Part 10

Man does nothing because he is told to.

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.

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.

“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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

“But, Mr. Santanelli, does it not destroy one’s will power!”

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.