diff options
Diffstat (limited to '78922-0.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | 78922-0.txt | 7528 |
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 *** |