Is Barack Obama a brilliant orator, captivating millions through his eloquence? Or is he deliberately using the techniques of neurolinguistic programming (NLP), a covert form of hypnosis developed by Milton Erickson, M.D.?
A fundamental tool of “conversational hypnosis” is pacing and leading—a way for the hypnotist to bypass the listener’s critical faculty by associating repeated statements that are unquestionably accurate with the message he wants to convey.
Techniques of trance induction include extra slow speech, rhythm, tonalities, vagueness, visual imagery, metaphor, and raising of emotion. Hypnotists often have patients count. In a speech after the primaries closed, Obama said: “Sixteen months have passed (paused)…Thousands (pause) of miles…(pause)…Millions of voices….”
Hypnotists call this a distraction technique: sending the dominant hemisphere on an assignment involving linguistic processes, thus opening the nondominant hemisphere to suggestion.
Hand gestures can be used as hypnotic anchors, or to aid in hypnotic command implantation. They can be difficult to distinguish from innocent gestures used for emphasis. Obama, however, uses some gestures extraordinarily often and for very specific words such as “believe” and “chose.” His characteristic thumb-and-forefinger gesture looks like a hand holding a pencil—as if you were in a voting booth. The gesture of pointing sends the subconscious message that a person in authority is giving a command.
Obama actually said at one time: “a light will shine down from somewhere, it will light upon you, you will experience an epiphany, and you will say to yourself, ‘I have to vote for Barack.’”
You will not choose to vote for Barack: you will “have to.” It is not a logical choice, but rather one directed by a mystical (subconscious) force. What purpose would a politician have for making such a statement? Obama used it only once. Perhaps he stopped either because he realized it was too obvious or because Hillary Clinton and John McCain ridiculed him for it.
Obama’s logo is noteworthy. It is always there, a small one in the middle of the podium, providing a point of visual fixation. Unlike other presidential logos, one looks through it, not at it. It might just be the letter “O,” but it also resembles a crystal ball, a favorite of hypnotists.
Obama is clearly having a powerful effect on people, especially young people and highly educated people—both considered to be especially susceptible to hypnosis. It is also interesting that many Jews are supporting a candidate who is endorsed by Hamas, Farakhan, Khalidi, and Iran.
While some believe that hypnosis is not real, others believe that it is very powerful, and very dangerous in the wrong hands. Dr. Erickson, father of modern hypnosis, was adamant that his techniques should only be used by physicians. In 1954, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in Leyra v. Denno that a confession obtained using hypnosis could not be used against the suspect in court.
A 66-page, extensively footnoted but unsigned article “An Examination of Obama’s Use of Hidden Hypnosis Techniques in His Speeches” is available at: http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Find-Freedom.htm?At=039963&From=News
The discussion should have broad applicability in analyzing political speech in general. Comments by those with knowledge of hypnotic techniques are especially welcome.
Additional information:
While I have a great deal of respect for APS and Dr. Orient, I must write to respond to this disgusting scree.
1. Unsigned articles are, by definition, propaganda and unworthy of the credibility that publication suggests . No credible commentator or writer would ever stoop to anonymous character attack and paranoid fantasies. This is “swiftboating” in its most disgusting form.
2. One cannot but wonder where the author(s) were for the last 8 years of “newthink” and “newspeak” of the Bush conspiracy as it committed historic treason – in the betrayal of the Constitution, flagrant criminal use of “rendition” and horrific torture ( achieving nothing but the undermining of any possibility of prosecution of actual terrorists and the catastrophic destruction of the worldwide view of America as a symbol of freedom and the triumph of the rule of law over corruption, zealotry and mindless foolishness.
3. The AAPS should dissociate itself absolutely from this subject garbage. Hypnosis indeed! If anyone was in an altered state it must have been the person responsible for honoring it with publication in our newsletter.
4. I urge ever member to insist, as I am, that AAPS formally reject this outrageous piece of flagrant propaganda. It is a disgrace to our organization.
J.S.Hochman MD
This piece is plain psychobabble. Since when is rhetoric “neurolinguistic”?
You are now medicalizing political discourse.
All along you have medicalized the immorality of insanity defense,civil commitment and bad behavior, by calling it “Mental Illness.”
Is the AAPS trying to top the AMA’s politica?
Shame on AAPS.
Actually makes some sense. I’m not personally familiar with AAPS’s position on the insanity defense, but this argument should be taken or dismissed on it’s own merits. Several intelligent, affluent relatives of this family, who stand to lose terribly from Obama’s policies, have been –mesmerized– by his speeches. Some have snapped out of it, some seem to be going, like lambs to the slaughter, to the poling place to vote as Obama commands.
I’m not sure why this should be surprising. Are these techniques not even expected of any good orator, whether one calls them hypnosis or effective rhetorical techniques? One learns these things in any good public speaking course.
Even McCain uses similar techniques, though much less effectively. Really there is no answer to this, simply one has to try to see through the rhetoric for either candidate and assess what their goals and purposes are when making a decision.
I had actually not heard the charge connecting hypnotism with Obama, but I would be very concerned if there is evidence of his being involved in Neurolinguistic Programming, an occultic technique. He certainly has been looked upon by some as being some sort of Messianic figure. Reading reports of women “fainting” just being in his presence is disconcerting.
If what he said is true: Obama actually said at one time: “a light will shine down from somewhere, it will light upon you, you will experience an epiphany, and you will say to yourself, ‘I have to vote for Barack.’”——–then I would have to say that he is invoking the supernatural, invoking other powers that compel automatons (humans) to do their will.
Yes, very troubling. Can sources for this be found? Is there hard evidence of Obama’s being involved in Neurolinguistic Programming? I suppose an even more central question would be, “Is this man elligible to become President if he refuses to provide his birth certificate? Especially, if his relatives in Kenya maintain that he was actually born in Africa? This is serious.
Ken Christman, M.D.
Looking for hidden messages in his speeches is unnecessary. Just look at exactly WHAT he DOES say. He hides nothing.
“individual actions, individual dreams, are not sufficient. We must unite in collective action, build collective institutions and organizations.”- Barack Obama, Interview with the Chicago Reader, 1995
He couldn’t be more straightforward unless he tattooed a hammer and sickle across his forehead. Even if this “neurolinguistics” stuff is true, I just don’t see what the point would be. It would be akin to saying that Mein Kampf contains hidden messages and codes that, when decoded correctly, reveal anti-semitic ideals.
He’s just a good public speaker. Almost all despots are.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMLeamM7Jkk
http://www.fff.org/blog/jghblog2008-06-12.asp
Dear Dr. Orient at AAPS:
Yes, Obama’s speech was an example of “hypnotic Induction.” But not just THAT speech. ALL his speeches are, as I believe they are the public speaking of anybody considered a good orator.
And we don’t have to invent the new prase of “Hypnotic Induction,” It is all plain DEMAGOGY as Gobbles and Hitler or Mussolini (or Reagn or FDR !) were.
Please move Dr. Borelli’s comment to the bottom of the list. I believe the evidence is overwhelming and clear.
I am glad to see three out of four of you agree with the theory.
About 4 weeks ago I made the same suggestion on my blog at http://healthtrain.blogspot.com
This is not a ridiculous theory. I had the same feeling…very hypnotic cadence, and repetitive phrases….my eyes glazed over…
“Is it safe now?”"
Adolf Hitler was a great orator….Look at Obama’s Nomination Acceptance Speech. How much money did they spend on that one.??
He talks a great talk….neuroliniguistics sounds pretty good to me… Just because it isn’t listed by the ABMS as a specialty does not mean it is not correct.
The posting by AAPS is meritorious, informative, and very reasonable. I disagree with Dr Hochman. Taking his points one at a time:
“Unsigned articles are, by definition, propaganda and unworthy of the credibility that publication suggests.” Or the author fears retaliation; recall Vince Foster for example. There are abundant references supplied so that credibility can be assessed easily. The concepts in the article are just as valid whether the article is signed or not. Anonymity is a perfect defense against ad hominem attacks.
Withholding the author’s name, by the author, encourages distribution by implicitly forfeiting copyright.
“One cannot but wonder where the author(s) were for the last 8 years of “newthink” and “newspeak” of the Bush conspiracy as it committed historic treason – in the betrayal of the Constitution….” Nor does one need to. One can say some very bad things about President Bush, but misleading by carefully planned subconscious techniques during speechmaking is not one of them.
“The AAPS should dissociate itself absolutely from this subject garbage. Hypnosis indeed! If anyone was in an altered state it must have been the person responsible for honoring it with publication in our newsletter.” An ad hominem attack on AAPS? Where is the specific flaw in the content of the article? Why did Dr Hochman not show the flaw in the reasoning? A serious error in the content of the article would cause great embarrassment to AAPS if it approved an article that contained one; such an error is worth seeking–but none was found? Hmm.
“I urge ever[y] member to insist, as I am, that AAPS formally reject this outrageous piece of flagrant propaganda. It is a disgrace to our organization.” It is not the poorly written piece of unsubstantiated opinion that plagues many an editor. It is fact-based and derives its inferences from easily checked references. Its only unorthodox characteristic is the absence of its author’s name(s), which does not make it propaganda.
I advised AAPS of the existence of this article several days before AAPS noted it and may deserve indirect blame (or credit) for its mention here. No candidate should be afraid of, or protected from, scrutiny or factual disclosure. If Obama wins a fair election after all the facts are disclosed, so be it. No one can get rationally angry only because facts relevant to voters are honestly disclosed, right?
Whether or not the article is meritorious, I must take great issue with the comment by Joel Simon Hochman, in which he says that an unsigned article is “swiftboating”. The irony of this statement is extreme. The entire point of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is that the organization consisted of almost every single person who ever served with John Kerry in Vietnam, appearing in person and in their own names. They individually and collectively stood up and said what they believed — whether anyone else agrees is immaterial — and took the heat for their statements both fully and publicly.
What the Swift Boat Veterans did is the exactly opposite of an anonymous statement. And that’s precisely why so very many Americans believe them.
To me, this is little more than psycho-babble directed against an excellent and very persuasive orator. The comparisons with Hitler could also be made with Lincoln, FD Roosevelt and even Kennedy.
Where would Dr. Cliff Myles like to place the “Goldwater rule”? http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/42/10/2
Forty four years after the silly attempt to medicalize Goldwater’s political position, neither Dr. Myles nor the AAPS wish to go the moral agency rout.
That may be symptomatic of the disastrous state of affairs of our country.
Please! This is insulting! If you don’t like the guys policy proposals just say so. Some people… make that the majority of people in the US prefer him over John McCain, and it’s NOT mind control. You should be ashamed!
James Travis, MD
Bandler and Grinder, the creators of NLP, modeled the work of effective communicators who were able to produce good outcomes of therapy. They began by studying Fritz Perls (for Gestalt therapy), then Virginia Satir (for family therapy), and then Milton Erickson (for hypnotic therapy). These three were already famous for their skills and abilities. NLP studied Erickson; Erickson did not study NLP. Virginia Satir used anchoring long before Bandler and Grinder came along to watch her work and learn what made her so effective in helping families overcome difficulties that threatened to estrange them. Family values, anyone?
The NLP researchers were interested in the patterns of communication that characterized the work of Perls, Satir, and Erickson. These were naturally gifted communicators and attracted the attention of Bandler, Grinder, and their colleagues in the early 1970s. If history were different and Obama had been running for office in 1972, NLP behavioral modelers would probably be modeling the patterns of communication of Barack Obama. They would be studying him; he would not be studying them.
Some people have a near-messianic view of the Obama phenomenon. The same is true of Sarah Palin. A well-circulated letter from Pastor Mark Arnold from Lebanon, Ohio, refers to her as “this ‘Anointed’ person.” The pastor refers to those who seek to stop her from being elected vice-president as “GOD-haters.” He sees her as a present-day Esther. He is deeply entranced with her. She has some very effective communication skills that an NLP modeler could no doubt study; this does not mean that she has studied NLP or that she has been tutored in manipulative speech patterns. She does use some hypnotic patterns such as presupposition and nominalization. She uses voice tonality (a form of anchoring) to indicate that a facetious attitude toward Democratic policies is warranted. This does not mean that she has been in any Milton Erickson workshops. It simply means that her speeches use these and other “hypnotic” patterns to elicit certain responses from her audiences.
McCain and Palin have referred to Obama’s tax policies as “socialist.” This usage presupposes that Obama wants the government to take over the means of production in our economy. In fact, Obama’s tax policy is to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire, so that the top marginal rate goes from 35% to 39.6%. Calling this “socialist” involves another classical hypnotic technique, the complex equivalence, in which one thing (allowing tax cuts to expire) is made equal to something else (state ownership of the means of production). This is one specific example of the use of Ericksonian techniques by McCain/Palin; others could be described.
The author of this long article does not seem to take seriously the possibility that a rational person may consciously decide that Obama’s economic and foreign policies may serve our country better than those of McCain. The Iraqi government’s position on a status-of-forces agreement sets timetables for American withdrawal better suited to the Obama policy than to the McCain approach. Market failures in the financial sector should lead to new regulatory frameworks more compatible with traditional Democratic policies than Republican ones. This article presupposes that none of these positions is rational. That is an extreme form of presupposition; the author is a trance-inducer par excellence.
Oratory or hypnotic induction. The article points out the importance of the analysis of the content of what is said, not just being swayed by the way it is said. This is important in dealing with anyone, but especially politicians.
Knowing that these techniques exist and are being used either on purpose or naturally is very important. Obama is excellent in these techniques, so stop and analyze what he says and then contrast that to what he has done in the past. If they are not the same, ignore what is said.
” What you do speaks so loud, I can’t hear what you say”
The effects of hypnosis may be multiple and complex. Whether we approve of the hypnotic induction may depend on how we regard the responses elicited by the induction.
For example, many people in Europe have responded to Obama’s hypnotic techniques. As a result, when he went there, they turned out by the thousands, waving American flags instead of burning them. This indicates that a state change has been brought about by the Obama phenomenon.
I regard this as a felicitous development. I do not take my views to be self-evident. Your mileage may vary.
It is certainly disconcerting to read along and realize that so many, seemingly “educated” individuals endorse this most ridiculous idea.
It is so incredibly stupid to dismiss Obama’s skill, sincerity, and purpose.
Many of you will realize that the earth is not flat, that the world wont end, and that the idea of America, as the land of opportunity is alive and kicking despite of some of your ridiculous acertions, and Obama will be the poster boy the Land of opportunity!
[...] AAPS Article Source Secondary sources to obtain the 67 page Obama hypnosis document: here, and here, or here. [...]
I read the AAPS email newsletter intro, followed the link it to its own article here, then went to the unsigned paper referenced and began to read it. (I have not read all the details, despite the author’s urging for reading it sequentially.) I am not pleased that the author did not sign it and provide some biographical background; I and husband Paul Wakfer are firmly against anonymity in voluntary interactions; I’ve written about this online in numerous places including our own website, Self-Sovereign Individual Project.
Last night an introductory article of my own for this controversial paper, was published at OpEdNews.com. It was done more as a stimulus to the reader to examine all politicians and doing so by reading the text of their words, rather than simply watching/listening to their speeches, making it possible to examine and analyze the content. The publication was done at OpEdNews.com because that is chiefly a self-described “progressive” website, so I am definitely not “preaching to the choir”. Part of what I wrote:
I think that those few orators over history whom large numbers of people consider to be (or were, if now dead) hypnotizing are just that–highly effective in getting their listeners to forgo rational thought and make decisions based totally or chiefly on emotions. This ability has been described of some politicians, clergy and highly successful “motivational speakers.” The last two can easily be ignored by those who have decided not to listen to their speeches–the effects of these are generally limited in scope unless coupled with those in the first group. It is politicians and their place in being or goal to be controllers of the legalized use of force, government, that makes the use of highly emotional presentations and, even more so hypnotic techniques, especially concerning. The fact that Obama uses the techniques described by the paper author and so successfully that the majority of the voting US public is (according to the polls) ready to vote for him to be President of the USA and is unaware of these techniques being used, is a credit to him in his “craft” of politics. The question of fairness and/or ethics is raised by the author of this paper–but I contend that the concept of fairness makes no sense in regards to politics since the purpose of government is to rule others, even if supposedly according to the “will of the majority.” There is nothing fair in politics or government–if one is thinking of what is,in the long range, widely viewed as the best interest of each individual all at the same time.
Those who are susceptible to the techniques described in this paper as being heavily used by Obama are dependent-type individuals–in essence dysfunctional in regards to reasoned independence. They are almost certain to get the majority of their information from the spoken word–via television, radio, Internet video, phone or in-person. Correspondingly, these individuals spend little time reading and evaluating the content of what a speaker is actually saying, often having never been helped to appreciate and develop such important analytical skills by a government school system designed to produce followers. In the present US society–and most of the industrialized world–this is the type of people government officials, whether appointed, hired and definitely elected, want in society. Such people make it possible for politicians to continue to operate as they have, and even to enlarge the scope of government in the lives of individuals.
I am not suggesting that readers vote for John McCain instead of Barack Obama after reading the referenced paper. I don’t think John McCain is any better a person than Barack Obama, even if he hasn’t used the hypnotic oratory techniques that his opponent has apparently mastered. That is probably only because he didn’t come across them in years past or no one on his election team made these methods known to him.
——–end of excerpt————-
I am probably one of the few USers who has never heard Barack Obama’s voice (or Sarah Palin’s for that matter), having never viewed him on TV or Internet video. The fact that I spend every May thru October in Ontario Canada at my husband’s legal residence is the major reason – we do not have TV here and our computers are on dial-up only, useless for streaming. We will be back in Arizona on 11/3 so I’ll get an opportunity then – I am somewhat curious to find out if I sense any of the described highly persuasive/hypnotic atmosphere with his oratorical techniques. However, I won’t be voting for Obama or McCain – I have discussed my reasons in public, most recently at: http://monopolyonreason.com/blog/?p=153#comments
**Kitty Antonik Wakfer
Politics is a persuasive art and science. Although every communication between people is hypnotic in its use of suggestion, if worked to advantage, a speaker can convince a listener that an outside opinion originated with the listener himself. Every politician employs writers who skillfully use these “Jedi mind tricks” all of the time.
Helping the public understand how we can all be “hypnotized” by charismatic figures without our knowledge and without our consent is a step in the right direction. But until the use of such techniques can receive more public exposure, I encourage every voter to actively compare what both candidates have said to what they have actually done. Their actions are always far more important than what they say and how they say it!
Michael Ellner,
Hypnosis Educator of the Year 2008 – International Medical and Dental Hypnotherapy Association
I see the hypnotized OBAMIACS are out in force discrediting the techniques, the possibility that someone would intentionally use them, and the messenger. What are you afraid of? Get a grip on your emotions, you’re giving your Obamania away. You all remind me of the Night of the Living Dead or something the way you come out of the woodwork with all your spewing of hatred to get people not to look at things about Obama. Like some horror movie, THEY’RE EVERYWHERE, THEY’RE EVERYWHERE!
Additionally, I am not surprised the doctor did not sign the paper as, who wants to be targeted for distruction by the Obama thugs? A Chicago politician is clean? Give me a break. I’d believe he would do ANYTHING, after all he himself admittedly believes the end justifies the means. Besides, the left believes in all stuff of this nature.
I say keep an open mind, read the paper, and watch to see TONIGHT on his expensive informercial to see if you can spot the techniques. And don’t be fooled. No harm done for sure for people to be educated and open minded.
And Obamiacs, give it a rest. You’re making yourselves so transparent it’s laughable.
Kitty Antonik Wakfer says:
The question of fairness and/or ethics is raised by the author of this paper–but I contend that the concept of fairness makes no sense in regards to politics since the purpose of government is to rule others, even if supposedly according to the “will of the majority.” There is nothing fair in politics or government–if one is thinking of what is,in the long range, widely viewed as the best interest of each individual all at the same time.
_____________
I beg to differ. In THIS country, we don’t and are not supposed to have RULERS. We have PUBLIC SERVANTS. And they should be honest with us, not trying to trick us. Or maybe you are already on the Obama Marxist bandwagon and can’t even think deeply enough to realize it, or realize what kind of government we were meant to have in this country. While there is nothing fair in politics and government, maybe we should strive for it constantly and not accept anything else. When you settle for less, my dear, you will certainly get it. While I see what you are trying to get across, there are major flaws in your thinking. If you take things to a deeper step, you will see the errors. Good luck.
With our society what it is these days — everyone over-tired, and sitting in front of computers all the time, it makes weak people especially susceptible to brainwave disruption (hence mind control if proper words and actions are used) that the combination of fatigue and the electrical impulses from computer hard drives can cause (or maybe you folks don’t even know of this effect on the human brain). Yes, this is not a well-publicised technique, but it certainly could partially explain why we are turning into a society of zombies who can be controlled so easily by the likes of Obama. All it takes for some people is to be semi-conscious and they are very suggestible.
It has just been announced that the Obama campaign has deliberately disabled the ABS security system of credit card verification that will allow matching of names to credit card numbers and tracing of donations. This guy is the worst kind of dishonest politician. Considering that in addition he has STILL NOT RELEASED his AUTHENTIC birth certificate, college records, thesis, medical records, etc., who is surprised he would resort to MIND CONTROL to win the election? That’s the least of his crimes. This Marxist Communist (almost by his own admission in his own books) needs to be in the BIG HOUSE, not the WHITE HOUSE.
GOD SAVE AMERICA.
I find it very interesting in these posts, MDs, who likely have had ZERO experience or training in the art of mind control debunk it so easily. We’ll they’re trying their own mind control on the readers of their posts, but perhaps they should get educated, because their techniques need revision and refinement in order to work.
They are foolish and laughable. It is the ULTIMATE IN IGNORANCE to criticize something you know nothing about!
I am the co-author and technical advisor/expert for the article. My name is on it in several of the placements, but through an error, not all. I broke it down as a way to understand the Obama sudden rise to power. The co-author wants to remain behind the scene as he is fearful of negative feedback. I personally have respect for the skill Senator Obama uses these skills. I just wanted to point out the deep emotional response he elicits. I have talked about this on several radio shows and other outlets. If I had it to do over I would have removed partisan aspects, but I do stand by the techical aspects of the article.
William Horton Psy. D. CAC Master Hypnotist and NLP trainer
You can sum it up quite easily – humans are gullible in general and they buy into the something-for-nothing mantra quite easily. Evidenced by how many people put their hard earned money into the lottery each week. That too offers “hope and change” but very often does not deliver.
Ive been noticing how he was using this method, and how McCain was not, for a long time. B Hussein Obama might just be the best at NLP Ive seen in politics in my lifetime. Its funny how angry the Obama supporters are about this article, and shows how much objectivity they lack. Maybe they have been under his spell?
NLP is not very complicated; soft slow deliberate talk, especially with a thick voice like Obama has, emmanates alpha waves from amygdala/limbic system and into temporal lobes. Commands are embedded and have very strong record in the hippocampus. People who are more frontal cortex driven and who are more functional in beta and gamma waves are less suceptable.
The ones slamming this article are almost to a rule Obama supporterts and not one offered clinincal reasons why they disagree. They did offer a lot of epithets and adjectives and othewise emotional response with a faint lining of neuro psychological equivocation. The one who responded with interest and agreement left thoughtful and informed comments. I guess the Obamessiah even has a few MD’s under his spell too ; P
Obama is very good at NLP, thus the impulsive defense by his , uhhh, *supporters*.
A person trained in NLP can notice things about the candidates that someone not so trained may miss. Some of McCain’s difficulties have arisen from his nonverbal behaviors, some of which do not match the content of his verbal output. For example, he had an interview on “60 Minutes” in which he was asked if he could imagine Sarah Palin as President. He said “Absolutely,” but at the same time shook his head “no.” This incongruity may not be consciously registered by many voters, but their unconscious minds will respond. It doesn’t take Milton H. Erickson or John Grinder to notice that the nonverbal signal and the verbal signal communicate different messages. When the history of this campaign is written, NLP will have something to contribute to the discussion of how Obama met with the success he achieved. I hope that Dr. Horton will post something on his website after the election that compares and contrasts the candidates using the NLP framework.
But NLP is limited in one important way: it focuses on process alone, and sets content to one side. However, content makes a difference for many people. Tax policy, foreign policy, and energy policy are all subjects that rational people may scrutinize and use to inform their voting decisions. You can get only so far by pacing someone’s breathing; if you are trying to get them to agree to something that conflicts with core beliefs and values, you will know it very soon. Creating a regulatory framework that makes financial derivatives more transparent is a rational goal, and deserves support, even if it is advocated by someone skilled in anchoring nonverbally.
I did receive training in hypnosis from the New England Society of Clinical Hypnosis, so whenever Obama comes on I do not watch as I know that he is, in fact, using these “suggestive techniques.”
Thank you exposing this. I might add that someone has made a very nice youtube video of this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5D6-iU6sKy0
He’s a witch! BURN HIM!!@!!11!!two!!!
Get a grip, people. It’s not like any “mind-control techniques” beyond simple emotional appeals have EVER been needed to get Americans to vote against their own self-interests.
As a Certified Practioner of NLP earned at the University of California, Santa Cruse which included direct instruction from Bandler, Grinder, and Satir, I want to respond to the comments offered by various writers to this forum. In order to avoid repeating so many of the worthwhile comments, let me recommend that one re-read the statements of the following contributors:
1. Jeffery Hartog, 2. Ken Christman, 3. Harry Rose, 4. F. Havier Monreal, 5. Edward Horshman, 6. N. S. Lehrman, 7. Ed Whitney, 8. Michael Ellner, 9. William D. Horton. These responders know what they are talking about and are thinking rationally.
All great teachers and orators of history used these effective communication principles, for good purposes and for evil. The Bible is a great source of examples, including the words of Jesus and Saint Paul. Hypnotic techniques go all the way from rocking a cradle and humming a tune to induce a baby to sleep (the literal meaning of the word ‘hypnosis”) to the well presented pitch of a used car saleman. The same is true of the powerful persuasion of Ghandi or Hitler. Like any other skill, inherited or learned, the better it is done, the more effective it will be. The real point is that one can use his rational mind to sort out the mere effective communication from principled leadership of the candidate who not only talks persuasively, but leads in actually getting the work done!
There are too many voters who will be swayed by words, and not accomplishments that have carried out those powerful verbal presentations.
The Doctor has the knowledge and authority to do far more good than the medical layman. But we don’t debunk his expertise, we demand ehtical use of that skill and knowledge. Same is true in the field of communication.
In the interest of valid analysis of this issue.
Elden K Walter, Retired
If there were any doubts, some of the comments here left by supposed medical doctors with years of education, still equating Obama with some cryptofascistic agenda lead me to believe that education, and commonsense are completely, mutually exclusive.
What I find interesting about the article and the replies is how this alleged “hypnosis” selectively affects people. I wonder, how can people that obviously don’t support Obama, resist this hypnotic effect ?
I suppose that to be hypnotically induced you have to be willing to listen to the oratory repeatedly. But if that is the case … doesn’t that make you a supporter already. Then, why would you need to be hypnotized?
I’m sure some people will say that they’ve heard Obama plenty of times and are still not hypnotized. In that case … why are you torturing yourself ? I got news for those folks (and I’m not trying to hypnotize you). You are NOT going to vote for Obama, so quit looking for an excuse to vote for McCain.
Don’t waste your time trying to wake up those who are hypnotized. If a pro like McCain can’t, you won’t either.
However, with so many people apparently hypnotized, there is always the chance that the one that needs awaking is you!
…… Does any of the above makes any sense?
Well, it is not supposed to. Because the entire article is, to put it in “Joe the Plumber’s” term, horses..t.
To the Dr. Hochman, shame on you but not letting yourself be hypnotized and so concisesively describe this filth.
To the AAPS, congratulations in reaching a new low and becoming the official propaganda newsletter of the medical far right. Although, that’s may be why the article is anonimous ….. THE AUTHOR HAS HYPNOTIZED THE AAPS !!!
[...] to a nutty article and crazier video for those strong of [...]
Trying to look below the surface of Obama I believe there is much more information from his verbal language as to his true intentions beyond hypnotic techniques. As a psychiatrist and forensic profiler specializing in unconscious communication he indeed is warning us in major ways.
See the following article on my website
Does Obama have an Unconscious Muslim identification?
10/27/2008 4:50:00 PM
Everyday people develop identifications—sympathetic connections which become a part of them—with people, businesses, religions, countries or other concerns to which they are exposed. Often such identifications are unconscious, and the more exposure one has the more the identification tends to occur. Freud even coined the term “identification with the aggressor” which explained how people unconsciously mirror the behaviors of those who mistreat them (e.g. abused children not infrequently become abusive parents).
Because of numerous comments including several slips Barack Obama has made regarding Islam, we must examine his unconscious identification with Muslims. Although he has made explicit claims that he’s a Christian, this would not preclude significant identification with Muslims. He has reported a conversion to Christianity in his 30s after a long period of agnosticism, but that is many years after he had many Muslim experiences at a very young vulnerable age when powerful unconscious identifications can occur.
* Putting the matter in context, Obama was abandoned at the age of 2 by his African-Muslim father. When he was 6, his mother remarried another Muslim, Lolo Soetoro, and the three of them moved to Soetoro’s native country of Indonesia. In Jakarta, Obama attended Muslim schools for a year or more—registering as an Indonesian named Barry Soetoro, obviously taking his stepfather’s name. This lends credence to reports suggesting Lolo adopted young Barry.
* It’s easy to imagine the boy’s strong Muslim leanings and longings when his stepfather came into the picture. He would have urges to undo the painful separation from his biological father and cling to the new father as well as to the familiar religion which served to keep both father figures a part of him. Neighbors recall young Barry occasionally following his stepfather to mosque for prayers. At age 10, when he left his stepfather to return to Hawaii to live with his grandparents, such Muslim urges would have only intensified—a way of identifying and holding onto both Muslim fathers whom he had now lost.
* In his early 20s, amidst a huge identity crisis, Barry Obama took his African father’s name Barack (Hussein) Obama which certainly has a Muslim ring to it.
* A September 7, 2008 television interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos on This Week, revealed a striking slip which Obama himself didn’t even catch. In talking about how the McCain camp was smearing him with Muslim rumors Obama said, “Let’s not play games, what I was suggesting—you’re absolutely right that John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith.” Note the references to others smearing him and “playing games” in the context of his striking slip, “my Muslim faith,” suggest Obama is himself—again unconsciously—confessing to playing games and smearing America by concealing just how strong his Muslim sympathies actually are. Slips can be powerful confirmations of the truth of a matter.
* While Stephanopoulos repeatedly pointed out how McCain had gone out of his way to avoid Muslim accusations of him, Obama noted efforts from the Republicans “to suggest that perhaps I’m not who I say I am when it comes to my faith.” Here again Obama seemingly is confessing that also he’s not exactly who he says he is regarding matters of faith. He went on, “These guys love to throw a rock and hide their hand” further suggesting that unconsciously he’s hiding his own hand and could act out in a harmful way as president around the Muslim issue.
* Other revelations about his childhood have revealed: Obama registered in public school in Jakarta as a Muslim; studied Islam daily in school; learned to read and write Arabic; to recite his prayers properly; to read and recite from the Quran which Obama acknowledged in his autobiography, Dreams from My Father.
* A Muslim school principal recalls Obama diligently reciting the Quran. He originally denied ever attending mosque, but, as evidence from others has surfaced, he now admits attending.
* Perhaps most revealing in an interview with the New York Times, Obama described the Muslim call to prayer as “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.” The Times’ Nicholos Kristof wrote that Obama recited, “with a first-class [Arabic] accent,” the opening lines of the Muslim call to prayer, translated:
Allah is Supreme!
Allah is Supreme!
Allah is Supreme! Allah is Supreme!
I witness that there is no god but Allah
I witness that there is no god but Allah
I witness that Muhammad is his prophet …
* Obama made another recent slip (May 8, 2008) claiming he had campaigned “in all 57 states.” There are 57 Islamic states. In linking the 57 states to places “I was not allowed to go even though I really wanted to visit,” (on the surface referencing Hawaii and Alaska) he suggests Muslim leanings even further—a deep, albeit unconscious, wish to take his message global into Muslim lands. His slip suggests that, if elected president, he will in campaign on behalf of these Islamic states in America.
* This idea eerily fits with his June 2007 speech on YouTube, “Whatever we once were, we’re no longer a Christian nation…we’re also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers…”
* In his autobiography, Obama noted his pride in his Kenyan half-brother who reasserted his African heritage and converted to Islam.
* Obama said he himself would meet with Muslim Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without any pre-conditions (later he changed this)—thus giving the disturbed Iranian president credibility which most diplomats have advised against.
* If elected president, Obama wants to hold a summit with Muslim leaders who he claims to “understand them better than anyone” because of his background. He clearly believes he has a deep understanding of Islam.
* As a point of psycholinguistic analysis, many people have observed that the political posters reading— “Obama Biden”—have striking similarities to “Osama Bin Laden.” Could Obama have unconsciously chosen Biden as a warning of sorts that he would show excessive sympathy toward the Muslim world, even to its most virulent anti-American terrorists?
* Obama’s Christian claims have been suspect—and ironically reveal his Muslim identification. Chicago Sun-Times religion editor Cathleen Falsani reports that Obama thinks “all people of faith—Christians, Jews, Muslims, animists, everyone—know the same God.” (In his own words, “I believe there are many paths to the same place.”) He denigrates evangelism as proselytizing and unnecessary since he denies the existence of hell, but is uncertain if he’ll be going to heaven—a much more Muslim view of the afterlife.1
* Syndicated columnist Cal Thomas wrote, “Obama can call himself anything he likes, but there is a clear requirement for one to qualify as a Christian and Obama doesn’t meet that requirement. One cannot deny central tenets of the Christian faith…(such as the) uniqueness of Christ as the sole mediator between God and man, and be a Christian. Such people…in Scripture…are called ‘false prophets.’”2
* Obama’s theological beliefs reflect the same lack of boundaries as does his political philosophy. While “no boundaries”—particularly theological—are popular with many today, we must see how fast and loose Obama plays with the Christian faith. If you take his belief that all religions are the same a step further, then Christianity is Islam and Jesus is Muhammad. If you want to be straight-forward about it, he attacks the essence of Christianity in his typically gentle, professorial manner which reveals how subtle is his aggression—the thinly disguised rage of the wounded child.
* All in all, Obama presents significant concern as regards his Muslim sympathies. In light of his previous warnings to us of the dangers of his presidency which could visit a plague of leprosy upon us, we must be concerned that weakness in foreign policy particularly with the Muslim world is one major way he could harm America.
* Lastly, we must remember the wounded child part of Obama could act out—completely outside his conscious awareness—his deep Islamic wounds brought about by two Muslim fathers who abandoned him. Exactly as Bill Clinton dragged America down as a result of his tremendous childhood deprivation and rage, making us feel his pain even as he tried to deny it.
* The evidence of his significant Islam identification is so overwhelming that we must avoid the temptation to sweep any Muslim connection to Obama under the rug. His rather obvious name-change was just one of many clues which his deeper intelligence has revealed proving that the religion of Muhammad remains a crucial part of Obama’s psychological makeup.
1 Interview with Obama, Chicago Sun-Times, 2004.
2 “Is Obama truly a Christian?, Tribune Media Services, June 22, 2008.
As a person who has spent the last couple of weeks looking into the claim that Senator Obama is utilizing NLP techniques to sway public opinion, I would like to thank the AAPS for your article.
As physicians and surgeons who are required to “first do no harm”, I would hope that your organization would put out a press release with your thoughts this weekend. It would seem to me that it is your organization’s ethical responsibility to make this a part of the discussion as we head into the final weekend of the election. There are still numerous undecided voters and it is imperative to our nation’s future that the electorate make informed decisions while voting.
Thank you,
Anne Carr
I discovered Dr. William Horton’s 67-page document on Obama’s use of hypnotic techniques only two days ago, and found this AAPS blog only yesterday. I’ve read most of the document as well as all the comments posted here.
My degree is not M.D., but a modest Ph. D. in one of the social sciences. But I find Horton’s thesis to be compelling for at least two reasons:
(1) Simple COMMON SENSE tells us that there is something else going on to account for the mass adulation of a candidate with a thin record of political accomplishments, no paper trail (except for two ghostwritten memoirs), AND a personal background of terrorists (Ayers & Dorn), foam-at-the-mouth racists (Wright), shady criminals (Rezko), & radical Islamists among his associates and friends. I have on good authority (retired U.S. intelligence officers) that Obama’s friends & associates would disqualify him from a federal government job because he will not pass the FBI’s security clearance.
It is even more curious that reporters who have travelled with the Obama campaign for months now say they still don’t really know who he is. They are also baffled by why this “charismatic” orator is so utterly bland & blank in person. (See LA Times reporter Peter Nicholas’ article “Confessions from the Obama campaign trail,” http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-peter28-2008oct28,0,6187999.story).
(2) The other reason why I find Horton’s thesis to be credible is his reference to the hypno-techniques of Milton Erickson as the model used by Obama. That is something verifiable–and so I challenge all the sneering dissenters here (e.g., F.P. Jax, MD) to do what science obliges us to do, which is to verify and replicate. As serendipidity has it, I happen to know Milton Erickson’s daughter & granddaughter; the latter is a good friend of 30 years. The daughter practices Ericksonian hypnotherapy in the S.F. Bay Area. Granddaughter is very much a New Age person who eschews the use of words such as “evil,” but nevertheless calls her grandfather “evil.”
Finally, a sincere “Thank You” to Horton, his co-author, and the posters here who attest to the credibility of Horton’s assertions.
On a personal note: I find Obama’s eyes to be extremely disquieting. The friends I’ve asked about this also feel the same way. The adjectives they’ve used are “very dark (not the color),” “scary,” “frightening.” Hypnotic techniques may mesmerize an audience but eyes are always windows into our souls. Please look at this video from the second McCain-Obama debate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-nNIEduEOw. Focus on looking at Obama’s eyes; try not to look at his entire face, especially his smiling mouth.
About Obama’s ghostwritten memoirs, see http://www.cashill.com/intellect_fraud/science_points.htm
thank you… i was wondering why everyone is so mesmerized by obama… God help us… Pray and vote your values
Uhhh, let’s see. Magna Cum Laude graduate of Harvard Law. Do you suppose he hypnotized the bar? Maybe you should check on the legitimacy of his license to practice law.
And if you are so certain that he is hypnotizing people, then by all means, get your theories, methods, results, and conclusions reviewed by credible reviewers and publish your results in a credible peer reviewed journal related to psychology or psychiatry.
I hope you can send a copy of this to the Important and understanding news organizations – such as Fox News.
John E. Merriman, Tulsa, OK
No journal of any scientific stature would publish an unsigned paper.
I agree with Dr. Chang’s assertion that we should verify and replicate this frightening fact about Obama’s hypnotic techniques immediately. Somebody, please call the authorities and ask them to stop this election until we can carry out a double blind placebo controlled study on a 100 million people to verify this article’s veracity. On the other hand, that may take a bit too long.
Perhaps a more practical approach would be that those with friends in high places (like former intelligence officers), call them so they can investigate Mr. Obama’s background before tens of millions of non-Muslims, non-terrorists Americans give this man the highest clearance of all.
Hey, I believe in probabilities and there is a chance that the FBI may have missed something during the background check on Obama’s present federal job (US Senate). I mean, since we have only known about his “associations” for the last year, and only heard about them every day. The FBI is pretty busy, they may have missed this threat.
Seriously, I think I’m starting to see the light. How is possible that this country can elect an ignorant Harvard Law graduate with almost 12 years of public service inexperience? And all of that after having for 8 years a magnanimous President that had a wealth of previous public service experience (barely 5 years in TX) and had an impecable record (pleaded guilty to DUI in 76 and got his driving license suspended for 2 years). How can we be so dumb (again) ?
I’m glad that we have people with “simple common sense” that are looking out for us … the hypnotized ignorants. Thank you from the bottom of my “sneering dissenting” heart for making my point so much easier to understand.
Well, in 72 hours or so we will know what the American public believes should be the presidential future. For myself, McCain is simply a Bush-clone, representing the interests of the few over the many, power over people, war over reason, ideology over Constitutionality. If anyone suffers from hypnosis it is someone who actually believes that a person who could select Sarah Palin as a suitable replacement for the president is a person of good judgement.
Lastly, constantly intoning the word “maverick” is not fooling this physician. McCain is about as much a maverick as Bozo the Clown. He is a Bush clone, and the tool of a status quo that almost destroyed the United States economy ,the Constitution and the rule of law. As Jean Meyer brilliantly writes (see the “Dark Side”), “(Bush and the Republican party) represent the exploitation of fear and insecurity by fools and zealots. McCain is a fellow-traveller in that party, and those who can bring themselves to vote for its continuation can only do so in a self-induced hypnosis (most likely fueled by unacknowledged racism rationalized in a dozen “swift-boat” slogans).
I stand by my first statement – ” the AAPS should formally reject this outrageous piece of flagrant propaganda. It is a disgrace to our organization.”
F.P.,
I believe you have changed the subject. The questions are:
1. Is Obama using NLP to advance his campaign by bypassing the rational mind?
2. Do such techniques work?
3. Is this the way “Cult of Personality” politicians work?
I have blogged my take on all this at “Power and Control” and “Classical Values”. You can click on my name and scroll around for “Power and Control”. Look for “Cult of Personality”. Of course there is a link to this discussion.
And thanks to all who have commented here for adding so much to the discussion. Pro and con.
This article is as valid as the claim that McCain is a ‘Manchurian Candidate’ because the Vietcongs somehow brainwashed McCain while in prison and inserted subliminal thoughts about being a president and destroy America from within.
@F.P.Jax, MD:
FYI, elected officials such as U.S. senators, do not go through background checks but they are granted secret security clearance when they become senators. According to http://caffinequeen.wordpress.com/2008/09/20/elected-officials-do-not-go-through-background-checks-prior-to-taking-office/, “Special Agent-in-Charge: C. Frank Figliuzzi of the Cleveland FBI. Background checks are not performed on those elected, once elected they work for Congress and are handed a secret clearance. ” I’ve also e-mailed my friend, the retired US intelligence officer, with this question and when I receive his reply, I will post it on this blog.
You also sarcastically wrote that “I agree with Dr. Chang’s assertion that we should verify and replicate this frightening fact about Obama’s hypnotic techniques immediately. Somebody, please call the authorities and ask them to stop this election until we can carry out a double blind placebo controlled study on a 100 million people to verify this article’s veracity.”
What an odd notion of science you have! Now, how would “a double blind placebo controlled study on a 100 million people” be the method toward verifying Mr. Horton & his co-author’s assertions in their document, “An Examination of Obama’s Use of Hypnosis Techniques in Speeches”? Surely, since you claim to be a medical doctor, you would know that the way toward confirming/disconfirming Horton’s assertions is to have his peers, fellow hypnotherapists trained in NLP (neurolinguistic program) or Milton Erickson’s hypnosis techniques, watch Obama’s speeches and see if they can confirm that Obama indeed is employing those techniques? What does “a double blind placebo controlled study on a 100 million people” have to do with this?
That then led me to wonder if you really are who you say you are. So I googled “F.P. Jax, MD” and, surprise (!), I could find NOTHING on F.P.Jax, MD, except for your two posts to this blog.
Of course, you may be a stealth medical doctor who is in hiding and, thus, have left no footprint on the Web–other than your posts to this blog, of course.
But let’s just take your word that you really are a medical doctor. My first question to you is: How can a medical doctor, who is sworn to the Hippocratic Oath of never doing harm to anyone, manage to override his conscience to vote for Obama, he who voted against the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act and, in so doing, effectively voted in favor of infanticide?
That aside and assuming you really are an M.D., I must say you have my heartfelt admiration for your selflessness. Obama has said he will raise taxes on those making more than $250,000/year. Then, his running mate Biden lowered the threshold to $150,000. And just yesterday, New Mexico Governor Richardson further lowered the threshold to $130,000. (Richardson endorsed Obama, instead of Hillary Clinton, in the primary and no doubt will have a cabinet position in an Obama Administration.)
M.D.s most certainly make more than $130,000 a year and probably many make more than $250,000/year. Since my income is comparatively much more modest than yours and other M.D.s, I thank you in advance for being the recipient of some of your redistributed income.
This thread gotten some unusual attention. There are 48 comments so far (this will make it 49). Compare the number of comments on other recent news articles:
Is wealth redistribution America’s future? 5 responses
Teacher suspended for posting video? 1 response
Which candidate’s health care plan will hurt the most? 5 responses
Feds roll printing presses: 0 responses
Number of uninsured fell, but government dependency rose: 2 responses
Dr. White recommended a youtube video that discusses this AAPS article. The video uses a number of trance techniques to create a series of images which link Obama to Adolf Hitler! The narrator uses a deliberately ominous voice tone (a powerful form of hypnotic anchoring) to set a correspondingly ominous mood for the induction. Like any competent Ericksonian hypnotist or NLP practitioner, the narrator uses an indirect form of suggestion to set up the equivalence in the listener’s mind between Obama and Hitler. A direct suggestion, of the form “Obama is just like Hitler,” would meet with immediate resistance from the conscious mind; the flow of images bypasses the rational mind in a true hypnotic induction. The video is an illustration of exactly what it purports to be exposing; it is a deceptive attempt to create confusion regarding the issues facing voters in the 2008 presidential election.
The narrator also states at the beginning that NLP was developed by Milton Erickson; the history of NLP began very late in Erickson’s career and its developers drew on the work of Erickson, Perls, Satir, and others, not the other way around. This factual confusion should make the listener skeptical about the accuracy of the video as a whole.
If we are to reject anyone who uses NLP or other hypnotic techniques to lead us to specious conclusions, we must reject this youtube video and its message. We must vote based on our best judgment regarding the two candidates and their likely policies. Obama proposes to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire and to let top marginal tax rates to revert from 36% to 39.6%. He wants to take troops from Iraq and deploy them in Afghanistan. He wants to increase spending on infrastructure and on alternative energy sources in a massive way. He proposes to use diplomacy as a major tool of statecraft, not just as a reward for obedient behavior by other countries. Some contributors to this thread seem to suppose that no rational person could possibly vote for Obama. They therefore assume that only a hypnotic induction could lead anyone to cast his or her vote for him. They think that only a person in a covertly induced trance could support the graduated income tax. I assert once again that these assumptions are unwarranted.
Dr. Jax may have been sarcastic in talking about double-blind placebo controlled trials for an issue that is, if anything, a matter for observational epidemiology, not for experimental studies. Dr. Chang has a point in saying that you need to have Obama’s tapes examined by persons versed in NLP and hypnosis. However, an analytical observational study requires comparisons between different groups, not just observation of one group. The same NLP observers would have to examine McCain/Palin speeches for similar techniques. For example, when McCain said of Palin, “I can’t wait to introduce her to Washington,” this contains an embedded presupposition that he will win the election and will introduce her to Washington. The repeated use of “maverick” by both candidates on the Republican ticket is a classic example of an ambiguous term whose exact implications are not specified, but which the listener can fill in with his or her own associations. The hypnotic techniques of the youtube video could be further examined and described.
This is the 49th contribution to this thread; it will not be the last. A nerve has been touched. The continuation of this discussion will be interesting.
This is the reply I got from my friend who calls himself a “retired ex-spook”:
“I don’t believe the FBI investigates elected officials to grant a security clearance. It is an involved process, if properly done, involving neighborhood checks, talking with neighbors and friends and past employers, etc. The possibility of getting a stright ansswer is nil.
A clearance is basically a judgment. If the investigtion proved a Senator a risk, what could be done? The people have spoken.
If some one had ties to Ayers, Dohrn, Kruglik, Katz etc and many others– Weather Undergraound, SDS, Mao communists, Rezko, they would never get a clearance for, say, the CIA or State.
I hope the above is stisfactory. The FBI would probably not want to answer a query on this point.”