
+from the cause.
+
+_Objective mind_, _subjective mind_, mere words.
+
+_Authority_, a conceited juggler of words.
+
+_Bad_, perverted good.
+
+_Good_, natural response.
+
+_Hearing_, _seeing_, _smelling_, _tasting_,
+_feeling_, the correlation of the different nerve-end stimuli of
+the respective organs.
+
+_Degenerate_, above (plus) or below (minus) what is considered
+average man. Seemingly the same irritation may produce either extreme,
+subservient to external environment.
+
+_Everything is a combination of attributes_; _i. e._, one
+thing an impossibility.
+
+_Matter_ is comprehensible only to the degree it affects the
+senses, and _to be conceived_ must affect two senses. To be
+comprehended, three or more.
+
+_Form is comprehensible_ (when acquired) only when it affects
+sight and feeling.
+
+_Form is the outline of matter_, and but transitory. Only matter
+is appreciable.
+
+_Man can conceive_ of nothing greater nor worse than his
+individual experience.
+
+_Will_ (_will power_), I cannot comprehend it, though
+everyone prides himself on possessing IT.
+
+_Instinct_, a word used to express intelligence in animals, in
+contra-distinction from intelligence in man. _Man reasons!_
+Animals do not. (?)
+
+_Law of Nature_, a phrase that conveys no meaning. If you can
+comprehend the phrase “Law of Nature” then you will know the Law
+of Suggestion, and it will be a useless waste of time to read the
+following pages.
+
+
+
+
+_THE LAW OF SUGGESTION_
+
+
+
+
+HYPNOSIS
+
+
+[Sidenote: As to science]
+
+Since man began assembling, some few have spent their lives in trying
+to comprehend the most incomprehensible of all beings,—man. The net
+result of all their work and discoveries has resulted in nothing
+but theory, and that not worth the candle. With all of our alleged
+knowledge the few truths we have are of but little value. The myriads
+of theories are so impracticable that I often wonder why and how the
+“authorities” obtain their titles. The authorities of a hundred years
+ago are the laughing stock of to-day.
+
+Up to fifty years ago man was bled as a cure for every disease; to-day
+they claim he is full of bugs that require slaughtering and try to
+make of him a bacilli abattoir. They write tomes of books on “mind,”
+yet nowhere can I find it comprehensively defined. Everyone prides
+himself on his will power, yet I must own that such a thing which is so
+ambiguously defined is incomprehensible to me. Volumes are written as
+to hearing, seeing, smelling, feeling and tasting, and yet no one seems
+to be able to grasp the true significance of these terms.
+
+Crime is punished, yet more penitentiaries are yearly required. Our
+alienists, truly foreigners to their subjects, know all (?) about the
+brain and with the greatest assurance pronounce upon man’s sanity, yet
+offer us no cure, and our institutions for the insane are too small for
+the ever increasing demands upon them. We know the effect, need no
+experts, why does not some one demonstrate the cause.
+
+[Sidenote: As to expert testimony]
+
+In all sensational murder trials our most learned(?) and wise
+doctors(?) go on the stand as experts(?)—whatever that may
+mean—swearing directly opposite to one another, and still maintain
+their standing in their profession and the community. If they know
+anything, how is it possible for the truth to be in both of two
+contradictory assertions. They study in the same schools, from the same
+books and from the same “authorities,” yet one says “yes,” the other
+“no.” Verily, gentlemen, you must lack a true premise.
+
+Effect, man comprehends fairly well, but as to cause our most learned
+scientists seem to have no conception. Now, dear reader, if you would
+know a bit of truth follow me. I am a graduate of no great college;
+am professor in no great institution; have been exposed(?) many
+times, yet truth is, was, and always will be, and year after year my
+following increases. If you will follow through the ensuing pages,
+unsophisticated as I am, I will try to teach you something about
+man—a mere machine; his every thought and action forced, possessing
+no will power, and in no way responsible for his actions. For twelve
+years I have studied nightly from ten to twenty-five hypnotized
+subjects and have found that they are ruled by the same general law
+as the non-hypnotized man. In other words, a hypnotized subject is a
+slowed-down machine which one knowing how, can watch each and every
+movement of, and thereby comprehend cause and effect. Through a
+hypnotized subject we can learn how “normal” man is forced to act.
+Consequently, we can thoroughly analyze the whys and wherefores of
+every act performed by a subject while in hypnosis, during which time I
+believe the cerebrum to be entirely inactive.
+
+[Sidenote: All action automatic]
+
+The cerebrum is like the receiving or correlating mechanism of the
+phonograph; after the thought is registered in the ganglion of the
+Abdominal Brain it is then purely automatic and free from the cerebrum,
+which is the realizing brain. Everything we do and say is purely
+automatic—an effect. The babe at birth fails to withdraw its foot when
+tickled. After that action is associated with the peculiar sensation,
+the action always takes place when the sensation is produced, it being
+purely automatic, otherwise, a result or transformation of the cause.
+After the babe has learned to speak the word “papa,” whenever the
+environment forces the desire for father, automatically the word is
+said without any predetermination.
+
+[Sidenote: One thing an impossibility]
+
+_Everything in life is a combination of attributes; i. e., one thing
+an impossibility._
+
+The attributes of which any object is composed are of interest to us
+only as they affect our senses. The word “tree,” if disassociated with
+our sense-impressions, would mean nothing, but when its form (sight)
+and use (feeling) are associated with its name (sound), we for the
+first time have a comprehension of what in the English language is
+known as a tree. A foreigner, unable to understand our language, coming
+to this country and being asked for a match would have no conception of
+what we were talking about; after we have associated in his “mind” its
+form (sight), its use (feeling) and its name (sound), he would for the
+first time understand what was meant by the word match.
+
+[Sidenote: Matter]
+
+[Sidenote: Definition of thought and idea]
+
+All matter to be conceived must affect two senses; to be comprehended
+it must affect three or more. A cigar cannot be thoroughly comprehended
+with less than five. It has form, equaling sight; use, equaling
+feeling; a name, equaling sound; taste and smell. It is not necessary
+for man to comprehend the material of which it is made, or the skill
+that made it. The last two are inconsequential to him, other than in
+producing the desired effect on the senses. Therefore, all matter
+equals in comprehension the degree to which it affects man’s different
+senses, and if man can only comprehend through the effect on his
+senses, that comprehension which is called a thought, must likewise
+be a combination; hence, I will define a thought to be _two or
+more associated ideas, an idea being a percept through any of the
+senses_. The more ideas associated the more comprehensive the
+alleged thought.
+
+[Sidenote: Matter and form]
+
+Matter is comprehensible only in the degree to which it affects the
+senses; to be conceived it must affect two, to be comprehended, three.
+Form is comprehensible (when acquired) only when it affects sight and
+feeling, and a child must not only hear the word “round” but also feel
+of the object. The same with “straight,” “square,” et cetera. The round
+object through sight must transform itself into a feeling memory. Form
+is the outline of matter, and as nothing but matter is appreciable
+by man, the form of it conveys no impression except of the matter
+(feeling) within its boundary.
+
+_Nothing but matter is comprehensible to man._
+
+[Sidenote: Conception and thinking]
+
+The five senses to be impressed must be stimulated, and nothing but
+matter will produce the excitation necessary. Energy can move only
+through matter by disturbing matter; or, in other words, “nothing”
+is impossible and incomprehensible. Therefore, there is nothing
+appreciable but matter. Man can conceive of nothing that he has not
+experienced, and as all so-called thinking is but the correlation or
+passing through one’s mind the experiences associated, and as they have
+necessarily been the product of matter, nothing else is comprehensible.
+Consequently, man can conceive of nothing greater nor less than
+his individual experiences. It is impossible to lift him to your
+comprehension, you must drop to his.
+
+[Sidenote: Law of Nature (?)]
+
+If I speak to you of the “Law of Nature,” what sense-experience have
+you a memory of to be aroused by the utterance of the phrase “Law of
+Nature”? None. But if I tell you that the farmer ploughed the ground,
+sowed the seed, the Heavens gave forth rain; he then hoed around the
+seed, a sprout came up, and by more cultivation the sprout matured into
+a stalk of corn, the corn was then harvested; you would say “Ah, well,
+the farmer did all that. I fail to see what the ‘Law of Nature’ did,”
+because you can comprehend nothing that does not affect your senses.
+
+[Sidenote: Proper sense-memories]
+
+While lecturing in New York City two years ago, a very estimable lady,
+whose children were reared in a nursery and lacked many of the usual
+experiences of children of middle-class families, came to me and said:
+
+“Mr. Santanelli, can you cure my boy of a very vicious habit?”
+
+“Madam, what is the habit?”
+
+“He enjoys putting the cat on the hot stove to see it dance.”
+
+“Yes, madam.”
+
+“How long will it take you?”
+
+“One-quarter of a minute.”
+
+[Sidenote: Lacked a memory]
+
+My good reader, can you tell me what was done; if so, why? What ideas
+were associated in this lad’s mind as to the stove and cat? The
+different actions of the cat and nothing else. The stove being the
+force (suggestion) and the dancing of the cat the result, thereby
+arousing only a _sight_ memory. The lad lacked a memory. The
+moment there was given him a _feeling_ memory, he no longer cared
+to see the cat dance on the stove. His finger was held on the stove
+until it was blistered, which associated in his “mind” through the
+proper sense that heat produced pain, and substituted a memory of pain
+for the memory of the pleasure of seeing the cat dance.
+
+[Sidenote: The spiritual impossible]
+
+While in New York City, on Sunday mornings I attended an independent
+church, whose minister or lecturer is beyond all question one of the
+cleverest logicians of the day. On one Sunday in particular he preached
+a sermon claiming that the right religion has yet to be offered man;
+that the foundation of all doctrines so far offered us has been based
+upon a material premise; that the right founder will offer us one built
+entirely upon a spiritual basis. Such a thing is an impossibility,
+inasmuch as the _spiritual is incomprehensible_. The moment that
+one begins speaking of the spiritual he is using mere idle words,
+inasmuch as the spiritual has never affected any of his senses, hence
+he has no memory of its action; therefore, no ideas are properly
+associated, and the word possesses no meaning—his utterances are purely
+conjectural.
+
+[Sidenote: Building a thought]
+
+[Sidenote: Thoughts forced]
+
+I speak to you of a “thingamagig,” which is mere sound, arousing
+no thought in your “mind.” I show it to you and thereby associate
+sound—thingamagig—with sight—its form. I then teach you its
+use—feeling—and you comprehend it. The two ideas will give you a
+conception, but it requires the third to get a comprehension. I touch
+you. Can you help thinking of it? I show you my watch, and you think of
+it. You hear a sound, you think of it; you smell or taste something,
+and think of it; you have no control nor in any manner can you prevent
+the consciousness or the realization of the senses so affected.
+
+[Sidenote: Thinking]
+
+Man does not “think,” he realizes. Thinking is the transforming of
+energy (suggestion). I pinch you; it has happened and is registered
+irrespective of your “will power,” and when registered, you realize
+it. You see my hand move towards you; you see on my face an expression
+which arouses the thought (associated ideas) of being pinched, the
+alleged pain and the avoidance of it through the action of withdrawing
+your limb, which is but the transforming of the energy (suggestion)
+taken in through the eye and voiced in your action, all being done
+before you realize it, the transforming being instantaneous and must
+be registered before you are conscious of (realize) it. The “mind” is
+the realizing intelligence, and the actual mind is like the transformer
+of electricity in the main power station that receives one kind of
+electric current and sends out another. Into what action the received
+current will be transformed, depends on the ideas (currents) previously
+associated. The degree of action and its rapidity depends on the number
+of senses affected and the degree of force. Therefore, your thoughts
+are forced on you by your environment, and are the transformation of
+the suggestion; hence, man is a creature of his environment. Now, as
+I have defined a suggestion to be anything that arouses an action,
+anything that affects any of your five senses must be a suggestion;
+therefore, man is ruled by suggestion.
+
+[Sidenote: Man is like a phonograph]
+
+Man is like a phonograph; each thought a wax cylinder; the ideas
+associated the indentations thereon (memory). One sense puts the
+cylinder in position, the second sense drops the pin into place on the
+cylinder where the tune is begun. No thought can be put into action
+unless two senses are affected. When a series of ideas are associated
+into a thought, and the thought is forced into action, each idea in its
+proper place is certain to appear and it is beyond the power of man to
+resist it.
+
+I speak to you of a horse, immediately its form (sight), use (feeling),
+et cetera, appear to you, unconsciously.
+
+[Sidenote: Words]
+
+A word of itself arouses no action. In conversation, the environment,
+the expression on the speaker’s face, and the tone are the attributes
+that force the thought into action.
+
+[Sidenote: Words mean nothing]
+
+If one should go into the kitchen and tell Bridget, who is not afraid
+of losing her position, to remove the teakettle, she would ask, “Why?”
+Were it boiling over she would remove it, not because you told her, for
+you simply forced her to look at it; when she did so, seeing it boiling
+over, the removal of it was due to the conditions forcing themselves
+upon her through the eye. Had she no ideas associated as to a kettle
+boiling over, that its removal would stop it, there would have been no
+action.
+
+[Sidenote: Tone]
+
+I say to you, “Jump out of your chair,” and you remain seated. I ask
+you what was said, and you will reply that I said, “Jump out of your
+chair.” I deny saying any such thing. I said just what you _did_,
+because a thought is simply the transforming of energy. Thus an
+energetic wave affects the eye which is immediately transformed into
+the action associated with the expression perceived, or in this case,
+sound. If you had thought to jump out of your chair, the action would
+have taken place and you could not have avoided it. When I spoke the
+words, “Jump out of your chair,” the tone conveyed the opposite action;
+the expression on my face conveyed the opposite action, and the two
+senses affected put into action the thought of remaining in your seat.
+But, if with an expression of fear on my face and a tone of fear in my
+voice, I called to you “Jump!” you would have been out of the chair
+instantly, then looking at the chair and seeing no reason for jumping,
+you would have asked why I told you to jump.
+
+[Sidenote: Everything positive]
+
+Everything in life is positive. Your hand is not “not up,” but is
+down. A man who is seated is not “not standing up.” If I say to you,
+“You cannot take your hand from your face,” I am really making the
+affirmation that you will keep it there. I start a party of hypnotized
+subjects at spinning their hands, and then tell them that they cannot
+stop. What do they do? They spin the faster, because if they cannot
+stop they must go faster. There is where I learned it. Every statement
+must necessarily convey and can only convey an affirmation.
+
+[Sidenote: Sleep]
+
+[Sidenote: Attributes of sleep]
+
+If everything in life is a combination of attributes, sleep also must
+be a combination, but can man artificially induce sleep? No. Man never
+went to sleep, but sleep gathers round him. No two things in the
+world are the same, many things are similar. There are two matches on
+the table. Are these matches the same? They have the same form(?),
+the same name, the same use, but the material of which they are made
+is not the same. If it was, they would be one match. Therefore,
+real sleep can only be produced in one way, that way I do not know.
+What is called sleep I can pick apart, and find: First, that under
+ordinary circumstances, a person to be asleep must be in what is to
+them an easy position. Next, I find that in sleep “mind” is inactive.
+Next, the eye is either rolled up or converged, and then the eye is
+closed. The bringing together of these four attributes will result
+in what? If a thing is made up of four parts, and we bring the four
+proper parts together, we will have the whole. If we bring but three
+together we will accomplish but three-fourths. An inactive “mind” I
+want; therefore, I must have a very “small” thought, and as thought
+is all action, if I can pre-supply the action of the thought and have
+the subject maintain it, I then will have an inactive thought. As all
+of the attributes of a thought are certain to take place, and I am
+trying to induce a condition similar to sleep, the thought of sleep is
+the thought required. Consequently, if I could lock in the “mind” the
+thought of sleep, I would be able to accomplish my purpose.
+
+NOTE.—I call the thought of sleep and the thought that pain
+has ceased, blank thoughts, as they give forth no perceptible action.
+
+[Sidenote: Thought is action]
+
+If I tell you to sit up, the thought of sitting up is active to the
+extent of “sitting up,” after which the only action is that of holding
+or retaining the muscles in their present tension, which action is
+imperceptible.
+
+[Sidenote: As to inducing hypnosis]
+
+The dimmer a sound grows to the ear, the dimmer will be the thought of
+it. The dimmer an object grows to the sight, the dimmer will be the
+thought of it. Therefore, if I place my subject in an easy position and
+hold an object for him to look at in such a location that his eyes are
+either turned up or take the proper converged position, I will have two
+attributes of sleep. If I hold the object in such a way as to tire the
+nerves of accommodation, and _not the eye_ (because I would then
+be losing the easy position), the thought of his environment would
+pass out of his “mind” through his eye as the nerves of accommodation
+failed to perceive the object gazed at. While that thought is fading
+away through the eye, if I would supplant it through the ear with the
+thought of sleep, the moment that I have succeeded in doing so, and
+have brought together an easy position, upturned eye, closed eye,
+the thought of sleep, we will have a simulated sleep, differing from
+real sleep only in this: In real sleep there is _no_ thought;
+in hypnosis there is the thought of sleep, which nothing but the
+operator’s voice can change.
+
+[Sidenote: Difference between sleep and hypnosis]
+
+[Sidenote: As to motion]
+
+To show the mental difference between hypnosis and sleep, I have drawn
+a wheel (See Fig. 1) to represent the “mind,” each spoke representing
+a thought, which is made up of ideas (actions associated). When you
+are doing one thing you cannot do the second until you _stop_ the
+first, otherwise you would continue doing the first all your life.
+The moment you stop the first, just before beginning the second, your
+muscles are positively inactive. This point in mechanics is known as
+the “dead center.” The eye can distinguish (comprehend) no object in
+motion. There must be a point of rest, or the eye must move with the
+object which relatively produces a point of rest. This is demonstrated
+by the moving picture machine.
+
+Our scientists tell us that a wheel never stops in making a revolution.
+I always have and do still maintain that one-half of the wheel must
+stop going down before it can go up, and _vice versa_. If we will
+take a sixteen foot fly-wheel and lay off on it a square, we can see
+it stop. The piston of the engine that moves it stops, and I maintain
+that when we can see the spokes of a bicycle wheel as it revolves
+slowly, is when the eye can measure the stoppage, but when the stoppage
+is so brief that the eye fails to perceive it, we fail to see the
+spokes. When you are thinking of one thing you must stop thinking of
+that before you can think of the second, for no man can do or think of
+two things at the same time.
+
+[Illustration:
+
+  Awake      Asleep      Hypnosis
+
+FIG. 1]
+
+[Sidenote: Difference between hypnosis and sleep]
+
+[Sidenote: Mental condition of hypnotized person]
+
+By referring to the wheels you can see there is a blank on either side
+of every thought. When a person is asleep the “mind” is empty, the
+thought having faded away and the two blank spaces having merged into
+one, and the “mind” is free of thought. Assuming that in sleep the two
+merged blanks on either side of the thought will occupy a space of
+six inches, in hypnosis we have a blank space on either side of the
+thought, occupying two inches each, and an inactive thought occupying
+two inches, making up the six inches required; but in three parts—a
+blank, an inactive thought, and a blank. The subject is in this mental
+condition: First, the inactive condition of being awake—he has a
+thought; second, this thought being inactive (but of sleep), he has
+seemingly all of the attributes making up the condition of sleep, with
+the exception that the “mind” holds the thought; hence we can readily
+see that all action must necessarily be part of a thought, and will
+define hypnosis to be a _simulated sleep_, yet the subject has
+the most important attribute of being awake, he can accept and hold a
+thought. His condition is actually this: He cannot receive impressions
+but can respond with those already possessed. Thought will not
+respond to its environment and by my method thoughts can only be made
+responsive through the operator’s voice. If he were actually asleep
+and we attempted to arouse a thought, he would awaken. In hypnosis we
+can force the thought to remain at pleasure, therefore are enabled to
+deliberately study it and to find what attributes are necessary to
+force an action.
+
+[Sidenote: Recapitulation]
+
+To recapitulate: In hypnosis there is the dummy thought of sleep,
+holding the space of an active thought; the key—the operator’s voice.
+The subject is free from his environment, therefore no shifting of
+thought, thus illustrating my previous statement that man does not
+choose his thoughts (action), but has them forced on him by environment
+(suggestion).
+
+[Sidenote: Dreams]
+
+[Sidenote: Magnetic passes]
+
+[Sidenote: Law of suggestion]
+
+[Sidenote: Two positives]
+
+One is not asleep when dreaming, there being a thought in the mind;
+one is rarely over half asleep. A dream is the passing through the
+conscious mind (cerebrum) of a thought usually without the action
+taking place in the Sympathetic System—the cylinder of a phonograph
+going “zip” instead of running at the usual speed. I might state here
+to the amateurs that if the subjects take on hypnosis through the
+suggestion of so-called magnetic passes, the operator’s touch will
+force into play certain actions if previously comprehended (associated)
+by the subject. Suggestion means anything that arouses an action. This
+is the law: Surround a man with every suggestion or attribute of sleep
+and he will be asleep; surround him with every suggestion of virtue and
+he cannot help being pure, and no credit is due him. Surround him with
+every suggestion of vice and crime and he will be a criminal, and in
+no manner should he be held responsible. Remember, though, that every
+suggestion has two positives, one for and one against, and the body is
+the closest environment (suggestion).
+
+[Sidenote: Relaxation]
+
+The subject holding the thought of sleep, and that thought being made
+up of a series of attributes, all of which I do not know, has every
+appearance of being asleep. First, he is relaxed. Why relaxed? Is the
+contraction of the muscles a voluntary unconscious or an involuntary
+unconscious act? The babe must learn to draw up its limbs, to sit,
+to crawl, to stand, to walk. Therefore, it must be acquired, and
+is the result of a feeling suggestion. Is man conscious of it? You
+suddenly pull a chair from under him, he seems to be very conscious
+that the chair is going. Therefore it is an enforced, acquired action,
+unconsciously done in response to the suggestion of the environment.
+
+[Sidenote: Is the waking state hypnosis?]
+
+[Sidenote: Inspiration]
+
+[Sidenote: The subject always normal.]
+
+But a sleeping man is of little value to us. So we tell him that when
+he opens his eyes he will see a fly on the end of his nose, he will
+feel it biting, cannot brush it away, and to open his eyes. Is the man
+now in hypnosis? If hypnosis consists of an easy position, the thought
+of sleep, an upturned eye, a closed eye, he is not. As the subject
+has none of these attributes now, he cannot possibly be in hypnosis.
+He is now in a condition that I call “inspired,” meaning that the
+condition he is in was forced on him through the operator’s voice,
+instead of the natural suggestion of his environment. The man believes
+there is a fly on his nose; he sees it and is trying to brush it away.
+Perfectly rational, perfectly consistent. In fact, does he differ from
+the so-called normal—a word I cannot understand? If there was a fly on
+his nose and he felt it biting, he surely would think of it and try to
+brush it away. That is what he is doing now. Wherein does the subject
+differ from the ordinary? If the fly really alighted on his nose, the
+sense of feeling and sight would arouse the thought. Through hypnosis,
+that old thought is aroused through my voice; and, as his senses fail
+to arouse a thought, there is nothing to contradict my affirmation. The
+result thoroughly consistent, the man being in identically the same
+condition as when he held that thought, aroused and put into action
+through the proper senses. Therefore, it can be readily seen that the
+hypnotized subject is in a perfectly “normal” condition; save that
+he has had a thought aroused through hearing and emphasized through
+hearing which his environment would have aroused and put into action
+through sight and feeling.
+
+[Sidenote: Memory]
+
+[Sidenote: Impossible to implant a new thought]
+
+[Sidenote: As to sense-impressions]
+
+[Sidenote: As to sight]
+
+[Sidenote: As to pictures]
+
+Memory is the registration of ideas. A hypnotized subject retains no
+memory of what has taken place in hypnosis; we have only turned off
+from the cylinder what was already there, and that conditionally. Why
+is it impossible to put any thought in the “mind” of a hypnotized
+subject? Because it is impossible to register through one sense that
+which the economy of man is made to receive through another. It is
+impossible to describe color to a man born blind; or sound to one born
+deaf. The comprehension of the girl, Helen Keller, in Boston, to me is
+quite an interesting problem. I unhesitatingly state that the girl is
+a mere automaton; she has no ideas, no thoughts in any manner, shape
+or form similar to those of her teachers. We associate color with a
+stimulation of the nerve-ends of the eye and sound with a stimulation
+of the nerve-ends of the ear. Therefore, anyone lacking the ability to
+receive these two sensations can have no conception _similar_ to
+the one who does. Sight is the least trained of all our senses. A child
+or even an adult has to learn to read a picture. To one never having
+seen a picture, it is simply a blur of colors. A missionary in South
+Africa, showed the photograph of a cow to one of the native chiefs, who
+was the owner of vast herds; he looked at it and saw nothing. It took
+the missionary three days to make him comprehend. When he did, a smile
+illumined the chief’s face and he sent for other chiefs, showed it to
+them, and because they could not comprehend at once what he failed to,
+_he wanted to behead them_, a proof positive that he was becoming
+civilized.
+
+A man born blind and suddenly given his sight has no perspective.
+Perspective must be learned. The use (correlating) of the senses is
+acquired—must be learned.
+
+[Sidenote: Force (suggestion)]
+
+No man does anything because he is told to. He must always have a
+reason, which I call a force. Nothing that we tell him to do can mean
+anything to him unless there are two ideas associated to give him
+conception, three to give him comprehension. The soldier whose officer
+commands to “shoulder” or “present arms” does so not because he is
+told, but because he knows that if he refuses or fails to do so, he
+will be punished; or he hopes for a reward. These are the incentives
+that force the action, the mere telling him to do a thing would not
+cause him to act.
+
+The general public believes that all that is necessary to get a
+hypnotized subject to do something is to say to him, “Jump out of your
+chair,” and he will do so; but he will not. If his cerebrum was active,
+he would ask you why he should jump. But if we put the force there he
+will respond instantly. Therefore, if we say to him, “When you open
+your eyes, you will find the chair you are sitting on is red hot,”
+believing it to be hot, the action of getting away will take place at
+once, and he will jump out of the chair, not because we told him to,
+but because of the natural action to do so, forced by the suggested
+environment. In hypnosis the senses fail to convey ideas, therefore
+they do not contradict the statement that the chair is hot.
+
+[Sidenote: Mental condition of hypnotized subject]
+
+[Sidenote: Always normal]
+
+Let us now look at the mental condition of the subject: First, in his
+so-called normal condition he sits on a hot chair; through the sense
+of feeling he has the thought forced on him, and he jumps because of
+his first associated action. The thought of heat is transformed into
+the action of getting away from it. If he had no previous experience
+with heat, the action would not have been there to be forced into
+play. I now hypnotize him, and tell him that when he opens his eyes he
+will discover that he is sitting on a hot chair; to open his eyes, he
+does so, he jumps and repeats everything he did when he actually sat
+on the hot chair. In what way does the man differ from the so-called
+normal? Normally, there was a chair, heat, the man, a thought and its
+action. In hypnosis we have the chair, the man, the thought of the
+coming into contact with the heat, and its action. What is wrong? The
+man or the environment? It is the environment. The difference is this:
+There is no hot chair. Therefore, nothing to force the thought of such
+and accentuate the action of jumping. As I have forced such a thought
+through the ear and that not being the proper channel, it makes no
+registration and consequently can only be a thought re-used, and hence
+no memory. I maintain a man is perfectly normal in body and mind, and
+will only do what he would have been forced to do had he received the
+thought through feeling, the result being identical with “normal.”
+
+[Sidenote: Like a camera]
+
+[Sidenote: As a stereopticon]
+
+The automatic action of man is registered on the cylinder of the
+phonograph regulated by the picture taken. Man is also like a camera
+taking a photograph of his surroundings, which forces the cylinder of
+the phonograph into operation. In hypnosis the process is reversed and
+he becomes like a stereopticon, throwing out registered pictures. As it
+is impossible to light up a plate which is not there, we have another
+proof that nothing new can be introduced into the mind of a hypnotized
+subject. I can light up any plate upon which an impression has been
+recorded, but in no way can I change the detail. (Plate I.)
+
+[Sidenote: Environment]
+
+I shall next endeavor to show how one is ruled by environment
+(suggestion).
+
+[Sidenote: Suggestion]
+
+[Illustration: Non-hypnotized Man as a Camera, receiving and
+registering a picture of his environment.]
+
+[Illustration: Hypnotized Man as a Stereopticon, throwing out an
+inspired environment.
+
+PLATE I]
+
+We will assume that there are present three ladies of the following
+turn of mind: one who never overlooks an opportunity to dance, to
+attend a ball, a party; number two, who was of the same disposition
+at a former time, but who now has the thought that it is a sin, and
+number three who has _no_ conception of what a ball or party is
+like. We ask number one, while normal, to please get up and dance;
+she refuses(?). No, we have failed to force her. Being ruled by her
+surroundings she says, “This is no place for dancing.” She is here to
+listen to a lecture and she refuses(?). We hypnotize her and tell her
+that when she opens her eyes she will get up and dance. Will she? No,
+she will repeat the first answer, she refuses because, as yet, she
+has the same surroundings. She does not refuse, but responds to her
+environment which has all the suggestions positive against dancing.
+We can make her dance. How? By taking her to a ballroom.
+
+[Sidenote: Normal subservient to picture]
+
+[Sidenote: All action is “reflex”]
+
+When she is in hypnosis, the process can be reversed, bringing a
+ballroom to her. Normally the thought should be aroused through the eye
+and accentuated through the other senses. We will revive the thought
+through the ear by telling her “when she opens her eyes she will find
+herself in a ballroom, will see her friends dancing, will hear the
+music and will see her partner standing beside her.” When she opens
+her eyes, she _throws out_ a picture of a ballroom on her present
+surroundings and is perfectly normal, subservient to the picture thrown
+out. She seemingly sees, hears, smells, feels and tastes normally as
+to all things that pertain to the ballroom she has pictured. She has a
+ballroom thought placed there through her ear in lieu of through the
+eye, no other could she have were she in a ballroom. Seeing a partner
+by her side she accepts his arm and dances. If she should dance against
+a chair she would not see it, as it is not part of the picture, but
+through the sense of feeling she would respond to the suggestion
+which would force an action of apology as though she had bumped into
+another couple. (This completely exemplifies the action of man.) She is
+perfectly capable of carrying on a conversation and no one could tell
+she were not normal as to her inspired environment. She will do or say
+only what she would, were she in an actual ballroom. Every idea that is
+engraven on the cylinder will respond if forced. _When no action is
+recorded there is no reflex(?) to respond and the action is omitted._
+
+[Sidenote: As to detailed suggestion]
+
+[Sidenote: To make a thought active]
+
+We will assume that this young lady is dancing in a certain ballroom
+where a young man stepped on the train of her dress; she turned and
+slapped him. If we call to her, “Your dress has been stepped on and
+torn,” will she turn and slap an imaginary man behind her? No. We will
+get no more action than a frown on her face, as we have failed to put
+the thought in action; the thought of her dress being torn was made
+up of the _feeling_ of the pull, the _hearing_ it tear, and
+perhaps the _seeing_ of it (perhaps it was torn); three senses
+being affected. As we can deceive only the sight of a hypnotized
+subject, we can cause her to throw out a picture of a torn place in
+her dress, but as we failed to make her feel it tear, or to hear it
+tear, we have failed to put the thought in action by failing to affect
+_two_ senses.
+
+[Sidenote: Cannot deceive sense-memories]
+
+[Sidenote: Subjective mind]
+
+To further illustrate that a subject is “normal,” subservient to his
+picture and that the operator causes only the eye to be deceived, we
+will assume that there are on the stage a barber and a very fastidious
+young man, who takes a great interest in his shaving. We desire to put
+on a shaving act, that is, one man to sit in a chair, the other to put
+on him a barber’s apron, using a one pound paint brush and a large
+soup bowl full of lather to lather the customer’s face, and then to
+shave him with a wooden razor that weighs at least a pound and a half.
+Now, dear reader, which would you choose for the barber and which for
+the customer? No doubt, you would say, “Make the barber the barber
+and the fastidious young man the customer.” That would never do, for
+if you were giving an exhibition before a public audience, within
+two minutes many of the spectators would swear that the barber was
+“faking.” The sense highest cultivated in a barber is that of feeling.
+He sees the picture, well and good, but when he tries to tip back the
+chair it fails to tip, therefore feeling contradicts his sight; when
+he picks up the paint brush, feeling again contradicts sight; in fact,
+everything he does, every feeling memory that is actually associated
+and pronounced in him, is being contradicted (Hudson’s subjective(?)
+mind), and a smile will appear on the face of the actual barber. But if
+we reverse them and cause the fastidious young man who knows all the
+detail through his eye, and not through the sense of _feeling_,
+he will, seemingly, most perfectly go through the entire process of
+shaving, as there is no memory of feeling to be contradicted by the
+actual contact with the tools furnished.
+
+[Sidenote: Expression is thought]
+
+Again referring to the young ladies and the ballroom. Number two,
+although given the same inspiration, will wonder how she happened to
+attend, and is likely to ask for her wraps and desire to be taken
+home. What will be the appearance of number three when she opens her
+eyes? Her face will be a blank and her eye without expression, as we
+have failed to inspire her with a thought. Hence, we learn that _all
+expression is the result (part) of thought_. Having a thought of
+mirth, it is impossible to look sad, to speak firmly, or to give any
+action seriously.
+
+[Sidenote: Simulation impossible]
+
+[Sidenote: “Faking”]
+
+Another point here; _simulation is impossible_. No person can
+simulate closely enough to force conviction, as it is impossible to
+furnish all the attributes without having the actual thought. Tune a
+dozen violins to G, draw the bow over one and the others will respond;
+if one is not tuned to the note, there will be no response. Normal man,
+far more sensitive than the finest tuned instrument, cannot be deceived
+(made to respond). Let twenty subjects be inspired with laughter and
+among them one attempting to simulate, the audience will not laugh,
+that one discord will prevent a response. The indescribable tone must
+be there to force a result and this can only be when it is the result
+of a mirthful thought. Without the thought there can be no expression,
+therefore no person can simulate the inspiration. You read much about
+subjects who claim that they have deceived the public and the operator
+by pretending, or to use a common expression, they “faked.” Let me
+assure you that those persons deliberately lie. The man does not live
+who can so overcome and defy such a positive law. I have led into
+hypnosis over one hundred thousand persons and have yet to meet the one
+who could deceive a ten year old lad. The subject, to make you think he
+believes a fly on his nose through the particular contraction of the
+muscles of his face, the look in his eyes, and the gesture of brushing
+it away, must have that thought in his “mind.” The method of putting it
+there is what I call hypnosis. Call it whatever you wish, we hypnotists
+are the only ones who do this; and, furthermore, the only ones able to
+find these fellows who claim they are able to “fake.” The ordinary
+layman does not find them; we find them. We call it hypnotism.
+
+[Sidenote: Fallacy of a dual “mind”]
+
+[Sidenote: Avoid positives against]
+
+[Sidenote: Producing day-dreams]
+
+[Sidenote: See comprehension]
+
+To illustrate that a subject is normal, subservient to his picture, and
+that the claim made by Hudson that we have two minds, objective and
+subjective, which discriminate (an impossibility), is incorrect: In
+the ridiculous side of this art, the operator strives to emphasize and
+make use of day-dreams. We will assume that there are twenty subjects
+on the platform, all strangers to me. I desire to have some of them
+play on brooms for banjos. I carefully look them over and choose those
+whose appearance would suggest that they were accustomed to attending
+parties, dances, et cetera, who have full foreheads and other signs
+of being musically inclined. I am not looking for those who play, as
+you will comprehend later, but for those who have envied some player,
+for those who have mentally taken the place of a player. If I should
+say to them, “When you open your eyes, you will find a banjo in your
+lap, and you will play for us,” and they open their eyes they would
+refuse, saying, “We do not know how to play.” Yet, if I build around
+them a positive picture, being careful to avoid any positive against
+their playing, I can force them to respond, if at any time they have
+had a desire to be a player. So I tell them that “When you open your
+eyes you will find yourself on the stage, there is a banjo in your lap,
+you are a member of a banjo quartette; the curtain is up and it is
+your turn to move your chairs down the stage, to tune up and in turn
+play and sing your best song to entertain the ladies and children.”
+There being no positive against their playing, the day-dream will be
+reproduced. Of course, the result will be ridiculous, but that is what
+we desire. As to the mental condition of the players, each is his own
+thought of a banjo player; they respond to the audience, the applause.
+They could be allowed to go home as they are, yet if some one on the
+way should ask them to play they would be likely to do so. When they
+arrived home, they would carefully put away the supposed banjo, and the
+next morning would ask how that broom happened to be where it was. The
+subject is perfectly “normal,” subservient to his picture, it being,
+if he could tell it, “I am a banjo player. I am wide-awake; my conduct
+must be consistent with what I believe a banjo player to be.” Right
+here I will state that I lack the ability to properly describe the
+state of a subject; his cerebrum is not active, he simply responds, yet
+the explanation is not correct, but would be if the subject was using
+his cerebrum. For the ordinary reader the present explanation is the
+more comprehensible. In other words, a banjo player is a normal being,
+and although his clothes may not fit the subject, yet the subject will
+try his best to adapt himself to them. If one of the subjects should
+be a banjo player, a puzzled look will appear on his face the moment
+he tries to tune the instrument, and he will hand me the broom saying
+“I cannot play it; it has no strings.” The others would not attempt to
+play it if it had strings. Why? The moment the subject opens his eyes
+he is normal, subservient to his picture, and the first associated
+action of the player is to tune the instrument. The capable player has
+a very decided memory of the _feeling_ of the strings, his touch
+is normal; he can find no strings with his fingers although he can see
+them, but as he plays with his fingers they cannot be deceived, the
+force (cause, suggestion) is lacking, and his touch not being affected,
+no action is forced.
+
+[Sidenote: Cannot furnish emphasizing attributes]
+
+Those who do not know how to play have no feeling memory; they
+_see_ the strings and indiscriminately finger them; and, as
+there is no suggestion to inform them that they are not players,
+they continue. If there were strings on the broom, the moment they
+_touched_ them the idea that they could not play would be forced
+into action and they would refuse. Thus we can see that although the
+operator may be able to bring up the mental picture, he lacks the
+ability to furnish or make good the emphasizing attributes of the other
+senses that are necessary to force the completion of any act that
+is not extremely congenial to the subject, and no “abnormal” act is
+congenial.
+
+[Sidenote: Words without tone]
+
+I place a hypnotized subject at a table, a non-hypnotized man opposite
+to him, giving them a pack of cards, and they begin playing. The man
+opposite the subject undertakes to abuse him very severely. I stand
+behind the hypnotized subject and urge him on, till we get a quarrel. I
+hand him a pasteboard dagger and he stabs the man he is playing with.
+If he is given a steel dagger, he fails to close his hand on it. Why?
+First, there is _no quarrel_. His opponent lacks the _tone_;
+words without tone are ineffectual and put no thought in action.
+Therefore, the picture we have is one of a _simulated_ quarrel;
+and the pasteboard dagger, as it carries with it no ideas contrary to
+the picture, is readily used; but the moment we introduce the steel
+dagger, we introduce an attribute _foreign_ to the picture,
+therefore inactive, there being no action for the transforming, through
+touch, of the suggestion of the dagger.
+
+[Sidenote: Place the subject]
+
+[Sidenote: Furnish attributes]
+
+One more illustration: We desire to have the subjects go through the
+act of fishing. If I simply say to them “that when they open their eyes
+they will go fishing,” then tell them to open their eyes, they will not
+respond, as they are still on the stage, and there is no place thereon
+to fish. If I tell them that when they open their eyes they will find
+themselves alongside of a fishing stream, they will not respond even
+then; for, though man be alongside of a stream, he cannot fish without
+the proper attributes. Consequently, I must furnish each one with bait,
+hooks, lines and rods. These attributes, although _ghosts_, will
+force him to fish, provided he knows how. The subject sees no audience,
+neither can he hear one, for it is foreign to his picture. If a person
+from the audience should step up and take hold of the pole that is held
+by the inspired fisherman, he would not be seen; but, through feeling,
+the fisherman would have the idea that a big fish or a tree or a log
+had caught his hook and conduct himself accordingly. He sees the other
+fishermen, and will talk to them. I am only another fisherman, nothing
+more to him. If I were, the ideas associated would carry a picture of
+the stage. I can allow him to go home; he may show a string of fish
+that he does not possess, and might scold if they were not cooked as
+ordered. Otherwise, he is perfectly rational, such as any fisherman; he
+is his thought of a fisherman, which is that of a rational being.
+
+[Sidenote: Picture of ghosts]
+
+In all these scenes the subject is working in a picture (environment)
+of _ghosts_, furnished by himself and aroused in his mind through
+the voice of the operator. The thought cannot be changed by other than
+the operator; the senses are free only in relation to the thought,
+which, in most cases, makes the subject seemingly super-sensitive.
+
+[Sidenote: Man is a piano keyboard]
+
+Man is as a piano keyboard, played on by his environment. When we
+touch “a”, “g” does not refuse to respond, but we fail to force it.
+To the degree that we strike a note, is to the degree that there
+is a response. Man responds according to the degree of the force
+(suggestion) on two or more senses.
+
+[Sidenote: A guide]
+
+[Sidenote: Cannot be hypnotized]
+
+[Sidenote: Self-induced]
+
+[Sidenote: As to hypnotizing at a distance]
+
+A hypnotist is merely a guide—a leader—who teaches a subject how to
+_hypnotize himself_, and all _sane_ persons can be taught
+to take on this condition. An operator stands in about this position:
+If I should go to a city a stranger, and, standing on the street
+corner, meet the brightest citizen and ask him to show me the way to
+the postoffice, he naturally would reply, “Certainly, follow me.” I
+reply, “I will not walk, neither will I ride.” Why, the man would look
+at me in disgust and ask how I expected to reach the postoffice. So
+it is with many who sit down to be hypnotized. They will not give the
+operator their attention, yet expect the operator to lead them where
+they will not follow. Still standing on the street corner, I meet a
+half-witted lad, whom it has taken ten years to teach the way to the
+postoffice. I ask him to show me the way. He replies, “Certainly;
+follow me.” If I were insane, drunken, or half-witted, I would not
+be able to do so. I follow him and reach the postoffice, not because
+the half-witted lad has a stronger mind than the brightest citizen
+or myself, but he knows the way, is willing to lead me, and I, being
+capable of following do so, and consequently reach the postoffice. On
+the way, I noted the surroundings; the next time I can go there slowly
+without a guide, and after half a dozen trips can go as quickly as
+anyone in the town. So it is with the subject. I teach him how to take
+on hypnosis, and in a very short time he will require no prompting from
+the operator. It matters not whether you place the thought of sleep
+with your voice or by making passes over the subject, for the passes
+are feeling suggestion and will induce the same condition. You read of
+this wonderful “power” being exerted over the telephone. It is very
+simple. You have an office boy to whom you have taught the way to the
+postoffice. Being down town, it occurs to you that there may be some
+mail for you at the postoffice. You go to the telephone and ring up
+your office, tell the boy to go and get your mail. If the lad is so
+disposed, he will; otherwise, he will not, and you cannot force him.
+The same condition may be induced by writing to a subject, that when
+he “finishes reading this letter, he will go to sleep.” As hypnosis is
+self-induced, he can do so if so disposed.
+
+[Sidenote: Attributes necessary to a hypnotist]
+
+If you lack a firm voice and assurance, you lack the two most
+important attributes necessary to a hypnotist, and you should refrain
+from attempting to hypnotize. Your tone will fail to carry any
+suggestion other than a positive _against_ you and will contradict
+the words you utter. If you have assurance and a firm voice, know what
+hypnosis is, that words of themselves put no thought in action, that it
+is impossible to bring out of the mind of a person what is not there,
+or to arouse any thought unless _two_ senses are affected, you are
+prepared to learn how to teach a subject to take on what is known as
+“Hypnosis.”
+
+The first thing necessary is that the following formula be learned word
+for word:
+
+[Sidenote: Oral formula to induce hypnosis]
+
+“Take an easy position. Put your hands together thus. I am going to ask
+you to look at the end of this pencil. If you will do so and think of
+it, your eyelids will get heavy and close, or, if I close them for you,
+allow them to remain closed; then your head will fall to the front,
+your hands will drop to your sides and you will forget where you are.
+When I want you to awaken I will (tell you) say ALL RIGHT and clap my
+hands. Do you understand me?
+
+“At no time will you feel sleepy, but by giving me your undivided
+attention you will slowly forget where you are.
+
+“Drowsy, sleepy, drowsy, sleepy, drowsy, sleepy; as you go deeper
+asleep your eyelids get heavy and close.” (Repeat until accomplished.)
+
+“Drowsy, sleepy, drowsy, sleepy, drowsy, sleepy; as you go deeper
+asleep your head falls to the front.” (Repeat until accomplished.)
+
+“Drowsy, sleepy, drowsy, sleepy, drowsy, sleepy; as you go deeper
+asleep your hands get heavy and fall to your sides.” (Repeat until
+accomplished.)
+
+“This ear smarts, burns, stings and itches, and will stop only when you
+rub it a long time with your right hand. UGH! UGH! UGH!
+
+“You open your eyes only when I tell you. You awaken only when I say
+ALL RIGHT and clap my hands (I tell you). Now mind!” (Repeat this.)
+
+“You have an awful pain in this knee (thumb, when a lady), and it will
+stop only when you rub it a long time with both hands (right hand),
+UGH! UGH!” While he is rubbing it say, “When you look at it it will be
+a thousand times worse, now open your eyes.”
+
+[Sidenote: Attributes of hypnosis]
+
+Knowing that Hypnosis consists of:
+
+First, _An easy position_;
+
+Second, _Upturned or converged eyes_;
+
+Third, _Concentration_;
+
+Fourth, _Closed eyes_;
+
+[Sidenote: Easiest to hypnotize]
+
+Fifth, The substitution for the _concentration_ of the “locked in”
+thought of sleep;[1] who are the easiest to hypnotize? Those possessing
+the greatest concentration.
+
+Can the insane or half-witted be hypnotized? No; they cannot
+concentrate.
+
+[Sidenote: Who to choose]
+
+Therefore, choose for your first subjects, those with pronounced
+concentration, who are distinguishable by the fulness of their heads at
+the temples, and avoid those with big perceptives (shown by the large
+protuberance over the eyes).
+
+[Illustration: Put your hand together thus.
+
+To look at the end of this pencil.
+
+Will get heavy and close.
+
+Or if I close them for you.
+
+Allow them to remain closed.
+
+Your head will fall to the front.
+
+Your hands will drop to your sides.
+
+Will say “all right” and clap my hands.
+
+PLATE II]
+
+Experience has taught me that the professional musician in a regular
+orchestra, the player of classic music; a telegrapher, a first-class
+stenographer, or those whose business requires concentration; and
+naturally slow correlators, are more readily lead into hypnosis.
+
+Seat your subject in a chair and stand directly in front of him and
+repeat the following paragraph:
+
+[Sidenote: How to hypnotize]
+
+“Take an easy position. Put your hands together thus. (Plate II.) I am
+going to ask you to look at the end of this pencil. If you will do so
+and think of it, your eyelids will get heavy and close; or, if I close
+them for you, allow them to remain closed; then your head will fall to
+the front, your hands will drop to your sides and you will forget where
+you are. When I want you to awaken I will (tell you) say ALL RIGHT and
+clap my hands. (Suit the action to the word.) Do you understand me? At
+no time will you feel sleepy, but by giving me your undivided attention
+you will slowly forget where you are.”
+
+If you desire to send a person to a place of which he knows nothing, as
+to the manner of going you must necessarily give him full directions,
+so nothing that is certain to occur can divert him. So it is with a
+subject; he must know what to expect and thus be freed of all fear that
+might be aroused when the attributes occur, which otherwise would cause
+an active mind. The falling of the eyelids, of the head and the hands
+should arouse no thought other than the one you are suggesting to him
+through his ear, i. e., the thought of _sleep_.
+
+As _two senses_ must be affected to impress a thought, great care
+is necessary that whatever you _say_ you actually _do_, so
+the prospective subject can see as well as _hear_ it.
+
+[Sidenote: As to affecting two senses]
+
+Special attention is drawn to the sentence, “If you will do so your
+eyelids will get heavy and close; or, if I close them for you, allow
+them to remain closed.” Only three in ten will close their eyelids;
+the other seven after giving you the stare for some five minutes, must
+have their eyelids closed for them. If you will note in the foregoing
+sentence, I have said nothing about the eyelids “not closing,” but
+have made affirmations and _provided_ for the “not closing.” When
+you say to him, “Your eyelids will get heavy,” you must then close
+_your_ eyelids. When you say, “remain closed,” your eyelids must
+be closed while saying the words. When you say, “or if I close,” while
+uttering the words “I close,” you must with your fingers close your
+own eyes, taking care to immediately remove the fingers; otherwise
+you would convey through his eye the idea that you will hold his eyes
+closed (suggested to him by seeing you hold your own eyelids closed).
+Hence, if you close them for him, when you remove your fingers, the
+subject will open his eyes. When you use the words, “head falls to the
+front,” your head must move forward; and when you say, “hands fall to
+your sides,” your hands must fall.
+
+[Sidenote: As to awakening]
+
+If you will notice, there are two ways of awakening mentioned here;
+one is “When I tell you;” the other, “When I say ALL RIGHT and clap
+my hands.” (Which must be said with one breath.) You use “ALL RIGHT
+and clap my hands;” the doctor should use the other. The physician,
+desiring his patient to go away with some inspiration given him, simply
+says, “When you open your eyes you are awake,” and so and so is the
+case; for an inspiration given in hypnosis can only be responded to
+_in_ hypnosis. The operator in the parlor entertainment, when he
+has finished the performance says, “All right,” and claps his hands.
+
+[Sidenote: As to signs]
+
+[Sidenote: Expression of thought]
+
+Why do I desire the subject to put his hands together? To _see_
+them fall. The hands will unconsciously drift apart—the action will
+be entirely involuntary, and after a pupil has watched a dozen pairs
+of hands he will see that no one on earth can deceive him, as it is
+utterly impossible to simulate (consciously) an involuntary action. It
+is for the same reason that I desire the head to fall to the front—I
+wish to _see_ it fall—_knowing that when an action is part of
+a thought, to the degree that action takes place is to the extent
+that the thought is aroused in the “mind.”_ When the hands drop
+_relaxed_ to the sides, I know that the subject has forgotten or
+lost his environment, and therefore is in hypnosis.
+
+Now, I have told the subject exactly what would happen. If my pupil
+will carefully analyze the paragraph he will find that telling him to
+“Take an easy position” is the first attribute I desire. That to “look
+at the pencil,” if the operator holds it in the proper position, will
+force the eyes upturned, or converged; that if he thinks of the pencil
+he will furnish concentration. I then tell him as to the closing of
+the eyes; and then, if I slip into his “mind” the thought of sleep, I
+will have accomplished my purpose and have induced hypnosis.
+
+Now stand to the left of your subject, holding a lead pencil or your
+finger as in Plate III, and repeat _verbatim_ in a firm voice:
+
+“Drowsy, sleepy, drowsy, sleepy, drowsy, sleepy; as you go deeper
+asleep your eyelids get heavy and close.” (Repeat until accomplished.)
+
+“Drowsy, sleepy, drowsy, sleepy, drowsy, sleepy; as you go deeper
+asleep your head falls to the front.” (Repeat until accomplished.)
+
+“Drowsy, sleepy, drowsy, sleepy, drowsy, sleepy; as you go deeper
+asleep your hands get heavy and fall to your sides.” (Repeat until
+accomplished.)
+
+[Sidenote: Multiplying a thought]
+
+[Sidenote: Only one thought at a time]
+
+[Illustration: Upturned Eyes.]
+
+[Illustration: Converged Eyes.
+
+PLATE III]
+
+The sentence of “Drowsy, sleepy, drowsy, sleepy, et cetera, as you go
+deeper asleep your eyelids get heavy and close,” seems a long one. Why
+not make it shorter? Why not “Drowsy, sleepy, your eyes shut”? Is not
+that the same thing? No! “Drowsy, sleepy, et cetera, as you go deeper
+asleep the eyelids get heavy and close,” makes the closing of the
+eyelids one of the attributes of the thought of sleep; but when you
+say, “Drowsy, sleepy, your eyes shut,” you are trying to force into the
+“mind” of the subject two separate and distinct thoughts; _i. e._,
+to sleep—to shut his eyes—which is utterly impossible. Any operator
+who, in giving inspirations to the subject, leaves out his “and’s,”
+“as’s” and “but’s,” will fail, inasmuch as the ideas must be thoroughly
+correlated and be one thought, because thoughts may of themselves
+become ideas, or ideas become thoughts.
+
+[Sidenote: As to failure]
+
+We will assume that you held the pencil over the subject’s head for
+some half an hour and he failed to take on hypnosis. What is wrong?
+If he is not in an easy position (No. 1), that is your fault. Is his
+collar too high, is his head too far back, is his back too close to
+a radiator or fireplace, et cetera? Or, if a woman, is she laced too
+tight, do her shoes pinch, et cetera? Why is any easy position the
+first attribute of sleep? I mean by an “easy position” one in which
+the sense of feeling is not making discomfort a dominant idea; for
+if so, it is impossible to fade away the thought of the environment;
+therefore, before sleep can be induced, comfort through feeling must
+form itself into a natural attribute of sleep. The upturned eye (No. 2)
+is also for you to furnish. Are you holding the pencil in the proper
+place? If you strain the eye, you lose No. 1. Has the time come to
+close the eye (No. 4)? Is the subject concentrated? If not, you cannot
+accomplish No. 5.
+
+[Sidenote: As to concentration]
+
+It is a poor art or science if we must wait half an hour to discover
+whether the subject is concentrating or not.
+
+Having fifteen to twenty-five subjects on the stage and a restless
+audience waiting for an entertainment, what could be accomplished if
+I had to wait half an hour for each subject, to discover if he was
+concentrating?
+
+Every time one gets a new thought the _eye blinks_, although the
+eye may blink without a change of thought; but _never a change of
+thought without the blink_.
+
+NOTE.—Now, dear reader, when you stand before a mirror to
+experiment, remember that the making of another _idea_ dominant
+is not changing the thought. You may think you can change without
+blinking, but it is like people believing that a person can go on the
+stage and “fake” for a hypnotist, both of which are directly against a
+set law and impossible. If the world could learn that those attempting
+to deceive, deceive only themselves, there would be fewer failures in
+life.
+
+The moving of the eyeball shows the reviewing of the associated ideas
+and always occurs in those who have large perceptives (heavy projection
+over the eyes). They will think of the pencil but will divide and study
+its attributes, _i. e._, cost, color, form, et cetera, and are the
+subjects who require several drills. Their hands will fall stiffly to
+their sides (having taken on hypnosis about ninety-seven per cent). For
+complete hypnosis, the hands must fall _limply_.
+
+If the subject gives you the “baby stare,” and you fail to hypnotize
+him you had better—well, I advise my pupils under such conditions to
+jump into the river and say, “Here goes nothing.”
+
+[Sidenote: Proof of hypnosis]
+
+The subject being in a collapsed state or relaxed condition of the
+muscles, we know he is in hypnosis, but as a great many will not accept
+any thought of sleep without being stretched out, it is policy to
+lay them on the floor, which nearly always consummates the required
+attribute. The proof that he is in hypnosis is that he is relaxed.
+Perhaps he can simulate it; I can hold my arm relaxed? All right. Man
+can think of but one thing at a time; the subject’s eyes are closed. I
+take hold of his arm (he relaxes it); with my other hand I quickly lift
+his leg, and, if he knew how to simulate, he could not shift the action
+in time to deceive anyone.
+
+[Sidenote: To undo the hypnosis]
+
+[Sidenote: No action from direct command]
+
+A subject being in all the conditions of sleep is of no value to
+me,—the operator. I want one seemingly awake. Consequently, I want
+now to partially unbuild what I built. First, I give him what I call
+the “Ear Test,” the object of which is to find if I can replace the
+thought (cylinder) of sleep with another thought (cylinder) having
+a perceptible action to it. Therefore, I say to him, “Your right
+ear (touching it) smarts, burns, stings, itches, and will stop only
+when you rub it a long time with your right hand,” making with my
+mouth expressions of pain. If the subject rubs his ear, I have a
+demonstration that I have changed the thought. If I say to him, “Your
+ear smarts, burns, stings, rub it,” would I get any action? No, he
+would simply ask me which ear, if his cerebrum was active. Therefore,
+it is necessary for me to designate the ear, or properly, to state
+which ear, and touch it. I now tell him, “Your right ear, or this ear
+(touching it), smarts, burns, stings and itches, rub it.” Will he rub
+it? He will not, but will ask me why he should rub it, if his cerebrum
+was active, but if I said to him as above mentioned, “it will stop
+only when you rub it” he rubs it to cause it to stop, not because
+I told him to rub his ear, which I failed to do. Man does nothing
+because he is told to. While he is rubbing the ear I call to him,
+“The pain has stopped.” Instantly he ceases to rub it. Is the subject
+now in hypnosis? No, because he has the thought that the “pain has
+ceased” instead of the thought of sleep. His muscles are contracted
+into the position he happens to be in, the eye can be turned down; the
+inexperienced would say he was in hypnosis, the same as when lying limp
+on the floor. My experience proves to me that he is not in hypnosis; he
+has the thought of “no pain” which is a blank thought similar to the
+thought of sleep, but you will find that the muscles are in a different
+condition.
+
+[Sidenote: Voice rules]
+
+The subject can only respond to my voice, he being free of his actual
+environment. _My voice now being his environment_, I must pull
+apart nearly all that has just been brought together. To open his
+closed eyes is the most powerful suggestion of being awake. If I could
+only teach the subject now to open his eyes, to turn them down and
+still respond to my voice only, he would be in the condition I desire.
+So I say to him in a firm voice:
+
+[Sidenote: Unbuilding]
+
+“You open your eyes only when I tell you; you awaken only when I say
+ALL RIGHT and clap my hands (I tell you). Now mind!” (Repeat this.)
+
+[Sidenote: Disassociating ideas]
+
+[Sidenote: Always one thought]
+
+I then cause him to rub his knee in the same manner as I cause him to
+rub his ear, by designating the knee as follows: “You have an awful
+pain in this (touching it), the right knee, and it will stop only when
+you rub it a long time with both hands.” While the subject is rubbing,
+I say, “When you look at it, it will be a thousand times worse. Now
+open your eyes.” If he opens his eyes and continues to rub it, he is
+practically my subject for the _first_ time. In this way we play
+on him a psychological trick; first bringing up in his “mind” the
+thought of pain; then disassociating the opening of the eyes with the
+idea of awakening, and substituting for it the idea of more pain. We
+do not tell him that “When you look at it, it will be a thousand times
+worse; now look at it.” Because, if his cerebrum was active, he would
+refuse to look at it. We tell him to open his eyes, and if he opens
+them, he certainly will look at it. We now say to the subject, “Close
+your eyes, the pain has ceased;” then saying, “When you open your eyes
+you will find yourself on the floor. Naturally you will get up and
+sit on the chair. The moment you sit down you will discover that you
+have a very severe nose bleed; now open your eyes,” the “now” being
+necessary as a conjunction to connect it with the previous statement.
+Otherwise, the subject would be likely to take the sentence, “Open
+your eyes,” as a separate thought, do so and lie there on the floor
+with his eyes open. The subject opens his eyes, gets up, sits on the
+chair, and discovers his nose to be bleeding. Is this subject now in
+hypnosis? Decidedly not. His muscles are contracted, in response to his
+feeling (environment); his eyes are open and in the “normal” position;
+he is not necessarily in a comfortable position. Other than that his
+cerebrum is inactive, or that the thought of a nose bleed has been put
+into an automatic action through his ear, no sense will respond to
+his environment unless it has a relationship to his present thought;
+he will continue to give action to all the variations of that thought
+until the operator’s voice changes it.
+
+Words are of little value to explain the condition of a “hypnotized”
+subject or “normal” man.
+
+[Sidenote: As a typewriter]
+
+[Sidenote: Man is like a typewriter]
+
+I shall try to draw a sight picture to make you comprehend. You have
+seen a typewriter. On the keyboard is a pin marked “G”; fastened
+(associated) to that is a lever, to that, two more. On the end of the
+last is the type “G.” When the pin with the letter “G” marked on it is
+touched, three actions take place, and “G” is reproduced on the paper
+on the cylinder of the machine. (Analyze the action of lifting or
+taking hold of an object.) Until those three levers are properly fitted
+(associated), it will be impossible to get an impression on the paper
+by striking “G,” but the moment that they are properly associated,
+every time you strike “G,” “G” is reproduced on the paper and nothing
+else can be. “G” equals the energy exerted (suggestion) on the pin “G.”
+If we hit a space on the keyboard that has no lettercap, there is no
+response on the paper. Man is like a typewriter; when we hit the cap of
+a letter that has the proper actions associated, there is a response
+on the paper; when we offer him and he receives (he don’t receive), a
+suggestion of which he has no associated ideas, there is no response
+because there is no action to respond.
+
+[Sidenote: Abdominal brain]
+
+_A hypnotized subject does not hear me, cerebrally._ He
+only responds to me. A “normal” man both hears and responds. The
+consciousness of realization of seeing, hearing, et cetera, is only in
+the cerebrum. The brain that retains the impressions and responds, is
+the Abdominal Brain—the Sympathetic System.
+
+[Sidenote: Environment rules]
+
+As a hypnotized subject is but as the keyboard of a typewriter, played
+on by and through his aroused memory of environment, so also must man
+be played on by and respond to his actual environment. In inspiring
+subjects with any condition, if we fail to emphasize or draw particular
+attention to less than two senses, the effect will be unsatisfactory.
+
+[Sidenote: “Dopy” expression]
+
+[Sidenote: As to inspiring]
+
+[Sidenote: Improper inspiring]
+
+Among the masses there has been a great objection offered to my work,
+inasmuch as the people remark that they could not tell if Santanelli’s
+subjects were hypnotized except by seeing them doing things that they
+knew would not have been done were they not hypnotized. Whereas, with
+all other operators they could see that the subjects were hypnotized
+because their faces and eyes showed it. Why? A comprehensive thought
+must express itself in the face and eye—a comprehensive and intelligent
+expression; but where the subject lacks a comprehensive thought he has
+that “dopy,” hypnotized (?) expression. Being a master of suggestion
+and thoroughly understanding how to build, I make my subjects
+thoroughly “normal,” subservient to their pictures. When they had the
+thought of “fly” it was so definite, all sense-pictures having been
+emphasized (aroused), that the man or the subject was in identically
+the same position or condition of “mind” that he was when an actual
+fly was on his nose. The secret is this: The other operators tell the
+subject that when he wakes up, equaling my “When you open your eyes,”
+he would find a fly on his nose; something very indefinite. “Normally,”
+how would you know there was a fly on your nose? You would _feel_
+it. Is that enough? No. It might be a mosquito, it might be an ant, it
+might be a wasp. You _look_ at it and then you know that it is a
+fly, and by-the-by, let me state here that _man knows nothing, but
+believes much_; for if the senses are imperfect, what he knows, he
+doesn’t know. I say to a subject, “When you open your eyes you will
+see a fly on the end of your nose,” covering two senses, the object
+itself (sight) and the place (feeling) which is irritated; “you will
+feel it bite and cannot brush it away.” Now, I have covered three (?)
+senses: The subject first feels the fly on the end of his nose, he
+sees it to be a fly, and he feels very comprehensively its irritation.
+Hence, he has no doubt. Could his “mind” be more active, could he be
+more positive if he were “normal?” No. “Dopy” subjects are the result
+of improper inspiration. If you say to a subject, “When you open your
+eyes you will find the chair is hot,” that is very indefinite. But if
+you say to the subject, “When you open your eyes you will _feel_
+the chair you are seated on is red hot,” he will get out quick. In
+the lesson I told you that if you left out your “and’s,” “as’s” and
+“but’s,” you would fail to get a good inspiration.
+
+There are some ideas or thoughts which cannot be correlated or
+associated. If you tell a subject he cannot let go a cane, it
+necessarily follows he must hold on to it; hence, cannot drop it. If
+you tell him it is red hot he will drop it, because it is against
+nature (?); _i. e._, experience, to grasp a red hot object, and
+not be able to drop it. If you tell him that he cannot let go the cane
+and it is getting warmer, hotter, you can produce an effect up to a
+certain degree; there will be a certain contraction of the muscles and
+a certain expression of pain in the face, but the moment that you make
+the heat dominant he will drop the cane every time if he is a man of
+ordinarily good correlation. If you have a thick-headed subject, there
+is no telling what the result will be. Man is wonderfully compounded
+and you will meet combinations some days that no man could build a
+philosophy on. The exceptions to the foregoing are the isolated cases
+where the subject has never experienced being severely burned. Perhaps
+dulled nerve-ends. (See Degenerates, pages 15 and 159.)
+
+[Sidenote: Actually awake]
+
+[Sidenote: Post-hypnosis impossible]
+
+I unhesitatingly assert that I (which also includes my pupils) am
+the only operator who ever dismissed his subjects actually awake. If
+hypnosis is the thought of sleep, the antithesis to that must be the
+thought of being awake, and when we tell the subject he is awake he has
+the thought of being awake, just the same as we tell him there is a fly
+on his nose. The snapping of the fingers is of no value. To awaken, we
+must startle him, and if he is awakened properly, a post-hypnotic (?)
+suggestion is an impossibility. So I reiterate that any inspiration
+given _in “hypnosis”_ can only take place _in “hypnosis,”_
+never minding what the quasi “authorities” tell us.
+
+[Sidenote: Hypnosis and pain]
+
+[Sidenote: Waking state]
+
+A subject suffering with headache comes to me to be cured. If the
+subject has never been led into hypnosis it is impossible to hypnotize
+him the first time if he is suffering from the headache, inasmuch as
+No. 1, “Easy position,” cannot be acquired; the suggestion of pain
+forces a thought which cannot be faded away through the eye, and
+no thought offered in substitution is forceful enough to overcome
+it. But if he has learned how to take on hypnosis, it can be done
+so quickly that if the thought of pain is not too severe, it can be
+readily overcome. If the pain be extremely severe, hypnosis cannot
+be induced. I tell the subject that when he opens his eyes he will
+have no headache and be wide-awake, and he is now in the condition of
+believing himself to be awake with an idea of “no headache”—awake as in
+a looking-glass—but if he were actually awake, the cause that produced
+the headache, being still present, would get its natural response and
+he would feel the headache. Therefore, it can be readily seen that the
+subject is not himself _truly_. Yet, having the thought of being
+awake, he necessarily has _all_ the attributes of the thought, and
+as far as one can perceive, is awake. Stand in front of a mirror. You
+see yourself? No, a reflection—a thought of yourself.
+
+If I said “All right” and clapped my hands, the subject would be in the
+identical condition as when he came to me; _i. e._, feeling the
+headache.
+
+[Sidenote: Two awakenings]
+
+I teach you to awaken the subject two ways; one by giving the
+inspiration that he is awake, and the other by saying, “All right”
+and clapping my hands. Now, my dear pupil, if I should clap my hands
+first, then say, “All right,” would the subject awaken? No. Why not?
+Because that is not the way you told it to him (?). If I was personally
+giving you the lesson, I would say “rats.” What rules the subject?
+Your voice. If I clap my hands, could he hear it? Yes (?). If that be
+true, he could hear every sound; that constitutes being wide-awake. You
+mean “No.” He could not and cannot hear the clapping of my hands, but
+when I say, “All right,” as my voice rules and is his environment, the
+associated action is to listen for the clapping. But must I personally
+clap my hands? Yes (?). How can he distinguish the clapping of my hands
+from those of some one who is standing beside me? He cannot; anyone
+beside me could clap his hands, or a pair of clapsticks would be just
+as effective. He must be startled; and cannot be startled until I have
+used the words, “All right.”
+
+[Sidenote: A hypnotist (?)]
+
+Now, as you know how to induce hypnosis, know how to handle the subject
+by building an environment around him, taking care to name _all_
+of the senses necessary to enforce a response to the environment, you
+are a hypnotist (?). No. I have taught too many, and feel that you
+still fail to comprehend me.
+
+[Sidenote: Importance of sense-impressions]
+
+[Sidenote: Name every sight suggestion]
+
+You have a hypnotized subject in your room. We will assume it is
+up one flight of stairs. What will you say to him when you desire
+him to go to the postoffice? Now, mind, he doesn’t know the way to
+the postoffice, he is a stranger. Why, _you_ would say to him,
+“When you open your eyes, you will go to the postoffice and get me
+a letter,” and the subject will fail to move; because, remember
+this, a hypnotized subject is a blind man. He doesn’t take _in_
+impressions, he throws _out_ pictures; but the other senses are
+of such greater importance, forcing through actions already acquired,
+that man, failing to comprehend the value of this law of attributes,
+overlooks the importance of the other senses. Treat a hypnotized
+subject as a blind man. He is now sitting in the center of my room up
+one flight of stairs, and I say to him, “When you open your eyes you
+will find yourself in my room. There is an important letter for me at
+the postoffice which I am desirous that you, as a good fellow, will go
+and get for me. The moment you stand up you will walk five feet to your
+left and you will come to the door, on the left side of that door is
+the knob; the door opens towards you. Passing out of the door for two
+feet you will find the head of the stairs; by putting your hands on the
+banister at your left, you can follow down the stairs. To your right is
+a door with the knob on the right, which opens towards you. You pass
+into that room four feet, then turn to the right, go three feet and you
+will find another door with a knob on the right, which opens towards
+you; go through the doorway and you will turn to your left; you walk
+two feet, then turn to the right and walk eight feet, when you will
+come to another door with the knob to your right. You will open that
+door and step on to the porch. After walking four feet you will come to
+three steps. By walking straight ahead eight feet, you will come to two
+more steps. You will then be on the sidewalk. You will walk twenty feet
+to reach the corner of the street, turn to your right and cross the
+street, et cetera.”
+
+[Sidenote: Name all sense attributes]
+
+Again, my pupil, you have a subject sitting in the center of the room,
+and wish him to go to the radiator on the opposite side of the room to
+comb his hair at an imaginary looking-glass. What will you say to him?
+Why, _you_ will say to him, “When you open your eyes, you will
+go to the looking-glass just across the room from you and brush your
+hair (?).” The subject opens his eyes, but will not move. Why? Why do
+people brush their hair? Because it is disarranged. Therefore the first
+thing the subject must know is that his hair is tousled; then he must
+be told exactly where the looking-glass is and that on this affair is
+a comb and brush; or, in other words, you must name the sight for him,
+because through hearing and sight, in many cases we reach the identical
+result. You, reading this book, are really receiving sound impressions;
+I am giving you words through your eye. With a hypnotized subject,
+we are giving him sight through his ear. The more sense-pictures we
+specifically arouse, the more comprehensive the action of the subject;
+provided, the things he comes in contact with do not give him directly
+opposite suggestions.
+
+[Sidenote: Parlor exhibit]
+
+[Sidenote: May fall over]
+
+[Sidenote: “Dopy” subjects]
+
+We will assume that you are giving a parlor entertainment. You have
+led your subject into hypnosis, and have him back into his chair. He
+has the nosebleed. Now, pupil, what are you going to do? Hypnosis is
+the spoon with which you give your medicine. When you are tired of
+any action, conditionally awakened in said subject, induce hypnosis
+again. Say to him, “Close your eyes, go deep asleep,” and now we are
+where we started from. We again have hypnosis; then tell him, “When
+you open your eyes, so and so will happen, or is the case.” If the man
+is standing up and you say to him, “Close your eyes, go to sleep,” or,
+“You are asleep,” he will fall over, because one of the attributes
+of sleep is the relaxed muscles. Therefore, when he is doing any
+action, associate with that action that it will be more congenial or
+comfortable for him to take his seat, then tell him to close his eyes,
+he is deep asleep, or you must step up beside him and catch him in
+your arms. Now, the necessity for this may not always be apparent.
+Many amateurs will say, “Not necessary;” but I am writing of a man or
+operator who is working clean-cut and is not allowing the subject to
+be “dopy,” half conscious (?) of his environment, half conscious of
+the inspiration given him. If the subject is completely lost to his
+environment, as he should be if the operator understands his business,
+he will drop over every time. Now, I know that many of these statements
+amateurs will deny, but I unhesitatingly answer that if they know their
+business and work correctly they can demonstrate every affirmation
+made here; that they all work with “dopy” subjects; that they do not
+and have not ever comprehended the Law of Suggestion; they do not get
+perfect or correct work from their subjects.
+
+On the stage when I wish to conclude an action, I thoroughly awaken my
+subjects, allowing them to take their seats and enjoy laughing at the
+others. As hypnosis is entirely a self-induced condition; that is, a
+man with ordinary intelligence can learn to take it on at once after
+the first time, I consequently awaken him. When I want to use them
+again, I tell them to put their hands together, close their eyes and go
+to sleep; they readily take on the attributes necessary; I repeat to
+them, “Drowsy, sleepy,” et cetera, a couple of times and they are in
+hypnosis, after which I inspire them with any thought I see fit.
+
+[Sidenote: Pre-inspiration]
+
+As it is apropos, I shall here tell of two occurrences which will
+demonstrate the self-induced (pre-inspired, “auto-suggested”) condition
+as to hypnosis. While lecturing through Michigan in 1895, I preceded
+every exhibition with an hour’s talk on hypnosis, et cetera, carrying
+the story from night to night for the six nights. A majority of the
+drummers traveling through the country made it their special duty to
+hear and comprehend the entire six lectures. One of these drummers had
+a son fifteen years of age; his residence, a town in Ohio. One day
+he received a telegram from his wife saying that their son had been
+a subject for some hypnotist, who a week prior had exhibited in the
+town, and that the son now was in such a condition that every time
+she told him to go to school he fell asleep and could not be aroused,
+and nothing could be done with him. The father, having thoroughly
+comprehended my lectures, wired the mother not to worry, that he would
+go home. He did so. After getting off the train, he went to a harness
+shop and bought a buggy whip, arrived home and asked John why he didn’t
+go to school, and John told him that the professor had left him in
+such a condition that he could not go to school. The father said, “Well
+and good; I will remove the effect of the professor,” and gave the boy
+a good horsewhipping; ever since he has attended school without the
+least sign of hypnosis.
+
+Another: In L——, New York, a very bright lad of thirteen or fourteen
+years of age was on the stage with me three or four nights. On Saturday
+night his mother and sister came to me in the dressing-room and said
+they could do nothing with the boy, that every time they told him
+to chop the wood or draw water, he would fall over asleep, and they
+said they were going to have me arrested. I asked her if she would do
+exactly as I told her, informing her if she would she would have no
+more trouble with the boy. The mother, being a good, sensible woman,
+said she would. I told her to take the boy’s pants down, lay him across
+her lap face downward, and warm him with her hand, which she did. Some
+three weeks afterward I met her and she told me she had no further
+trouble.
+
+[Sidenote: Doctors trying to awaken subjects]
+
+[Sidenote: Awakening]
+
+A few years ago professors (?) in the dime museums of the large cities
+used to put subjects to sleep and, failing to awaken them, would send
+for physicians. The learned (?) doctors, after applying electricity,
+cautery, et cetera, in the course of eight or ten hours awakened (?)
+them, only they didn’t; the hypnosis passed off. Why is it that every
+operator excepting myself, and I state this unreservedly, has had
+trouble many a time in awakening his subjects. In a town in Illinois I
+arrived late. I was carrying one subject, and was anxious to get as
+many local subjects as possible for my first night’s performance, as it
+is often very hard to get volunteers on the first night. Some amateur
+hypnotists came around and said they could get me some. At last they
+produced a most horrible specimen of humanity and asked me to hypnotize
+him. I remarked that I would not allow him on the stage; then they
+said. “As a favor to us, please hypnotize him.” I looked at the fellow
+and said, “Go to sleep.” He replied, “Magnetize me.” I said, “You fool,
+you know how to go to sleep; go!” He failed to do so. I made some
+passes over his face and he took on hypnosis, but he worked “dopy.” In
+about five minutes I got him to work with a clear eye. I said, “All
+right,” clapped my hands and he failed to awaken. Smiles appeared on
+the faces of the five amateurs standing around. Again I said to him,
+“All right,” and clapped my hands. He again failed to awaken. The
+amateurs continued to smile, some tittered. I readily perceived what I
+was “up against,” and I said to the subject, “—— you, when I say ‘All
+right’ and clap my hands, if you do not awaken, I will throw you out
+in the snowbank and leave you rot, you ——.” I said, “All right,” and
+clapped my hands and he nearly went through the ceiling. The amateurs
+stood around with their mouths open and said to me, “Mr. Santanelli, do
+you teach?”
+
+“Yes, at twenty-five dollars a lesson.”
+
+“Will you teach five of us for less?”
+
+“Yes, one hundred dollars.”
+
+And these clever amateurs paid me the one hundred dollars. The subject
+they brought me was one that, after experimenting upon, was always left
+to lie on the floor from six to ten hours, as they could not awaken him
+and he had to “sleep it off.”
+
+[Sidenote: Never fail to awaken]
+
+[Sidenote: Have confidence]
+
+[Sidenote: Voice]
+
+Now, to answer the question previously asked, “Why is it that I have
+never failed and all others do fail?” The reason is simply this: That
+when we put the thought of sleep into a subject’s “mind,” it must be
+done with a firm voice. That is the key. The moment we become doubtful
+or frightened, we have lost the firm voice; inasmuch as the voice is
+the utterance of the “mind,” and what we think, we say in tone and
+in action; if we are frightened and say, “All right,” to the subject
+and clap our hands, he doesn’t respond to it because we have lost the
+key; but if we _never get rattled_, there is no possibility of
+failing to awaken the subject. It may be that we will be obliged to
+use language expressed by dashes—such a case happened in a city in
+Arkansas. A young lady had been reading about the woman who had been
+asleep in St. Louis for thirty days, and whom none had been able to
+awaken. Of course, she was a neurotic. When I said, “All right,” and
+clapped my hands, she failed to awaken. Her friends in the parlor
+became greatly frightened, so I asked them to retire; then quietly
+informed the lady that if when I said, “All right,” and clapped my
+hands, she failed to awaken I would have to do things that would be
+very inelegant, seemingly ungentlemanly, and above all things I was
+not there to be made a —— fool of. I then said, “All right,” clapped
+my hands, and she was wide-awake. Keep your nerve, always treat a
+hypnotized subject as a rational being, and there will be no trouble.
+If you are possessed of a doubt as to the subject awakening, you are
+lost; he may be awakened to the degree of “lack of doubt,” but not
+thoroughly. The operator’s voice is the thought (in action).
+
+Man is like a piano keyboard, played upon by his environment; as we
+touch the keys, so is the response. Hit vigorously and there will be a
+corresponding result. When we strike key “A,” do the other notes refuse
+to respond, or have we failed to force (suggest) them?
+
+[Sidenote: Treat all subjects as rational beings]
+
+My audiences have wondered why it is that when I get a subject whom
+some one else has operated on (as I call it “handled”), and he goes
+through many gyrations while going into hypnosis, that I say to him,
+“Now, my dear fellow, there is no need of this ‘monkey-shine.’ You
+go quietly to sleep; otherwise, you and I will have trouble,” after
+which I have but little trouble with the subject, and the people say,
+“That’s funny; I wonder if he was ‘faking?’ How can he talk to them as
+he does?” A hypnotized subject must comprehend; that is, his Abdominal
+Brain must respond and words when given him must arouse thoughts. The
+operator should know how to use words with the proper emphasis and
+construction.
+
+[Sidenote: Place the subject]
+
+The first attribute of all consciousness is “place,” and the subject,
+when he opens his eyes, is always in the place where he went to sleep
+unless that place has been changed by the operator. Therefore, _first
+place the subject, then give him the attributes_, naming each sense,
+thus: “When you open your eyes, you will find yourself in a certain
+place, and you will see so and so, and you will hear so and so, and you
+will feel so and so,” covering feeling, seeing, hearing, and feeling as
+to minor attributes.
+
+[Sidenote: Inspiration]
+
+[Sidenote: One picture at a time]
+
+Assuming that we desire the subject to go through the actions of
+milking a table for a cow, the inspiration should be as follows: “When
+you open your eyes, you will find yourself seated on the back porch
+of a farmhouse. You will see a small cow before you in the yard. The
+cow requires milking; there is a milk bucket at your feet. You will be
+careful with the cow, inasmuch as she is very nervous, and as the flies
+bother her, she is likely to switch her tail. You must refrain from
+swearing as the ladies can hear any remarks which you make.” If you
+should say, “You must not swear as there are ladies in the audience,”
+what would be the result? The subject, when he opened his eyes, would
+sit still, because the word “audience” rearouses the thought of where
+he went to sleep. Only one picture at a time can be held in the
+“mind,” and that picture must be thoroughly consistent, for if at any
+time through the misunderstanding of correlation you step without the
+picture, you will either get no effect or a “dopy” subject.
+
+[Sidenote: Awakening]
+
+[Sidenote: As to hearing]
+
+[Sidenote: Passes]
+
+If I hypnotize a subject can anyone other than myself awaken him?
+Decidedly not. What will awaken him? My telling him that he is awake
+(?) or my saying, “All right,” and clapping my hands. If anyone else
+tells him he is awake will he awaken? No. Because he does not hear
+(respond to) them. As far as the general public is concerned, being in
+hypnosis consists only of taking a thought from the operator’s voice.
+If he could hear (respond to) anyone else, he could hear (respond to)
+all sounds and each and every sound would arouse some thought, and he
+would be wide-awake. The consciousness or realizing is “being awake.”
+Those put to sleep by magnetic (?) passes can be awakened by another
+operator, as the subject goes to sleep with his sense of feeling
+acute, and has been taught that when he feels upward strokes he will
+awaken. He has no way of distinguishing (?) who is the one that is
+making the strokes; yet a super-sensitive subject, very familiar with
+the operator, will unconsciously be able to distinguish, _or, more
+properly, will respond_.
+
+What things can you most readily put a subject at doing? Things likely
+to occur to _him_ at any time.
+
+Reader, I am still afraid you are not a hypnotist.
+
+[Sidenote: Environment]
+
+We will assume that you are a gentleman and you have one of your
+companions, a gentleman, hypnotized, seated in a parlor that is filled
+with your lady friends. You desire him to take off his coat. What would
+you say to him? _You_ would say, “When you open your eyes, you
+will find that your coat is on inside out.” What would he do? Being a
+gentleman, and in the presence of ladies, he would look abashed and
+might go into the hall and change his coat, but we desire him to take
+his coat off in the parlor before the ladies. What must we do? Give him
+a new environment. Tell him that when he opens his eyes he will find
+himself in his bedroom, it is evening, and excessively warm. “Now open
+your eyes.” Is he now in the parlor filled with ladies, or is he in his
+own room? Man is ruled by his environment. _First place your man,
+then give him the attributes._
+
+[Sidenote: A bad inspiration]
+
+In a city I visited last winter a doctor informed me that the year
+before a hypnotist had visited their city, given some very enjoyable
+performances, besides putting a man to sleep in a window; that he
+thought the hypnotist was a fraud inasmuch as that one day he was
+in the store where the fellow was sleeping, and the hypnotist said,
+“Doctor, feel of the man in the window, he is stiff.” The doctor said,
+“And when I felt of him I very decidedly felt him become rigid, which
+satisfied me that the operator was a fraud.”
+
+[Sidenote: Correct inspiration]
+
+That was not the case, the operator did not know how to give his
+inspiration; the subject necessarily is forced to respond to the
+operator when the operator’s voice is firm. When he said to the doctor,
+“Feel of him, he is stiff,” he told the subject, “When the doctor feels
+of you, become stiff.” But if he had said to the doctor, “The subject
+is stiff, feel of him,” when the doctor got hold of him he would have
+found him stiff.
+
+[Sidenote: Frauds (?)]
+
+The alleged fraudulent hypnotists are simply fools who do not know how
+to convince their audiences or handle their subjects. Subjects cannot
+“fake.” When you credit the hypnotist with being able to teach the
+element that goes on the stage to act their parts, you credit both with
+having more intelligence than our best stage managers and actors, and
+my experience teaches me that their faces would instantly deny any
+such credence.
+
+[Sidenote: Authority]
+
+One “authority,” in Chicago, concludes his work by doubting hypnosis.
+Quotations from him show his lack of knowledge of the Law of
+Suggestion. The following example was the one that shook his faith
+most: The subject was lying in hypnosis on an operating table, and
+several spectators were challenged to awaken him. They tried many ways
+and failed, then asked if they might spit in the subject’s face. The
+“authority” said, “Yes, you may spit in his face if you wish.” They
+did so, and the subject immediately awakened, thus satisfying the
+“authority” that the subject had not been in hypnosis. Dear reader,
+need I explain this? If so, throw the book away or go and give yourself
+to the authorities having charge of a school for imbeciles.
+
+[Sidenote: Two tones]
+
+In the “handling” of subjects two tones should be used, one for the
+inspiration, and one to emphasize (force) minor actions.
+
+In my early days, while giving exhibitions in the South, at the
+conclusion of an entertainment a Southern gentleman came onto the
+stage with a friend and said, “Mr. Santanelli, this gentleman does not
+believe that young man was hypnotized. Will you “hypnotize” that nigger
+(pointing to one) and prevent him from picking up this one hundred
+dollar bill? If he picks it up, he can have it.” I “hypnotized” the
+negro, put the one hundred dollar bill at his feet and told him he
+could not pick it up. The negro immediately became cataleptic, rigid,
+and failed to move. I wanted him to stoop and put his hand on the bill
+and attempt to pick it up, knowing that if he could not pick it up he
+must shove it to the floor, so I said “Oh, yes you can; go ahead, pick
+it up.” The negro failed to respond for a moment, then bent over and
+took hold of the bill; I saw that he had responded to my last remark
+as an inspiration, so I immediately called to him that he could not
+move. Cold chills passed up my back, as I could not afford to lose one
+hundred dollars; and, of course, would not have allowed my friend to
+do so provided I had it. Since then I always use two tones, for fear
+of the subject mistaking or not comprehending (responding to) the
+difference in the tones, I always finish in this manner: “Go ahead,
+pick it up. Go on, _but you cannot_.”
+
+[Sidenote: No stages]
+
+_There are no stages in so-called hypnosis._ The subject is either
+hypnotized or awake.
+
+[Sidenote: Catalepsy]
+
+[Sidenote: Negations]
+
+Catalepsy is not a _stage_ of the hypnosis, it is simply an
+inspired condition. Any subject can be made cataleptic if he knows
+how to become so. The inspiration I give to produce catalepsy is as
+follows: “Put your feet together, put your hands to your sides. When I
+call ‘now’ you will take a long breath, pull your muscles together and
+you will be stiff, stiff as iron.” It is very rarely that a subject
+fails to respond to this. Sometimes they will draw their knees and
+arms up, not knowing how to become rigid in the position I give them.
+Many operators tell a subject to hold his arm up and then that he
+cannot take it down, and the spectator, noting the tightening of his
+muscles when he gets the inspiration that he cannot put his arm down,
+believes the subject to be “faking.” If the operator will remember
+that all negations are affirmations against, and would first put the
+muscles at the tension or in the position he wants them and then deny,
+there would be no such action. Tell a subject to hold his arm up and
+close his fist; the muscles are now contracted, and by telling him he
+cannot put it down, you are really saying to him to keep the muscles
+in the position they are in. If you wish to produce a condition of the
+muscles, first put the muscles into the desired position and infer that
+he cannot release them, because if he cannot, he must hold the position.
+
+[Sidenote: Number of methods to induce hypnosis]
+
+How many ways are there of inducing hypnosis? _Only one._
+
+When I was in Utica last winter, on the second day of my return
+engagement, a lad called on me and said, “Mr. Santanelli, how many ways
+do you know how to hypnotize?”
+
+I replied, “But one, my lad.”
+
+He looked surprised, saying, “Why that is strange, I know of nineteen
+ways.”
+
+“Good for you, lad. Can you lay them out on the floor as I do?”
+
+“No, sir, that is the funny part of it; I cannot get any of them
+asleep. You have only one way; I have watched you nightly and so far
+you only failed to hypnotize two, and three-fourths of them were new
+ones every night. What is your way?”
+
+“The right way.”
+
+“Well, can ‘some’ of mine be right?”
+
+[Sidenote: Hypnosis]
+
+“No, there is but one way, and that is the right way; that is the
+reason your nineteen ways are failures, none of them are right.” If
+hypnosis consists of five attributes, the shortest, quickest method of
+bringing these five together is the right way. All others are wrong.
+A Chicago firm publishes fifty ways, or the promise of teaching fifty
+ways, to induce hypnosis. That is in the line of modern science (?).
+
+“Still, Mr. Santanelli, I have hypnotized many subjects without using
+any of the attributes you name as necessary to hypnosis; how is that?”
+
+[Sidenote: Hypnosis self-induced]
+
+[Sidenote: “Sensitives”]
+
+“Very simple, my dear sir. First, _you_ do not hypnotize; you
+lead another into hypnosis. After a subject has once been taught
+the way to the postoffice, he can go without any guidance on
+your part. Twenty-seven per cent of mankind are what is known as
+“sensitives”—somnambulists, sleep-walkers. Unconsciously knowing the
+way into hypnosis any method you use is satisfactory. You can tell him
+to go to the postoffice over the telephone, you can tell him every time
+he hears the whistle of the factory he will go to the postoffice; there
+are a hundred suggestions that may cause him to go to the postoffice.
+So it is with the sensitive, he knows the way; your method is nothing.
+_You_ can only hypnotize (?) three in ten; with my method I can
+“hypnotize” one hundred of one hundred, provided they give me their
+attention.”
+
+[Sidenote: Auto-suggestion]
+
+Auto-suggestion can only exist in the case of a sleep-walker, proven by
+the fact that he responds to no one’s voice. It is spontaneous, and is
+the nearest to being self.
+
+[Sidenote: Pre-inspiration]
+
+In my experience, subjects have pre-inspired themselves with the
+thought of leaving the stage, which each time was successful. The
+first happened in a little town in Tennessee. My reader must understand
+this, that a certain portion of my evening entertainments were always
+the same; that is, I laid the subjects on the floor, produced the
+catalepsy, built the “log-pile,” then caused them to rub their ears,
+then their knees, and then take a seat on the chairs. In the instance
+I have in mind, the young man, who was some twenty-two years of age,
+although not larger than a lad of twelve, came onto the stage several
+nights and proved himself to be an extremely clever subject. I think it
+was on the fifth night when he was laid on the floor, after having been
+used in the “log-pile,” he immediately got up and joined his companions
+in the orchestra seats. I was greatly surprised. No comment was made,
+but that night after I went to the hotel I did considerable “thinking,”
+and at last concluded as to how he succeeded in doing so.
+
+I was so successful in the city that I remained over and played the
+following week, and on Wednesday night this young man and his friends
+were again in the opera house. I invited him to come onto the stage. He
+said, “No.” I asked him why, and he replied, “You will make it hot for
+me.”
+
+“No, I will not. I would like you to come up and repeat the
+experiment.” He looked at me a moment and said, “This is not a trick?”
+
+“No, I wish to see if you can repeat what you did last Friday. It is a
+matter of science. You have proven your side of it, and I want to see
+what I can do with mine.”
+
+[Sidenote: Where Pre-inspiration failed]
+
+The young man came onto the stage, took on hypnosis and when I awakened
+him, some thirty minutes later, and asked him why he hadn’t taken his
+seat, he looked puzzled, and said, “I don’t know.” I did; do you, dear
+reader?
+
+The form of pre-inspired thought that this young man took was this:
+“After I am laid on the floor in the unbuilding of the ‘log-pile,’
+I will awaken.” Now, mind, he was to awaken when he was laid on the
+floor out of the “log-pile.” I omitted putting him in the “log-pile,”
+therefore the suggestion that was to awaken him did not occur, hence no
+awakening. _There is no effect without a cause_ (suggestion).
+
+Last winter, in Erie, three subjects left the stage one night during
+the “statuary,” in the latter part of the second week of my engagement.
+They had watched the performances all of the first week and had been
+on the stage several nights, were good subjects, and this night took a
+pre-inspiration that at the fourth inspiration given in the “statuary”
+they would awaken. They did so, left the stage, said the whole thing
+was a “fake,” but failed to impress any of the audience.
+
+I immediately caused a subject to do a little more difficult act
+than that, and one I inspired, instead of the subject taking a
+pre-inspiration. I told the subject that when he opened his eyes he
+would find he had a couple of dice and would throw craps, and that at
+the end of three minutes he would awaken, which he did. Afterwards he
+pre-inspired himself with the thought that when he opened his eyes he
+would think of one of the most amusing incidents he ever witnessed, and
+at the end of a minute and a half would awaken. He did so, the audience
+holding their watches both times, and both times he awakened to the
+instant.
+
+[Sidenote: Easy to accept a pre-inspiration]
+
+Any subject, after he has been in hypnosis four or five times, should
+very readily go into that condition with a pre-inspiration of awakening
+upon the occurrence of a certain event, and if the event takes place
+he will awaken, demonstrating nothing except the subject’s ability to
+accept a pre-inspiration.
+
+[Sidenote: Freaks]
+
+All dime museum freaks, such as the human pin-cushions, poison eaters
+or snake eaters, work under pre-inspiration. In the course of time
+the merging of the “normal” into the pre-inspiration becomes second
+nature and can be very rapidly and almost imperceptibly done; still, an
+expert, understanding the “reflexes,” by closely watching the subject
+can comprehend that he is not in the so-called normal condition and may
+note the change.
+
+It is this quick merging that has given many of the alleged exposers
+a standing with superficial newspaper men, who have accepted their
+_word_ that they were not in “hypnosis” when they reproduced the
+work that the operator caused them to do on the stage.
+
+[Sidenote: Martyrs]
+
+The martyr burning at the stake is an example of pre-inspiration, the
+entire environment forcing and maintaining in the “mind” of the subject
+or person the thought that he will not suffer and will have no pain.
+The snake dancing of the Mokis is done under “hypnosis”; also many of
+the endurance and religious tests of the adepts of the East.
+
+[Sidenote: Length of inspiration]
+
+How long will an inspiration last? The public fears, forever.
+
+My experience is that great skill is required to force a thought to
+remain over one minute with a new subject working by himself. Training
+them to hold a thought (no; training sounds “faky,” develop them,
+sounds better) requires experience on the part of the operator. Lead
+into hypnosis a new subject, start him brushing a fly, if he continues
+for one minute you have a good subject. Put two working together, and
+you may keep them at work for two minutes. Three or more subjects
+working together will hold out for a long time. To work one subject
+alone is very hard. Three or more, easy.
+
+[Sidenote: To cure a headache]
+
+You desire to cure a headache, to let your patient go home. If the
+patient is a “good” subject (has been in hypnosis often), perhaps
+it will be an hour until he again feels the headache. Only a
+_nervous_ headache can be “cured” through hypnosis. In all other
+cases there is no cure, simply the producing of “no feeling.” Might
+just as well give the patient a dose of morphia.
+
+[Sidenote: Developing]
+
+“But, Mr. Santanelli, I am a doctor; you have taught me of the many
+ills that can be relieved through hypnosis. My patient is free from
+pain, yet I wish to force certain changes physically. The patient has
+never been hypnotized and the holding of the thought for one minute is
+of no value to me. What is to be done?”
+
+[Sidenote: Lengthening the period]
+
+[Sidenote: Co-operation]
+
+Induce hypnosis while the patient is lying on a sofa; return every five
+minutes and re-inspire by saying, “Stay deep asleep, deep asleep.” Keep
+the patient there for two hours, renewing every fifteen minutes during
+the last hour. You can rest assured that when the patient leaves he
+will retain the thought for an hour and a half. After that, the time
+will lengthen _one-third_ with each inspiration up to twenty-four
+hours. None will hold an inspiration over twenty-four hours, but can so
+be trained or developed that a very slight suggestion will continue the
+inspiration. I am certain that subjects making the long sleeps in the
+windows, are re-inspired by the suggestion of their environment every
+twenty-four hours. If a subject is willing to sleep but twenty-four
+hours, can I force him to sleep forty-eight? No. The thought (action)
+is not there to be brought out, and I cannot play off from the cylinder
+what is not on it. Therefore, the operator is always “in the hands” of
+the subject, and the work is co-operative. Any subject can seemingly
+refute or destroy the claims of any operator.
+
+[Sidenote: As to teaching]
+
+[Sidenote: Simulation impossible]
+
+Writing of training or developing a subject—what can be “taught” them?
+_Absolutely nothing._ We say to a subject, “When you open your
+eyes, you’re alongside a fishing stream; you see beside you bait,
+lines, hooks, et cetera, now open your eyes.” If the subject does
+not possess the ideas (actions) to be forced by the “ghosts” just
+mentioned, _no action is possible_. If there is no action in
+the subject, _i. e._, ideas associated, no ghost to be aroused,
+then the subject must _act_ (?). His cerebrum is inactive, he is
+possessed of absolutely no ideas relative to the thought; therefore,
+if unconscious (cerebrum inactive), _he possesses no action_, he
+would not know what to do. “From nothing only nothing can be produced.”
+Again, words mean nothing.
+
+If I put three subjects in a photograph scene; one the photographer,
+one the dude, the other the girl, they having never been in a
+photograph gallery, I get no action. I rehearse it—all right. If the
+words and actions of all three are not perfect the act will fail.
+Theatrical companies rehearse a play at least six weeks and are on
+the road at least two months before the performance runs smoothly. In
+all the smaller cities where hypnosis is popular, local subjects and
+different ones every night the hypnotist must have, if he expects to
+make a living. Assuming that in the photograph scene I use two of my
+“horses” (subjects I carry with me) and one local man, my subjects do
+not know what he will do or what he will say. My rehearsal would have
+been useless. But in hypnosis I force them to _see_ a certain
+environment, and all photograph galleries are so similar that if they
+have ever been in one, the general environment that is now constantly
+around them will force them as automatic beings to an ultimate end,
+which would be impossible if all three _did not see_ the gallery.
+Seeing the actual environment and each guessing what the others would
+do, would produce confusion. They _all_ see the same general
+picture, therefore act in unison.
+
+[Sidenote: “Hypnotic horses”]
+
+A hypnotic “horse” is simply a good subject who travels with a
+hypnotist, generally possesses a good singing voice, the ability to
+make stump speeches, or with a humorous personality. Never of any use
+after a year, as he gets so at home in “hypnosis” that the public will
+no longer accept him as “hypnotized.” What I call a good subject the
+public will not stand for. What the public calls a good subject I have
+no use for.
+
+One season I had traveling with me a Swede named Carl, whom I used to
+inspire thus: “When you open your eyes, you will find yourself seated
+on the stage of the theater in La Crosse, Wis., to give the people a
+speech, as the boys have decided to run you for mayor, provided you
+tell them what you will do if elected, and your Swedish dialect is very
+pronounced.” (Note that the inspiration is in one sentence, properly
+correlated connected with “ands,” “buts,” et cetera; no possibility
+of it being made other than one thought.) “Now open your eyes.” Carl
+opened his eyes, made his bow and in the most pronounced dialect gave
+an illiterate, asinine speech that provoked roars of laughter. Carl
+could give but two speeches. Nightly the audience demanded a speech.
+While in Philadelphia, I had a speech written for Carl and had him
+learn it. Then I was stuck. How could I inspire him to get the speech
+that was written for him? If I said, “You will deliver the speech
+you learned,” he would have tried; I did, and the effect was worse
+than bad. He simply did what he would have done had he not been
+hypnotized. He could not properly deliver it; it lacked personality,
+individuality and spontaneity. It was simply like a school boy,
+delivering, parrot-like, a speech of Henry Clay or Daniel Webster, and
+just as asinine. The only teaching is to allow the subject to watch
+many subjects in an act that sometime in the future you expect to put
+him in, that he may “absorb” some of the better actions.
+
+[Sidenote: Professional subjects]
+
+In the cow act, milking a table for a cow, I use a feather duster as
+the cow’s tail to switch the milker in the face. One young man, who
+was very funny in the act, I nearly always used. After a few months,
+instead of watching the place for the cow’s tail, he watched (?) me
+and dodged every time he saw the duster coming towards him. He quickly
+_learned_ (feeling) that he was hit from behind instead of by the
+tail of the cow, and I could no longer put him in the act. Professional
+subjects last but a short time, and when discharged, often make exposés
+(?).
+
+[Sidenote: Crime]
+
+[Sidenote: Crime in hypnosis]
+
+What makes a man steal? Does he choose to steal, or is the stealing
+forced upon him? If a man’s actions are caused or forced on him by his
+environment, he steals because he responds minus to that environment.
+Why does he respond minus to this environment when others do not?
+Because his ideas (actions associated) are positive against, where the
+so-called normal man is positive for. If it takes ten parts to make
+the whole, and you possess nine, you lack the entirety. Therefore, the
+criminal steals the moment the ten parts are brought together. Can he
+be made to steal in hypnosis? No. Why not? First, if the nine parts
+only were brought together and one was missing, he failed to steal.
+After we lead him into hypnosis, we are unable to _furnish_ the
+other part, saying nothing about knowing _what_ attribute to
+furnish. How about a confirmed criminal? If we tell him when he opens
+his eyes he will go down and break into a bank, he will say, “Go break
+into it yourself. Why should I steal for you?”
+
+_Man does nothing because he is told to._
+
+[Sidenote: Confirmed criminal]
+
+[Sidenote: “Faking”]
+
+[Sidenote: Cannot simulate]
+
+What is a confirmed criminal? One who is a perversion, who accepts as
+good what other people believe to be wrong. I have had a great deal
+of experience with perversion. Young men will come onto my stage, be
+good subjects all the week, and when I leave they will claim they were
+“faking,” failing to comprehend that by claiming they were “faking,”
+they make themselves out most disreputable; that, instead of doing
+something great and clever, they assisted a traveling mountebank whose
+business it was to accumulate the money of their friends, that they
+deliberately went on the stage and assisted in swindling and robbing
+of their money those among whom they live; off from whom they live;
+which is the lowest and most contemptible thievery in the world. The
+traveling operator is naturally accepted as a mountebank; if he proves
+so, that is what is expected of him, but for a man to be a stool-pigeon
+or decoy to rob his own people and swindle them for very little or no
+compensation, is the lowest of crimes. Any time a person tells you
+that he “faked” for some one else, look him in the eye and tell him he
+is a liar, and if you say it with firmness he will acknowledge the fact
+every time; the being does not live who can simulate it.
+
+We will assume that a man who has been a subject of mine murders
+another. He is brought into court and confesses that he murdered the
+man, saying I hypnotized him and forced him to do so.
+
+[Sidenote: No crime ever committed in hypnosis]
+
+_No crime has ever been committed in hypnosis._
+
+This is the reason: man’s thoughts (actions) are made up, organized or
+correlated only in his “normal” state; to force him to commit murder
+it would be necessary to give him all the attributes while he was
+“normal.” The moment all the attributes had been associated, this man
+would _that instant_ commit the murder; his not doing so is proof
+positive that some of the attributes were missing. The hypnotist, not
+being able to put anything in his “mind,” would be unable to furnish
+the attributes necessary.
+
+[Sidenote: Words mean nothing]
+
+“But, Mr. Santanelli, I have hypnotized a young fellow, a chum of mine,
+made him go to a friend’s house and steal a necktie.” O! no; you did
+not. You hypnotized your chum, and he, to make good an experiment, went
+and _took_ the necktie. The taking of the necktie by your chum
+was not an act that would cause an arrest or conviction. In fact, it
+was not a crime in his “mind.” Hypnotize your chum and tell him that
+at midnight he will go down to the bank and break open the safe, and
+see if he will do so. Remember, words mean nothing; you tell a man to
+steal something, that does not necessarily make it out stealing. Or,
+you tell a man to help himself to something and that may be stealing.
+
+[Sidenote: Natural action]
+
+Parlor experiments are very flimsy premises to base a philosophy on.
+Why, the wonderful (?) acts done by my subjects on the stage during
+the past few months, knowing as I now do the actions, attributes, et
+cetera, and comprehending that I am deceiving but one sense, sight,
+and cannot impress the other senses necessary, to me these so-called
+wonderful acts are disgusting. The public still wonders and is carried
+away, because it does not comprehend a natural action.
+
+[Sidenote: As to taking advantage of a woman]
+
+I have a lady seated alone in a room with me—in a room with the door
+open. After leading her into hypnosis, I close the door; where is this
+woman? She went into hypnosis in a room with the door open and in the
+presence or in the company of a gentleman. With the door closed and
+locked, there is _no_ advantage to me, inasmuch as she is in the
+room with the _door open_. As she will do nothing because I tell
+her, and as the consciousness of place can be aroused very readily, if
+I approach her, attempting an assault, the environment that she was
+last in and the physical force I begin to exert will force from her
+the same action that would be exerted were she not in hypnosis; she is
+simply a blind woman. The other senses will respond “normally.” There
+is _no_ environment that I can arouse around her that will cause
+her to do anything that she would not do under the same environment
+were she not in hypnosis.
+
+[Sidenote: “No feeling” results in contraction]
+
+A lady in hypnosis is on the operating table in a doctor’s office
+submitting to an examination. Can the physician rape her? Now,
+remember, she is on the operating table. Her position—her sensing—holds
+that environment. If physical force is exerted she will call for help,
+or she will defend herself. If the physician tells her she has no
+feeling, the organs will contract, this being the action of the thought
+of “no feeling.” If he tells her she is rigid—that is, cataleptic—there
+will be the same physical result. Therefore, it is impossible for a
+physician to take advantage of his patient in hypnosis.
+
+[Sidenote: Two senses must be impressed]
+
+Now, dear reader, as this question of taking advantage is of the
+greatest importance, as it keeps this art from being put to any
+practical use by the medical fraternity, inasmuch as husbands, fathers
+and brothers are afraid to allow their women to be hypnotized; as
+several persons have been sentenced to the penitentiary and many
+doctors are being blackmailed, I must illustrate and prove most
+conclusively that this thought of taking advantage is entirely wrong.
+We will build a case: Let us assume that one John Smith is a clever
+amateur hypnotist. He chums with one Bill Jones and his wife, and Bill
+works in a bank. Smith and Jones and his wife are greatly interested in
+hypnotism, Smith having hypnotized both Jones and his wife dozens of
+times. All at once the hellish thought of taking advantage of Jones’
+wife takes possession of Smith. They meet one afternoon and Jones
+says to Smith, “I have got to go to the city this afternoon, and will
+not be back until late. Go up to the house, dine with my wife and keep
+her company until I return.” Smith does so, that is, he goes to the
+house, and, after a few minutes’ conversation, he says to Mrs. Jones,
+“By-the-by, I have a little experiment I would like to make. Close your
+eyes and go to sleep.” She does. He then says to her, “When you open
+your eyes you are alone in your room with your husband. Now, open your
+eyes.” Can Smith take advantage of Mrs. Jones, and if not, why not? To
+put any thought into complete action at least _two_ senses must
+be affected. The more senses affected the more active the thought (see
+barber and banjo players). She sees a picture of her husband, the room,
+et cetera, but _there_ matters end, inasmuch as Smith’s touch is
+not the touch of her husband; Smith’s caresses are not the husband’s;
+therefore, although she sees her husband, Smith is unable to supply
+the necessary suggestion to force her to respond to his desires. The
+suggestions (minor attributes) he offers forces her to respond positive
+against the commission of the act. I think it is made plain that no
+advantage can be taken while she is in hypnosis.
+
+NOTE.—All crime is committed free from hypnosis. The moment
+the accused acknowledges the commission of the act, he has _confessed
+himself guilty_, because all the attributes were furnished in the
+normal state and the act immediately committed, otherwise it could not
+have happened.
+
+[Sidenote: Purity in the operator]
+
+A very learned (?) writer on hypnotism for one of the New York evening
+papers claims that to be a hypnotist a man must be pure, that his
+purity elevates the subject; that a bad (?) hypnotist, a man with
+impure thoughts, degrades the subject. Bosh! Other than putting them
+at natural or congenial degrading acts, I fail to see how the morals
+of the operator affects the subject. We cannot pour out of a measure
+what is not in it. If the subject be pure, nothing but purity can be
+reproduced, and _vice versa_.
+
+[Sidenote: Is hypnosis injurious?]
+
+[Sidenote: Much good derived]
+
+Is a constant repetition of hypnosis injurious? If to reuse one’s
+thoughts is detrimental, yes; but if the exercising of one’s thoughts
+is development, then hypnosis is the grandest developer of the “mind”
+within the use of man. We can only revive thoughts the subject has had.
+I know of at least a dozen young men who, when they came onto my stage,
+were to all intents and purposes practically useless to themselves and
+the world, could hold no position; but, after being on my stage every
+night for a week while I was in the city, and afterwards being used
+by my pupils, they are so far advanced mentally that they are to-day
+holding good positions and are reputable men in the cities where they
+reside, and who, had they never met me, by this time would have been in
+some institution for criminals.
+
+[Sidenote: Will power (?)]
+
+“But, Mr. Santanelli, does it not destroy one’s will power!”
+
+[Sidenote: Strength of mind]
+
+Now, dear reader, what do you mean by “will power.” I have heard that
+phrase so often, yet fail to comprehend it. I have met “strong-minded”
+men; in fact, I meet the “strong-minded” man in every town I visit; he
+is always the same, a slow correlator, his wife makes the living; he is
+so busy caring for that “strong mind” of his that he fails to find or
+hold a position. In fact, he devotes his entire time to looking after
+that “strong mind,” and has no time for work.
+
+I suppose we can define what the world calls will power to be lack of
+correlative ability, density, thick-headedness. From my experience, if
+what the world calls will power is something admirable to possess, we
+should make marble statues of the jackass, place them in our rooms and
+bow before them as the exemplification of the “strongest-minded” of
+creatures, the possessors of the greatest “will power.”
+
+[Sidenote: Exemplified in the jackass]
+
+[Sidenote: Free (?) will]
+
+A few winters ago I was in Texas, and one afternoon heard a great deal
+of swearing in the street. Of course, that is not unusual in some parts
+of Texas. This profanity was very artistic, I should imagine, from a
+swearer’s point of view. I went to the window and, looking out, saw
+one of those “strong-minded” animals fastened to a cart. They were
+connected, the “strong-minded” animal having seemingly made up his mind
+not to move; and he would not, being “strong-minded.” They beat him
+over the head, they swore at him, and I remarked to my secretary, who
+was standing near, “I am glad I am not ‘strong-minded.’ If I was in
+that animal’s position, I would have had forced upon me the deduction
+that if I moved on they would stop beating me, and would move.” In a
+little while they built a fire under the animal, and when the heat
+became intense, the most wonderful thing occurred, this “strong-minded
+animal,” of its own _free will_, free from any _external
+suggestion_ (after the fire got hot), changed his mind and moved,
+and, as far as I know, he is moving yet.
+
+One more illustration: When it becomes cloudy the man having the
+most ideas associated as to the ill that will come from getting wet,
+immediately goes under cover; when it sprinkles the man having the next
+most ideas associated gets under cover, and so until a downpour; if
+that deluge be hard enough, _it will drive all men under cover_ or
+they will drown.
+
+The general public believes that if you wish to cure a man of any habit
+all that is necessary is to hypnotize him and tell him what he will do,
+and he will do so under any conditions. Foolish, ignorant public.
+
+[Sidenote: Sensing]
+
+[Sidenote: Physical tests]
+
+[Sidenote: Catalepsy]
+
+Sensing is always mistaken for telepathy. If you care to perform the
+following experiment, choose a slim subject, with a narrow head and
+big perceptives. When you desire to make mental tests, always choose
+a subject of a nervous mental disposition. I mean by that the quick
+mental, the narrow-headed man with big perceptives. When you want to
+produce physical tests, choose a “skinny” subject, the physically
+nervous. For example, to produce three pulsations in the body at one
+time is very easily performed with a “skinny” subject. By-the-by, the
+best cataleptic subject is always a very thin fellow, one who looks as
+if he would break in two with the weight placed upon him, inasmuch
+as when his muscles are contracted there is a solid structure; but
+with the phlegmatic or lymphatic people, there is too much intervening
+tissue and we cannot get the contraction and solidity that is possible
+with the other.
+
+[Sidenote: Telepathy (?)]
+
+Seat your subject at a table; in front of him on the table lay down ten
+cards in a circle, face up. Have your subject go into hypnosis, and ask
+the spectators to stand around the table in a large circle, designating
+to them which card will be one, two, three, et cetera. Turn your back
+to the company and allow one of them to hold up his fingers, indicating
+the number of the card to be thought of; during which time the subject
+can be blindfolded, or any method you desire to use to be certain that
+he does not and cannot see. The moment they decide on the card have
+them tell you; you then tell them to very strongly will (?) that the
+subject shall push that card from out of the circle. Then say to your
+subject, “When you open your eyes, you will see on the table in front
+of you ten cards, beginning at your left, slowly pass your hand over
+all of the cards, and when you feel like pushing a certain card out
+of the circle, do so. Now, open your eyes.” Ninety-nine times out of
+a hundred, the subject will do this a half dozen times in succession,
+provided the spectators are anxious for the experiment to succeed and
+_all_ think intently of the card. If the spectators are in another
+mood it will be impossible for the experiment to succeed. They will
+all acknowledge immediately that it is telepathy. It is nothing of the
+sort. It is what I call sensing, perfectly unconscious to the subject;
+yet he receives several distinct suggestions, as all, having their
+“minds” intently set on this card, will to a great degree hold their
+breath; when the subject comes to the right card they will allow the
+breath to exhale, which produces a pronounced atmospheric disturbance
+when the subject arrives at the card.
+
+[Sidenote: Acuteness of feeling]
+
+Feeling is very definitely acted upon through the atmosphere. In fact,
+I am satisfied that a fairly sensitive subject—that means one whose
+nerve-ends are acute—can and does feel all fair sized objects; stoves,
+doors, book-cases and things of those kinds are perceptibly felt by a
+subject before he reaches them, thus forcing him to go around them.
+
+NOTE.—What he really feels is the resistance to the volume of
+air he is forcing before him when it is obstructed by a large object.
+
+[Sidenote: Sixth sense]
+
+In 1895 I accidentally discovered that I could make or produce the
+following effects, and for want of a better term call it a sixth sense,
+or minus one.
+
+Lead your subject into hypnosis with his head falling well to the
+front; then place your thumb and second finger on each side of the
+wind-pipe; pressing the carotid arteries, and intently will (?) one of
+the following acts: that he should or will stand up, sit down, raise
+his right arm, lower it. his left arm the same; his two legs the same;
+open his eyes, close them, open his mouth, close it, stand up, sit
+down, evacuate or urinate. This is the limit.
+
+Instead of holding your thumb and finger on his throat, hold well
+against his neck under his chin a broom handle or a cane, keeping your
+hand firmly clasped, with your thumb pressing lightly on the cane or
+handle, and if you are possessed of great concentration, you will
+invariably succeed; those lacking in concentration will fail. The
+experiment is only satisfactory to those who personally succeed.
+
+[Sidenote: As in Mind-reading (?)]
+
+If you will (?) that the right arm be raised and gaze intently at the
+left, standing where the subject cannot see if he could see, in nearly
+all cases the arm you are looking at will be raised, the same with the
+legs. Causing the subject to stand up or sit down, I do not think is
+fair, because if you are thinking of standing up the unconscious or
+involuntary action that is the result of the thought is certain to take
+place; the same with sitting down; I mean you will unconsciously yet
+very perceptibly lift him, or _vice versa_—the same as in alleged
+mind-reading. The degree of steadiness of your thought is exemplified
+in the moving or raising of the limb. If you think steadily the limb
+will raise steadily, if you think spasmodically, the movement will be
+spasmodic, in fact the action will be the exact reproduction of your
+thought. I have had friends with whom this act was no effort; they
+could take any subject and produce a quick response. I have had others
+who could hardly affect them. I can only get a movement in the limbs;
+the hand will twitch, the fingers will twitch, arm will move a little,
+but very little, I cannot raise it, inasmuch as I lack the steady
+concentration.
+
+[Sidenote: Cerebrum vs. Abdominal Brain]
+
+This demonstration is a case of the operator’s cerebrum affecting the
+subject’s Sympathetic System or Abdominal Brain, as his cerebrum is
+inactive; or, in other words, this is an illustration which I lack the
+ability to make you comprehend. The cerebrum of a subject does not
+work. In this case the operator’s cerebrum is taking the place of the
+subject’s cerebrum.
+
+[Sidenote: Post-hypnosis (?)]
+
+Post-hypnotic suggestion (which I call a deferred inspiration) is a
+misnomer, inasmuch as no inspiration given in hypnosis (so-called), can
+happen except in hypnosis. We tell a subject that when he opens his
+eyes he will see and feel a fly on his nose, that produces an instant
+response, if we do not actually awaken him. We tell him that in five
+minutes, one hour, one day, six months, after he opens his eyes, a fly
+will alight on his nose, he will feel it bite, et cetera, it will fail
+if the time be deferred over two hours. But, if we say to him (and he
+must be an exceptionally good subject), “When you open your eyes, one
+week from to-day when the town clock strikes eleven, you will see and
+feel a fly on your nose, et cetera,” you will succeed, for you have
+really said, “One week from to-day when the clock strikes eleven, you
+will go into hypnosis; a fly, et cetera.” If he be a good subject,
+one that will hold an inspiration for several hours, and he hears
+the clock strike, you can _see_ him take on hypnosis, then the
+inspiration. Remember, no operator other than myself and my pupils ever
+_awakened_ their subjects. They inspired them with the thought
+of being awake, the same as with the thought of a fly, and allowed the
+subjects to slowly pass into a “normal” awakening. If the subject is
+_actually_ awakened there will be _no “post-hypnotic” effect_.
+
+[Sidenote: Sleeping suggestions]
+
+Sleeping suggestions in the hands of a clever mother are a most potent
+factor in guiding the child. Tell the child that when she goes to sleep
+to-night you are going to her bedside and talk to her; that she must
+remain asleep. After the child is asleep, go to the bedside and you
+will find her in an easy position, with inactive mind, upturned eye and
+closed eye. Now quietly and soothingly speak to the child, call her by
+name and say, “Bessie, remain asleep.” The moment that you have aroused
+the thought, you will have hypnosis, which your baby has shown by a
+long, deep sigh, or the movement of some limb. Then say to her, “When
+you awaken in the morning you will do so and so, you will have a good
+appetite,” or whatever inspiration you desire to give, and then quietly
+go out of the room. But mind, you cannot raise or force in action any
+thought which is not there, it must be within the comprehension of the
+child, and be something other than antagonistic. This is really the
+most delightful phase of the entire art of hypnosis.
+
+[Sidenote: Personal suggestion]
+
+Now, doctor, if you are at a bedside and desirous of inducing sleep in
+your patient, the patient not willing to be hypnotized, is it possible
+to do so? No. Yes; first, you give your patient a sleeping draught (?),
+then stand at the bedside and watch him go to sleep, only he does not.
+I stand at the bedside and he does. How is it?
+
+“Oh! you are full of magnetism.”
+
+“There is no magnetism, there is nothing but suggestion.”
+
+“But you suggest to your patient to go to sleep.”
+
+“How do I suggest to my patient to go to sleep?”
+
+“I do not know.”
+
+[Sidenote: At the bedside]
+
+To induce hypnosis, I must bring together five attributes. (Plate IV.)
+A shows where _you_ stand at the bedside. In B note the position
+of the patient and where _I stand_, and see if the patient is
+looking in my eyes. Have I the attributes necessary? The picture is
+the only thing that will describe the method. While the patient is
+watching you, quietly tell him that the draught just given is becoming
+effective, that he is getting quiet, sleepy, et cetera.
+
+[Sidenote: Inspiration Suggestion]
+
+[Illustration: A]
+
+[Illustration: B
+
+PLATE IV]
+
+You will note that I use two words—“inspiration” and “suggestion.” I
+inspire a hypnotized subject. I suggest to him in the so-called normal
+state. A pupil writes me that Mrs. Jones has been suffering from
+headaches; he _inspired_ her with the thought of “no headache”
+and she went away seemingly all right, which immediately informs me
+that he hypnotized her; but if he writes me that she called and he
+_suggested_ to her “no headache,” I know that he did not hypnotize
+her. He may have stroked her head, assured her that the headache would
+pass away; he may have given her a blank pill, or even a drug. He used
+methods other than hypnosis, but obeyed the law that is demonstrated
+in hypnosis.
+
+[Sidenote: Fakirs of India]
+
+It is claimed that the rope trick of the fakirs of India is performed
+through “hypnosis.” No. The first proof is that the spectators remember
+what they “saw” (?), whereas if they had been hypnotized, there would
+have been no memory of it after the “hypnosis” had passed off. This
+trick, if done, is the same as the sleight-of-hand performer makes you
+accept when he places a dollar with his right hand in his left and then
+causes it to disappear. He goes through the entire motion of placing it
+there except the actual doing so; that, he forces you to deduce; and
+if this rope trick of India is, it is simply the result of a master
+knowledge of suggestion that forces you to deduce the expected result.
+
+[Sidenote: Pain a thought]
+
+Pain is a thought; the suggestion or _cause_ exists. I pinch your
+arm; where do you feel it? In your arm? That is not true, because when
+you are chloroformed you do not feel it. You feel it in the brain. Oh,
+yes. In the brain; then it is thought. Baby comes crying to mother—she
+has hurt her hand; mamma kisses it and the baby goes away smiling; the
+mother being scientific (?), instead of nursing the pretty thought
+that a kiss from mamma will remove pain, teaches the child to be
+afraid, and adds attributes—including the doctor—and by and by the
+child has associated with the thought of doctor only a man who gives
+nasty medicine and hurts. Teach the children that pain is something to
+be laughed at; fail to add attributes to pain—arouse thoughts of “no
+pain.” I would rather spank a child for getting hurt than to console
+it. If we spank it, it will think of the spanking, and will have a
+little more pain, perhaps; though not at the seat of the original
+trouble. I have seen children of ten years, in families of mental
+scientists, hold their fingers over burning matches until blistered,
+exhibiting no signs of pain.
+
+[Sidenote: A beautiful demonstration]
+
+You hypnotize a clever subject and tell him that he has no finger; you
+can then stick pins in it, burn it, and he will not feel it, because
+if he has no finger there is nothing to be hurt, a most beautiful
+demonstration; but, my dear hypnotist, do not try this on a fool,
+because he will “holler” unless you are smart. Tell him he has no
+finger, it is gone; then explain to the audience that as he has no
+finger, it is impossible for him to have pain from it; he cannot avoid
+responding to your inspiration, the audience thinking you are talking
+to them, when in truth you are talking to your subject; you can then
+stick pins in his finger and be safe.
+
+Again, if you inspire the subject with the thought of “no feeling,” put
+a pin into him, and then commence talking to your audience about it,
+you will find your subject will begin to howl; or if, after you have
+withdrawn the pin and have a cowardly subject, you draw the audience’s
+attention to the fact that he might have the nerve to stand the putting
+in of the pin, but he could not control the flow of blood, saying “You
+will note there is no blood,” the moment you utter the word “blood,”
+blood will appear; but if the fellow is unlearned and you use the word
+hemorrhage, he failing to comprehend, you are safe.
+
+[Sidenote: Body controlled by the mind]
+
+I could tell you of myriads of experiments which demonstrate beyond all
+question that the body is entirely controlled by the mind; that pain
+is a thought, and the thing we are most afraid of is that which our
+mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters and friends have done the best to
+build in our “minds.”
+
+Pain is a bugaboo.
+
+[Sidenote: Good]
+
+Your body is a house and an unwelcome neighbor calls. You try to smile;
+ofttimes do. You invite him in and treat him with the best you have.
+So let it be with pain, if he is going to enter the house, instead of
+running away, meet him and sit down and talk to him. You will forget
+his unpleasantness, because there is good in all, and if you are
+looking for good you can find it, but if you are looking for “bad,”
+you can find “bad.” A few years ago I failed to see any good in life,
+because I overlooked the good and was quick to discover the “bad.”
+To-day I can see much good and can overlook the “bad” and forget it;
+I feel sorry for it; I know it is a disease, and who, other than a
+degenerate (sensualist), can enjoy disease.
+
+[Sidenote: Sympathetic system]
+
+That the Sympathetic System receives sensations as well as responding,
+was first impressed upon me when I was giving little cross-road
+entertainments in the South. I arrived in town with a few handbills,
+hired a hall, distributed the bills, got a few people interested,
+hunted up a little negro boy, who, after being promised a quarter,
+agreed to go on the stage. The little negro would have run if anybody
+had told him I was going to stick pins in him. I got him on the
+platform, and, after putting him through a performance of jumping out
+of hot chairs, and brushing flies off his nose, et cetera, I inspired
+him with the thought of “no feeling,” and, we will say, stuck a hat pin
+through his left ear, afterward taking him among the audience, allowing
+the doctors and others to examine him. I removed the pin, put him
+through more “monkey-shines” and ultimately awakened him.
+
+As he started to leave the hall, the doctor said to him, “Did Mr.
+Santanelli hurt you when he stuck those pins in you?”
+
+“No, suh; he done stick no pins in me, suh;” and the left hand rubbed
+the left ear. If I had pierced his right ear, he would always put his
+hand up to that ear. There was no question but that he was thoroughly
+_unconscious_ of the pin having been put into him. Why and
+wherefore, then, was the hand always put to the proper place, if the
+Sympathetic System does not receive impressions? A hypnotized subject
+does not use his cerebrum.
+
+[Sidenote: Statuary]
+
+[Sidenote: Change of thought]
+
+[Sidenote: Completing action]
+
+In my “Living Statuary,” where I inspire the subjects with, “When you
+open your eyes you will juggle balls in the air; when I call _now_
+you will be stiff as iron, stone, you cannot move a muscle; now open
+your eyes;” they go to juggling, I call, “now,” and they are perfectly
+rigid in whatever position they are in when I speak the word, “now”;
+their eyes are immovable. It was here I first learned that the eye
+blinks every time one gets a different or new thought. I tell the
+subjects to close their eyes, and their hands drop to their sides and
+they are limber. If one is not expert the subjects will fall. If a
+subject, during the “statuary,” is put to whistling, and I call, “now,”
+he will stop; when I release him he will _complete_ the whistle.
+If he is uttering a word he will stop and when I release him he will
+_complete_ the word, something that no “normal” being can do; the
+same with sneezing.
+
+[Sidenote: Abdominal brain]
+
+When the subjects are baseball pitchers I stop them in the middle of an
+action, and when I release them they _complete_ the action. One
+evening, in Kentucky, the boys were defending themselves from an eagle;
+one of them had his coat off and started throwing it at the eagle; I
+produced the catalepsy, and when I released him out of that rigidity
+the coat passed or was thrown into the gallery of the theater. Where
+did he get the energy, how did he complete the action? The “mind” will
+hold but one thought at a time. When they open their eyes they are
+jugglers going through the actions they have seen jugglers perform.
+When I call “now” to them they think of rigidity, the action of which
+thought is catalepsy, when I tell them to close their eyes, they
+think of relaxation, yet complete the _first_ thought, having a
+_third_ thought in their “mind,” an utterly impossible thing to
+conceive, other than that action is received and executed by separate
+brain conditions. It was through noting these effects that in 1895 I
+preached an Abdominal Brain. At that time, having no comprehension as
+to what I was talking about, but being familiar enough with actions of
+the subjects to note that it was an utter impossibility for _all_
+to be done with the brain system as now understood (?).
+
+Now, dear reader, we have covered all the different phases of hypnosis,
+how and why it is, how to induce it, et cetera. This book answers
+all questions as to hypnosis if you have the comprehension to pick
+them out. On the premise here given you, I have yet to fail to give
+a logical and _comprehensive_ explanation to the thousands of
+questions asked me by students, doctors, ministers, lawyers and laymen
+before whom I lecture.
+
+[Sidenote: Memory (?)]
+
+[Sidenote: No memory]
+
+You are satisfied if you comprehend; yet a most important question you
+have failed to ask me—not you who have not tried, but the amateurs.
+I lead into hypnosis Mrs. Santanelli and tell her when she opens her
+eyes she will find in her lap an object which she will describe to me;
+to open her eyes; she does so, takes up the object and describes it.
+While she is describing it, I say, “all right” and clap my hands; she
+awakens, and I ask her what she has been doing and she has no memory
+whatever. I have her again take on hypnosis, ask her what she was doing
+in the last “hypnosis,” and she tells me. Why is it the hypnotized
+subject has no memory of what has taken place in “hypnosis” when he is
+actually awake, yet while in “hypnosis” has a memory of the previous
+hypnosis? Why this contradiction, what does it mean? How is it that
+the subject does not see his _present_ environment, but sees the
+environment of the picture I arouse for him? Why this contradiction? I
+will explain it to you.
+
+[Sidenote: Memory defined]
+
+Memory is the registration of ideas. The subject, having no memory,
+proves that nothing has been registered cerebrally; again, it is
+impossible to register through one sense that which the economy of man
+intended to be registered through another. Therefore, we put nothing
+in through the cerebrum. When I talk to a subject he does not hear me
+cerebrally, if he did he would always remember what I said to him. The
+subject only responds to me.
+
+[Sidenote: Consciousness]
+
+[Sidenote: Insulation]
+
+[Sidenote: Decapitated]
+
+Consciousness, realization, is cerebral. Sense-impressions pass through
+the cerebrum yet are actually registered in the Sympathetic System.
+_Every_ cerebral nerve is accompanied by a sympathetic nerve. Many
+sympathetic nerves are alone. This makes the so-called brain system a
+two-wire system. I believe it to be a _three-wire_ system. I say
+to a hypnotized subject, “You have no feeling in your finger” (touching
+the finger); the Sympathetic System immediately contracts the tissue
+over the cerebral nerve and insulates it; yet the Sympathetic System
+is conscious of any irritation that I make on the designated place,
+showing that it receives the impression free of the cerebrum. The
+Sympathetic System can work free and independently of the cerebral,
+but the cerebrum cannot work free of the sympathetic, because the
+sympathetic is the actual machinery that does the work, the cerebral
+brain simply being the realizing brain. In a hypnotized subject the
+cerebrum is inactive, as in hypnosis the impulse is received through
+and responded to by the Sympathetic System. The experiment made by
+all students of decapitating a frog, irritating a nerve-end and the
+“normal” action taking place, proves my affirmation. A hypnotized
+subject is as a _decapitated being_. Feeling is never eliminated
+until death. _Conscious_ feeling—yes. If the Abdominal Brain did
+not know what was taking place it would lose its control over the body,
+therefore, feeling as to the Sympathetic System cannot be obliterated.
+
+[Sidenote: Hudson]
+
+[Sidenote: One mind]
+
+Hudson’s philosophy of objective and subjective mind will not hold
+water, inasmuch as it is based on the premise than man is a free agent
+and can discriminate. Now, this subject is so thoroughly illustrated in
+the barber story, the banjo story, the story of crime, that really it
+is not worthy of discussion, although the entire public has seemingly
+endorsed a most false theory, manufactured to explain a condition that
+the alleged “authority” was not capable of explaining. We have but
+_one_ mind; we are entirely creatures of our environment; our
+every action, our every thought, is simply the transforming into other
+action, of suggestion. The ability to discriminate is impossible.
+
+Ofttimes men say that the ability to perform a mathematical problem is
+an example that man is a free agent and capable of thinking. Can a Fiji
+Islander, having no knowledge of figures, solve a mathematical problem?
+Can the son of the most brilliant mathematician do so until he has gone
+to school and had the ideas associated on his “cylinder?” Those who
+have the ideas properly registered will respond to the problem; they
+will all work it out in the same way, getting identically the same
+result, proving that the problem was simply a suggestion that forced
+into action ideas (actions) already associated.
+
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[1] It is necessary for the subject to comprehend this, though not
+necessary for us to tell him in the foregoing specific manner.
+
+
+
+
+MIND
+
+
+[Sidenote: Law of nature]
+
+Now, dear reader, if you have comprehended the foregoing, in which I
+have tried to demonstrate to you that man is simply a machine, forced
+into action by his environment—this I have learned through hypnosis,
+which I consider merely a side issue to the Law of Suggestion, a crude
+and tyrannical use of suggestion—we will go a step further and try to
+understand the body of man, which is his closest environment. To do so
+it will first be necessary to explain what you call the “law of nature”
+or “hand of God.” After I have made you comprehend that, I shall then
+be able to discuss mankind in general.
+
+[Sidenote: Law of Suggestion]
+
+If we drop a plum seed, peach seed, apple seed and a grape seed in six
+square inches of earth what will grow from them? Each of its kind.
+Why? One says the “law of nature,” another says the “hand of God.” I
+ask what is meant by these terms, as neither has affected me through
+my senses, and a sickly smile comes on your lips, and you say, “Don’t
+you know?” I plead ignorance and reply, “No,” then you won’t talk with
+me because I fail to know something that you do not know. Then you
+ask _me_ why, and I tell you the “Law of Suggestion.” You say,
+“Why, there must be an intelligence to respond to that law.” As it is
+impossible to conceive of anything happening without an intelligence
+(associated action) to guide it, every action of all matter is guided.
+
+[Sidenote: All matter contains mind]
+
+NOTE.—I will state that all matter contains mind (which
+word will be used from now on without the quotation marks), and
+all mind gives expression in matter. Matter is the expression of
+mind—transformed mind—the utterance of mind; it is the material
+reproduction of mind; there can be no matter without mind, no mind
+without matter. _Other than matter is incomprehensible._
+
+[Sidenote: All changes are advancement]
+
+This intelligence is acted upon by suggestion. There is mind in the
+rock, otherwise the rock would not disintegrate (respond to the
+suggestion of the elements). There is mind within wood. You say, “No,
+water rots wood.” Water does not rot wood. It forces (suggests) a
+latent (memory) action in wood to produce or transform into rot. As
+long as the suggestion is kept from the wood, that action will not take
+place; the moment the suggestion is applied, the intelligence within
+the wood responds. All changes are an advancement and good (natural
+response).
+
+[Sidenote: Maturity]
+
+[Sidenote: Mind defined]
+
+All suggestions are transformed. You of the “law of nature” and the
+“hand of God” claim that intelligence is external and everywhere; I
+claim it to be internal and everywhere, that all matter contains within
+itself intelligence (mind). Then you ask me what is mind and in turn
+I ask you this question: What is maturity? When does a boy become a
+man, a girl become a woman, and when is fruit ripe? When the seed is
+accomplished. As the seed is the last thing accomplished to complete
+the entirety of all attributes required, all of the preceding actions,
+_i. e._, responses to suggestion of the development of the tree
+that has taken place are registered within the seed. Therefore, the
+complete memory must be in the last thing accomplished—the seed; and I
+will define mind to be _the consensus of all actions acquired during
+gestation_, not a so-called reasoning intelligence, but a memory of
+response to suggestion, as to heat, cold, different elements of the
+earth, to guide the commingling into the reproduction of its kind.
+If the natural suggestions do not occur, a _reproduction_ is an
+impossibility.
+
+[Sidenote: Suggestion in lower life]
+
+To illustrate, if plenty of sunshine is required and the suggestion of
+sunshine is lacking, the entire fulfillment of the suggestion required
+cannot or will not be accomplished. If iron or some certain element
+in the soil is necessary to force a certain action, and is lacking,
+the response necessary will not take place. In the spring time, when
+warmth, et cetera, surrounds the trees, the buds are forced out. If
+frosts occur, contraction takes place and the buds are pinched off,
+the entire action of the tree being in accordance with the environment
+(suggestion). To the degree of the suggestion is the degree of
+response, identical with the action of man.
+
+Genesis, Chapter XXX, 37-40, reads as follows:
+
+[Sidenote: Jacob knew of the law]
+
+37. And Jacob took him rods of green poplar, and of the hazel and
+chestnut tree; and pilled white strakes in them, and made the white
+appear which was in the rods.
+
+38. And he set the rods which he had pilled before the flocks in the
+gutters in the watering troughs when the flocks came to drink, that
+they should conceive when they came to drink.
+
+39. And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth cattle
+ringstraked, speckled and spotted.
+
+[Sidenote: Darwin]
+
+[Sidenote: As of their environment]
+
+This simple law, the law of environment (suggestion), was in some
+degree known to Jacob. Therefore, what is, was, and always will be.
+There is nothing new in the world, only new to our comprehension.
+Darwin showed us that animals most like their environment, or
+those which responded closest to (were part of) their environment
+survived, while the others were destroyed. Man, being a creature of
+his environment, survives to the degree he responds to or is part of
+that environment. In the Arctic region animals are white as of their
+environment; in the reeds they are striped, therefore look like the
+reeds and are not easily distinguishable from them; up in the tree tops
+they are spotted. The negro from exposure to the sun was made black. If
+the white man goes into the sun he becomes what we call “tanned”; that
+tan can, in time, become very dark. The negro, therefore, is black only
+as a result of his environment.
+
+[Sidenote: Energy]
+
+[Sidenote: Energetic waves]
+
+[Sidenote: Life]
+
+[Sidenote: Death]
+
+Man, not being a perpetual motion machine, must obtain energy elsewhere
+than through or from his food as our scientists (?) tell us. The energy
+required to digest the food must be greater than all the energy in the
+food, otherwise it could not overcome the resistance; therefore, it is
+self-evident that our energy does not come from the food. Any condition
+that overcomes resistance sends out an energetic wave; every time we
+breathe, blink our eye, talk or move, we send out an energetic wave,
+which can be transmitted only through matter. _Life is energy_,
+always moving and being reinforced as it passes through new matter; and
+I believe those energetic waves are received in the spleen, passed to
+the solar plexus and from the solar plexus passed to the extremities
+through the Sympathetic System. It is through the absorption of
+this energy—which is life—that keeps man going. When a man dies the
+machinery of his body—the Sympathetic System—fails to respond, to
+receive, to exert, or transform the energy.
+
+[Sidenote: Ovum of the female]
+
+[Sidenote: Element of the male]
+
+The first part of a child formed is the Sympathetic System. A girl has
+reached maturity when she can reproduce; _i. e._, when she monthly
+gives forth an egg. In that egg is a memory action of building the
+Sympathetic System, when fertilized by an element of the male. Bear in
+mind that the element of the male is only a _fertilizer_.
+
+The Sympathetic System centers are developed at the end of eight weeks.
+(See Gray.)
+
+[Sidenote: Building of mind in man]
+
+Now each ganglion acquires a specific memory from the same ganglion of
+the mother, and out of the blood of the mother builds over itself the
+form of the child. Therefore, when the child is born it contains within
+itself the intelligence that built it; _i. e._, mind. Every six
+months this intelligence rebuilds the entire tissues of the body.
+
+[Sidenote: No cerebral knowledge]
+
+The child when born has no cerebral knowledge. It must learn to
+see, hear, smell, feel and taste. It has no reflexes other than of
+contraction. All other actions are acquired after birth. The heart
+action was learned from the mother; also the respiration, which action
+can very easily be changed. It must learn to take the breast. It has
+no control over its bowels or bladder. The pupil of the eye does not
+dilate, contract, nor blink at light. The child’s limbs will not draw
+away from heat or irritation. If the rectal sphincter be severely
+dilated a response in the throat will occur. This same action can
+always be repeated with a chloroformed patient, showing that the noise
+is simply a response at the other end of the nerve.
+
+[Sidenote: All things are learned]
+
+From the taking of the breast the child must learn to digest food, to
+respond to its environment. The moment a child readily does so, it is
+said to have displayed intelligence.
+
+Physicians differ as to the length of the period after children
+are born into the world before they can see, hear, smell, feel and
+taste. There is much discussion, and many volumes have been written
+as to the length of time after a child is born before its senses are
+established. After much reading, I finally ask what is meant by seeing,
+hearing, feeling, smelling and tasting; and none of the writers have
+comprehensively answered. Therefore, why this discussion? What are they
+talking about?
+
+[Sidenote: Definition of the senses]
+
+I will define the senses to be the correlation of the different
+nerve-end stimuli. Give a new-born child soft, sweet, soothing
+sound-stimulus, then harsh, discordant sound-stimulus, and the moment
+a memory of these two extreme nerve-end contacts with sound waves is
+established, the child will be able to give expression to the degrees
+of all subsequent stimuli of the auditory nerve-ends. The same with
+smelling, tasting, et cetera. Sight, unless associated with feeling,
+conveys no form expression. A child, to be taught the meaning of round,
+must not only see it but feel it. The same with other forms. The child
+is now learning to respond to its environment.
+
+[Sidenote: Mind a tenant]
+
+Mind is the tenant of the house it lives in—the body. That house is
+always wasting; mind rebuilding it. When mind rebuilds correctly, we
+have a healthy body; when incorrectly, we have what is called sickness.
+Mind can only build as of itself, as it responds to its environment,
+and consequently must be a reproduction of that environment, modified
+by the acquired memory learned from the mother. Therefore, the house in
+which it dwells is the exact representation of its tenant—matter being
+the expression of mind.
+
+[Sidenote: Food]
+
+Food is taken into the body to rebuild the house. If a man takes
+possession of a new brick house and starts in to replace with bad
+bricks as it wastes away, at the end of six or seven months he will
+live in a bad brick house. If he replaces with rotten lumber he will
+live in a rotten lumber house at the end of a period. Hence, man
+partakes of the nature of the food he eats.
+
+Now, if mind be worried so that he builds awry, his house will be awry;
+and if his house be awry and he finds his error and corrects it, he
+will re-establish the symmetry of his dwelling. (Rational treatment—the
+orificial surgeon and personal suggestion.)
+
+[Sidenote: Error]
+
+Thus mind rules and builds the body, but a time may come when the body
+becomes so awry that it rules the tenant. In health, mind rules; after
+severe illness the body may. Mind cannot choose to correct its error,
+it can only respond; the suggestion must change. Error can only be
+distinguished, when _known_, in comparison with good. Unhealthy
+surroundings must be changed. The closest environment—the body, may
+require the knife.
+
+[Sidenote: Mind rules]
+
+It is inconceivable for anything to happen without an intelligence
+to guide it. I have shown the intelligence that built the body—that
+keeps rebuilding the body—but our learned (?) physicians seem to think
+that the body of man is a dunghill in which seed may be sown and foul
+vegetation grow, forgetting that nothing in the body can happen without
+an intelligence to guide it—that the body is a result, and there is
+_no cause within the tissue itself_.
+
+[Sidenote: Nerve-ends]
+
+_Every nerve has two ends._ When there is an irritation at one
+end, there is a response, or so-called reflex, at the other. Oh! why
+has this thought never occurred to our “learned authorities?” Our
+worthy doctors are forever trying to remove the effect, never reaching
+the cause. If a man’s blood is out of order, does the bad blood cause
+illness, or is the illness and bad blood the result of the imperfect
+transforming of food by the intelligence whose duty it is to perform
+such functions?
+
+[Sidenote: Three pulsations]
+
+When I first showed my ability to produce in a hypnotized subject three
+pulsations at one time, the doctors declared it to be a trick; that
+it was an impossibility; that the heart _only_ controlled the
+circulation. If our most learned (?) men would only think (and such
+a thing were possible), they would readily see the futility of such
+claims. If I am rightly informed, there are several miles of vascular
+piping in the body, and the heart of itself is not strong enough to
+pump the blood that distance; if it were, the frame of the body is not
+strong enough to maintain the resistance to such an action. The truth
+of the matter is, that the heart is simply the governor, _i. e._,
+regulator, that starts the rhythm of the pumping, and different nerve
+centers (mind) take up and carry on the action. Our doctors tell us
+that a man dies because the heart stops beating. No, he dies because
+the intelligence that forces the heart to beat stops working.
+
+[Sidenote: Man a tube]
+
+Man is a tube lined with a series of insulated electric wires. These
+wires run from orifice through ganglia of Abdominal Brain to orifice.
+Every nerve has two ends; irritate one end and through the action of
+its ganglia a response will occur at the other. Our doctors treat the
+response, paying no attention to the cause, although they talk nothing
+but cause.
+
+[Sidenote: Body rebuilt every six months]
+
+From a series of experiments that I have made, I am satisfied that the
+body is rebuilt every six or seven months. The Abdominal Brain in the
+embryonic child is complete at the end of _two_ months; and, as
+the child is born at the end of _nine_ months, the first attempt
+of the Sympathetic System, the Abdominal Brain (mind) built a complete
+child in _seven_ months; although a child born at eight months
+is seemingly complete. If mind in its first attempt can build a child
+in seven months, why should it take longer to build a second time,
+particularly when it has a freer hand and environment to work in?
+
+[Sidenote: “Bugs”]
+
+[Sidenote: Rebuilding]
+
+Our doctors start on the premise that man’s eyes, lungs, heart and
+all vital organs live forever, unless bugs get in and destroy them. I
+cannot accept any such statement. For the sake of argument we will say
+that all organs and tissue are rebuilt every six months. I care not if
+every six years, but we will assume that they are rebuilt every six
+months, constantly wasting and constantly being replaced. The doctors
+will tell us that a cataract _grows_ on our eye. I deny that,
+maintaining that the eyes are replaced every six months, and when
+there is a cataract, the ganglion of the Abdominal Brain (mind) is so
+irritated that it builds an imperfect eye, an eye with a cataract.
+The doctor with his knife removes the cataract, and ninety-nine times
+out of a hundred _it grows (?) back_. The Mental Scientists, the
+Christian Scientists, the Faith Curists and the Hypnotists remove the
+cataract. How? By causing the mind to stop building the cataract and
+resume its previous building of a healthy eye. I have cured dozens of
+cases of astigmatism and myopia, and several cases of cataract simply
+through personal suggestion and orificial surgery.
+
+Many people come to me saying “Mr. Santanelli, I have been wearing
+eye-glasses for a year. Can you cure me?”
+
+“Yes.”
+
+“How many hypnoses will it take?”
+
+“None.”
+
+“Why, what will you do?”
+
+“I will take you to my surgeon, and have the proper orificial work
+performed.”
+
+“And will that cure me?”
+
+“Certainly.”
+
+Another comes to me and says, “Mr. Santanelli, can you cure me?”
+
+“How long have you been wearing glasses?”
+
+“Ten years.”
+
+“How old were you when you began wearing glasses?”
+
+“Twenty years.”
+
+“Yes, I can cure you.”
+
+“How long will it take?”
+
+“I do not know.”
+
+“What will you do with me?”
+
+[Sidenote: Nerve habit]
+
+“I will send you first to an orificial surgeon and have the cause
+removed. Then I will break up the nerve habit.”
+
+“What is that,—the nerve habit?”
+
+[Sidenote: Greatest use for hypnotic suggestion]
+
+“Why, I mean this, that until you were eighteen, your ganglia (mind)
+built good eyes, when, through an irritation, it developed into
+building a pair of bad eyes, called astigmatism, myopia, et cetera.
+You get two pairs of eyes a year, in eighteen years you get thirty-six
+pairs of eyes; and up to that time the ganglia (mind) has the memory
+of building good eyes, in twelve years it builds twenty-four pairs of
+eyes; after the cause of building bad eyes is removed, I must force the
+memory of thirty-six to overcome the memory of twenty-four, which is
+not a very difficult task; but if you came to me ten years later, it
+would be nearly impossible for me to cause a memory of thirty-six to
+overcome a memory of forty-four. Where the nerve habit or new memory is
+not too pronounced, through personal suggestion I can readily revive
+the first memory. It is through the lack of knowing how to overcome
+this that our orificialists fail in many cases. This is the greatest
+use of so-called hypnotic suggestion—the breaking up of nerve habits.”
+
+The same argument holds good as to the lungs, and in all early stages
+of heart trouble, et cetera.
+
+[Sidenote: Consumption]
+
+The doctors tell us that when we have consumption, bugs are nesting
+in and eating our lungs; but why, most wise (?) gentlemen? Life is
+indestructible, and if you will use microscopes powerful enough you
+will always find life (bugs). When man is most dead (?) and burned to a
+handful of ashes, drop a little acetic acid on them and you will find
+there is life, movement; and life is simply energy.
+
+I maintain that man gets a new pair of lungs every six months, and when
+the ganglion that controls the building of the lungs transforms the
+food into healthy lungs, we lack consumption; that when it makes an
+imperfect transformation we have the so-called diseased lung, the germ,
+which is the mal-transformation of food containing life or energy.
+
+[Sidenote: Circumcision]
+
+But few male Jews have consumption, _although they are improperly
+circumcised_. _Circumcise all consumptives, both male and
+female_, and see how quickly you will achieve a result.
+
+[Sidenote: Undeveloped bust]
+
+I will show a genital lesion in every woman with an undeveloped bust.
+Amputate the labia minora of a young woman and see how quickly her
+bust will develop and her respiration be facilitated—a marked result in
+less than two weeks.
+
+I treat all eye trouble by removing the irritation from the other
+end of the nerve. It is a rare case where the cause and effect are
+at the same place. The fool ideas offered as to light, printing, et
+cetera, in our schools, being the cause of so much bad eyesight among
+the students, is all rot. Circumcise them, our mothers are breeding a
+sexually irritated generation of both sexes. If the Jews had properly
+circumcised their women there now would be no necessity of doing so
+with the men.
+
+[Sidenote: Law of Moses]
+
+Moses insisted on two laws. The Jews to-day cannot tell you why those
+laws are enforced. As to the pork I will explain later, as to the
+circumcision they have not been able to offer a rational explanation.
+
+[Sidenote: Jews]
+
+Why is it there are so few Jews in the penitentiaries, insane asylums,
+who are cancerous or consumptive among the males? Why are the Jews a
+money-making race? Oh, they inherit it. _No._ A Jew is but a human
+being, he is the same as you and I; he is ruled by the same Law of
+Suggestion. It is first, because he is circumcised, secondly, because
+he is clean, and third, his Abdominal Brain (mind) is not worried or
+irritated. Consequently, he is full of life and energy, and his brain
+works in a “normal” manner. He eats clean food, producing the same
+result and, therefore, is equipped to do business with a “normal”
+mind, he is free from the “abnormal,” therefore, not a criminal, not
+a candidate for the insane asylum; his thoughts are healthful and
+therefore he looks forward to a long life, to a large family, to the
+care of them, and to the necessity of acquiring the means whereby they
+can live: he is nearly “normal.” The law of Moses, although unexplained
+by his followers, was a law of health; a healthy mind is always the
+result of a healthy body, or a healthy body is the result of the
+healthy mind, impossible to find one each way.
+
+[Sidenote: Bad blood]
+
+When food is impure, the ganglia whose duty it is to transform and make
+pure blood, is working awry, and nothing done to the blood will purify
+it as to the health of man. Inasmuch as the ganglia will continue to
+make bad blood, why treat the blood?
+
+[Sidenote: Drugs are suggestions]
+
+A man’s bowels are constipated and the doctor gives him a drug. Does
+the drug empty the bowel? No, the drug does not. Why is the bowel
+not working properly? Because the ganglia that control secretion and
+peristalsis are not doing their duty, and nothing but those ganglia
+can empty the bowel. Therefore, _the drug is simply a suggestion_
+that stimulates these ganglia and causes them to renew their action of
+secretion and peristalsis. Catarrh, asthma, heart trouble, rheumatism
+and functional diseases are all a result of irritation at the other end
+of the nerve. The idea of trying to drug or treat the heart for its
+imperfect action is ridiculous.
+
+My intelligent reader now asks where the other end of these nerves are?
+How is it the doctor has not discovered them? I will tell you why, my
+good reader.
+
+[Sidenote: Too scientific]
+
+[Sidenote: Reasoning]
+
+[Sidenote: Clean (?) people]
+
+[Sidenote: Modesty]
+
+Our doctors have failed to discover the end of the nerve, inasmuch
+as they are “scientific” and do not know how to “think.” They reason
+_deductively_, which is not reasoning. From a true premise no
+deduction should be necessary, inasmuch as the cause and effect are
+perceptible. Reasoning, so-called, is required when only an effect
+is perceptible, and one has to go back to the cause. The moment the
+cause is found no more reasoning is required. The cause and effect
+are so closely associated that when we comprehend the cause, we must
+comprehend the effect. Inductive reasoning is the only _true_
+reasoning, and our scientists (?) know nothing of this, they much
+prefer to _assume_ a cause and force a deduction to fit the
+effect known. How many inductive reasoners has the world produced? Not
+fifty, and I include all great thinkers in the fifty. Our doctor is a
+good, clean (?) man; his patients are good, clean (?) people, and they
+greatly dislike to think of anything that is “naughty,” forgetting
+that all “naughty” things are a perversion of good things; and that
+the being who appears the most “nice,” at heart is the worst. Little
+children are taught that it is awful to hear anything mentioned about
+their privates. In many states physiology is barred from the public
+schools, as it is something awful for man to understand himself. As
+everything suggests positive for or positive against, the _real
+modest_ person is simply the positive opposite to the real vulgar
+person, both having the same thought, only one gives action in
+blushing, et cetera—alleged modesty—while the other gives action in
+vulgar expressions. The truly pure being would be neutral—no ideas
+associated as to bad.
+
+Dear reader, one can have no thought without its expression (for that
+is all a thought is), and alleged modesty deceives no one, least of all
+one versed in human nature.
+
+In all my years of experience (and I can read a face like a book—I know
+my nerve-ends), I have met but three really healthy women, and they
+were Southerners; and no healthy men.
+
+[Sidenote: Not] [Sidenote: “Bad” defined]
+
+Some one speaks in public of a woman’s leg, many cast their eyes down
+and others blush; some laugh. The sexual look appears in the eyes of
+others. Let us analyze the thoughts of these four classes of people.
+When “leg” is mentioned, the first party would not cast his eyes down
+unless he had “bad” ideas associated; the second would not have blushed
+if he had good ideas associated; the third would not have laughed,
+nor the sexual look have appeared in the eyes of the fourth, had they
+not all proportionately associated the same ideas. Now, the ideas are
+mostly acquired,—particularly in the first three—by the parents telling
+them _not_ to think of this, _not_ to do that, and the
+entirely false thought of modesty, or something “bad” was associated
+and placed in their minds through their “bad” mother telling them they
+must _not_ do or think of these things. Remember, all things in
+the world are good, and man has created the bad. Life keeps moving
+onward, which is good, and no matter which way it moves it is always
+onward and always good, and the “bad” is produced by the “not’s,”
+the “don’t’s,” and the “mustn’t’s.” Therefore, I define “bad” to be
+perverted good.
+
+The nerve-ends of all the upper orifices and the heart and lungs,
+terminate in the genitals and the rectum. You will rarely find only one
+orifice of the head responding to nerve-end irritations. I always find
+two—the eyes and ears, eyes and nose, et cetera.
+
+I have cured stutterers, all classes of eye trouble, all kinds of
+nervousness in both sexes by removing the sexual irritation; but as
+this book is written simply to give the reader a general idea of
+suggestion, I will keep this subject for a book to be written later,
+intended for doctors and mothers only.
+
+In 1895, while claiming in my lectures that we must have an
+Abdominal Brain—otherwise there was no logical explanation as to
+many of the conditions I was producing through hypnosis, in Lansing,
+Michigan—Doctor William D. Cooper drew my attention to the wonderful
+results Dr. E. H. Pratt, of Chicago (the father of orificial surgery),
+was attaining by operating on the lower orifices, and intimated that
+perhaps he was reaching the Abdominal Brain. This intimation prompted
+me to visit Dr. Pratt and learn of his work, which in time resulted in
+my believing that the Sympathetic System was my much sought Abdominal
+Brain, and much study and experiment has resulted in the foregoing
+synopsis.
+
+[Sidenote: Environment]
+
+[Sidenote: Sin (?) a disease]
+
+If man is ruled by his environment, it naturally follows that his body
+must be his closest environment; as the body is, so is the “mind;”
+as is the “mind,” so the body. Therefore, blackguarding, sensuality
+and prostitution are physical diseases. If man’s thoughts are forced
+on him through his five senses, it follows that, if he has a sexual
+irritation, sexual thoughts will always dominate. Therefore, instead of
+passing laws against those “sins,” hospitals should be established and
+convicted _invalids_ sent there to be properly treated.
+
+_Prostitution is a curable disease._ The orificial surgeon can
+remove the physical suggestion, and the hypnotist can break up the
+_nerve habit_.
+
+If we put a clean woman in a dirty house, and keep the house dirty for
+a certain length of time, that woman will become disgusted and have no
+desire to clean up. Put a dirty woman in a clean house, keep the house
+clean for a period, and that woman will become ashamed and acquire
+habits of neatness. So it is with the mind and the body. When the body
+becomes foul, the mind degenerates and _vice versa_. The food is
+the material out of which the body is made, and foul food builds a foul
+body and “mind,” notwithstanding the false theories of our alleged
+scientists.
+
+[Sidenote: Food]
+
+Man’s stomach is the hopper of a mill, made to grind and digest certain
+foods. If man partakes of food to re-establish his body, his present
+eating must be radically wrong, because at least three-fourths of the
+food taken into the stomach is passed off through the bowels; if he ate
+proper food, ninety-five per cent of it should be turned into tissue
+and the waste should be correspondingly small. What fool man does
+to-day is to put all kinds of indigestible food (?) into his hopper,
+and when the mill tries to grind, it breaks down; he then sends for his
+doctor and expects him—if he could—to repair the mill so that he can go
+on trying to grind flint with machinery intended to grind wheat only.
+
+[Sidenote: Flesh-eating]
+
+Remember this, a child’s stomach is gradually taught to digest coarse
+food. In other words, it must learn to transform the different foreign
+elements passed into the stomach. No argument offered can substantiate
+the necessity of flesh-eating. The strongest animals in the world,
+proportionately, are the ox, the ass and the elephant, strict
+vegetarians; and each and every pound of their flesh represents an
+equal proportion of vegetable strength, a concentration of many times
+its bulk of vegetable matter, and vegetable life was before animal
+life. The vicious animals in the world are the lion, the tiger, and
+all flesh-eating animals. In certain parts of the Orient are horses
+that eat flesh, and are so vicious that only the most expert can handle
+them. If you desire to make your dog vicious, chain him up and feed him
+on flesh.
+
+The life of modern man is one of confinement, and in every pound
+of flesh he eats he takes into his system _a hundred times more
+energy_ than it is possible for him to give voice to. Being
+possessed of this concentrated energy, he can get rid of it only by
+giving it a counter-irritant or energy absorber in the form of liquor,
+sensuality and brutality.
+
+During the Greco-Turkish war, the non-meat-eaters and abstainers from
+alcohol paid but little attention to wounds similar to those that sent
+the meat-eaters to the hospital. Similar wounds that sent them to the
+hospital, caused the death of the others.
+
+[Sidenote: The hog]
+
+[Sidenote: All fat is filth]
+
+The hog is a scavenger, living on filth and transforming filth into
+its body, which is simply a concentrated form of filth. Lazy man takes
+this filth into his stomach, transforms it into his flesh, and wonders
+why he is syphilitic, cancerous, diseased, lazy and sluggish. I have
+given health to many families by causing them to cut pork and lard
+from off their bills of fare. _All fat is filth._ All four-legged
+scavengers easily go to fat. Feed kine on “slops” and they go to fat.
+
+The lady with the blotched face goes to her physician, and he advises
+her to avoid eating pastry. For Heaven’s sake! What can be healthier
+than flour and fruits? What, then, must be the only thing that is
+detrimental? Why, the lard, the shortening in the pastry.
+
+[Sidenote: Lazy]
+
+My experience and investigations have shown me that the majority of the
+poor people, who can barely get money enough together to buy a little
+“sow-belly” and meal, are always the lazy, indolent, worthless class of
+people, whose entire tissue is made up of hog meat, and consequently
+have very sluggish brains. I have yet to meet a confirmed pork-eater
+with an active mentality.
+
+For three years I abstained from eating flesh, two years of which was
+the most delightful existence I ever experienced. Having a clean tenant
+in a clean house, my thoughts were pure, my actions pure; but found
+I lacked the energy to keep up the race with the over-wrought, pell
+mell, flesh-eating environment. I firmly believe that there is no case
+of syphilis so severe but proper dieting will re-establish a healthy
+condition.
+
+[Sidenote: Fasting]
+
+Since my experiments of putting subjects to sleep for seven days, many
+dyspeptics have taken up the fast cure and have demonstrated beyond all
+question that much good is consummated by total abstinence from food.
+Our doctors are daily killing their patients by feeding them. When mind
+requires food, food will be demanded. _There is never danger of a
+patient starving to death._
+
+[Sidenote: Small-pox]
+
+Mind responds to the suggestion of matter. Our doctors tell us that
+we are vast sewers, filled with bugs that are devouring one another;
+that the more chemicals, the more putrid matter they can put into us
+the better we are. First, they warn us to beware of the pus of a sore,
+yet take the pus of cow-syphilis—cow-pox—and put it into the pure
+body of a helpless babe to prevent its getting a harmless disease, a
+disease that any first-class homeopath laughs at, small-pox—a disease
+that is non-contagious, non-infectious, as is proven by vaccination,
+which fails to produce small-pox—Oh! the scientists (?). This was
+demonstrated beyond all question last summer by a physician in
+Wisconsin eating the virus and spreading it all over his face; he fed
+it to at least thirty of his patients and none contracted the disease.
+_Small-pox decreases with the advancement of sanitation._
+
+[Sidenote: Pointer for the doctors]
+
+Strange to say, our doctors marvel at the increase of syphilitic
+affections, of tubercular conditions of the body and of the bones,
+of the prevalence of hip disease, yet fail to see that it comes from
+the inoculation of these innocent children with cow-syphilis. I would
+unhesitatingly kill any member of a board of health or any officer
+who would enforce the inoculation of any of my family with this
+syphilis, and the jury does not live that would convict me. The body
+being rebuilt every six months, the so-called immunizing could only be
+effective for that period. Now, my scientific (?) friends, as I have
+taught you something that is irrefutable, have the boards of health
+force a law that all shall be poxed every six months. What a lot of
+idle doctors would be kept busy.
+
+These philosophers (?), these scientists (?), fill horses with disease
+and take the serum, fill it full of drugs to keep it from spoiling (?),
+“shoot” it into the arms of helpless babes to cure them of diphtheria,
+and when they die of lockjaw and other diseases produced by the poison
+so injected into their blood, the doctors suddenly discover that
+they got hold of the wrong toxin, otherwise the children would have
+recovered. Never! A lie given to protect a fool theory.
+
+[Sidenote: Germs]
+
+[Sidenote: Remove the cause]
+
+Now, as the body is rebuilt every six months, and there is an
+intelligence building the body, an intelligence that is making the
+blood, an intelligence than is transforming this blood so made into
+tissue, what in the mischief have bugs to do with disease? The germ
+is life; impossible to find life without germs or germs without
+life, and the germ is simply a transformation of form of life; if
+the intelligence within the body is surrounded with suggestions
+of health, forcing it to perform its functions in a natural and
+proper way, it will make the correct transformation which is known
+as health; but if the rhythm of its work is interfered with, it will
+make mal-transformations which are recognized as germs of this, that,
+and the other disease. The removing of the germ is of no consequence,
+inasmuch as the intelligence (mind) still builds more germs. Remove the
+cause, allow the intelligence that built to rebuild correctly, and the
+“specific” germs will disappear. Killing the germs is like to a man
+who is annoyed by a hen laying an egg on his porch every morning, and
+he sends the servant out to destroy the egg. If you want to stop the
+laying of the egg on the porch, remove the hen.
+
+[Sidenote: Body a result]
+
+Good blood and bad blood are results of the building of the
+intelligence (mind) that makes the blood, and any bugs or anything of
+that kind you find in your blood are simply the badly or goodly made
+blood. Our doctors seem to think that man is built and rebuilt without
+an intelligence to guide that building; that he is a compost heap in
+which seeds lie that in time develop and grow, overlooking that the
+body is a result, that anything on or in the body is a result, and
+that the entire result is guided by the all-wise intelligence of mind,
+this mind being subservient to and part of the Law of Suggestion—its
+environment.
+
+=Mineral, vegetable, animal, human mind is the same (either singly
+or collectively); i. e., a conditional reproduction of its environment
+(suggestion). (1), The primitive element (environment), forces
+(suggests) a reproduction in (2), vegetable result; 1 and 2 forces
+(suggests) a result (3),—animal life; and 1 plus 2 plus 3 forces
+(suggests) a result (4),—man. Thus the Law of Suggestion keeps up an
+individual and combined transformation, always progressing yet ever in
+variable form, resulting from the individual changes in the several
+attributes (suggestion) back of or lower than itself.=
+
+=“Man is made in the image of his Creator.” Yes; but, dear reader,
+not as you interpret it. Man is the interpretation, the consensus, the
+result of the transforming of his environment, the exemplification of
+the Law of Suggestion; he is good, God. Mind, the intelligence within,
+learned from the mother, responds to the external forces, suggestion,
+the all, God, that forces material life ever onward into something
+else. We are but one of the MANY forms of God, good, the Law of
+Suggestion that embraces ALL. Remove from or add one atom to this world
+and it will end, a thing incomprehensible. What is, was, and always
+will be.=
+
+[Sidenote: Blister test]
+
+[Sidenote: Only memory actions can be revived]
+
+I place a cantharides plaster on the left arm of a man and blister him.
+In time the blister heals. I afterward hypnotize him, put a postage
+stamp on his left arm and tell him that it is a cantharides plaster,
+and in twenty-four hours or less I have the blister. What made the
+first blister? What made the second? Well, the first blister was made
+by the cantharides plaster. No, sir; it was not. The first blister was
+suggested by the plaster, which caused the ganglion that built the
+tissue of that area of the arm to accomplish a condition called a
+“blister,” that action, being associated with the cerebral memory of
+the name “cantharides plaster,” was aroused in the hypnosis through
+the word “plaster” and the ganglion built the second blister as it did
+the first. Can I reproduce this blister on the right arm? No. Why not?
+Because the ganglion of the right arm has no such memory. I can only
+produce it on the place where the memory was established through its
+proper channels, through feeling. Here is where the mistake has been so
+often made by operators trying to perform the blister test; trying to
+revive a memory where none exists.
+
+[Sidenote: Reaching mind]
+
+A man has a wart on his finger; the doctor says the wart grew there.
+No, it did not grow there. It is a result. It is burned off with an
+acid or caustic, and grows (?) back; then the doctor says he did not
+get to the roots (?), that if he had taken the roots out, it would stop
+growing. (Just as if a man was a well-manured heap, and you could grow
+things in him.) An old woman comes along, cuts a few white hairs out of
+a black cat’s tail, mutters some cabalistic words over it, and behold,
+in time the wart disappears! Why? Because she reaches the mind. The
+mind stopped building the wart and began building healthy tissue. The
+doctor cuts it off, but seldom reaches the mind.
+
+No result can be produced in the body until the mind is reached. Drugs
+are nothing but suggestions. We will assume that a man’s bowels are
+constipated and the doctor gives him a dose of calomel. Does the
+calomel move the bowels? Yes. Good. If I put into a glass jar some
+food with some calomel, will it “move”? What is constipation? Why,
+it is lack of secretions, lack of peristalsis. Does the peristalsis
+work of itself? Does the secretion work of itself, or is there an
+intelligence that guides and makes the secretions, that guides and
+forces the peristalsis? This being a fact, the intelligence that guides
+or rules the secretions and peristalsis has ceased to do its work,
+and the calomel simply irritates these ganglia or brain centers and
+stimulates them to renew their _former action_. If they accept
+this suggestion the patient is cured; if they fail to do so, more
+suggestion must be given, and in many cases the ganglia refuse to
+accept the suggestion at all and the doctor looks wise and gives you a
+handful more of “stuff.”
+
+[Sidenote: Mental science]
+
+The Mental or Christian Scientist, or hypnotist can cure constipation.
+How does he do it? Let us first analyze and find the attributes of
+constipation. First, there is the cerebral attribute, its name,
+constipation; associated with that are the two mind actions of
+peristalsis and secretion. Those three are now associated in the
+“mind” of man, and the law is that if I lock a thought in the “mind”
+and start it in action, every one of its attributes in its proper
+place is bound to act. Therefore, if I will lock into the mind of a
+hypnotized subject the thought that his bowels are loose, or will move,
+or arouse any thought there that has associated with it the action of
+peristalsis and secretions, and hold that thought there long enough,
+the result is certain. It is for this reason that a personal suggestion
+or an inspiration in hypnosis has but little effect on a young child.
+The moment it has cerebral attributes associated with sympathetic
+attributes, and the operator knows how to emphasize them, he can get
+the desired result.
+
+[Sidenote: Christian scientists]
+
+[Sidenote: Certainty of action]
+
+The Christian Scientists tell the patient that he is not sick; then
+if his mind could reason it would say, “If I am not sick, in what
+condition am I?” But you should say to your patient, “You are sick, and
+so and so will happen,” and if the memory is there to be aroused the
+action will take place. Remember, in hypnosis or any mental treatment,
+you can only revive memories, words of themselves mean nothing, hence
+skill is required to force the proper thought; but just as certain as
+the proper thought, _no matter how aroused_, is put in force just
+that certain will the action take place.
+
+[Sidenote: Cure for cancer]
+
+I believe that the only cure for cancer is personal suggestion,
+inasmuch as the cancer does not grow in the body of man, but the mind
+that is building that area of the body is building cancerous, instead
+of healthy, tissue; that a suggestion or an inspiration will be found
+that will re-establish the original healthy building. Our doctor cuts
+the cancer out and says it grows back. It does not _grow_ back.
+
+[Sidenote: Attributes of a “mental healer”]
+
+Personal suggestion, when attempted, must affect the _proper_
+senses; in hypnosis the operator _names_ the sense-pictures. When
+we _talk_ health to a patient, we must _look_ and _act_
+health, as well as show it in our _tone_. If we doubt, we are
+wasting our time, inasmuch as we can only _do_ as we think. Faith,
+confidence and sincerity are the principal attributes of a “mental
+healer.”
+
+
+
+
+HEREDITY
+
+
+When our neighbors desire to account for there being a black sheep in
+the family, having charity towards all, they immediately state that
+he inherited it—whatever that may mean. They travel back generation
+through generation and if they go _far_ enough they can always
+find what they want, and claim that this taint came from a forefather.
+For Heaven’s sake, if we are the epitome or digest of all the good and
+ill that our forefathers have been doing, clear from the time they were
+monkeys, what a conglomeration we should be at the present time.
+
+According to our alienists; a very good word, it always reminds me
+of foreign—strange, I don’t know—and they are strong on heredity,
+we inherit (?) insanity, ill health, goodness, badness, et cetera.
+Heredity is a word that means nothing, therefore explains nothing, and
+is a very good word to use by our scientific (?) friends when somebody
+asks a pertinent question.
+
+The Abdominal Brain of the child learns from the same brain (mind) of
+the mother to reproduce as of the mother, modified by the material out
+of which to build (condition of the mother’s blood), and the present
+external environment (suggestion) of the mother.
+
+[Sidenote: Cerebral impressions]
+
+[Sidenote: As to features]
+
+As is proven by birthmarks, cerebral impressions have a positive effect
+on the Abdominal Brain action. A child looks like its father simply
+through the sense-impression on the mother. A mother may bear a child
+having the features of her husband’s dearest friend and yet be a
+physically pure woman. A child having the features of a woman’s husband
+is not proof that he is its father. I would go even a step farther,
+and say if I were on a jury to pass judgment on a white woman who gave
+birth to a black child, and it was shown that the woman was of proper
+moral character, et cetera, I would unhesitatingly believe and decide
+in favor of the woman being physically pure, although the child was
+black.
+
+[Sidenote: Produce life (?)]
+
+The story of Jacob illustrates this, and breeders of animals prove it,
+year after year. If I dared, here, to discuss this subject properly,
+I could quote instances without number all tending to prove my claim.
+The element of the male is only a fertilizer, nothing more, and nothing
+is inherited from the father, _per se_. The egg of the mother
+contains a memory (mind) of building the Abdominal Brain, which action
+is aroused by the element of the male. The moment the Abdominal Brain
+(Sympathetic System) is built, _it acquires its intelligence direct
+from the Sympathetic brain centers of the mother_, tempered by
+cerebral impressions. It is for this reason that our alleged scientists
+fail to “produce” life.
+
+Why is it that two children of the same mother possess absolutely
+different traits? They both have the same (?) environment? How is
+this possible? The environment is not the same. First, the external
+environment is always changing, if in nothing else, there is the change
+of the seasons. The food differs, the mental state of the mother
+differs, etc. In fact, at no time are we the same, we are always
+changing, moving on, nillynally, reflecting the constant change of our
+suggestion.
+
+[Sidenote: The same impossible]
+
+In a piano factory one hundred pianos are turned out, seemingly built
+of the same material, by the same hands, and yet no two are identically
+the same in value or quality. How is this? No two things are the same.
+After the pianos are completed a man assorts them, then a more skillful
+one; and last, the expert comes in and decides on the relative value
+of the instruments. So it is with children born, each varying and
+time assorts them. Those born with superfine feeling nerve-ends will
+quickly learn to withdraw from coarse wraps, while those born with
+dulled nerve-ends will be attracted to the contact of the rough wraps,
+each through its natural state (mind) responding positively to the
+suggestion.
+
+[Sidenote: Musicians]
+
+A child born with the nerves of hearing super-sensitive, will gather
+more ideas as to sound and develop itself into a musician; the same
+with sight, a child super-acute as to distinguishing form and color,
+is certain to develop into a painter, draftsman, or enter some pursuit
+that will give expression to his superabundance of ideas of this one
+sense.
+
+[Sidenote: Here is the heredity]
+
+A mother possessed of a certain sexual irritation will produce a
+child having a redundant, superfluous, or abnormal condition, which,
+in time, will result through its irritation into a condition similar
+to the mother’s. Or, if the father be in a condition to impress the
+mother, in ninety times out of a hundred, the impression so produced
+on the mother will be reproduced in the child, physically. Here is the
+heredity. But a surgeon knowing (?) what is “normal,” has it in his
+power to remove the irritation or redundant tissue, and thereby put the
+child in a “normal” condition. How many male Jews do we find suffering
+from consumption? Not because their mothers did not have consumption,
+but as the cause of the consumption is removed from them.
+
+[Sidenote: Inherit disease (?)]
+
+A child, being born with a sound pair of lungs, could not possibly have
+inherited consumption, as the mind has but the one memory. To have
+inherited consumption would have meant to inherit a memory of building
+an imperfect pair of lungs. But the child did inherit a genital
+irritation which would result, in later years, in worrying the ganglia
+and cause (force) them to build an imperfect lung. Thanks to the
+discovery of orificial surgeons, many of these irritations are known,
+which, if removed at birth, will destroy the alleged inheritance.
+
+A mother has astigmatism; baby is born with good eyes, and, mind
+you, that babe is getting a new pair of eyes every six months. It is
+strange that the ganglia which, according to the theory of our alleged
+scientists, should have inherited a memory of building bad eyes,
+should, after building thirty or forty pairs of good ones, suddenly
+recollect that it has forgotten to do what it inherited, and start in
+building bad eyes. The truth of the matter is this: The irritation that
+was inherited had not, until after a number of years, grown to be of
+sufficient importance as to disarrange the rhythm or memory action of
+the ganglia (mind) that build the eyes.
+
+[Sidenote: Syphilis]
+
+So it is with every one of the alleged inherited diseases. I do not
+believe that a mother, living on pure food, could transmit syphilis
+to her child. It is simply the furnishing of the mind of the child
+improper material out of which to build its body. A child born with a
+deformity, no mind treatment will cure; because the “normal” memory is
+not there to be re-established, for in hypnosis, or through what they
+call suggestive treatment, only memories can be revived. Where there is
+no memory there is nothing to revive.
+
+[Sidenote: The beginning]
+
+A child is born into the world with its cerebrum inactive. In a short
+time consciousness, or registration of ideas through the cerebrum,
+begins, and the child now must respond to external suggestion as well
+as internal (physical). The child, being born into a new environment,
+must learn through suggestion to adapt itself to (become part of) that
+environment. If it succeeds in doing so, it will be the survival of the
+fittest, and live. If it fails it will die. The environment by which
+it is surrounded is the environment of the mother; the habits (manner
+of responding) of the mother are now being transferred to the child.
+As the child progresses in life, its accumulation of associated ideas
+are in response to its environment, and are but the gathering together
+of the reproduction of the mother, subject to changes or modifications
+of the present external environment, called the advancement of
+“civilization.”
+
+[Sidenote: Responsibility of marriage]
+
+When the girl reaches womanhood she marries, which is the beginning of
+new creatures. Ah, if our women could only appreciate the magnitude
+of the responsibility that they take on their shoulders when they
+get married, if they could but learn that marriage is not for the
+gratification of sensuality, brutality and puppy-dog love; but the
+beginning, the starting point, the sending forth into the world of
+beings who will carry on the good or ill that this young mother
+suggests to them (surrounds them with). Is it not a sin, a shame,
+that women, not understanding themselves, lacking in knowledge that
+is unmistakably possessed by animals, are allowed to marry? No woman
+should bear children until she has learned as to _how to bear
+them_. A dog is her own midwife, as is also a squaw; but civilized
+(?) woman, being unprepared, has to send for a doctor. Truly, this
+is proof positive of the advancement (?) of man. The young mother,
+differing from the lower (?) animals, does not know what to do with the
+child, now she has it.
+
+[Sidenote: Nurses]
+
+The ignorant bring forth the most young. The rich place the child in
+the inexperienced hands of an ignorant nurse. Nurses for new born
+babes should be thoroughly schooled, and be the highest paid of all
+employés, for they can make or damn the future of the child, inasmuch
+as the first response to its environment are, and should be, under the
+guidance of the nurse. Give me a child until it is eight years of age,
+and I will promise much for its future.
+
+[Sidenote: Inheritance of environment]
+
+[Sidenote: To banish an inheritance]
+
+The wife carries into her new home the same environment that her
+mother was possessed of, because she had no means of learning other.
+Mother’s sanitation, mother’s style of cooking, mother’s mode of
+abusing her neighbors, of having two manners in the family—one for
+company, all are hers and in the new home. If that environment resulted
+in certain moral traits in her brothers and sisters, why will not this
+environment repeated produce the same result in her children? It will,
+and the inheritance is not in the blood, but in the environment. This
+you may rest assured of, that where the father dictates the environment
+of the home, or his mother comes and does so, the inheritance will be
+entirely on the side of the father, and _vice versa_. But, if
+you wish to be rid of the inheritance, send for the old lady who has
+reared a family of children lacking in all the disagreeable attributes
+which are creeping into your family. Allow her to have full sway in
+the household, and see how quickly the heredity will disappear, and
+how uncomfortable you will all be for the time being. She will turn
+the house topsy-turvy, thereby forcing laws of sanitation which you
+declared you could never endure; she will change the entire regimen
+of the table, cause you to eat food that you affirmed you could never
+eat, and will throw out the food which you were certain you could not
+exist without. In fact, everything that you avoided she will bring into
+the house, and those things to which you were most partial, will be
+immediately eliminated.
+
+Let us build a story. Let us follow a young man from the country
+through a generation and see the effects.
+
+[Sidenote: John and Mary]
+
+John Smith is a farmer, and, being like most farmers, dislikes manual
+labor, not so much as his father, who is a very hard-working man, and
+desires that John will not have to work as he has. So he sends John to
+a business college and gives him a thorough (?) course in business (?).
+And now John becomes imbued with the thought that he should not soil
+his hands, that he must go to the city and be a “real fellow.” John’s
+mother—good woman—has told John that he should not steal, that he
+should go to church, has taught him his prayers; hence, John is a good
+boy, having been surrounded with a healthy environment. He goes to the
+city and takes a job of keeping books in a store.
+
+Probably, in a week or ten days, the well-meaning minister comes around
+and invites John to attend services, which he does, and ninety-nine
+times out of a hundred, John sits in a back pew, awfully lonely,
+thinking of mother and, perhaps, paying but little attention to the
+sermon.
+
+The trouble lies here: The stores close early, and John, not working
+hard now, and being full of energy which he cannot give vent to in
+his present occupation, does not respond to sleep until ten or eleven
+o’clock at night, and does not know what to do during the hours between
+the closing of the store and the time that sleep gathers around him.
+Some of the other clerks invite him to play pool and billiards, which
+games of themselves are perfectly harmless; but as a rule, the only
+place that you can find the appliances for the game is connected with
+a bar room. John, being ruled as all men, animals and plants are, by
+suggestion, goes, watches the game, and, in time, learns to play it.
+The saloon is warm, no one interferes with him, he has money, his
+companions drink, John drinks soda-water. In a little while his stomach
+rebels at the “soft stuff,” his curiosity is aroused and he takes a
+drink.
+
+[Sidenote: The Y. M. C. A.]
+
+We will assume that John is a reader; he is anxious for knowledge and
+is willing to read. He is a member of the Y. M. C. A., but those good
+people, so afraid that the secretary will fail to get sleep enough,
+insist on his closing their establishment at nine or nine-thirty, and
+poor John, having an hour and a half on his hands knows where he can
+go to find warmth, good-fellowship, and perhaps congeniality; although
+he does not drink while there. On Sundays, when time hangs heavily,
+the good Y. M. C. A. people, so afraid of the soul of their secretary,
+close the place and turn their fellowmen adrift, feeling that it is
+much better to save the soul of _one_ secretary than those of
+a thousand of their fellowmen, forgetting that the good that one
+secretary can do would make a great big mark in favor of both himself
+and the Y. M. C. A. with the Supreme Ruler (?).
+
+[Sidenote: The devil knows how to cater]
+
+But the devil and his followers are wise. They know how to cater to
+man, and at the times when all other places are closed, the side door
+of the saloon is always open, and in there is warmth, and reading
+matter, and enjoyment, and poison.
+
+[Sidenote: Oppose the saloons]
+
+I remember my experience in New York City. I had no love for liquor,
+was wildly desirous of reading, found that the Y. M. C. A. on
+Twenty-third street was a very congenial place. My time was my own;
+I slept late mornings and, consequently, remained up late nights.
+Every night, at nine-thirty or ten o’clock, the bell rang and I was
+sent into the street. As it was cold, and damp, and uncomfortable,
+I was naturally forced to go where there was warmth, and in the
+saloons I found all comforts for physical man, and the only thing
+expected of me was that I spend a reasonable amount at the bar, so
+that the landlord could pay rent, pay for the gas, pay his employés
+and buy diamonds. Many is the drink, many the glass of beer I drank,
+not because I desired it, but to make a return for the environment
+furnished me. If the Y. M. C. A.’s would only learn, taking lesson from
+the saloon-keepers, to run their association rooms in opposition, by
+offering all physical comforts with the mental food, and keeping their
+establishments open at the time all others are closed, allowing the
+wanderers—those without homes—a refuge, they would accomplish more good
+in one year than they are accomplishing now in one hundred, with their
+strict adherence to antediluvian rules.
+
+[Sidenote: First place your man]
+
+Idleness is the workshop of the devil. When a time of idleness is,
+give the people something to do, but the first thing they must have
+is a place—“first place your subject, then give him his attributes.”
+If you would make converts, if you would lead man into the pathway of
+goodness, give him a place (environment). But if a man is accustomed
+to a homely place, a “swell” place of meeting is always a suggestion
+against you, forcing him to feel uncomfortable. Give him an environment
+which will be _his_ ideal and at the same time not above him.
+After you have caught your bird by giving him a place, you may cause
+him to do many things, but it is impossible to catch him without a
+proper “cage.”
+
+[Sidenote: Pure food law]
+
+John is thus forced to visit the saloons, and he drinks whisky. Now,
+whisky is one of “nature’s” gifts. If our temperance advocates would
+only force the lawmakers at Washington to enact a pure food law
+compelling all saloon people to sell _pure_ liquor, our insane
+asylums and penitentiaries would be plenty large enough to supply the
+demand. The adulteration of food, and lack of knowledge to prepare
+it, is doing more to fill our insane asylums and penitentiaries than
+all the “bugs” in Christendom. The taking into our stomachs of impure
+liquors and adulterated foods produces irritations that result in
+insanity and crime.
+
+John takes into his stomach an irritant called whisky. In the course
+of time he takes enough of it to produce a reaction, and some morning
+wakes up lacking an appetite. He goes to the store. One of his fellow
+clerks says, “Old man, what is the matter? You look broke-up.”
+
+“Yes, I am; I couldn’t eat any breakfast.”
+
+The fellow clerk, meaning well, asks, “Why not take a cocktail?” and
+John now takes a cocktail, a combination of two poisons, the whisky
+plus the bitters, which, being an irritant, stimulates the secretions,
+and the nerve-ends begin reaching forth for food upon which to do their
+natural work. In a little while John gets into such a condition that he
+cannot do without his cocktail.
+
+[Sidenote: Marrying a drinker]
+
+About this time, John, being frugal and of gentlemanly demeanor, meets
+a fool girl, who marries him. Any woman who marries a man who drinks
+intoxicants is a fool, and I say it unreservedly. John and Mary get
+married and start a home of their own in a small town where they can
+be closer to “nature” than in the large cities, which are entirely
+artificial.
+
+[Sidenote: Counter-irritants]
+
+Mary, having a clever mother, has learned to cook and knows how to
+do her own housework; but, strange to say, for some reason, her
+cooking does not suit John. Why, Mary often wonders and talks with
+her mother. After some six months, when Mary and John have become
+thoroughly acquainted, he informs Mary that she does not know how to
+cook; that every time he eats one of her meals he is subject to a
+fit of indigestion, which is true. Mary learned to cook for people
+with “normal” digestions, but John, having an “abnormal” digestive
+apparatus, so induced by the liquor, cannot digest the plain food of
+his wife’s cooking. He prefers to eat in a night restaurant, which
+caters only to the drinking element, and, obeying the law that “like
+cures like,” or _similia similibus curantur_, the food is highly
+seasoned, and on the table are all kinds of condiments; or, in other
+words, John, to digest his food, must partake of such food as is full
+of counter-irritants.
+
+Mary, being a dutiful wife, and grieving because John cannot digest
+meals prepared by her, has a long consultation with her mother. For the
+sake of novelty, we will assume that this mother-in-law, differing from
+the others, is a good, rational, sensible woman, who informs Mary that
+the best thing she can do is to visit this night-lunch establishment
+and discover, if possible, why it is that the food cooked there is more
+digestible than hers. Mary does so, and the first thing she finds,
+ninety-five times out of a hundred, is that the place is what she calls
+filthy, and wonders how food prepared in such a kitchen is digestible.
+Assuming that the proprietor of this night-lunch is a man who means
+well, he imparts to Mary the information that he is very liberal with
+all kinds of spices in the seasoning of his food; that on his table are
+nothing but the hottest of pepper sauces; that his biggest expense is
+for condiments, and that all of his customers use them freely. So Mary
+goes home, has a long “think,” goes to her grocer and says, “Send me
+every condiment in the place that is hot.” He does so and Mary prepares
+on a certain Sunday—which is generally the feast day—a dinner full of
+spices, places the bottles of condiments on the table, and begs John to
+dine at home once more. John does so, uses freely of the condiments,
+smacks his lips, and for the first time in several months kisses his
+wife, saying, “Mary, you have hit the scheme.”
+
+[Sidenote: “Hot stuff”]
+
+Mary, like a good and loving wife, continues to fill John’s food
+full of “hot stuff,” and the “hot stuff,” being a counter-irritant,
+stimulates the secretions and digests John’s food, keeping him in
+good humor, and Mary believes she has entered her Elysium. At first
+Mary cannot partake of the food she cooks for John; but, as constant
+association will reconcile one to anything, in time she learns to
+partake of this food, with the result that she becomes an invalid. The
+irritations produce an abnormal condition that may be noticed in many
+ways, ill-temper, nervousness, a desire for something which is not
+gratified until some fool doctor first administers a drug to her. The
+moment she has learned of the counter action she becomes a drug fiend.
+If this fool doctor fails to be the family physician, she is saved from
+that, yet is nervous, irritable and sickly.
+
+[Sidenote: A child born]
+
+A child is now born into the family. The father, being full of
+counter-irritants, digests his dinners in _good humor_; the
+mother, being full of irritants, is in _bad humor_, and baby
+is attracted to the caresses and expressions of good-will on the
+father’s face. Father takes a spoonful of soup so hot with condiments
+that it would make a salamander wince, and gives baby a taste; this
+continues until in a short time baby is sickly, and a demand is made
+for a doctor, whom they expect, with drugs far more vicious than the
+condiments, to re-establish a healthy condition in baby that has been
+destroyed through the use of food prepared for a drunkard father,
+instead of for a child just learning to digest and assimilate food.
+
+Time goes on; the sickly wife, the undeveloped child—perhaps more
+children—all drain on the purse, keeping the doctor in wealth and
+affluence. No! because the poor doctor rarely gets bills paid in full;
+but, at any rate, the drain is such that John, seeing nothing but bills
+payable in front of him, drinks the harder.
+
+[Sidenote: The boy becomes a drunkard]
+
+The first child which, perhaps, is a boy, at the age of fifteen,
+being irritated and desiring something that he cannot explain or
+gratify, takes a drink of liquor, and behold, a change takes place.
+The counter-irritant soothes and quiets that hitherto unsatisfied
+longing. Having once acquired the knowledge through the proper sense,
+that a drink of liquor will produce a quieting effect, it is not long
+before the boy becomes a drunkard, and the good kind neighbors and the
+all-wise (?) scientists claim that he inherited it from father. No!
+He inherited the _environment_ of a drunkard father, which was
+certain to produce by reaction the cause that made his father’s present
+environment.
+
+[Sidenote: Heredity is of environment]
+
+A daughter born into the family, acquiring the surroundings and
+attributes of a drunkard father, marries and carries into her home the
+same environment. Why, then, will not her family respond in the same
+way? Or, if the husband’s desires are gratified, why will not that
+environment, which the father carries from his home, produce on his
+children the same result as it produced on him. Therefore, our heredity
+is one of environment.
+
+I have spoken of the external environment, environment proper, of the
+body. As our body is our closest environment, the state in which our
+body is, is the state of our mind, _i. e._, our actions.
+
+[Sidenote: Latent tendencies]
+
+In looking over the paper this evening I see that some great (?) French
+scientist has made a record of a large number of criminal children,
+and traces back (?) and lays the entire fault—the cause of their
+criminality—to inherited alcoholism, their fathers and forefathers were
+drunkards. It is strange, if that were the case, that the children did
+not refuse the breast and make a demand for gin. A milk punch would
+have been refused by them. The child is satisfied with the breast until
+it is placed in the same physical condition as explained in the story
+of John and Mary. The philosophy of latent tendencies, of the desire
+for the unknown, laying dormant in the cerebrum for years and all at
+once asserting themselves, is rot.
+
+[Sidenote: All is good]
+
+Study environment; learn the Law of Suggestion, the suggestions that
+force results; learn cause; learn how to respond properly to cause,
+and effect will take care of itself. All is good, all is consistent,
+results are always in accordance with the suggestions; therefore,
+nothing is “abnormal.” Study the suggestions (cause), and you will find
+that the result is good, correct, as to the positive forced either for
+or against.
+
+[Sidenote: Sex]
+
+Sex is entirely the result of the mental condition of the mother.
+Breeders of animals seem to show that it is during the latter part of
+the menstrual period, when, through the physical irritations, a desire
+for the male is dominant in the mind of the female, that she conceives
+a male offspring. A couple of years ago a great (?) French scientist
+claimed it was the food that decided the sex of a child. That was
+simply suggestion, a prospective mother eating a special food trying
+to bring forth a male; the constant suggestion was what did it, not the
+food. You will find, as a rule, the exceptions easily explained, but
+not here, that the “nervous, irritated” women have families of boys,
+while the lymphatic and phlegmatic women have families of girls.
+
+[Sidenote: Birthmarks, etc.]
+
+A thought constantly in the “mind” is either from a rational external
+suggestion or a mind suggestion. The idiosyncrasies shown in a child
+as birthmarks, monstrosities, are from _instantaneous_, severe
+stimulus, causing the cerebral impression to dominate and disarrange
+the proper mind action.
+
+[Sidenote: Degeneracy]
+
+Degeneracy I will define to mean other than the general acceptance of
+“normal.”
+
+A degenerate can be plus or minus, or of each; both being the result of
+a mal-condition of the body.
+
+[Sidenote: Degenerates plus]
+
+If the nerve-ends of an organ are irritated, the corresponding orifices
+to these irritated nerve-ends may be super-sensitive, hence up to
+a certain point will be super-acute as to sight, hearing, smell,
+tasting or feeling. I class them as degenerates plus, and include all
+genius, poets, painters, musicians and phenomenal freaks; otherwise as
+possessing an orificial lesion. Of all so-called genius, the history
+and lives of these men demonstrate them to be physically unsound,
+producing thereby a super-sensitive perceiving condition. This accounts
+for all of them having “failings,” many of which, perhaps, are not
+known to the public until after their death. The treatment of Oscar
+Wilde was an outrage. He was a sick man, a _curable_ man, and one
+of the brightest minds of the day.
+
+[Sidenote: Why is man cruel?]
+
+We will now speak of the degenerate minus, one whose nerve-end
+irritations has dulled his senses. Why is a man cruel? Because the
+act which we call cruelty does not arouse in his mind a memory of
+the suffering inflicted upon the object of his torture. That man’s
+sensibilities, through proper orificial work, can be restored, and
+he will lose his seemingly brutal nature. Putting the man in the
+penitentiary will not make his nerve-ends any more sensitive.
+
+The same with children who do not object to being whipped; their
+nerve-ends are dull, they cannot comprehend or appreciate pain the same
+as the alleged normal mind.
+
+[Sidenote: Degenerate minus]
+
+Degeneracy minus is really due to the physical condition of man, _the
+nerve-ends of his senses being so dulled that he fails to properly or
+normally receive impressions_.
+
+In a store window across the street is the lithograph of a blind
+violinist who is to appear here this week. The paper last evening
+stated that his hearing is so sensitive that if he hears a discord
+he immediately faints, (lucky for him that he is not rooming in this
+house; he would be in a constant faint). In the previous pages I told
+you that all orifices are connected; that two in the head always
+respond to the irritation of the other end of the nerve. In this
+case the eye is inactive, dead, the ear super-sensitive. ’Tis very
+plain. These two extreme responses are daily demonstrated, with your
+“real nice” person, and the gross. Same cause, practically the same
+thought, only “extra fine” instead of “extra coarse.” You get either
+of two positives from every suggestion, positive for—plus; positive
+against—minus.
+
+[Sidenote: Positive, for or against]
+
+Every suggestion forces either one or the other of these positives. We
+will assume that there are two men standing on the street corner, one
+whose ideas are so associated with everything connected with drinking,
+that it is abhorrent to him; with the other everything is congenial. A
+third party approaches and says, “Let’s have a drink,” which arouses
+in the “mind” of the first party all of his ideas contrary to drinking
+and he refuses, not of his own choice, but because the ideas associated
+in his mind are forced into play. The second man immediately accepts,
+because his ideas associated are all positive for and in favor of such
+an act.
+
+The same lesion will result in either a prude, a masturbator, or a
+prostitute; different modifications forced by external environment.
+
+Cesare Lombroso tells us much as to statistics, but offers no cure. I
+have but little use for that kind of science.
+
+[Sidenote: Degeneracy curable]
+
+If the reader will comprehend the foregoing, he will readily see that
+degeneracy is simply physical, as I have just described. My experience
+with orificial surgery has proven to me that these conditions can be
+changed.
+
+[Sidenote: Inheritance only physical]
+
+That man inherits aught else than a physical condition is false, and he
+can inherit that only directly from his mother; the male ancestors are
+eliminated.
+
+[Sidenote: Cleanliness]
+
+[Sidenote: To lessen crime and insanity]
+
+Degenerates breed degenerates in several ways. The degenerate mother
+passes the degeneracy or mal-transformation and also her environment
+to the daughter. The degenerate is forced to the gross, the coarse,
+responding naturally and readily to a coarse environment; in fact,
+everything affecting the senses that is repulsive to the refined,
+is attractive to this coarse nature. Taste is vitiated; coarse,
+decayed, cheap food is palatable. He lives in a foul atmosphere, and,
+consequently, builds his house out of the “foul,” and as the body, so
+is the mind, foul from environment. Clean your cities, “cleanliness is
+Godliness”; it is of God,—good. Instead of for penitentiaries, spend
+the taxes on clean environment and food for the poor, thus lessening
+crime and insanity. Putting a man in a penitentiary results in nothing
+but an expense to the state. If this man was sent to a hospital and
+he was put in a proper physical condition, his new body and mind (he
+gets one every six months) would be built out of better material; in a
+few years the rebuilding out of good material, with pure food and good
+sanitation, the degenerate would be in a fair way to become a moral man.
+
+I feel as certain as that I am sitting here, and hope ere long to
+prove, that I can take a young child of the most degenerate parentage,
+showing a vicious and degenerate nature, and in five years make a
+reputable being of him.
+
+[Sidenote: A New York “authority”]
+
+[Sidenote: Breaking up habits]
+
+A writer in one of the New York evening papers, who professes to
+be a hypnotist, has written many words concerning the cures he has
+made on some degenerates. I deny them to be cures, inasmuch as the
+cause was never removed. An alleged hypnotic cure, the removal of the
+cause through hypnosis, I doubt. You may break up the habit, but my
+experience has proven to me that some new habit replaces it. All cause
+must give voice in effect, remove one effect and another will appear. I
+have cured hundreds of people of stuttering through hypnosis alone, but
+have always found that a new nervous trouble appeared. To-day, I will
+treat no stutterer by personal suggestion until he has submitted to an
+orificial operation.
+
+[Sidenote: Can drunkenness be cured through hypnosis?]
+
+I doubt if drunkenness or morphinism has ever been permanently cured
+through hypnosis. These diseases are of the secretive nerve-centers.
+Telling the subject that he will not desire these things, or
+substituting some other desire in their place, will not deceive the
+Abdominal Brain (mind) when it wants something and knows what. If,
+through hypnosis, an operator can learn of an inspiration that will
+stimulate the proper secretions, the patient can be very readily cured.
+Taking morphine or liquor from a man does not cure him; stimulate the
+secretions and he will be freed from the desire or need for the poisons.
+
+[Sidenote: Hospitals needed]
+
+[Sidenote: A healthy man gained]
+
+The criminal, being a sick man, should be sent to a hospital. If a man
+suffering from delirium tremens be brought before a judge, he should be
+sentenced to the hospital until pronounced able to work, then put to
+work for a period decided by the _physician_. The patient should
+first rest in the hospital for a week, then be put on the operating
+table and the cause of his disease removed; then, two weeks later,
+when he has recovered from the operation, be put at some light work
+and given _proper_ food and work until he is re-established. From
+the day he goes to work his family should weekly be paid by the state
+for the work done. Thus no one would suffer and all gain. A healthy
+man would be gained both to the state and to his family. So with
+all criminals, remove the cause and surround them with a _healthy
+body_ and external surrounding of “normal” work, not iron bars and
+walls, but freedom of health.
+
+NOTE.—My experience with the deaf, dumb, and blind,
+particularly where the cause was given as resulting from scarlet fever,
+measles, et cetera, is that the so-called cause was based only upon
+the assumption of a follower of an ignorant philosophy. I challenge
+those in charge of institutions for the deaf, dumb and blind to produce
+an inmate that has no orificial lesion, providing the result was not
+caused by a direct lesion in the organ affected.
+
+[Sidenote: Not a creature of choice]
+
+If our all-wise legislators would pass a law imposing a fine and
+punishment on anyone who had diphtheria, typhoid fever, or consumption,
+would that lessen the extent of disease? Penitentiaries do not lessen
+crime. Man is not a creature of choice, but of environment. When he
+responds opposite to what we call normal, it is because his machinery
+is working wrongly; he is sick, and instead of penitentiaries we should
+have hospitals. Our thoughts are forced on us through our environment;
+and our bodies are our closest environment; as our body is, so are our
+thoughts (actions).
+
+[Sidenote: Prostitution a disease]
+
+Prostitution is a disease. If a person has a sexual irritation what
+thought will always be dominant, what ideas will permeate every
+thought? That of sexuality. Remove the irritation and we will have a
+person “normal” to external environment, barring for a short time the
+recurrence of the old associated ideas (nerve habit). By orificial
+operations, I have also cured young men of blackguarding, smutty
+story telling, swearing; they making no effort to be cured, after the
+operations they ceased to give voice to these expressions.
+
+A few weeks ago I visited a family in which was a child some eight
+years of age, showing in her face perfect health, hence purity, the
+father and mother carrying in their faces every sign of degeneracy
+(minus). The more I studied the child, the more I became satisfied
+that she was not of her seeming parentage. By the time dinner was
+finished, I had firmly concluded that either that child was not theirs,
+or my philosophy was an entire failure. A half-hour later, the father,
+through a series of questions forced upon him, remarked that the child
+was not theirs, that it had been adopted when it was a few weeks old.
+
+Dear reader, I have proven comprehensively to myself _all_ that
+is written in this book; it may not be perfect, but it is on the right
+track.
+
+[Sidenote: Crime an attribute of disease]
+
+All confirmed criminals, if they live long enough, go insane, become
+cripples or pronounced invalids, showing that their criminality was
+only one of the early attributes of a physical disease. Lombroso tries
+to show that epilepsy is the ultimate development of a criminal, but
+I cannot accept that. I unhesitatingly affirm that cigarettes, grief,
+anger, disgrace, et cetera, never were the cause of insanity; the body
+was ill and the so-called cause, at most, only hurried the result. The
+“excessiveness” is a demonstration of the disease. (No well being has
+an excessive temper, et cetera.)
+
+
+
+
+SUGGESTION
+
+
+Suggestion, anything that arouses an action.
+
+The following incidents will make my meaning clearer than all the
+dissertations that could be written. This book is not to teach you how
+to specifically apply suggestion, but to open your eyes to the power
+that rules—cause—suggestion.
+
+Man’s closest environment is his body.
+
+[Sidenote: Story of Lily]
+
+A few summers ago, I spent some four months with a family in Ohio,
+studying particularly a three-year-old daughter of the woman employed
+to do the housework. The child dined at the table with the others of
+the family, was very fat, having chops like a monkey and eyes like a
+pig, and the mother made it her special duty to stuff the child. When
+the child’s eyes wandered around the table more food was given her, and
+when she said she had enough her mother insisted on her having a little
+more. I asked why this was, and the mother replied that she had had a
+hard time getting enough to eat, so she was going to be sure that the
+child had enough. I said, “Madam, you are ruining the child, you are
+making of her a hog.”
+
+She replied, “No, the child is all right.”
+
+The child simply was a two-legged hog.
+
+[Sidenote: The routine]
+
+[Sidenote: Hog nature]
+
+The day’s routine was something as follows: Being accustomed all my
+life to staying up nights, I rarely fall asleep until daylight, and get
+the better part of my sleep in the forenoons. At nine a. m., I would
+hear, “Lily, Lily, come in out of that, or I will spank you.” In a few
+minutes a repetition would occur, and I would hear Lily being spanked.
+The child seemed to enjoy the spanking, and it simply wallowed in the
+dirt. At noon the mother would change the child’s frock, complaining
+of the many frocks soiled and how dirty she became, stuffed her little
+belly full of food and put the child on the sofa to sleep, which it
+would do until about four p. m. The child would then get up, wallow in
+the dirt, soil another slip, and at night the mother would stuff her
+again. After supper the mother would undress her, wash her and put her
+to bed. At about one a. m., we would hear, “Mamma, mamma, dink, mamma.”
+The mother, who ate as vigorously as the child, slept like a hog and
+was hard to arouse. So little Lily would call, “Mamma, mamma, dink,
+mamma,” until the mother awoke and gave her a drink of water; the child
+would then sleep till morning. The same repetition day in and day out.
+Lily’s greatest pleasure was rolling on her belly in the dirt.
+
+[Sidenote: An experiment]
+
+[Sidenote: Great change in five days]
+
+In about a month the mother took a vacation of two weeks, leaving the
+child with the family. I immediately asked the lady of the house if she
+would treat the child my way for a couple of weeks and see what would
+be the result. She acquiesced. “First of all, place on the child’s
+plate a reasonable amount of food, about one-quarter of what the mother
+is in the habit of giving her, and the moment the child’s eyes wander
+around the table to see something to tempt her appetite, dismiss her.”
+We began, and that night Lily feebly called for a drink; after that she
+failed to call, inasmuch as the stomach was not full of undigested food
+to cause a feverish condition. In five days Lily stopped rolling in the
+dirt. Instead of dirtying five frocks, she soiled but one, and that not
+very badly. Instead of sleeping in the afternoon, she was wide-awake;
+the pig look left her eyes, they became bright; the fulness of her
+chops began to disappear. Up to this time it had been impossible for
+her to control her bladder. One spanking settled that. In a week Lily
+was an entirely different girl, and a very pretty child. At the end of
+the second week, when the mother returned, her first remark was, “My
+goodness, how beautiful and nice Lily is looking.” But in two or three
+days the mother went back to the old regimen—Lily must not be starved,
+and I suppose by this time she is a big hog.
+
+To look at the mother, the scientists (?) would say it was inherited
+from her. No; it was her mother’s ways—the environment. The environment
+given the child by her mother was her inheritance.
+
+[Sidenote: Wallow in the dirt]
+
+Why did Lily wallow in the dirt? Because she had learned that the
+irritation caused by rubbing her abdomen against some object would
+relieve the congestion; that the cool earth relieved the feverish
+congested condition of her abdomen, which came from overloading her
+stomach.
+
+[Sidenote: Loved to be spanked]
+
+Lily loved to be spanked. Why? Because the spanking drew the blood from
+the congested parts and was a relief, and she always felt better after
+this operation. The same congested condition was the cause of her
+not being able to control her bladder action. When the congestion was
+removed, the child could do as others. Therefore, the child being in
+the condition that she must be in now, it is plain to see she inherited
+nothing but an environment which was possible in the early stages to
+correct.
+
+[Sidenote: Degenerate children]
+
+If the child is a degenerate, a criminal, it should not be punished.
+It is doing only what its environment forced upon it. Many children
+enjoy being punished. Why? For the same reason that Lily enjoyed it.
+Many children have no fear of a whipping, simply because the nerve-ends
+of feeling are so dulled that they fail to receive the effect usually
+produced. Those children should be sent to a surgeon, who generally can
+remove the cause. Their food should be changed. I know of a case of a
+very estimable lady who had two of the handsomest and sweetest little
+children I had ever seen. She came to me and said, “Mr. Santanelli, I
+have two beautiful children, but they are the two meanest young ones in
+the city, they are quarreling with everybody; they are vicious. I have
+whipped them, I have punished them in every manner, but I cannot cure
+them. What can I do with them? Can they be cured?”
+
+[Sidenote: Animals]
+
+“Yes, madam; it is very easy. You simply have two little animals. What
+do you feed them?”
+
+“Oh, in the morning we have a little ham and eggs, bacon or a little
+steak, at noon a little cold meat of some kind, and at dinner hot meat
+of some kind.”
+
+“And you wonder that your children are as they are? What can you
+expect. You are feeding them on flesh. Their bodies are one mass of
+_concentrated energy_. Their digestive organs are all worried,
+irritated and overtaxed; they are in a naturally vicious mood. Take
+meat from their bill of fare, particularly the pork, and you will find
+you have no trouble with your children.”
+
+The mother did so, and some three months afterwards wrote to me that
+the change was marvelous; the children were what she hoped them to be.
+
+[Sidenote: Hunger]
+
+Dear reader, were you ever hungry? Do you know what hunger is? As
+everything is a combination of attributes, what are the attributes of
+hunger? Hunger, as we know it, is entirely artificial. A child is born
+and put to the breast, and the “good” mother does her best to force
+the child to fill itself; in a short time the child learns never to
+release the breast until its little abdomen is distended, and soon
+associates the feeling of distention as one of the attributes necessary
+before the cessation of filling up. As the child progresses, it learns
+or associates the ideas as to eating at certain hours; being in an
+uncomfortable (not comfortable now) but an “abnormal” condition, to
+always eat until its clothes are too tight, until it has a distention
+about the stomach; when these conditions are present it is not hungry,
+at all other times it is (?).
+
+If you think a minute, you would conceive that what _we_ call
+hunger is false—acquired; few of us have ever experienced real hunger.
+I believe that real hunger is only when the digestive apparatus is
+forced by the mind to manifest an action with which we are unfamiliar,
+and even that action, or the necessity of the action is mostly
+acquired, learned of the different foods, the kinds of foods, the
+temperature of the food, and builds up an artificial or false memory
+condition.
+
+[Sidenote: All is acquired]
+
+Everything man does after birth, other than the replacing of his body,
+is acquired. Any action connected with the cerebro-spinal system is
+acquired and responsive to present environment (suggestion). It can be
+trained in any way, provided we know what environment to place around
+it.
+
+Theoretically, a healthy man should digest one hundred per cent of all
+food taken into the stomach, and the quantity of such food should be at
+most one-tenth of the amount he now consumes. He can be taught to live
+on anything. His digestive apparatus, if taken in time, can be taught,
+within a certain limit, to be satisfied and to properly take care of
+himself by any simple combination.
+
+[Sidenote: Sleep false (?)]
+
+Speaking of the acquisition of habits, sleep is nearly all false and
+acquired; aside from the inactivity of the “mind,” sleep is greatly
+false. A babe falls out of bed, man does not, provided he is sober.
+Some require a soft bed, some a hard one, some need a high pillow. A
+monkey must learn to wrap his tail around the branch of a tree, the
+chicken to hold on to the roost with its feet. How much of man is
+inherent? I think nothing other than the building of his body.
+
+[Sidenote: Try to comprehend this story]
+
+[Sidenote: The face tells]
+
+Some three years ago in Cleveland, Ohio, I placed an advertisement
+in the morning papers asking for the services of a young lady to
+travel with me and assist in hypnotizing, receiving some two hundred
+answers. Knowing well my nerve-ends, and being able to read the
+physical conditions, thereby the mental conditions, of a woman, by the
+“reflexes” in her face, I chose one, refusing several whom I had much
+rather have engaged, but whose faces told me that their troubles were
+such that, in the ordinary experience of mankind, they had responded to
+their deplorable suggestions, therefore, were not such as I desired.
+The face of the young lady whom I engaged plainly indicated her purity,
+inasmuch as I deduced from it that her purity, physically at least, had
+to be. I hired this young lady on the condition that the first time I
+desired her to go on the surgeon’s table for an operation she would do
+so, telling her her troubles. The girl’s eyes opened in astonishment,
+and she asked if I could look into people, wondering how it was
+possible for me to state the condition of her health, as I had, without
+asking her questions.
+
+[Sidenote: A real doctor]
+
+Note here, dear reader, that I am different from a doctor. When you go
+to the doctor, _you_ tell him what is the matter with you, and
+then he prescribes. It strikes me that a real doctor could tell you
+what is the matter with you.
+
+Now, my troubles began. The girl’s mother undertook to blackmail me;
+then the girl’s father; then her brother; and then the newspapers
+of Cleveland were full of stories about Santanelli hypnotizing and
+stealing away a young lady. The would-be professional men who were
+hypnotists (?) had an excellent opportunity of telling the newspaper
+reporters what they didn’t know about hypnosis, what was possible, and
+what was not possible; but I, being a good (?) showman, did not object
+to all this valuable advertising, and found a good many of my friends
+ready to assure the young lady that it was a terrible thing; that, now
+she was in my power, there was no telling what I would do with her. For
+some strange reason, probably because the young lady was possessed of
+what is usually called “common sense,” failed to accept their advice,
+and after they had locked her up in the Home of the Good Shepherd and
+her good minister refused to extend a helping hand, I sent word to her
+to promise anything demanded, which she did, and was taken “home”; on
+that night she jumped out of a second-story window and disappeared.
+
+[Sidenote: Perversion]
+
+The young lady joined me and soon became an adept as a hypnotist, and
+to me an exceptionally interesting study. She had graduated from one
+of the best seminaries in Ohio, was full of alleged learning, and
+hated above all things “love” poetry and married men (to her women
+that had more than two children were beasts), in her opinion, the most
+disgusting thing in the world was kissing, and she failed to understand
+how people could tolerate pets. If you will note, she objected to, or
+was positive against, anything that had at the root of it connubial
+love (sexuality). Ask her why she disliked these things and she could
+give no comprehensive answer. It was only after six weeks’ study that
+I discovered the key-note to be a perverted love nature. Now, dear
+reader, remember a perversion is not always bad, it is other than the
+accepted “normal.”
+
+In Kentucky, I placed this young lady on the surgeon’s table and
+she was operated upon, my diagnosis being pronounced perfect by the
+surgeon, who, when I made it known to him, laughed at me, stating that
+I was some kind of a fool. After he had made a physical examination,
+he wondered greatly at my ability to “look into” people, as he called
+it. The most important trouble was an undeveloped uterus, which was
+properly curetted. I might note here that the young lady, although
+not being hypnotized, was, in the first quarter of a minute after the
+chloroform cup was placed over her face, completely unconscious; that
+several times during the operation when I remarked to the surgeon who
+was giving the anesthetic, to “crowd it, and she would do so and so,”
+the moment that the cup was replaced she immediately responded. At the
+completion of the operation she was laid on the bed, and I remarked
+that in one minute she would be herself, and in that time she was. Here
+is a case of “suggestion,” pure and simple. I had never attempted to
+hypnotize this young lady, inasmuch as I was ever expecting to again be
+the object of an attempt at blackmail.
+
+[Sidenote: Suggestion]
+
+This girl was not anesthetized by the chloroform; the suggestion of
+the chloroform emphasized by her perfect confidence in me, knowing the
+result desired and being of an intelligence capable to respond, took
+on the entire condition at the _suggestion of the chloroform_.
+
+[Sidenote: A quick change]
+
+One hour after the operation my wife told her that, as she was now
+comfortable, she—my wife—would go down and have supper, and the young
+lady turned to her, saying, “Mrs. Santanelli, will you kiss me before
+you go?” My wife dropped the glass that was in her hand and remarked,
+“Why, you don’t want me to kiss you?” And the young lady said, “Yes.”
+Later the same night, she turned to my wife and said, “Mrs. Santanelli,
+do you know, I believe I did not mean all I said when I laughed at you
+for caring so much for your little dog that died.”
+
+Lady visitors came, and the young lady seemed much hurt if they did not
+kiss her on departing.
+
+The girl made a quick recovery, traveled with me for several months,
+during which time her entire nature and disposition changed. Those
+things that she had so disliked were now reasonably liked. At one time
+I was a bit frightened, being fearful that perhaps I had stirred up
+irritations that would result in a much more detrimental manner than
+had been the ones removed, but I can say that the good expected was
+accomplished.
+
+[Sidenote: Positive against to positive for]
+
+The _sudden_ change was brought about through the inflamed and
+now counter-irritated parts that previously had produced the positive
+against, and now were forcing thought positive for. If her mental
+state and its explanation to you is comprehensible, you can readily
+understand how it is possible for me to state that in many cases of
+insanity, perversions, et cetera, I can positively name the lesion or
+cause, and it is always orificial—excepting injury to the brain centers.
+
+[Sidenote: No mental diseases]
+
+_Insanity is a physical disease, there are no mental diseases._
+
+So-called mental diseases are the result of a physical disease, and the
+disease, _per se_, is not mental. Many of the so-called insane
+cases of mothers are the result of scars in the cervix. I have had
+examinations made where surgeon after surgeon had denied the existence
+of a scar, I still insisting, and in the end found a surgeon capable
+of discovering that which I persistently maintained; after removal,
+complete mental recovery has always followed.
+
+[Sidenote: Fear, et cetera]
+
+I have never known of a case with a fear of dying, a feeling that
+everyone hates one, that one has no friends, sometimes going to
+extremes as to “spirits,”—seeing and hearing them, et cetera,—where
+there was not a scar in the cervix, always the result of improper
+delivery.
+
+[Sidenote: Loss of memory]
+
+Loss of memory, where there is no lesion in the head, will always be
+found the result of an enlarged or shrunken prostate. The prostate
+gland in man may be compared as to its reflexes with the uterus in
+women. Loss of memory in old age among men is always accompanied by, or
+the result of, an “abnormal” prostate. Remember, reader, every nerve
+has two ends; at one end is cause (suggestion), at the other is result
+(response).
+
+[Sidenote: Negro problem]
+
+The negro problem of the South could readily be adjusted by enforcing
+the law of Moses. The negro’s body is built of sow-belly—his brain
+likewise. Give him proper orificial treatment, thus removing the
+suggestion of sensuality, and your negro will be a harmless, valuable
+citizen.
+
+[Sidenote: Not free agents]
+
+They are burned for rape, yet that fails to lessen the number of
+assaults. If burning fails to stop it, surely “mind” has nothing to do
+with the act. The history of rape cases is that the ones assaulted are,
+as a rule, children, old women and those whom a “normally” passionate
+man would fail to be attracted to, proving that this so-called reason
+is lacking when the assault occurs. Hence, I again affirm that we are
+not free agents, we are ruled by our environment; our bodies are our
+closest environment; crime and insanity are physical diseases.
+
+[Sidenote: Pasteur and “bugs”]
+
+[Sidenote: Hydrophobia]
+
+In France they have erected monuments to one Pasteur, a discoverer
+of bugs, who claimed that by “shooting” more bugs into us, he could
+prevent a disease that man never has experienced. Hydrophobia in man is
+purely a suggested disease, none of the symptoms being like those of a
+dog suffering from rabies. There are several cases on record which have
+been cured by personal suggestion, and it is strange to me that a child
+of ten being bitten by a dog, should not develop rabies until reaching
+the age of forty or forty-five. That bug must have been an extremely
+slow worker or propagator of a following. Statistics show that
+“hydrophobia” in man increased seven-fold after Pasteur’s discovery (?)
+was made known to the world. Many doctors in America have written to
+the authorities and begged that the establishment of Pasteur institutes
+be prohibited on this account.
+
+[Sidenote: Instinct]
+
+The scientific world claims that animals do not reason, they have
+instinct. All my animals have demonstrated beyond any question they can
+reason (transform sense-impression into action).
+
+[Sidenote: “Miss Donk”]
+
+I owned a donkey last year, and like all good donkeys, she was
+“strong-minded.” We desired to teach her to go up stairs. When the
+wise (?) persons of the company gathered around with whips and clubs,
+I asked what that was for, and they replied, “That is the only way
+you can make a donkey do anything.” After thinking it over for a few
+minutes, I realized that most donkeys looked as intelligent as at least
+forty per cent of mankind, and nightly I was able to cause them to do
+many things through what I call the Law of Suggestion, so it might
+be possible to make Miss Donkey comprehend. I will not bother with
+details, but in seven minutes Miss Donkey climbed the stairs, and then
+she climbed down. Next time she went up with practically no urging, and
+I find, through my little experience with four-legged donkeys, that if
+the teacher possesses _equal_ intelligence to the donkey, it can
+be made to comprehend.
+
+[Sidenote: As to dogs]
+
+On Christmas, a few years ago, I gave my wife a little dog, a puppy,
+saying to her, “Keep this dog in the room. I am anxious to discover
+what he has inherited. I believe that he acquires most of his actions,
+hence will either have to imitate us or work a way out himself.”
+
+At the end of two years, this dog, which was a thoroughbred
+black-and-tan, lacked all of the dominant actions of an ordinary dog.
+His first mouse was a surprise, the first rat scared him. He developed
+into a clever ratter. Why? The dog had inherited, physically, a big
+bunch of muscles at the back of his neck, and early learned that the
+exercising of them was pleasing. His greatest pleasure was to be
+“ragged”—to play in a manner to exercise his neck. After he was taught
+that killing mice put those muscles in action, he liked to kill mice,
+not as cruel man does, for the pleasure of killing, but to respond to a
+suggestion forced by the construction of his neck.
+
+[Sidenote: Comprehensive]
+
+The mistake the investigating world makes is in overlooking the fact
+that man can comprehend nothing that he has not experienced. All that
+he can do is to compare (“think”), and as his ability to receive
+sense-impressions is entirely different, either as to acuteness or
+dullness, from lower (?) animals, he is in no position to more than
+guess, and it will be a poor guess at that. The atmosphere is full of
+sounds he never hears. Musical notes make from sixteen and one-half
+to four thousand two hundred and twenty-four vibrations each second;
+when the vibrations are greater or less he fails to comprehend them.
+All forms of life differ as to the amount of vibration they will
+respond to, this graduation being necessary to keep up the constant
+transformation of energy (life). This energy is constantly being
+“passed along.” When there is a deficiency, epidemic or plague appears.
+
+[Sidenote: Instinct]
+
+Man’s senses are not made up in degree of fineness of composition as
+other animals, therefore, he fails to comprehend (other than seeing the
+result) and calls that action he fails to comprehend “instinct.”
+
+Man cannot smell as (not like) dogs do; see, as birds do; nor hear as
+all lower animal life does. Animals communicate, they do all that man
+does, except that their senses are differently balanced, and therefore,
+not comprehensible to us. The beavers in building their dams, bees,
+in storing their supplies, could not accomplish their work without
+intelligent communication. Dogs communicate, also understand words when
+properly associated with tone and expression.
+
+[Sidenote: A bishop]
+
+A few winters ago in a city in Texas, I met a bishop, and oh! he was
+a bishop so different from any minister I had ever met. He was in a
+promising field, for in this city they attempted to murder me because I
+was a hypnotist.
+
+[Sidenote: Instinct (?)]
+
+At the conclusion of my first evening’s performance, I went into the
+railroad eating house to get a cup of coffee. Four men were seated a
+few chairs to my left, and through every method possible other than
+using physical force, they tried to induce a quarrel. Being naturally
+quick-tempered, and thinking over the matter later, I wondered what
+it was that caused me to refrain from beating some of them with my
+cane. After finishing my cup of coffee, I started to leave the saloon,
+when I was met by a number of the reputable citizens, who exclaimed,
+the moment they saw me, “Thank God! you are alive.” In answer to my
+inquiries as to what they meant, they hurried me over to the hotel and
+told me that the four men who had been passing all kinds of comments
+while I was drinking my coffee, intended to get me into a quarrel
+and kill me. What was it that kept me from accepting their challenge?
+Instinct? No. Luck? No. The all-wise hand (law) of Providence? Yes.
+Man’s thoughts are forced, not chosen. A thought is action. What was
+there about them that forced the action of keeping quiet on my part?
+It was the _tone_ in their voices that was positive against my
+interfering; it aroused in me an unconscious action of reserve. This I
+will better explain by relating the following oft-occurring incident:
+
+[Sidenote: Rhythm]
+
+We read in the newspapers of an engineer having felt that a certain
+bridge was unsafe and, on reaching it, stopping his train, finding,
+upon investigation, that the bridge had been washed away, he claiming
+to know of no reason for his surmise except that when he was within
+five miles of the bridge, a peculiar nervousness took possession of
+him, which very rapidly developed into a feeling that the bridge was
+insecure. The explanation is very simple. From long association and
+habit, a locomotive engineer unconsciously realizes (as a hypnotized
+subject) the peculiar sound caused by the train passing over the
+rails when everything is in perfect order; the break in the bridge
+causing a sound different from the one he was accustomed to hear. This
+unconscious noting of the change naturally “suggested” something out of
+order with the track, and as the bridge was a very pronounced idea in
+the engineer’s mind, it is the first thing that the disturbance of the
+rhythm would “suggest.”
+
+[Sidenote: Comprehensiveness]
+
+To revert to the bishop: He was a small man, smoothly shaven, and one
+who did not hesitate to visit saloons and other places that ministers
+are supposed to refrain from. When he came into the parish, it was
+extremely poor; in fact, it did not seem possible, with such a poor
+parish, such a small following and in such a wild town, that any
+headway could be gained. Notwithstanding this, when I met him he had
+been there about a year, and had already succeeded in accomplishing
+more than many ministers with wealthy congregations had been able to
+do in ten years. He preached practical sermons; or, in other words,
+showed them _how_ to be better men, and omitted telling them twice
+on Sunday how they were bound to be burned in hell-fire. His sermons
+were interesting, comprehensive, and always had a moral which it was
+unnecessary for him to elaborate, but which his hearers could naturally
+deduce.
+
+When he took charge of this fold he began requesting and inviting the
+young men who were loafing on the street corners and in the saloons
+to come down and hear him preach, and naturally they refused. After
+succeeding in inducing a few to hear him, the young men, the boys,
+became interested, and as he preached for their benefit, but in an
+unobtrusive, comprehensive manner, they liked to listen to him. When
+they came to church they were met with a royal welcome and a smile, and
+when he bade them good-night there was a pleasant, manly look on his
+face, and he was not constantly hammering at them “the good of their
+souls.”
+
+[Sidenote: A little party]
+
+One evening he had a number of young ladies of his congregation meet
+at a residence and suggested to them that they give a little party, a
+little candy-pull which they thought would be “real nice,” and then he
+named the young men who should be invited; the young ladies thought
+that was “horrid.” He told each young lady whom she must stop on the
+street, when and where, to invite to attend the party. The young ladies
+at first objected, but he carried his point and something like the
+following took place:
+
+Bill Jones came from the machine shop on the way to the saloon to get
+a drink before going home to supper. Miss Brown stepped up and said,
+“How do you do, Bill? We are going to have a party down at Miss Smith’s
+next Thursday evening, and we would like you to attend.” Bill was
+dumbfounded. He didn’t know what to say; in fact, he said nothing. The
+young lady went on and in a couple of minutes, apparently by accident,
+the minister appeared and said, “How do you do, Bill? What’s the
+matter, you look kind of broke-up?”
+
+“Well, what do you think? Miss Brown just invited me up to a party at
+Miss Smith’s house, what do you think of that?”
+
+The minister said, “You’re going, are you not?”
+
+“No, I guess I ain’t going.”
+
+“Would you like to go?”
+
+“You bet.”
+
+“Well, why don’t you?”
+
+“I can’t go in these duds.”
+
+“Ah! Is that the best suit you’ve got?”
+
+“Well, pretty near.”
+
+“You are making good money in the machine shop are you not?”
+
+“Yes.”
+
+“What do you do with your money?”
+
+“Well, I have to pay my board, and after I do that and pay the saloon
+keeper, I ain’t got anything left.”
+
+“So that is the reason that keeps you from attending the party?”
+
+“Yes.”
+
+“Well, you get paid next Saturday night, don’t you?”
+
+“Yes.”
+
+“If you had a new suit you would go?”
+
+“Yes.”
+
+“Why don’t you go and get a suit?”
+
+“Why, I haven’t money enough.”
+
+“Won’t the merchant trust you?”
+
+“No; the only man that trusts me is the saloon man, and he won’t trust
+me for much.”
+
+“Now, Bill,” the minister said, “if you would like to go, I will fix it
+so that you can get a suit.”
+
+“How?”
+
+“If you will promise me you will pay so much every week until the suit
+is paid for, I will go on your bond down here at the clothing store.”
+
+“Will you?” says Bill.
+
+“Yes,” replied the preacher.
+
+And the preacher took him over to a member of his congregation who
+owned a clothing store, and said to the merchant, “I will go good for a
+suit for Bill.” Bill went home to supper, forgetting to take a drink,
+and was pleased to think he was going to Miss Smith’s party.
+
+[Sidenote: A suggestion]
+
+On Saturday night, Bill, with his week’s wages in his pocket, from
+force of habit, started for the saloon, but on the way there, for some
+reason or other, met the minister, who said, “How do you do, Bill?” and
+Bill said, “How do you do?” The minister went right on, not asking Bill
+if he was going to pay for the suit, or anything else. He went around
+the corner and watched Bill go directly into the clothing store and
+make a payment on his account.
+
+My friend, the bishop, did this with some fifteen or eighteen young
+men whom he had picked out; he attended the party, which was very
+successful, standing around to see that the young ladies entertained
+their guests properly; and behold, on the next Sunday all of these
+young men were at church, and the preacher still refrained from
+telling them of hell-fire, but preached a common-sense sermon that was
+comprehensive to them, of how man could progress through the world.
+
+[Sidenote: Negative is positive against]
+
+The saloon men began to object, the money that they were in the habit
+of getting was now being given to the merchants, and the more they
+objected—as a negative is always an affirmation against—it caused the
+young men to “think.”
+
+[Sidenote: A club]
+
+[Sidenote: Their way]
+
+As they had no place to congregate other than the street corners or
+the saloon, the minister went to the members of his congregation,
+whose trade had now picked up through the divergence of the weekly
+salaries that had been going to the saloon-keeper, and demanded of
+them that they pay the rental of a little house which was then empty;
+that they pay for the subscription to a certain number of magazines.
+The minister and some of the members of his congregation fitted up a
+set of club rooms in this house and invited the young men there, but
+the boys were a little loath at first to attend, expecting to hear
+nothing but preaching. Instead of that, they met a jolly good fellow in
+the minister, and the evenings were spent _their_ way, with the
+exception of swearing and gambling, the young men learning after a few
+weeks that it was possible to have a minister around and still have a
+good time.
+
+As winter progressed, a club was formed, the dues made very light,
+the money being handled by the minister, and the club in a short time
+became self-supporting.
+
+[Sidenote: Practical personal suggestion]
+
+As the minister’s congregation grew larger, the merchants profited,
+the young men began to appreciate that _they_ profited, and
+through _practical suggestion_, he had succeeded in building up a
+congregation out of material which a majority of our ministers would
+have considered hopeless. He did not tell them what to _do_, but
+surrounded them with an environment which forced them to do what he
+knew such environment would.
+
+A lady in New York City, after taking a lesson from me, said, “Now, I
+have learned the mechanical part of this art, can I hypnotize and cure
+my brother who has ‘gone to the dogs’ through liquor?”
+
+[Sidenote: Ideas registered]
+
+“No. What must be done? First, in the ‘normal’ state, you must
+associate in his mind through the proper senses the desire to be
+cured; then, if you will re-establish his physical condition, you
+can assist in his cure; but all ideas must be associated—that is,
+registered—while the patient is in his ‘normal’ condition.”
+
+[Sidenote: Cigarettes]
+
+On the stage are several bright lads; they smoke cigarettes. One
+comes to me and says, “Mr. Santanelli, will you cure me of smoking
+cigarettes?”
+
+“Certainly,” I reply, and in four or five days he is cured.
+
+The mother of another comes to me and says, “Mr. Santanelli, will you
+cure of smoking cigarettes, my boy Jack, who is on your stage?”
+
+“Does he wish to be cured, madam?”
+
+“No.”
+
+“Then I cannot cure him.”
+
+[Sidenote: Positive for]
+
+[Sidenote: Positive against]
+
+How is this, reader? It is impossible to bring out of the mind what
+is not there. The first lad, desirous of being cured, has the thought
+there to be put in action. I induce hypnosis and say to him, “After
+you open your eyes, every time you think of smoking a cigarette,
+a nasty taste will come into your mouth; and every time you put a
+cigarette in your mouth you will vomit.” Now, the moment the lad thinks
+of a cigarette the nasty taste aroused causes him to think, “Mr.
+Santanelli’s inspiration is working.” If he puts a cigarette in his
+mouth and vomits, he says, “Good, Mr. Santanelli has succeeded both
+with the nasty taste and the vomiting.” But the boy who does not want
+to be cured of the habit thinks of the cigarette and the nasty taste
+comes in his mouth and he says, “I will fool Mr. Santanelli, I will be
+able to smoke soon,” and then he puts the cigarette in his mouth and
+if he does throw up, he says, “Well, never mind, by and by I will fool
+Mr. Santanelli;” and in an hour or so he again thinks of it and smokes
+one; the result is that my inspiration has aroused and forced into
+action the positive against me, and I have only succeeded in effecting
+a temporary substitution.
+
+A good minister once came to me and said, “Mr. Santanelli, many members
+of my congregation are hard drinkers, and I have preached and preached
+and preached to them of the sin of drinking, yet they drink just the
+same. What other suggestion (?) can I give them? What can I do for
+them?”
+
+[Sidenote: Comprehensive thoughts]
+
+I replied, “My good father, you make two mistakes. First, your sermons
+are such as fail to arouse comprehensive thoughts in the minds of your
+hearers; secondly, you try to put in through one sense (hearing) that
+which the economy of man intended to be received through another.
+Thoughts not in existence cannot be brought out. You fail to put into
+the “minds” of your hearers the thought of the ill of drinking. No
+thought can be formed through affecting less than two senses, and
+it requires three to obtain an effective result. Now, you quote me
+Pat Murphy, and say Pat has taken the pledge and you have lectured
+and lectured to him, yet he continues to drink. If I were you, and
+desired to cure Pat Murphy, I would do as follows: I would meet Pat
+Murphy some evening after work, talk with him pleasantly and walk or
+drive by Mike O’Hara’s house. Mike works along with Pat. I would pass
+comments as to Mike having his house paid for; of the neatness of the
+yard; as to the appearance of his children. In fact, I would cause Pat
+to _see_ the condition of Mike’s house. I would then enter Pat’s
+home, ask him what rental he was paying; if the landlord would not fix
+the house up if he was asked; ask Mrs. Pat what cloth for the dressing
+of her children was worth a yard. I should then say something about Pat
+getting the same wages as Mike, and there would be no need of saying
+anything whatever about drinking, as every question asked would arouse
+a positive against it, in pictures of Mike’s prosperous condition,
+resulting from abstaining from drink; and I will promise you that the
+next time Pat went into a saloon there would be a picture aroused in
+his mind which would cause him to bring home a little of his money; or,
+in other words, by putting them in through the proper senses, I would
+have established a series of ideas positive against drinking, and the
+suggestion that formerly aroused the thought of drinking, would with a
+little careful nursing, be forced to respond positive against it.”
+
+[Sidenote: Conception]
+
+If a man should meet an Indian who had seen nothing of civilization,
+how could he describe to him comprehensively the strength and power
+of a locomotive? It would be necessary to associate an idea common to
+the Indian with an idea common to the locomotive, thus: as the Indian
+is thoroughly familiar with the horse and its strength, associate in
+that Indian’s mind an idea that the pale-face had a horse twenty
+times larger than his, a thousand times stronger; that it ate coal;
+that breath came in clouds from its nostrils; that it traveled in a
+carefully arranged pathway, that it drew twenty large tepees, and
+although you would not have formed in the Indian’s mind a correct
+picture of a locomotive, he would have a conception of a locomotive’s
+power and strength. A drawing made of a locomotive would produce an
+impression through the eye, which, with the Indian’s comprehension of
+its power and strength (association of ideas), would enable the Indian,
+when he first saw a locomotive, to deduce what it was. First, by its
+form, or the “suggestion” produced by seeing the escape of steam and
+smoke, or the drawing of the cars. Or, if he had never seen the form,
+seeing it move on the pathway or track would suggest to the Indian the
+story of the big horse as told by the pale-face. Note that two senses,
+feeling and sight, have been affected.
+
+[Sidenote: Doctors]
+
+In Tennessee, a couple of winters ago, I met the doctors of a city,
+who, being good, true Southern gentlemen, proved themselves to be good
+fellows. They all laughed about one doctor in the city, a man who knew
+nothing of “bugology,” who had one of the largest practices, in fact,
+the largest practice in the city, tired out two horses every day, owned
+a great deal of property, and was a very busy man.
+
+After making a number of inquiries concerning this man, I concluded I
+would like to meet him and asked one of his friends to take me over
+and introduce me. I went over in the afternoon; the doctor had just
+finished with a little surgical case and was washing his hands. He
+was over six feet tall, had on a suit of clothes that was made for
+somebody; or, if they had been made for him, he had changed his shape;
+the material was of the best, but the fit was quite English. Upon being
+introduced, the doctor looked at my feet, my legs, my abdomen, my
+chest, my face, put out his hand and said “Hello, Santanelli, I like
+you,” and asked me to go out to his home and take dinner. I informed
+the doctor that I could not, that I was too busy, but would dine with
+him some other time. He said he would be glad to have me, and I left.
+
+[Sidenote: Hydrophobia]
+
+I was in the city several weeks, becoming quite friendly with the
+doctor, being in his office one day when a lady came in with a little
+boy, the lady badly frightened, the lad likewise. The boy had been
+bitten by a dog and the mother had heard of Pasteur and his wonderful
+discovery (which he failed to make), and was afraid the boy was going
+to shun water, foam at the mouth and do a lot of very disagreeable
+things that dogs are popularly supposed to do and men do not, and asked
+the doctor to “do something,” which he did, and the little boy was
+awfully scared and cried. He sent the boy home all wrapped up, smelling
+very strongly of iodoform. I turned to the doctor and said, “Doctor,
+what do you think of hydrophobia?”
+
+He replied, “I think it’s all rot, but they wanted something done, and
+I did it.”
+
+“Why,” said I, “I have a better cure than yours for hydrophobia.”
+He wanted to know what it was, and I told him if any of my children
+(provided I had any) should claim they had been bitten by a dog, I
+would take them across my knee and spank them.
+
+“Why would you do that?” he asked.
+
+[Sidenote: Practical suggestion]
+
+[Sidenote: A lazy bug]
+
+“I am one of those foolish people who believe in suggestion. A little
+boy is bitten by a dog, he tells his mother what has happened and the
+look on her face forces on him the thought that something awful has
+happened, perhaps to himself; he feels nothing but a little smarting,
+and his mother goes to the doctor; she is frightened all the time,
+tells the neighbors about it and they become frightened and the little
+boy is more scared; when he gets to the doctor’s office and watches him
+treat the wound, he is still more scared, and when it is all bandaged
+up he is most scared; he has about him the odor of iodoform and it is
+constantly reminding him that he has been bitten by a dog; then he
+has to have the wound redressed several times, and the result is that
+he does nothing but ‘think, _think_, THINK’ of being
+bitten by the dog, and by and by somebody tells him what to do—to shun
+water and foam at the mouth and have hydrophobia—and seventy times out
+of a hundred he does so. Very strange, isn’t it? A child bitten by a
+dog when five years of age, sometimes dies of hydrophobia when he is
+fifty, but still the scientists (?) tell us that a bug did it. What a
+procrastinator that bug must have been.”
+
+It so happened in a few days that another lady came in, with her little
+boy who had been bitten by a dog. The doctor said to the mother,
+“Madam, I would spank that young man.” The mother wanted to know why,
+and he said, “I would spank him for fooling with the dog.” The mother
+did so. The result was that the boy who had his wound dressed had quite
+a sore hand before he got through, and the boy who got the spanking,
+and hadn’t been bitten on the place he was spanked, stopped thinking of
+being bitten by the dog, and failed to have an irritated wound.
+
+[Sidenote: A rara avis]
+
+One afternoon I went riding with the doctor, and he told me that he was
+a farmer’s son, that he had wanted to study medicine because he thought
+it was easier than ploughing, so went to work for a doctor, took care
+of his horse, studied medicine, went to college, and at last graduated;
+when he came back with his diploma he had eight dollars, knew a real
+nice girl, got married and started in. To-day he owns one of the
+largest factories in the city, a great deal of real estate, and is
+trying to make a few hundred thousand for his last child. He informed
+me that he was not much of a doctor, wasn’t even a good enough doctor
+to kill his patients; that he kept them alive and got his pay; that
+there were lots of good young doctors in town, who, when they came down
+the street, kept doffing their hats to the germs they met, inasmuch as
+they were familiar with all, and knew each and every one by name; that
+_he_ had his hands full caring for his patients, without being
+bothered by germs, inasmuch as he didn’t know a germ when he saw one;
+he had heard about them, but they didn’t bother him.
+
+[Sidenote: Driving with a doctor]
+
+Becoming very much interested in the doctor, I asked him if he would
+take me out calling with him some afternoon, and he said he would.
+If you have never gone driving with a physician, it is an experience
+worth undertaking, inasmuch as the doctor generally drives you to the
+outskirts of the town and lets you hold the reins while he goes in
+and gets warm and visits his patient. The doctor gets warm, comes out
+feeling comfortable, takes the reins from you and goes on a piece;
+while you are shivering with the cold, he talks to you, visits some
+more patients, and, after you have ridden with him for an hour or two,
+you wish you were home.
+
+But with this doctor it was different; he drove up close to one house,
+and said to me as he was getting out of the buggy, “You don’t want to
+go in here; they have got a little typhoid fever, it don’t amount to
+much,” and went in. He stopped a few moments then came to the door
+followed by some young ladies and they were all laughing and joking.
+I asked how he found the patient. “I think he is better,” said the
+doctor; and he got in and drove to another place, letting me hold the
+reins again. The next place he drove to was a little cottage; when we
+got in front of it, the doctor _hollered_, “Whoa,” to the horse
+(you would think he was the butcher or milkman), gave me the lines,
+went to the front door, and pulled the bell in a manner which led
+one to think he was going to pull the knob clear off, when some one
+came to the door and let him in. Pretty soon he came to the door and
+_hollered_, “Santanelli, tie up the horse and come in, I want to
+introduce you to these people.”
+
+[Sidenote: Do something]
+
+I went into the house, a nice little cottage where everything was neat
+and trim. There a young mechanic was sick abed, and his young wife,
+together with two nice little children, were in the room. The doctor
+said, “This is Santanelli; they say he can hypnotize. I don’t know
+whether he can or not. I like him, he’s a pretty good fellow. This
+fellow in bed here thinks he is sick, but I don’t think so. Santanelli,
+are you hungry?” I said I was not. “Well,” said the doctor, “this woman
+makes the best pies and cakes in the country,” and with that he went
+into the kitchen, and in a few minutes came back with the measure of
+his mouth in a pie, and likewise in a cake in his hand. He offered me
+some, but I refused. After eating what he wanted, he placed the rest on
+the mantelpiece, and pretty soon said, “Come on, Santanelli, let’s go.”
+The sick man said, “Doctor, hold on. Ain’t you going to do something
+for me?” The doctor stopped, scratched his head, and said, “The best
+thing you can do is to go to work in the morning,” and started. The
+man said, “Ain’t you going to give me some medicine?” The doctor found
+a mutilated prescription blank in one of his pockets, wrote on it,
+dropped it on the floor and said, “If you don’t get better, you might
+get up and go down to the drug store, and have this filled. I think
+the best thing you can do is to go to sleep now, and go to work in the
+morning.”
+
+[Sidenote: Health]
+
+I visited several other places with the doctor and he treated them
+all the same way. And you, good reader, wonder how such a man had any
+practice. Well, I thought over it a few minutes, but it is readily
+understood. The doctor looked health, acted health, and when they
+heard his merry voice at the front door, a suggestion of health entered
+the house, and when the patient heard his vigorous ring, there was a
+suggestion of strength in it, and by the time the doctor had entered
+the sick-room the several suggestions of health had already preceded
+him. The doctor talked in a cheery voice; he was hungry, he looked
+hungry; all these suggestions had their effect upon the sick man. He
+went into the kitchen and got something to eat, came back, ate it and
+enjoyed eating it, and the sick man received these suggestions. Then
+he started to go away, which had its effect on the sick man who said,
+“Give me something for my money,” the doctor writing a prescription
+which he dropped on the floor, saying, “If you are not better, get up
+and go down and get it filled; good-night. Come along, Santanelli.” His
+tone was healthy and this doctor gave forth every suggestion of health.
+
+[Sidenote: Like likes like]
+
+But that is not what the “world” wants. When the “world” is sick, it
+responds to the Law of Suggestion, and wants to be surrounded with
+sickness; and the doctors who are wise (?) do this, charge big fees and
+have a small and select practice, culled from the few they fail to kill.
+
+[Sidenote: Look your part]
+
+[Sidenote: A real (?) doctor]
+
+A doctor should look the doctor (?); he should carry the sign of his
+profession on his face; should be dignified looking, having the look
+that is always associated with doctors or sickness; he should have a
+medicine case (the larger the better) in his hand, and should have
+a carriage that everybody knows is the doctor’s; in other words,
+every suggestion of sickness must surround him, then he is surely
+a dignified doctor. He drives cautiously to the front of the house;
+quietly times his step; gently rings the bell, and goes into the
+sick-room still giving forth every suggestion of sickness as he takes
+off his gloves. If he is an up-to-date doctor, he will immediately
+disinfect them; he takes off his coat and disinfects that; then he
+disinfects his hair and hands, so that all will be free and clear
+of bugs. In the meantime the patient responds to the suggestion of
+sickness through a sick man coming to him; that is, a man carrying the
+thought of sickness. The doctor then goes to the patient and pounds
+him all over the chest, puts his ear down to hear the heart beat, and
+then puts a thermometer in the patient’s mouth to find out if he has a
+fever—sorry a doctor who cannot tell a fever without a thermometer,—and
+the patient, while holding this in his mouth, has a suggestion of
+sickness forced on him through feeling, a suggestion of sickness forced
+on him through his eye by the person of the doctor, and the expression
+he sees steal over the doctor’s face intimates that the thermometer is
+going to register more than “normal.” The family is about him in the
+room, magnifying in their’s the expression which they reflect from the
+doctor’s face; and the doctor goes to the window with the thermometer
+and frowns—ninety-nine times out of a hundred because he cannot read
+the thermometer, but the frown and expression on his face is magnified
+by those around the bedside, the man accepting the suggestion beyond
+all question, thinking “I am very sick.”
+
+[Sidenote: Time for a change]
+
+Then the doctor wants all the usual environment banished, noise must
+be stopped, the bed must be changed, the blinds pulled down, and
+everything that will force the thought of sickness must be arranged.
+The doctor then writes out three or four prescriptions, and does so
+writing at a table beside the sick man—because it is a magnificent
+suggestion to convince him that he is sick—the doctor then handing the
+prescriptions to one of the family, leaving behind a most encouraging
+thought by saying, “If he is not better in two hours, send for me.”
+This doctor brought the thought of sickness into the house and
+magnified that thought while there; when he left, he implanted in the
+“mind” of the patient, “Be worse in two hours.” (Isn’t the day at hand
+to change this?)
+
+[Sidenote: “Nice” medicine]
+
+Suggestion is anything that arouses an action. Modern medicine loses
+much of its effectiveness if it possesses any, through our doctors
+making the medicine “nice” to take, by using syrups, capsules, et
+cetera. As it requires two senses to put a thought in action, and the
+sense of taste is practically unaffected, a great factor in the result
+desired is thereby lost. “Nasty” medicine is far more effective than
+“nice” medicine.
+
+[Sidenote: Children vs. doctors]
+
+How many children are there who, when mamma promises or threatens to
+send for the doctor, begin to cry? To cry when offered the services of
+the one who should do them the most good. Why has this child such ideas
+positive against the doctor? If he be what is claimed, the child should
+smile at the thought of doctor. How many among the laymen of to-day
+“smile” when they think of a doctor? The ideas associated with the word
+“doctor” are abhorrent.
+
+[Sidenote: An ordinary occurrence]
+
+This last summer in Ontonagon, Michigan (and, dear reader, you
+would never be able to find the place if I told you where it is), I
+hypnotized a lad of ten and stuck him full of pins. That night the
+family physician was seated in the second row of seats in the theater.
+I brought the lad from off the stage, told him to go to sleep, that he
+had no feeling in his ear, and although he went into hypnosis, he had
+plenty of feeling in the ear, and would not take the inspiration. I
+awakened him; he was trembling all over. On the stage I told him to go
+into hypnosis, but he was afraid. After assuring him that I would not
+put any pins into him, he did as I requested. After the performance I
+asked him what was the matter, and he replied, “I didn’t care about
+your sticking pins in me when the doctor ain’t there; but,” he added,
+“I am afraid of the doctor, the doctor always makes trouble.”
+
+“Isn’t he the family physician?” I asked.
+
+“Yes,” he replied, “but I am afraid of the doctor.”
+
+[Sidenote: The minister]
+
+[Sidenote: Negatives]
+
+Why this association of ideas so contrary to the doctor. Whose fault
+is it, the doctor’s or the profession’s? _No._ Because the
+grandest profession in the world is that of medicine (?). (Rather,
+that of healing.) He who ministers to the sick, and will give them a
+sound body, a good body, a clean body, therewith a clean “mind,” can
+do more for the world than the spiritual (?) adviser. Why is it, when
+the minister calls on us, that the children and nearly all of the
+family go out? The minister as a rule does not seem to be welcome. Why
+is this? His profession, next to that of the doctor, is the noblest,
+the grandest, still the children very rarely welcome him. There must
+be something wrong. It is this: they arouse thoughts antagonistic
+to themselves, instead of the thoughts they desire. This is done by
+using negative (telling the people what _not_ to do, instead of
+surrounding them with suggestions of what they should or what they can
+do).
+
+[Sidenote: “Scientific” therefore lawful murder]
+
+Man, being ruled by his environment, is the reproduction of that
+environment; the wise (?) doctor, examining a child’s throat, says,
+“Ah, the child has diphtheria,” and he locks up the family of six or
+eight in the house to keep the disease from spreading (?). No; but in
+an attempt to murder the others of the family. The environment forced
+on the child the diphtheria, and he locks up the healthy people in
+that environment to see if they get the disease and die or not. The
+same with small-pox and every alleged contagious disease; they lock
+the people in the environment that produced the result, expecting
+them not to get well. Why is it the doctor, who does not live in that
+environment, very rarely gets the disease, unless the disease is caused
+by the environment of the entire city?
+
+[Sidenote: A Jew doctor]
+
+“I am a Jew (doctor). Hath not a Jew (doctor) eyes? Hath not a Jew
+(doctor) hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? Fed
+with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same
+disease, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same
+winters and summers, as a Christian (the sick) is? If you prick us, do
+we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do
+we not die? * * * If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you
+in that.”—Shylock, Act III. Scene I.
+
+[Sidenote: A pest house]
+
+If he is safe (and rarely does he contract the disease), why are
+not the others of the family safe if removed from their present
+environment? If you wish to isolate them, build a hospital, a pest
+house, or whatever you wish to call it, in the most _sanitary_
+portion of the city, then move these people to that healthy
+environment, and see how quickly the disease will die out, and how few
+of the remainder of the family will “catch it.”
+
+[Sidenote: Yellow fever]
+
+Yellow fever was very prevalent in Santiago; the moment the environment
+was changed through the establishment of good sanitation, the yellow
+fever disappeared. It has long been observed that when the frost comes
+in the South, yellow fever disappears; cold kills the yellow fever
+germs (?). Oh! our wise (?) doctors. Take a man suffering with yellow
+fever and put him in cold storage and the germs will quickly die (?);
+so will the patient. When the frost comes, a latent mineral element is
+released by its action, and the moment that element once more permeates
+the atmosphere and man gets his natural allowance, he no longer has
+the mal-transformation or yellow fever, but gets a “normal” or healthy
+transformation and well being.
+
+If our doctors would study the environment, the elements necessary for
+health, there would be more well people on the face of the earth.
+
+[Sidenote: Epidemics]
+
+[Sidenote: Yet he dies]
+
+Epidemics are caused by the lack of an element, and when the demand
+is greater than the supply, those most in need fall by the wayside.
+The moment the supply and demand are equalized, some wise (?) doctor
+discovers a cure (?) for the alleged epidemic. During all the epidemics
+at least ninety per cent _die from fear_. I think it was in 1893,
+during the cholera epidemic in France, that for ten days, successively,
+a reporter on the New York World ate the germs of cholera and seemed to
+thrive on them. A homeopathic doctor rarely loses a cholera patient if
+he can get the case in any of its early stages. More men die of pseudo
+disease than real disease, but that is only something for the learned
+(?) scientists to wrangle over; he dies, whether it was through cholera
+or pseudo cholera, it makes no difference; he dies.
+
+I once took in charge a subject who had suffered from a severe form
+of Southern malaria; his blood had been examined by a physician and
+pronounced most healthy. I hypnotized him, forced on him the thought
+of the malaria and in two days he had perfect malaria, even to the
+protoplasm in the blood.
+
+[Sidenote: Environment kills]
+
+Our hospitals and prisons carry with them every suggestion positive
+against the result sought. The patient lies in a ward of the hospital,
+thinking sickness; the prisoner, in _jail_, thinking crime.
+Hospitals should suggest health. There should be healthy doctors,
+sunlight and flowers, and live animals (other than bed bugs); but our
+hospitals of to-day have sick doctors, the majority of the nurses are
+sick, and the whole environment is one against just what the doctors
+are striving to accomplish.
+
+_The history of the so-called advance in medicine travels side by
+side with the advance in sanitation._
+
+[Sidenote: No advancement in medicine]
+
+Rational medicine has made no progress. We have gained anesthetics, and
+skilled butchers, who can cut neatly and cleanly. Hunchbacks now walk
+straight, but live no longer. Other than the “orificial” thought (and
+that is the surgeon’s), I deny any advancement.
+
+The Law of Suggestion balances itself. The sexually degenerate die off
+as consumptives, et cetera, conditionally failing to reproduce, while
+those in health continue the race.
+
+[Sidenote: Germs and sewers]
+
+[Sidenote: Civilization]
+
+Civilization carries with it filth. If the germ theory be right, the
+first thing that our wise (?) boards of health should do is to abolish
+sewers, pipes that lead to a cesspool where the germs are propagated,
+and from there conducting them into our bedrooms, our ballrooms and
+our offices, thereby committing murder by distributing these alleged
+germs that they seem so anxious to destroy. If the germ theory be true,
+_abolish sewers_. Primitive races, races that lived out of doors,
+and did not congregate in great numbers, were free from disease. Man,
+civilized (?) man, always leaves disease in his wake. Doctors are
+needed only in _modern_ civilization.
+
+[Sidenote: Vaccination]
+
+Our soldiers, before being sent to Cuba, were vaccinated—polluted with
+cow-syphilis—and, although the papers and army reports tried to keep
+the knowledge from the public, small-pox was prevalent among these
+vaccinated soldiers, the excuse being that the vaccination “didn’t
+take.” Tommy-rot.
+
+Man, being a creature of his environment, can find about him all that
+is necessary for his welfare; and, if he would obey the law discovered
+by Darwin, by Herbert Spencer, he would find that he who is most apt,
+who is most quickly assimilated with his environment, is the one who
+will survive the longest.
+
+[Sidenote: Government murders]
+
+The government murders our soldiers in the Philippines and in Cuba by
+feeding them with hog meat, “embalmed” beef, and food-stuffs that grow
+only in the temperate zones, while all round them are the necessary
+and proper foods to keep them in health in their present environment.
+Natives in the tropics eat but little of flesh, little of the elements
+that are found in the foods of the colder climes; yet our soldiers,
+unaccustomed to the enervating environment of the tropics, are fed on
+flesh, a food necessary (?) to keep men alive in a cold climate. It is
+simply murder; there is no excuse for such stupidity.
+
+[Sidenote: Driving soldiers insane]
+
+Why is it that those who live in the Southern climes eat so much of
+red-peppers, spices, et cetera? For the reason that the heat of the
+atmosphere, draws all of the energy and circulation to the surface of
+the body to induce perspiration, the evaporation of which cools the
+skin. The stimulation of the hot spices is a counter-irritant and draws
+the blood to the stomach, giving it the energy necessary to perform
+its proper function. Our soldiers in the Philippines are fed with the
+most indigestible food, unprovided with the irritants necessary to
+produce the required digestion, and although our newspapers fail to
+tell the public, _our army insane asylums are being filled_ at a
+rate that is appalling. The meat trust and the ignorance of our doctors
+are decimating the ranks of our soldiers far more rapidly than the
+Filipinos could were they furnished with arms. Eat of your environment
+if you would be of that environment and survive.
+
+[Sidenote: D——n you die]
+
+In a certain hospital in Chicago an old maid, a patient, had undergone
+a successful operation, but was firmly convinced that she would die.
+Her old maid sister visited her and agreed with her that she would die.
+Every time she saw the doctor she told him she would die; and, at last,
+losing patience (not “patients,” though sometimes he did) one evening,
+after she had repeatedly informed the doctor she would die, he turned
+to her and said, “Damn you, die!” and went down stairs. About forty
+minutes later the nurse called the doctor and said, “She did it.”
+
+“Did what?”
+
+“As you told her.”
+
+“What was that?”
+
+“She has died.”
+
+[Sidenote: What killed her?]
+
+The question is did the body force the thought, or did the external
+environment force the thought, which resulted in death?
+
+[Sidenote: Better than drugs]
+
+Another time, a young lady living at home became ill. Her physician
+concluded that drugs would be of little avail, and hired a robust,
+rosy-cheeked, romping tomboy of a nurse, to whose presence the family
+objected. The doctor insisted, and the patient got well. The family
+still hold that the doctor made a grave mistake in forcing them to
+endure the presence of this nurse, who was a suggestion of health in
+appearance, in tone, and in manner; and her constant attendance on the
+patient was more potent through its effect on the patient’s senses than
+all the medicine in Christendom.
+
+[Sidenote: Telepathy]
+
+The Mental Scientists believe in telepathy, claiming that if all the
+neighbors wished health to the sick one, they would get a telepathic
+effect of mind upon mind. This explanation will not hold water. What
+you think, you look, you do. Therefore, if you think health, you
+communicate that suggestion to the patient through the patient’s
+senses, for in no other way can he receive the impression. It is open
+(direct), personal suggestion—nothing telepathic about it.
+
+[Sidenote: Christian science]
+
+The same with Christian Science, pure and simple suggestion; for it
+matters not what the method, so long as the thought is put in action,
+whether by praying or exhortations (facial expression and tone). The
+necessary attributes are desire and sincerity on the part of those
+offering the suggestion. Let there be one insincere person in the party
+and that one can produce a stronger positive against the others than
+twenty can counteract.
+
+[Sidenote: Healing]
+
+I have known many cases where the individuality and personality in
+touch, accompanied by tone, has been so forcible that fever in a child
+has been allayed within a minute. Personally, I have gone to the
+bedside of a stranger, and in less than one minute re-established a
+circulation throughout the entire lower limbs, the patient at the time
+being what the doctors call delirious.
+
+The snapping, snarling little house dog has never been known to bite a
+person who would hold his hand still when the dog bit at it. The manner
+in which you place your hand on an animal, the suggestion of the touch,
+is the secret of success in handling snakes. When one is afraid of the
+snake, the touch tells him so; when one is not, he knows.
+
+[Sidenote: The power in the eye]
+
+It is said that if we will stare a lion or a savage dog in the eye he
+will not bite us. This is wrong. Of course, in most cases if we stare
+at them we are not afraid, but if we stare at them and are afraid, my
+experience is, the bull-dog will “go for” us.
+
+Horses and pet animals are “spoiled,” made vicious, et cetera, by the
+ineffectual attempts to force them to “mind.” Animals are like babies,
+if we make them comprehend through the _proper_ senses, and are
+just, little trouble is required to force them to understand.
+
+[Sidenote: Mental healing possible]
+
+Mental healing is possible where cerebro-spinal (conscious) memories
+are associated with sympathetic memories; it will be, or is, through
+cerebro-spinal (conscious) memories that we arouse sympathetic memories
+in mental healing. The sympathetic must have a memory of “normal” or
+healthy action. Sickness is the unhealthy action of the Sympathetic
+System. After hypnotizing a subject, if we can lock a thought in the
+“mind” through a word (cerebro-spinal) or a series of words that will
+arouse the associated action desired in the Sympathetic System, we can
+produce a cure. Therefore, all diseases having a name (cerebro-spinal),
+a recognized result (cerebro-spinal), and the unconscious actions of
+the sympathetic that produces these conditions, become workable the
+moment they are associated.
+
+[Sidenote: Imagination]
+
+Imagination is a word I do not like, inasmuch as what a man imagines
+he believes, and what he believes, is. If one looks at a color, and is
+color-blind, one will believe that the color is such as the impression
+given, notwithstanding what one’s neighbor says. Therefore, I deny
+imagination as accepted by the general public, and say what a person
+believes is, so far as he is personally concerned. A man is just as
+sick as he believes himself to be, and just as well as he believes
+himself to be; because, if his thought is of health, all the attributes
+of which he is possessed that makes health are certain to take place.
+If he believes himself to be sick, the memory actions of that sickness
+are bound to occur.
+
+[Sidenote: Absent treatment]
+
+I do not believe in the philosophy of absent treatment, yet the
+so-called absent treatment is successful with many patients. That cures
+are produced through telepathy and by an operator sitting down every
+day and thinking of the welfare and good of his patient for an hour, to
+_me_ is “tommy-rot.” If we can make the patient believe or accept
+that we are going to “will” him well, and every afternoon or morning he
+will deliberately take a certain position, sit in a certain place and
+try to make himself passive, a result can be accomplished. It is only
+suggestion, however. All is suggestion, and it must come through the
+senses.
+
+[Sidenote: Superstition]
+
+Superstition, the relic of unenlightened (?) days.
+
+If you were a hypnotist, you would wonder when those unenlightened
+and non-superstitious days ended. Ninety-nine out of every hundred of
+the people who tell us they do not believe in hypnosis are so deathly
+afraid of it that they will not look the operator in the eye. They are
+not afraid of what he claims, but of the great big phantom that they,
+in their ignorance, have built around the art. The moment they succeed
+in comprehending what I claim, they are of my most ardent followers.
+Superstitious; who is not? I believe I will have bad luck if I go to
+the theater without my cane (because on these nights it rains and I
+take my umbrella). Ben Johnson used to touch every post he passed.
+People will not re-enter their homes for something they have forgotten.
+The little superstitions are limitless, the big ones “more limitless.”
+
+[Sidenote: Superstition the all]
+
+[Sidenote: Mummery]
+
+[Sidenote: Why be sick?]
+
+The superstition that surrounds medicine and disease is appalling. The
+superstition and jugglery that permeates the profession of medicine
+and law, is the Sympathetic System, the Abdominal Brain of their
+very existence. Remove superstition from these two professions and
+little is left. Yesterday’s paper states that the board of health
+of Liberty, Sullivan County, New York, has had passed an ordinance
+placing consumption in the same class with small-pox, scarlet fever,
+diphtheria and other contagious (?) diseases, and prohibiting any
+hospital or sanitarium for consumptives within the village limits.
+Violation of the ordinance is punishable by the fine of fifty dollars
+for the first offense, and for each subsequent offense the penalty is
+_discretionary with the board_, but is not to exceed one hundred
+dollars. Having established the superstition that small-pox (when not
+preceded by cow-pox, inoculated by a high priest of medicine, who
+procured his “charm” by mutilating a calf or cow), scarlet fever, et
+cetera, are “contagious,” to further his mummery, he prohibits the
+consumptive from living elsewhere than where he dictates, and the
+non-superstitious (?) public submits to the dictates of these high
+priests who worship at the shrine of bugs, and start their mummery by
+taking from a patient a “culture,” then go into a sacred chamber, amid
+a lot of mysterious paraphernalia, to _incant_ and _decant_.
+Returning with a very grave face, they tell you that the bug is there,
+but they _know_ of a bug that can catch your bug and kill him (and
+perhaps you); that they will now let loose the bug they have caught
+by chasing some other bug through a horse, a goat, a dog, a rabbit,
+a guinea-pig and a monkey. So they “shoot” the bug into your blood;
+and, behold! if you fail to be impressed (suggested to) through this
+mummery, you go to some other doctor. Pick up a daily paper—read—why
+be sick? The advertisements tell you of bugs discovered, a sure cure.
+If these licensed “doctors” can do as they claim, _why so much
+legislation_?
+
+Now, reader, _you_ are not superstitious. Oh! no, you are
+“scientific.” If you can show any difference between the “science” of
+to-day and the mummery of the “dark ages” you will enlighten sincere
+and anxious students who are striving to enlighten their fellow man.
+
+Here, reader, are a few of your superstitions:
+
+That you can comprehend more than three units at one time.
+
+That other than matter is appreciable.
+
+That man is a free agent.
+
+That man is possessed of “will power.”
+
+That man is just.
+
+That law is justice.
+
+That “justice” is achieved by hounding a supposed criminal.
+
+That prosecuting attorneys prosecute criminals from a sense of duty
+only.
+
+That the verdict of a jury is always just.
+
+That punishment prevents crime.
+
+That legislators represent the people.
+
+That legislation should be invoked against all things not understood.
+
+That newspapers print the truth only.
+
+That a diploma makes a doctor.
+
+That medical statistics are reliable.
+
+That drugs of themselves cure.
+
+That there are contagious diseases.
+
+That vaccination prevents small-pox.
+
+That quarantine prevents the spread of disease.
+
+That boards of health are useful in preventing disease.
+
+That medical experts are possessed of knowledge.
+
+That two “experts,” who swear directly opposite to one another, are
+_both_ experts.
+
+That modern science is scientific.
+
+That an “authority” knows whereof he talks.
+
+That the experts on hypnosis who write for the New York papers know
+whereof they write.
+
+That the psychologists who investigated the phenomena (without the
+phenomena) of Mrs. Piper are psychologists, or even thinkers.
+
+That Mental or Christian Scientists are fools.
+
+That the ten commandments have benefited mankind.
+
+That attending church will reserve for you a place in heaven (?).
+
+That a professor of Christianity will not “do” his neighbor.
+
+That in attempting to simulate you deceive others than yourself.
+
+That there are idolatrous religions.
+
+That sensuality is love.
+
+That blushing is a sign of purity.
+
+That colleges graduate practical men.
+
+That physical and mental traits are inherited, _per se_, from the
+father.
+
+That one is born with a thirst for liquor (yet takes milk straight
+without an objection).
+
+That the American public desires to be deceived.
+
+That there is more than one way to hypnotize.
+
+That man can travel, build a following, and earn a living through
+fraudulent methods only.
+
+That the performing of orificial work, particularly circumcision, is a
+sin, for, “What God gave, no man should take away.”
+
+NOTE.—This being true, although the Nazarene was circumcised,
+the cataract should not be removed from an eye, because “God” gave
+man the cataract. A child, born blind, deaf or dumb, should not have
+its senses established, because “God” has made the child that way.
+An individual God would be too busy to look after us as separate
+beings; but God is good, and what God does is perfect. If a personal
+God _made_ each one of us, we would be in His image, each of us
+would bear His features, and therefore be perfect physically, perfect
+mentally; but God is the Law of Suggestion, and those of us who have
+been circumcised find that we are better than those who claim they
+should keep _all_ that “God” gave them. If we can better the
+animal’s physical condition, so then should physical condition be
+changed in man, as the necessity for circumcision is a result of the
+irritation of the mother, her irritated ganglion teaching the ganglion
+of the child to build redundantly.
+
+Stupid superstition is as rife to-day as it was in the alleged “dark
+ages.”
+
+[Sidenote: Palmistry, telepathy, et cetera]
+
+Back of what the “scientists” claim to be pure superstition, is a grain
+of truth. I believe there is some truth in palmistry, telepathy and
+clairvoyance, and it is proven that there is efficiency in fetishes,
+amulets, charms, et cetera, though I have yet to observe a case of
+either telepathy or clairvoyance that I considered a demonstration
+of phenomena. It is possible for one familiar with human nature to
+foretell to a reasonable extent, or predestine personal actions. If
+a right-handed man is lost in a forest and we meet him, we can tell
+him that he is moving in a circle to the left, because he will step a
+little further with his right foot.
+
+So-called superstitious people have a right to their superstitions;
+they were sick, procured their charm and got well. It is well-known
+that a patient, lacking confidence in his physician, receives but
+little benefit from his treatment (charm). When our non-superstitious
+people call on the doctor and he fails to cure them; he then berates
+their lack of superstition.
+
+[Sidenote: The tale of a wart]
+
+Let us follow a “superstitious” lady who desires to get rid of a wart
+on her finger. Auntie brings the washing some Saturday evening, and
+notes the wart on madam’s finger. She says, “Lawd, lady, why don’t
+you get rid o’ dat wart?” and madam replies that she has consulted
+several doctors, but they cannot get the roots out; the wart always
+_grows_ back. Auntie informs her that an old mammy she knows would
+charm that wart away; she has seen her do so lots of times; it is
+easy. Madam becomes interested, so she thinks it over and all the time
+she is thinking about going to mammy’s cabin, she is holding in her
+“mind” the thought of getting rid of the wart. She dresses very plainly
+one afternoon, and starts for mammy’s cabin, all the time nervous
+and afraid that somebody will see her and know where she is going.
+Therefore, she is thinking all the time of getting rid of that wart.
+Timidly knocking at the door, she goes in, filled with awe and fear,
+and notes the surroundings. After talking with her, mammy has her sit
+down, takes her hand, makes some cabalistic passes, telling her just
+exactly what she must do, and that at a certain time, exactly, she must
+do a certain thing; if she will do so for a certain length of time, the
+wart will surely disappear.
+
+[Sidenote: Will it disappear?]
+
+[Sidenote: “It shore will”]
+
+The woman, after watching mammy’s work and manipulations, returns
+home, still afraid of being observed by her neighbors, and at last
+sits down with a sigh of relief, thankful that the ordeal is over,
+not realizing that for the past two hours her mind has been set on
+getting rid of the wart. Now her curiosity is aroused; will the wart
+disappear? Every time she feels the wart, it arouses in her “mind” the
+thought of its disappearance; and every little while she goes to the
+light to see if the wart has really vanished. In time it does. If this
+is not a practical case of suggestion by reaching the mind, I do not
+know what is. I fail to see the superstition, as the wart disappears by
+suggestion. Madam does not care whether it was suggestion, or what it
+was, she knows the wart was on her hand, and remembers the learned (?)
+doctor’s failure, realizing that mammy has done what the doctor failed
+to do, and is happy, or, as the doctors say, she is now extremely
+superstitious. No! What you think is, what you believe is, as far as
+you are personally concerned.
+
+[Sidenote: Emotion]
+
+Our psychologists are always talking of emotion. Emotions are extremes
+and the same nerve-ends are stimulated to produce the two opposite
+emotions. Sadness affects certain muscles of the face and forces the
+tear ducts to pour forth tears. Extreme mirth produces the same result.
+
+The myriads of deductions, as to emotion, made by our psychologists are
+entirely false. We have five ways of receiving ten extreme ideas, and
+to the degree of emphasis or stimulus (suggestion), and of the ideas
+already associated, do the emotions respond.
+
+[Sidenote: Abdominal brain]
+
+I believe the Sympathetic System and the cerebro-spinal system to be of
+one Abdominal Brain. The cerebro-spinal receives the impressions and
+carries them to the sympathetic ganglion, which receives unconsciously
+and can perform this function free from the cerebro-spinal, but the
+cerebro-spinal can do absolutely nothing without the sympathetic. In
+other words, it is inherent with, and cannot be disassociated from the
+sympathetic.
+
+[Sidenote: All action direct]
+
+You see, hear, smell, feel or taste something repulsive, and
+immediately become sick at the stomach. The cerebro-spinal simply
+registers the memory of the sense-stimuli, but the nerve-ends that
+receive this are beyond all question sympathetic, the cerebrum
+being simply a side issue, and like the registering mechanism of a
+phonograph; so, instead of being sick through a reflex action, which I
+cannot comprehend, it is all _direct_. So-called reflex action has
+never been comprehensively explained to me. All action is direct.
+
+[Sidenote: Magnetism]
+
+If matter is the expression of mind, so-called magnetism must be an
+expression in matter that attracts other matter. Therefore, a person
+possessed of a pure body will have a pure mind, consequently, a pure
+expression in his face, attracting the pure, and _vice versa_.
+That this is true, I have proven.
+
+[Sidenote: How I cleaned house]
+
+[Sidenote: Stopped liquor]
+
+There was a time in my life when pure women, children and babes were
+afraid of me, and would not look at me. I decided to “clean house,” and
+after my surgeons had finished with me, acquired the thought that man
+partakes of the nature of the food he eats. I was in Kansas, where they
+fed us on ham and eggs or bacon and eggs for breakfast, roast pork for
+dinner, and cold ham and sausage for supper; at last I concluded I was
+a hog, and began experimenting. Desiring to cease drinking liquor, I
+stopped eating pork, and, strangely, the amount of liquor I consumed
+proportionately decreased. I then quit eating flesh, and in eight
+months, with no effort on my part, ceased drinking liquor.
+
+Before this, I had reached such a stage that when a gentleman invited
+me to his home I would refuse; being afraid to meet the ladies of the
+family. In a city in Arkansas I played an engagement of one week,
+returning after a couple of weeks, and had to lay off one night. That
+night I was invited to a children’s party. I was afraid to go, but went
+after my friend insisted. The children, of course, knew who I was; they
+began talking to me and I forgot myself. For a time I was thoroughly
+unconscious of my environment, recovering to find that I was in the
+middle of the parlor on my knees with some dozen little girls around
+me, some with their arms about my neck, and the tears were rolling down
+my cheeks; then I realized that I _had_ “cleaned house,” that
+the brutal nature had passed away, and the “magnetism” with which I
+had been blessed as a lad, had partially returned; had returned to the
+extent that the children had seen in my face and responded to the love
+I now had for them. This is the pleasantest memory of my life.
+
+[Sidenote: Babes no longer cried]
+
+After that I used to smile and speak to the babes as I passed them on
+the street, and they always smiled in return. A year before this time,
+if I looked at a baby it was certain to cry.
+
+To further prove this thought, about a year afterward, I met a party of
+ladies in a hotel parlor, became very angry, and dismissed them. Going
+onto the porch of the hotel (this was in the South), I saw a baby in a
+carriage. When I spoke to the baby it began yelling, and would not stop
+until I left. Upon meeting the baby the next day, when I was in a good
+humor, it was pleased to see me, thus showing that personal magnetism
+is simply the expression in matter of mind. Therefore, the foul mind
+gives forth foul expression, which is immediately responded to by those
+of the same type.
+
+[Sidenote: To cultivate personal magnetism]
+
+To cultivate personal magnetism, cultivate purity. The orator or the
+actor who magnetizes (?) his audience is simply a person possessing
+much expression, and who unconsciously tells his story by affecting
+two senses. The non-magnetic man is the one who affects only one—the
+ear,—but the man who affects both the eye and the ear, who is full of
+expression and gesture, is the most magnetic always.
+
+[Sidenote: Sleep in church]
+
+My dear reader, you are a hypnotist, why is it that people in the front
+pew of a church, particularly if the altar be high, so readily fall
+asleep? Easy position, upturned eye, concentration, and monotony in the
+voice of the minister. There is but one way to hypnotize, and that is
+by bringing the proper five attributes together. The making of “passes”
+is simply using the deaf and dumb language to a person. They suggest
+through feeling what the comprehensive hypnotist suggests through the
+ear. Downward passes mean sleep, therefore every time the subject feels
+the downward passes he thinks of sleep and goes to sleep (?), or is in
+hypnosis, with the sense of feeling keen and acute, waiting for the
+upward passes. When the upward passes are made, he awakens, because
+that is associated with and forces the thought of awakening.
+
+A thought consists of two or more associated sense-impressions.
+
+[Sidenote: Scientific teaching]
+
+My dear reader, you love your mother, your father, your brother, your
+sister and wife (if you have one), and children if you are so blessed.
+Just think of the all-wise provisions that the “scientific” world has
+made for your welfare.
+
+You or I knew a young man, a boy. We knew him playing in the street
+and going to school. His father possessed a little money and did not
+wish the boy to perform manual labor, so at eighteen or nineteen years
+of age he is sent to a medical college. Now, mind, this boy has no
+practical knowledge of anything. He has had no experience, whatever,
+in the world. He is a suckling, and spends four years in this college
+_listening_ to words, _watching_ the professors of anatomy
+demonstrate (feeling-sense), watching operations by old men, visiting
+the hospital and watching the doctors prescribe. His actual experience
+consists of cutting up one cadaver, perfunctorily; the proper
+dissection of one cadaver would have taken him at least four years. It
+would be necessary for him to dissect at least a dozen before he could
+properly become familiar with the structure of the human body.
+
+[Sidenote: A diploma]
+
+[Sidenote: Is this right?]
+
+At the end of the fourth year, being still a boy, he graduates by
+answering a lot of questions—words associated with words, necessarily
+carrying with them no comprehension—and this boy, after taking the oath
+to be honorable, which as yet he is too young to comprehend, is given
+a parchment which entitles him to assume the treatment of the most
+vicious diseases, to reduce the most intricate dislocations, to assist
+“nature” in bringing new beings into the world; to have entrée to our
+homes under all of the most delicate circumstances, and thus come into
+possession of the skeletons in our closets; to be sent for when our
+dearest relative is likely to pass away. This boy—inexperienced as to
+all things worldly—is entitled by law to this right. Is it sensible, is
+it just?
+
+To further strengthen this injustice, the law designates to whom
+(_experience_ not being a factor) we shall go when we are sick;
+failing to do so, we shall be punished. All other contracts, to stand
+before a court of law, must be equitable; a just consideration must be
+given. What consideration do we get in return for being forced to go to
+this man with a parchment? Does he guarantee to cure us? Will he cure
+us? Does he cure us? Can he cure us? If he fails, why should we not
+have redress?
+
+[Sidenote: Why this law?]
+
+Again, we know of a person who is of mature age, who knows life, who
+knows from experience right from what the world calls wrong, and
+through the _proper_ senses, how to treat disease; who is capable
+of handling diseases—proving his capability by past deeds,—and why
+should we not go to him? Why should he be punished for treating us? Why
+should we be punished for accepting his treatment?
+
+If the graduates, at the end of four years, were possessed of any
+actual knowledge, if they could demonstrate any other than an ocular
+one of displaying their diplomas, I would have nothing to say. I do not
+believe that the Supreme Court of the United States will sustain any
+such law, inasmuch as the Constitution gives us the right to choose
+whom we shall have dealings with. The wise (?) legislators, knowing
+nothing of medicine, and little of farming, unhesitatingly dictate to
+the world to whom the sick shall go for relief.
+
+[Sidenote: The Nazarene]
+
+[Sidenote: Who cures?]
+
+The Nazarene _cured_ by suggestion. The Christian Scientists
+_cure_ by suggestion; the Mental Scientists _cure_ by
+suggestion; the so-called Faith Curists _cure_ by suggestion;
+the Hypnotist _cures_ by suggestion, and what _cures_ the
+physician accomplishes are by _suggestion_; but a wise medic
+whispers into the ear of the farmer legislator—who is another of the
+modern superstitions, as we believe him to be a representative man, a
+maker of laws for the _good_ of men,—this medic whispers in his
+ear, “These other people do not cure.” Then who does? It is passing
+strange that, with all his curing, he has to force the people to
+patronize him while all the other scientists fall under the ban of the
+law.
+
+[Sidenote: The bug was there]
+
+In this country of alleged freedom, let the curists fight their own
+battles, let them live by the deeds they do. In all other affairs that
+is the law, but a man’s life is so dear to the legislators—who are
+always standing around the lobbies with their hands behind them—that
+they cannot allow man to care for his own life, it is not precious
+enough to him; he is not capable of “choosing” to whom he shall go; he
+must be _saved from himself_; he must go to a man with a parchment
+and have that man pour a serum—the putrefaction of disease of horses,
+cows, dogs, goats and rabbits into his blood, to kill a poor little
+bug. If the patient dies, and a post-mortem is held, the doctors state
+that the bug was there; other doctors state that they are right,
+the diagnosis was correct, the bug was there. _The doctors put it
+there._ The taking of human life is nothing.
+
+[Sidenote: A la Sampson]
+
+[Sidenote: Cause vs. effect]
+
+Now, dear reader, I am not railing at the doctors personally, but at
+their pseudo philosophy. They mean well, poor, helpless creatures,
+they learned (?) what their tutors taught (?) them. They _saw_
+surgical operations, they obtained (?) through the eye that which
+should have been acquired through feeling. Their wise preceptors had
+a law made; and now, as they have listened four years and can answer
+questions, they are given diplomas which entitle them to go forth to
+fight the mighty hosts of bugs. They are fortified with the “jaw-bone
+of an ass,” and the world looks on and says, “Hallelujah!” For some
+reason they accept what old Doc. So and so said, take it for granted,
+fail to investigate and try to succeed. They have no true knowledge
+with which to work. To show how false the present theory of medicine
+is, when a man is suffering from indigestion he is given pepsin, which
+merely digests the food in the stomach, failing to reach any cause
+whatever. A bucket has been filled with water; the water is thrown out
+and the bucket again placed under a spout, with the expectation of its
+remaining empty. They do nothing but attempt to remove effect, never
+once reaching cause.
+
+[Sidenote: Here’s a chance]
+
+The “rational” school of medicine is the most irrational; purely
+attempts at drug suggestion without any certainty as to the result,
+contradicting their own consciences every day, deceiving the general
+public by asserting that they produce disease through inoculation with
+germs; and right here I unhesitatingly deny that they ever produced
+a tubercular lung in a rabbit or guinea-pig with any germ they
+inoculated him with, and assert that they kill him with septicemia or
+blood-poisoning, by introducing into his blood foreign matter. They
+know the exact manner in which he will die, they find his lungs full
+of bugs; his entire body is full of bugs because they filled him with
+them. Allow me to furnish the rabbit and my doctors to watch the
+experiment, and I will give one thousand dollars to any doctor who will
+produce the disease, _per se_, in my rabbit or guinea-pig through
+inoculation with his bugs. They must produce a tubercular lung, not a
+sound lung filled with bugs.
+
+I know of dozens of cases of diphtheria (?) where the membrane, when
+examined by the bacteriologist of the Board of Health of Brooklyn, N.
+Y., and pronounced true diphtheria, were not diphtheria in any shape
+or form, and dozens of cases where they pronounced it not diphtheria,
+that were, beyond all question, notwithstanding the test (?), true
+diphtheria. This wrangling over the word “true” is all “tommy-rot”;
+whether it is true or not, the patient dies, no need of wrangling over
+whether it is true or pseudo.
+
+[Sidenote: If I were a doctor]
+
+If I were a doctor, not merely a man with a “sheep-skin,” but a real
+doctor, a man who had goods to deliver, a man who could say, “I will
+cure, or accept no pay,” I would have an office of three rooms and have
+all my skeletons in the first room; reversing the usual arrangement
+of our present wise doctors, it should be a gloomy room and I would
+hire sick people—awfully sick people—to sit around the room so that
+when a patient entered he would have sickness suggested very strongly,
+and would know that he was sick; and after the sick people had told
+him how awfully sick they were, their “minds” being full of sickness,
+and he had that thought of sickness thoroughly emphasized, I would
+have him step into another room that had minor surgical instruments
+on display and lesser suggestions of sickness. Then I would invite
+him into my office where I would be sitting in the shadows so that he
+could not readily perceive the involuntary and unconscious expressions
+that would appear in my face as he told me of his illness. My office
+would be bright and full of flowers, and birds, and pictures of health;
+no stuffed animals, but live ones; I should try to have a smile on
+my face, and the moment he took a seat, responding to the suggestion
+of the present environment, he would say to me, “Why, doctor, I
+feel better already.” And he would feel better, because from every
+suggestion of sickness I should have carried him into a room that was
+full of every suggestion of health. No drugs, no odor of drugs, no
+instruments, no death’s head calendars; but life, in expression, in
+plants, in flowers, in birds, in animals; I would have surrounded him
+with health. And, good reader, he could go away with no drugs, but with
+a memory of that office that would make him feel better.
+
+
+
+
+WORDS
+
+
+[Sidenote: Thinking]
+
+Man’s thoughts are made up of the association of the different
+nerve-end stimulation of the senses. His comprehension is to the
+extent of his correlated experiences, and all that is possible for
+him to do is to _compare_. (See Indian story, p. 179). His fund
+of experiences with which to compare is to the degree of the fineness
+of his nerve-ends to receive all variable impressions so affecting
+them. To try to convey to you my thought, I will use general terms and
+expressions, thus: to say to you what you call “thinking” is nothing
+but comparing. (Thinking is the transformation of energy and afterward
+realizing the transformation.)
+
+[Sidenote: Psychology]
+
+Words of themselves force no action; they are meaningless. A word is
+supposed to be a symbol to arouse a sense-memory. To understand the
+use and application of words it is necessary for us to comprehend
+the action of words in arousing sense-memories. Psychology—as yet a
+meaningless word—has been the cause of many well-intending non-thinking
+people writing books that are termed psychologies, which name conveys
+the thought of irrational, incomprehensive theorists, never holding to
+a premise, massing a myriad of words, explaining (?) something that
+they themselves do not understand, and, consequently, cannot explain,
+fully demonstrating Talleyrand’s expression, “Words were given to hide
+thoughts.” I believe—and, dear reader, it is only a belief—that I
+possess an average amount of so-called human intelligence, and I have
+yet to read a psychology that I can comprehend the least portion of.
+
+[Sidenote: Say something]
+
+Writing words, after stating that words of themselves mean nothing,
+I will be paradoxical, and with words try to say something, a thing
+that few people succeed in doing. If the people in their business and
+social pursuits would always say something—making affirmations,—there
+would be fewer lawsuits, much less misunderstanding; in fact, no
+misunderstanding whatever; but man utters words, and, intuitively
+comprehending that words are meaningless, makes his own deduction; if
+he deduces correctly we call him clever, bright; if incorrectly, a fool.
+
+Those of you who have had experience with employés can readily
+comprehend how hard it is to say something, or to have the employés
+comprehend that you have said something.
+
+[Sidenote: Not as you think, but as I say]
+
+One season there was with me as treasurer a college graduate. When he
+was engaged, I said, “You have not been hired to do the thinking, but
+to do as I say.” In the first city we visited, I told him to take a
+package of school tickets to the public schools and give them to the
+children. He was back in ten minutes.
+
+“Where have you been?”
+
+“To the school.”
+
+“Did you give out the tickets to the pupils as I told you?”
+
+“Yes, sir.”
+
+“Truly, you can work fast. Now tell me what you actually did?”
+
+“Oh, I handed the tickets to the teacher, and she said _she_ would
+give them out to the pupils.”
+
+“Then _you_ did not give the tickets to the pupils, as I told you?”
+
+“Well, I did the same thing.”
+
+[Sidenote: Another]
+
+At another time, I told him that every evening after the performance
+he should write to the manager of the company, who was ahead, stating
+the receipts, and to put the letter in the postoffice. A few evenings
+later, he was in my room when one of my subjects was sent out to get
+some refreshments.
+
+The treasurer turned to the boy and said, “Harry, post this letter for
+me, will you?”
+
+Harry said, “All right.”
+
+I interfered and said, “No”; turning to the treasurer, I continued, “Is
+this what I told you to do?”
+
+“Yes, sir.”
+
+“What did I tell you to do?”
+
+“To send a letter to the agent every night.”
+
+“Is that all?”
+
+“Oh, you said for me to put it in the postoffice, but Harry can do it
+just as well.”
+
+[Sidenote: Not just as well]
+
+“No, not just as well; because if the letter fails to reach its
+destination, it is impossible to place the blame. You failed to do as I
+told you; Harry is in no way responsible; he may do by you as you have
+done by me, fail to post it.”
+
+Another season I had a treasurer with me who did as he was told. One
+evening the manager of the theater in which we were playing, turned
+to my treasurer and said, “Here is your share of the money; no need to
+count the tickets.”
+
+The treasurer had been at the door, seen the tickets sold and was
+thoroughly convinced that all was right, yet had been told to always
+count the tickets. He began doing so, and the manager of the theater
+said, “What is the use? It is just a waste of time. I do not care to
+rob you; here’s your share of the money.”
+
+[Sidenote: As he was told]
+
+The treasurer answered, “Mr. Santanelli told me to always count the
+tickets, and I shall do so.”
+
+At the conclusion of the count, my treasurer remarked to the manager of
+the house that his tickets called for thirty dollars more.
+
+“Impossible,” replied the manager of the opera house.
+
+“I know nothing of that; I have tickets here representing thirty
+dollars more than you claim you have,” replied my treasurer.
+
+After much worrying, the treasurer of the opera house suddenly
+remarked, “By George, I forgot the advance sale.”
+
+Now, the treasurer of the hall was honest, but if my treasurer had not
+done as he was told I would have been out twenty-four dollars.
+
+[Sidenote: Don’t]
+
+[Sidenote: Positiveness]
+
+[Sidenote: Extremes side by side]
+
+Everything in life is affirmative; all else is incomprehensible.
+“Don’t” is a positive against you. If I say to you, “Don’t do that,”
+I mean, “Keep still,” or to do something else. When I speak to you of
+“long,” what do you think of, dear reader? Long? Oh, no; you think of
+short, because it is the realization of short and the comparison of
+that with long which makes the difference. When I say to you, “Smith is
+fat,” you think of lean. Now, if I say to you, “Smith is not fat,” I
+arouse and put in action in your “mind” the thought of a lean man. If I
+say to you, “The man is fat” you think of lean, but fat is the dominant
+idea. Grammarians will tell us the following sentence is correct: “See
+the young man put to sleep in the opera house Monday night; after
+which he will be taken to Smith’s show window, where you may see him
+sleeping; and, on Wednesday, see him awakened in the opera house.” It
+is entirely incorrect. It is like putting the right glove on the left
+hand; it does not fit. The proper writing of the sentence would be:
+“See the young man put to sleep in the opera house on Monday evening;
+see him awakened on Wednesday evening; and, in the meantime, see him
+sleeping in Smith’s show window.” The idea I am trying to convey is
+this: That when I talk of putting a person to sleep, the first idea
+aroused is of his awakening, and the two extremes should be placed side
+by side, the modifications to come afterward. Where the modifications
+come between the two extremes it is very difficult of comprehension and
+for the hearer to remember; but if the extremes are placed side by side
+the glove would be snugly fitted to the hand that it was made for. To
+acquire this art is very difficult after being schooled as we have. I
+fail to obey it in this book.
+
+[Sidenote: $100]
+
+I speak to you of one hundred dollars; do you comprehend what I am
+talking about? What sense-picture have I aroused in your mind? One of
+a piece of paper with a figure one and two ciphers in the corner, and
+the other associated figures; nothing more.
+
+_The “mind” can comprehend but three units at one time._
+
+[Sidenote: Can comprehend but three]
+
+For years I have wondered why the unaccountable three has appeared in
+every art and science. To-day it is perfectly comprehensible to me,
+because man can comprehend but three.
+
+If you doubt this, look at the signs when going down the street; we
+comprehend two or three letters the moment we glance at them, but if
+there be four or five, we at once comprehend the first three and then
+the balance, if the group does not contain more than six. Some learn to
+do this very quickly.
+
+If we are looking at a party of three on the street corner, and I ask
+you how many there are, you will immediately tell me; if there are six,
+you will say six, provided they are divided into groups of three; the
+same with nine; but, if they are in one group, they must be counted;
+or, in other words, separated into groups of three.
+
+A little experimenting will very readily demonstrate this. It is
+so simple and easily conceived—if you will make a series of fair
+experiments—that I wonder why our alleged scientists have not
+discovered it ere now. Any quantity over three is abstract; it is a
+mere term. If I speak of one hundred thousand feet of lumber, what
+picture am I arousing in the “mind?” None. A man who is accustomed to
+handling lumber might conceive the space it would occupy. If he is
+a wood-chopper he might conceive the energy and time necessary to
+cut and saw this lumber; but to conceive it as one hundred thousand
+_feet_ is utterly impossible.
+
+We hear of speculators in Wall Street buying a million bushels of
+wheat, and look wise, believing that we comprehend what was said. We
+have no comprehension; nor has he who purchased it. Perhaps the men who
+have large grain elevators have a conception of it as to bulk, as to
+the space it would occupy, measured by the eye, but no comprehension is
+possible.
+
+[Sidenote: Comprehension]
+
+I speak to you of space, an incomprehensible word; I speak to you of
+spirit; that is also incomprehensible. Form is merely the outline of
+matter, and it requires two senses to acquire conception—sight and
+feeling—or, in other words, two forms of feeling. Man can comprehend
+only by associating what he has seen, smelled, tasted, heard or felt.
+It is impossible to register through one sense that which the economy
+of man built to register through another; hence, it is impossible for
+me to _give you_ through the ear a smelling, tasting, sight or
+feeling memory; but one already possessed may be readily aroused.
+
+[Sidenote: Words arouse memories indefinitely]
+
+[Sidenote: Convincing]
+
+Words arouse memories indefinitely. When used in association with the
+affecting of other senses, words put thoughts in action that form new
+combinations or associations, thereby forcing new forms of thought.
+Taking up the illustration of man being a camera, taking a picture, the
+hypnotized subject being a stereopticon throwing out a picture, the
+“mind” can only hold one of these pictures at a time, and a negation
+always forces the opposite picture into place. It is possible,
+however, to take a minor attribute of a picture and make it dominate
+the picture. The art of doing this is what is called proving to, or
+convincing persons, and forcing them to think your way. (Making the
+indefinite definite.)
+
+To illustrate, we will take the fishing scene. I tell the subjects that
+when they open their eyes they will find themselves alongside of a
+fishing stream; that they will see beside them, bait, lines and hooks;
+that there are some fine fish in the stream they are welcome to if
+they can catch, and they commence fishing. But, if I say to them, “You
+must not swear,” or “refrain from swearing, as there are ladies in the
+audience,” the word “audience” revives the picture of where they were
+when they went into hypnosis; consequently, I have lost the thought
+I attempted to give them. But if I keep within the picture and say,
+“there is a party of ladies fishing a little way down the stream,” the
+subjects will fish.
+
+[Sidenote: Emphasizing a minor attribute]
+
+Now, reader, can we still keep them within the picture of the fishing
+scene and force them to cease fishing? I suppose you would say no,
+inasmuch as they are surrounded with all the attributes of fishing,
+and, not being free agents, they would be forced to fish. Very true,
+but an attribute which, of itself, must be a combination of other
+attributes, can be so divided—emphasized—that it will practically rule
+the picture. Therefore, if I would add to the fishing scene a very
+severe rain storm, carrying with it the disagreeableness of being
+wet, the danger of sickness, a place of cover, et cetera, it would
+force these fishermen to seek shelter, and still be within the fishing
+picture.
+
+[Sidenote: A lawyer]
+
+If I were a lawyer, never would I try to prove or show a negation, or
+the negative side of a case. Defending a criminal, I would accept every
+fact proven by the prosecution, accepting its premises “good,” and
+would build on it better, best.
+
+We will assume that a young man has been arrested for beating his
+mother, and the mother appears in court with a bruised face, black
+eye, et cetera. Knowing the jury can comprehend nothing they have not
+experienced through their senses, we must arouse in them sense-memories
+with which they are thoroughly familiar; that we must always impress
+two senses; that when we picture to them with words the hovel wherein
+he was reared, we must also speak of feeling, of smell; otherwise the
+mere mention of a hovel, a sight picture, will lack in effect; but if
+we properly associate with the sight picture feeling memories, smell
+memories, we will have succeeded not only in arousing a thought but
+have put it in action. As the defendant’s attorney, I would admit that
+the boy beat his mother, and state that it was the natural outcome
+of the environment. I would show the early surroundings of the boy,
+and the way his mother guided and allowed him to adapt himself to
+those environments to his injury; that as he grew up she continued
+to cultivate and allow to accumulate ideas and actions perfectly
+consistent with the beating given by her son. Inasmuch as no other
+result could possibly happen under such environment, nothing else could
+be expected of the young man; he responded as all others would under
+like conditions. This argument, being thoroughly developed by the
+association of the different sense-pictures, would create a sympathetic
+feeling for my client, and could not do otherwise than cause the jury
+to comprehend that the action was the natural outcome; or, to put it
+very brutally, the mother deserved what she got.
+
+[Sidenote: Natural response]
+
+If you were a customer, desiring to buy goods of me, and I should say
+to you, “This is the best thing on the market,” what would you be
+thinking of? That there are bad things on the market. Then, what proof
+have I that this is the best? As a good, wise purchaser you will go to
+some other store to look around, and I prove myself to be a very bad
+salesman by the use of one word.
+
+If I was an insurance man, and some one told me that he had insurance
+in another company, and I said that it was bad, what would you be
+thinking of? “Who in the mischief has any good?” But if I should say
+to him, “That company is good, but we have something a little better,”
+always taking our opponent’s side as good—then better and best, we are
+keeping within the picture; then, if we can take the minor attributes
+and split them up, they can be made to dominate the picture as the rain
+storm did the fishing scene, and thereby carry conviction.
+
+[Sidenote: Proper personal suggestion]
+
+If you were a writer of accident insurance and had climbed to the top
+of a high building, there meeting a carpenter, I suppose you would say
+to him, “It would be quite dangerous to fall from here.” I would not;
+but would look him in the eye, then at the ground and ask how far it
+was, and the other ideas would be immediately forced into action. I
+might then say something about how often people fall, or ask him if he
+ever fell. I will promise you that by following out this line, if, in
+ten minutes he was asked to be insured, and had the money, he would be.
+
+[Sidenote: Realize]
+
+The art of talking is to know what and how to accentuate, to force
+the listener to make _your_ argument _himself_. The mere
+statement of fact produces no result; but suggestion, properly applied,
+will cause the hearer to evolve what you evolved, to separate the
+attributes that you have separated, and, by so doing, will convince
+himself (realize). He will have emphasized through the proper
+channels the associated attributes favorable to you. Always talk in
+affirmatives, using a positive for, and thus hold the picture in your
+hearer’s mind.
+
+[Sidenote: Actors]
+
+An actor does not act. He leads his auditors; they do their own
+acting. How is it possible for Bill Jones, who has never experienced
+the different emotions that Hamlet is supposed to have had, to
+_reproduce_ them? How can his mind reproduce something that he
+has not experienced? Acting, so-called, carries with it no conviction,
+nothing real. The successful actor is one who can force his auditors
+to do their own acting. The attributes, scenery, music, costumes
+and word-picturing, merely arouse a memory in the auditor. I have
+seen “Camille” played by an actress and company talking entirely in
+Italian, and enjoyed it better without comprehending a word, than any
+performance of that play I had ever witnessed in the English language.
+If our actors would devote more study to emphasis and leading their
+auditors, they would succeed far better than they do at the present day
+by trying to simulate (trying to reproduce something they have never
+experienced), which is an impossibility.
+
+Many of the incongruities in the Bible are now comprehensible to me,
+the translators failing to convey the original through the translation.
+For example, take a correct translation of the Lord’s Prayer, and see
+how different the meaning from the one you have learned:
+
+[Sidenote: The Lord’s prayer]
+
+“Our Father Who are in Heaven, we hallow Thy name that Thy Kingdom may
+come and that Thy will may be done, here upon earth, even as it is in
+Heaven. Give us, day after day, our necessities, and forgive us our
+debts as we ought to forgive our debtors; leading us out of temptation
+and delivering us from evil. For Thine is the power as also the
+kingdom, forever and eternity. Amen.”
+
+Note the entire absence of negation.
+
+[Sidenote: The devil]
+
+The word “don’t” is the cause of more sin than his Satanic Majesty ever
+conceived; for, in fact, this word _is_ the devil.
+
+The ten commandments have been the cause of, and are responsible for,
+more sin than they have ever prevented.
+
+[Sidenote: The Indian and missionary]
+
+I was born in the extreme west, in Oregon. My grandfather walked across
+the plains in 1840, and was well acquainted with the Indians. He, with
+other pioneers, always had a great dislike for missionaries. I asked
+him why, and he said they caused all the trouble with the Indians. How
+was that? The Indians were good and peaceable as long as the white man
+treated them justly. When the missionary came among them and said,
+“Don’t steal,” the Indian asked, “What is ‘don’t steal’”? and the good
+missionary explained it to him; the Indian said, “Why, I never thought
+of that, guess I will try it.” The advent of missionaries is always
+associated in the “minds” of the early pioneers with the beginning of
+thievery on the part of the Indians.
+
+[Sidenote: Murder]
+
+[Sidenote: Say something]
+
+The mother says to her children, “Now, little ones, I am going out.
+I want you to be good, and, while I am gone, _don’t_ play with
+the fire.” Up to this time the thought of fire was composed of the
+attributes that it gave forth heat, that it would burn. In fact, these
+were the only attributes they had of fire other than the comfort to be
+derived from its heat. For the first time, the mother now associates
+with the thought of fire that it is something to be played with, and
+the moment she goes out, responding to her suggestion, the thought of
+playing with the fire is aroused in the “minds” of the children, and
+they begin playing with it and are burned, perhaps to death. According
+to the _just_ laws of to-day, that mother should be arrested for
+infanticide. She has unintentionally killed her children by speaking
+the words, “Don’t play with the fire,” and is just as guilty of their
+death, as though she left a can of nitroglycerin for them to play
+with. If we wish children to keep from the fire, we should say to
+them, “Now, little ones, move all your toys over in this corner of
+the room; I want you to play here until I come back.” _We have said
+something._ It was all affirmative. We told them what we desired
+them to do, not what we desired them _not_ to do. Every time we
+use the word “don’t,” we make a positive affirmation against ourselves.
+Mothers are so small-minded that they believe their daughters to be
+as experienced as themselves—in bad—always harping to them “Don’t do
+this, that and the other,” things that up to this time the girls never
+thought of. Many girls are ruined by their mothers trying to make them
+good through their “don’ts,” arousing a series of ideas just contrary
+to those desired.
+
+[Sidenote: Ministers’ sons]
+
+Why is it that ministers’ sons are proverbially “bad”? Because sin is
+being instilled in their minds by the constant mention of sinful acts,
+preceded by the word “don’t,” the good father always striving to find
+“badness” which he tells the son not to do, thus telling him of sins
+hitherto unthought of.
+
+[Sidenote: Oh! Say something]
+
+Tell the children what to do; it is quicker and comprehensive. Say
+something. Oh! if I could only get the mothers and teachers to
+comprehend that a negative is always an affirmative against, or the
+opposite to what you are trying to say. Learn to say something. Here
+is a common expression, “I will not see you until to-morrow.” That is
+not what you intend saying, you intend to say that you will see me
+to-morrow. You have no way of being certain that you will not see me
+before, and may see me a dozen times before to-morrow, but what you
+mean to say is that you will try or endeavor to see me to-morrow.
+
+A child is playing in the street, and you say to it, “Don’t play in the
+street.” Is that what the child desires to know? No. What the child
+desires to know is where it may play; again, you say to the child,
+“Don’t stand out in the rain,” but what you intend to say is, “Come in
+out of the rain.” Say something and perhaps your hearer will comprehend
+you, but when you use a negative you are saying nothing (?), and
+“nothing” is incomprehensible.
+
+[Sidenote: Learning to lie]
+
+The tone in which a word is uttered is of more importance than the word
+itself. To illustrate: A mother says to her child, “If you don’t stop
+that, I’ll whip you.” The child continues, seeing in the mother’s face
+an expression which, associated with the tone, plainly says “continue,”
+as they have forced a continuance of the thought, being positive
+against the words uttered. After a few years, the mother says to her
+husband, “We must remove from this locality, as the _neighbors’_
+children are teaching ours to lie.” (Do you see it?)
+
+[Sidenote: Teachers]
+
+[Sidenote: Scientific teaching]
+
+Many times have I lectured before the pupils of the normal schools in
+many states, and must say that I found the mode of teaching the most
+ridiculous attempt at instruction imaginable. If I had a ten-year-old
+boy, reared with me, who did not possess more actual knowledge than any
+of the pupils I have lectured before in the normal schools, I would
+be tempted to spank him, or to send him to an institution for the
+imbecile. These poor would-be teachers, having no experience in life,
+seated day after day on a bench, having words poured into their ears
+without the association of the other senses, it being impossible to get
+a conception with less than two, or a comprehension without affecting
+three senses—and one sense only, their hearing being affected, the
+words poured into their ears are merely idle ones, and then these poor
+creatures are supposed to go out into the world to teach children that,
+which they, themselves, have failed to comprehend. Not the fault of
+the teachers, but the fault of the scientific (?) manner of teaching.
+Our teachers show _us_ (through the eye) how to do something
+which _they_ do through the feeling-sense. Our eyes cannot accept
+feeling memories. You show (?) me how to pare an apple? No, you allow
+me to _see_ you pare an apple. Schools, other than those of manual
+training, are failures.
+
+Here is a suggestion that will make a fortune for some ingenious lover
+of children. Make a set of the letters of the alphabet in pieces, each
+to fit only in its proper place; have the joints of a pronounced angle,
+curve or square, so that the child can be taught to fit, correlate,
+“think”; to learn that an acute angle will not fit a right angle or
+circle, et cetera. The moment the child has learned this, it has
+learned to “think,” and not before. When this has been learned, the
+child will instantly, from out the heap, pick the parts (attributes)
+that form the letter. Reader, if you had such an alphabet, _you_
+could not instantly do so. You are not a ready thinker.
+
+[Sidenote: Pictures]
+
+Pictures are false, one has to be taught to read them. Showing a child
+a picture of a cow, saying “cow,” associating form (?) and sound,
+starts the thought, but not of the real cow. After a child has seen a
+real cow, the picture may _recall_ the true memory. A picture is
+only a word. Writing arouses sound memory, and a picture arouses sight
+memory, but the real thing must first be registered in the memory.
+
+I knew a lad of twelve years exceptionally bright, who went into the
+country, looked at a cow for five minutes, and said, “That must be a
+cow.” This lad had exceptionally fine tutors and opportunities for
+learning, yet it took him five minutes to deduce that he was looking
+at a cow. The suggestion of the environment did more to force the
+conviction than anything that he had seen pictured.
+
+[Sidenote: Train the proper senses]
+
+_Tell the children what to do._ All thoughts are composed of sense
+impressions, therefore impress the _proper_ senses. I may watch a
+blacksmith for a lifetime, yet cannot make a horseshoe until my sense
+of feeling acquires the proper memory. Three senses must be affected to
+form a comprehensive thought.
+
+[Sidenote: As to fraud]
+
+Can a man remain in business and sell goods which he fails to deliver?
+Can a merchant who has no goods to deliver accumulate money enough to
+establish himself in the respect of business men? Can the manager of an
+opera house afford to pay fifty dollars a night expenses for a week,
+and allow a man who has no goods to deliver to occupy his house? Can
+an established printer for a one-third cash payment afford to print an
+entire order, if the party he is printing for has no goods to deliver
+in order to pay his bills? Can a man with no goods remain in a state
+for a year, in a town for a week and earn a living? _Prima facie_,
+whose word carries the most weight, the proprietor of a store or one of
+his cheap hirelings? Many of my hirelings have exposed (?) me. During
+my first two years on the road it was a common occurrence every time
+I refused to raise salaries for somebody to expose (?) me. To date,
+two of them are in the penitentiary for life, another a paralytic; or,
+in other words, those who made the alleged exposés were _all_
+degenerates. Why is the word of the employé having nothing at stake,
+taken in preference to that of the proprietor, whose money and
+reputation are at stake? It is not, except by the degenerates, who are
+prone to believe everything “bad.”
+
+[Sidenote: My New York expose(?)]
+
+After my New York City engagement, the most sensational exposé (?) was
+effected. The fellow who did so thought I had then left for Lansing,
+Michigan. I met his first attempt, which was a failure. After I did
+leave, he succeeded in furnishing the New York papers with some
+sensational stories. The exposés (?) were made as to the sleeping act
+(hibernation). The first proof of the falsity of his statements is that
+he never made a sleep for me. Only these sleeps were made during my
+Eastern tour, viz.: In New York, Kilmer; Hartford, Conn., Stevenson;
+New Haven, Conn., Slinker; Meriden, Conn., Leonard; Bridgeport, Conn.,
+Kilmer; Willimantic, Conn., Mahoney.
+
+[Sidenote: Heart does not control the circulation]
+
+My advent in New York was as follows: I arrived in New York City
+with some six subjects, and opened in the Herald Square theater one
+afternoon, before about six hundred doctors; demonstrating with my
+subjects many things that were contradictions to what the medical
+profession taught, particularly the three different rates of pulsation,
+simultaneously. The subjects were stripped to the waist, allowing no
+possibility of trickery, and this test done some three or four times
+with each. Some of the doctors claimed that the subjects were trained.
+Even now, I will admit that for the sake of argument, but it still
+proves my point, that the heart does not control the circulation;
+_otherwise it could not be trained_. Just so, some people say
+the subjects are not hypnotized. Still, if they were not hypnotized
+they are in a condition, and whatever that condition is, I call it
+hypnotized. I will not fight for the term, words mean but little.
+
+I then opened at Hammerstein’s Olympia theater. My managers informed
+me that when people in New York City visited the theater, they went to
+see a show, not to take part in it; that volunteers were impossible;
+that I had better get some subjects. I put an advertisement in one of
+the papers, had many applicants, and on a Sunday afternoon I hypnotized
+some sixty, put them to work and picked out the better ones, to whom
+I paid one dollar a performance. Now, if they were “fakers,” they
+demonstrated themselves to be more clever than any actors in New York
+City, and they should have been drawing three hundred dollars per week;
+but, through the “fake,” or whatever you want to call it, I possessed
+the ability to make great actors out of this raw material in one
+hour, and at one dollar per night. You, gentle reader, say, “Ah, you
+are clever.” No, when you claim that you say I am a fool, because it
+is certain that if I could so teach people, Manager Frohman would
+hire me at an enormous salary as a stage manager to furnish him with
+_actors_ at one dollar per night. I am very certain that if I am
+so clever, and could rehearse and teach these subjects to do as they
+did in the brief time I had, the schools of acting in New York City
+would pay me a large salary to either work for them or to keep out of
+the business.
+
+This degenerate, who made the alleged exposé, was the chum of a Bowery
+professor then giving exhibitions in a dime museum in Fourteenth
+Street. His chum failed to teach him to take on hypnosis. After
+thirteen hours, an hour each day, I succeeded in teaching this fellow
+to take on hypnosis, after which he proved to be a clever subject. I
+took him on the road with me, and in two of the cities we visited, had
+to send him out of town to prevent his being arrested. To-day, the
+police of Bridgeport have, pigeon-holed, a criminal warrant against him.
+
+In his exposé, he claims to have visited Europe; to have been used in
+exhibitions by Charcot and others. I doubt if he has been six miles at
+sea; and Charcot gave none but private demonstrations, and those with
+only inmates of the Hospital Salpetriere. He went to the newspapers and
+stated that he was not hypnotized; that he was “faking,” and asked the
+reporters to say to him, “Drowsy, sleepy, et cetera,” as Santanelli
+did; that he would go to sleep, stick pins into himself and become
+cataleptic. I can teach any subject to do this thing in three minutes,
+in fact, I can do it myself through a pre-inspiration, and at no time
+do I need to _thoroughly_ lose consciousness. Later on, he made a
+twenty-four hour sleep to show that he could simulate it.
+
+Now, dear reader, did you ever wake up on a Sunday morning too late
+for breakfast and try to go to sleep, to lie there until lunch-time.
+I will promise that before lunch-time you will get up. You cannot lie
+_awake_ five minutes with your eyes _closed_. You cannot lie
+abed all day if you are well and awake. I will give a thousand dollars
+to the man who, free from hypnosis or drugs, will sit in a crowd for
+three minutes without _opening_ his eyes.
+
+This clever lad told how the bed was full of tubes to supply him with
+_food_; how ham sandwiches were handed to him. Oh, no; I am too
+clever for anything like that, if I had wanted to feed him, would have
+given him food in capsules or tablets. Just imagine a man eating ham
+sandwiches lying on his back for seven days. If not digested, they
+would kill him; if digested, the functions must be active.
+
+[Illustration: Kilmer during New York City Sleep at Hammerstein’s
+Olympia, April 22 to 29, 1896.
+
+PLATE V]
+
+Now comes the strange part. This clever (?) fellow, like the clever (?)
+public, told all about the eating, never once mentioning thirst. Man
+can go fifty or sixty days without food, but must have liquids. Being
+for seventy-two hours without water or liquids will always produce
+insanity, except through hypnosis. In these exposés nothing has ever
+been said as to the method used to give them water. Nothing has
+been said as to the emptying of the bladder. If food is taken into the
+stomach and digested, the secretions must be at work; if the secretions
+are at work, the bowels will move. These things were all overlooked
+in these exposés; the stories were told of tubes in the bed, as to
+procuring food, et cetera, but nothing was said of how the subject’s
+system was freed of the waste from the food given him.
+
+[Sidenote: No desire for contradictory facts]
+
+A story was told of his lying in a cage; this act I have never
+performed, but have proposed it, agreeing, if the profession desired
+such a test, to lay a naked subject on a sheet on a bed, put a
+cage over all, and seal it to the floor so as to demonstrate that
+nothing was passed to the subject; but the wise and learned medical
+profession cared for no test that demonstrated, through suggestion, the
+possibility of suspending hunger, thirst, bowel and kidney action; such
+knowledge they did not care to learn as it contradicted their teachings.
+
+During the New York sleep, made by Kilmer, he was watched night and day
+by relays of students from Bellevue Hospital. When arrangements were
+being made, one student, who hoped to graduate that spring, insisted on
+having charge of the entire affair, which, finally, was agreed upon. I
+had nothing to do with the arrangements, which were made by my manager,
+whom I had only known a week. If it were a “fake,” it is strange that
+I should allow the details to be handled by a stranger. This would-be
+doctor took charge of the sleeper, stayed up some forty-eight hours,
+when off watch, hiding in a box to catch us _feeding_ him. On
+the Wednesday night when he stood before the audience and told them
+that the experiment was fair, and that I had done as claimed, he was
+very angry. When he took charge, he told his chums that he would
+_expose_ the fraud and thereby get a big advertisement for himself
+when he began practicing, but when he found out there was no fraud to
+expose, he regretted the loss of sleep and the time wasted; and later
+presented a bill to me for services rendered, which bill as yet is
+unreceipted.
+
+The thought that a man with a “fake” would, could or dared to open
+at Hammerstein’s with the proposition that I made is ridiculous.
+The sleeper to be examined, weighed, and watched from being naked
+to putting on a sound pair of silk tights, a silk shirt, a pair of
+silk pajamas, to lie on a large mattress covered with a crumb cloth
+(all previously examined), and for no one but the committee to touch
+the subject, I not going nearer than five feet from him (giving my
+exhibition on the stage would bring me that close). The thought of
+it being other than genuine could only appear in the “mind” of an
+ignoramus, or some one looking for newspaper notoriety.
+
+[Sidenote: Tests of no value]
+
+[Sidenote: Feeling vs. hypnosis]
+
+During the test of a twenty-four hour sleep made for the New York
+Herald (no test being of any value of less than seventy-two hours), the
+wise doctors who knew _nothing_ of hypnosis, tested this subject
+as to his _feeling_. For Heaven’s sake, what has _feeling_ to
+do with _hypnosis_? They stuck pins into him, they dropped water
+on his eyelids; they put him through all kinds of torture, but through
+pure fortitude (?) he stood it. When this is possible all laws of
+suggestion can be overcome. When “normally,” a man can control what the
+doctor calls his reflexes, he is worthy of more money than he got out
+of the alleged exposé.
+
+[Sidenote: A good liar]
+
+One wise (?) doctor called to him that there were rats in the room,
+and because the subject did not respond, said he was not in hypnosis,
+because the hypnotized subject responds to “suggestion.” Why, if the
+subject could hear and respond to him he would be awake, because that
+_is_ what constitutes the _waking_ state. The subject did not
+hear him, did not respond to him, thereby proving that he _was_
+in hypnosis. After the subject was awakened, they asked him if he did
+not suffer severe pain _while they dropped water on his eyes_;
+and, like a good liar, he said, “Yes,” the answer being put into his
+mouth by the question asked. Why, if he suffered from the dropping of
+the water on his eyelids the reflexes would have acted, the doctors
+would have seen it, and the subject could not have endured it. But
+this subject knew what he was up against, that the doctors were not
+testing him as to hypnosis, but were simply there to prove their views
+as to suggested anesthesia, he taking the pre-inspiration that he
+would _sleep for the twenty-four hours and suffer no pain_, which
+he did. The wise (?) doctors named everything that he did and then
+asked him a question; or, in other words, they put the answers in his
+mouth, which he gave them, taking _his_ word for it that he could
+endure pain and suspend his reflex actions without hypnosis. These
+doctors knew this to be an impossibility, yet the desire for newspaper
+notoriety was so strong that they pretended to accept this degenerate’s
+word. Assuming that he could do so, proved nothing. Lack of feeling is
+not hypnosis. How can a man prove or disprove something which he knows
+nothing about? I, myself, could prove no hypnotist to be a fake; all
+that would be possible for me to do would be to force the hypnotist to
+produce a phenomenon that would be satisfactory to me.
+
+I perform many operations on hypnotized subjects. The two severest are
+the stretching of the rectum and the cutting around the tender phrenum.
+With the first I always get a groan, with the other a very pronounced
+reflex action, and yet when the subject awakens he remembers nothing of
+it. The extent of pre-inspiration I do not know, but in my long years
+of experience, have met with but three, viz.: no feeling, rigidity,
+awakening.
+
+These alleged exposés have all been good advertising, inasmuch as
+intelligent people are in no hurry to take the word of one who has
+nothing at stake against one who has everything.
+
+[Sidenote: Poor man]
+
+The wisdom (?) of the general public is highly amusing. If you want
+to feel sorry for mankind stand in front of a show window where a
+subject is asleep. A certain percentage of these know he is not asleep,
+“because he is placed there;” the next is certain he is not asleep
+because he moves (no man moves in his sleep); and some ladies are
+certain to go by and claim he is not asleep because he _breathes_.
+These three are the chief explanations as to why the subject is not
+asleep. Everybody asks how he is fed, and will he not be hungry when
+he awakens? No one appreciates the absence of thirst. If everything
+is a combination of attributes, a condition or combination must be
+produced in the subject that has these functions suspended. The
+suspension of hunger and bowel action are easily explained, but I have
+no explanation to offer as to the suspending of thirst and kidney
+action, knowing only that with a subject who has perfect confidence
+in me I can suspend the four functions for a period of seven days and
+longer.
+
+My subject will awaken in a bright and strong condition; his bladder
+will be perfectly empty and the first drink of water he takes will pass
+through him within ten minutes. The subject is lying in hypnosis, with
+the thought that he will have no hunger, no thirst, no bowel or kidney
+action, and will awaken on the seventh day. This thought being locked
+in the “mind,” the action that is part of it is certain to take place.
+
+This sleeping act was suggested to me in Xenia, Ohio, by a child asking
+about the picture of a bear sleeping all winter in a cave. It occurring
+to me that if a bear could “sleep” all winter, a man could sleep a
+week. I experimented and succeeded.
+
+[Sidenote: Wise, curious or a fool (?)]
+
+While lecturing in New York City, as a rule I concluded my lecture
+by giving some demonstrations with a subject, and also having a
+subject pre-inspire himself with the thought of “no feeling,” and
+stick pins into himself, demonstrating my claims as to the so-called
+Auto-suggestion of the alleged exposers. After doing this at a lecture
+one night, an old “horse” came upon the platform and informed me that
+he could stick pins into himself. While I was getting my wraps, the
+president of the society for whom I was lecturing wagered this young
+man that he could not do so. The young man did and won the money. What
+is the use of trying to teach the people anything? After you read this
+book, I am afraid that you will know but little more than you did
+before you started, as it is impossible to put in through one sense
+what “nature” intended to put in through another. It seems that the
+president of this society, although seeing the demonstration made,
+was not satisfied until he had lost a five-dollar bill. The same with
+you reading this book unless you take a subject (providing you are
+capable), and demonstrate to yourself the truth I have told, you have
+simply absorbed a lot of words, which, of themselves, mean nothing. I
+know one very brilliant man who, notwithstanding he acknowledged that
+expression was the result of thought, that there could be no expression
+without thought, turned around and asserted that he believed a subject
+could “fake.” What to do with such people, how to convince them I do
+not know. Man’s comprehension is only to the extent of his experience.
+Try to simulate and see if it is possible; try to laugh and put the
+real ring into it, and see if you can; try to cry and see if you can
+get the tone.
+
+I spend months conceiving a condition possible to be produced in
+a subject, sometimes doing much experimenting to find the proper
+inspiration to give him to produce the result desired, and any
+hypnotist who will have the inspiration taken in shorthand, can repeat
+the experiment, stealing the result of my thought, yet they never give
+me credit for any of my originations. I did the sleeping act a year
+before any hypnotist ever dreamed of reproducing it. In fact, until
+they had taken subjects who had traveled with me and had learned how to
+give the inspiration, they were doubtful as to its being accomplished,
+and, with the general public, believed it to be a trick. They are
+welcome to the inspirations, yet it is no more than just that they
+should give me credit for them.
+
+[Sidenote: I know a law]
+
+In the Middle States, many wise (?) doctors are every day expecting me
+to kill some subject with my crazy (?) experiments. They wonder how I
+have continued so long without doing so, failing to appreciate that I
+possess knowledge of a law, and am not, like them, working in the dark;
+that my physiology is correct, and neither myself nor the subject I am
+experimenting with are taking any chances.
+
+I direct the temperature of a subject so low that an ordinary clinical
+thermometer will fail to register it, thus proving that the accepted
+theory that combustion produces the heat of the body is wrong. When I
+reported this to a certain hospital, the wink was passed around, none
+of them daring to contradict me, inasmuch as they knew I had always
+succeeded in making good my claims. It happened the night that one of
+the internes, who was quite a clever amateur, had begun his vacation,
+and he accomplished in twenty-four hours what I did in twenty minutes;
+yet I had to conceive it was possible to do so. Our physiologists are
+wrong from beginning to end, and I state this unreservedly.
+
+In New York, when I explained that “no feeling” was produced by the
+sympathetic nerves closing over the cerebral nerve-ends and insulating
+them, it was declared, “Very ingenious, but very unscientific.” Thank
+Heaven for that! All drug anesthesia is produced by congestion, by
+forcing the Sympathetic System to _insulate_ the cerebro-spinal
+nerve-ends or centers, and I challenge the scientific (?) world to
+_demonstrate_ otherwise.
+
+[Sidenote: Read and reread]
+
+Dear reader, a superficial reading of this book is time wasted;
+read and reread, and every time you will find more truths. Can you
+comprehend them, now they are offered you? The simplest of words have
+been used, my best has been done to comprehensively correlate the
+thought offered; yet you must keep referring back, and if you persist,
+some day the entire philosophy will dawn upon you, and you will say,
+“Oh, how simple (all truths are simple), why did I not comprehend at
+first?” Because a new set of attributes has had to be separated so that
+you could perceive, then conceive, and, lastly comprehend them.
+
+[Sidenote: Comprehension]
+
+Comprehension—look it up in the dictionary; and, if you can
+_comprehend_ the definition, you can do more than I. What is
+comprehension? It is the comparing, realizing, having memories to be
+aroused _with which_ to compare those of which I am writing. If
+our memories are slight, our comprehension will be correspondingly
+slight. To understand or comprehend anything, its attributes must be
+parted and associated with those of our _sense_ impressions. The
+larger the number of the attributes “appreciated,” the greater our
+comprehension. We have been taught Law of Nature, Hand of God, Free
+Agency, Responsibility, Will Power, all of which are incomprehensible,
+inasmuch as we have no sense impressions with which to compare them;
+consequently, they are but incomprehensible _words_.
+
+Nothing but matter is appreciable, as all impressions received or
+forwarded can act only through matter.
+
+[Sidenote: Destruction an impossibility]
+
+Space, eternity, beginning and end, destruction, are mere words.
+Destruction of matter is an impossibility, and what you call
+destruction is but the dissolution of _form_, nothing else.
+
+Man is individual only as to form; all of which he is composed is from
+his environment, of which he is necessarily a part. The individual
+parts that compose his entirety to-day will be different to-morrow, for
+even our alleged scientists tell us of waste; we know in part of the
+supplies—food, yet we fail to comprehend the Law of Suggestion.
+
+As we subsist on all lower (?) matter, gaseous, mineral, vegetable
+and “animal,” we surely are of all of them. As an individuality, our
+importance is no greater nor less than that of a grain of sand on the
+sea shore.
+
+[Sidenote: Why should we live?]
+
+_Why, then, should we live?_ We have never been dead, neither can
+we die. We have always been, are, and always will be, inasmuch as that
+of which we are composed has always and ever will exist. We are a part
+of the Universe (the matter) that for a time in this form will abide.
+Our so-called consciousness is not of itself greater than that of other
+“living” matter. We are simply a conglomeration of lesser form of life,
+and nothing more. By what right, through what sense proof, do we dare
+to place ourselves _above That_ of which we are; _That_, that
+gave us our parts, attributes; _That_, that continues to supply
+and relieve us, lest we disintegrate? How dare we claim to be other
+than of our environment; of the _whole_, the all, God, good?
+
+[Sidenote: Spirit and soul]
+
+We have no conception or comprehension of spirit, soul; they are but
+words. The soul, the spirit, if it be, must naturally be of the ALL.
+And yet we dare to assume it to be inherent in ourselves, and to be
+separate gods of our own. No, no, that cannot be; like Caesar we are
+too ambitious, and like Caesar, we will fall.
+
+This may seem harsh; yet truth, though it hurts, never injures.
+
+[Sidenote: A disturber]
+
+He who comes among us with something “new,” is a disturber, and,
+therefore, should be crushed. The Nazarene was crucified, not by the
+Jews, although they were afraid of him. They said, “He is of us,
+and a disturber. We will suffer if He continues.” Pontius Pilate,
+representing the authorities at Rome, killed Him for disturbing the
+accustomed ways.
+
+Gallileo was banished.
+
+Jean Jacques Rosseau was pursued from hamlet to hamlet; yet were it not
+for him, there would be no United States of America, or Republic of
+France. He gathered the thought and gave it to the world.
+
+Hahnemann was driven from pillar to post, yet the truth he discovered
+is and always will be.
+
+[Sidenote: Like a broad highway]
+
+Life is a broad highway where the masses follow; perhaps twice, and
+never more than three times in a century, some one strays _away_,
+out of the highway, and starts over the mountain. The moment he has
+gone far enough for the masses to see him, they call, “Come back, you
+fool, you will be lost!” and if he fails to turn, _they stone him_
+“to attract his attention,” or to _kill_ him lest he be lost and
+die. The world, the masses, are kind (?), they want to protect the
+“fool” from destroying _himself_; they would rather destroy him.
+After the “fool” has successfully crossed the mountain, another “fool”
+follows in his pathway; soon more “fools” follow, and at last the
+masses go, each and every one saying, “I knew he would cross all right,
+he was too ‘smart’ a fellow to attempt crossing if he was not sure of
+getting there.”
+
+This is history.
+
+Why was this book written? I am a fatalist, believing that what is,
+was to have been; that our duty is to impart, to lead others over the
+path we have discovered, and if we can only make that pathway clear to
+a few “fools” who will follow as we have gone, I believe I will have
+responded to my suggestion. I believe myself to be blessed with at
+least “fair” conception, and to quote from Omar Khayyam:
+
+    “Myself when young did eagerly frequent
+     Doctor and Saint, and heard great argument
+     About it and about: but ever more
+     Came out by the same door wherein I went.”
+
+I love man, and, through my hypnotic experience, found that he _was
+not_ as described by our scientific thinkers (?), so began to study
+him in my unscientific way, and having learned somewhat of him, am
+forced to offer to the world this thought as to the Law of Suggestion.
+
+First, place your subject, then give him the attributes. Reader, this
+book is written to _place_ you. Should more attributes be desired,
+they will be furnished you.
+
+Man does not choose; he knows of no ill until he has conceived of good.
+He must be led; and it is the duty of man, after conceiving, _to
+lead_ his fellow man.
+
+
+ALL RIGHT!
+
+[Illustration]
+
+*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 78922 ***