|
An Interview with Author Ken MacLean
"The
Mind Keepers"
AUTHOR INTERVIEW
Like his protagonist, author Kenneth
MacLean served in the U.S. Army in Korea
just after World War Two. Previously
published as a journalist, poet and
critical essayist,
The Mind Keepers is his first novel.
Retired from University teaching, Dr.
MacLean lives in Seattle, with his wife,
Verna, also a novelist, near their
children and grandchildren.
Q.
The topic of your novel is
radio-electronic manipulation of the
human brain, commonly called “mind
control” or MC. What inspired you to
write The Mind Keepers?
A. I have had some mysterious,
inexplicable, experiences with a form of
electronic harassment that I believe
resulted from my close brush with an
“intelligence” issue in my early life.
That's the basis of my "expert"
status—being on the receiving end of a
vaguely defined and physical nightmare;
but it got me researching and imagining
the story of The Mind Keepers.
There have been years of research given
to the topic of “mind control.” Yet,
like hundreds, or even thousands with
the same experience, I was originally
able only to imagine and to suppose
most of the motives and the
technical tools behind it.
Q. Isn’t mind control a myth?
A.
Some have called mind control a popular
myth, the "obsession" of "cultists," and
while nightmares can become obsessive,
this myth can be measured in the
growing body of evidence that it is more
than midnight hallucination. There are a
number of well-known authors who have
been writing on the subject for many
years, as well as recent ones.
Q.
Who are some of these authors?
A.
Walter Bowart’s “Operation Mind
Control,” first issued in 1978 and
republished in a researcher’s edition in
1994, is a major source. Dr. Jonathan D.
Mareno, a distinguished bio-ethicist and
government consultant in his (2006)
Mind Wars: Brain Research and National
Defense, calls assertions of
government involvement “misguided,” but
admits the “irreducible kernel of truth”
that relates to such assertions in the
rising “interest in understanding and
manipulating the brain” by scientists
here and elsewhere “who have been
supported by the national security
establishment.” In sequence with this,
the Internet has become the dominant
purveyor of opinion and fact, fact
usually dependant on only that
government information which has been
declassified.
But there are new and able research
studies coming out all the time.
Thorough and substantially documented,
US Electronic Weapons and Human
Rights is a new (December, 2006)
study not yet reachable on Google.
Co-authored by Peter Phillips, Lew Brown
and Bridget Thornton, it was conducted
under the authority of Sonoma State
(California) University and other
sponsors. These works are major current
sources for detail on what I previously
imagined was possible.
Q.
Can you give some examples of what you
mean?
A. Yes, take, for example, an
electronic flamethrower (my term), which
I imagined, circa 2000, being used on my
lead character, Michael Neilly [Ch. 20,
pp.146-7]. According to a recently
declassified comment, this is now termed
an "Active Denial System" (ADS), which
according to several published accounts,
including Moreno’s book, directs a
targeted electronic heat beam capable of
sending a crowd into panic. If
improperly handled, ADS can blind some
among such a crowd from a distance of
nearly half a mile. Less deadly than a
napalm flamethrower? Maybe. I wouldn't
count on it.
Q. Whew, scary stuff. Are there others?
A. Well, another similar but
"foreign" device is attributed to
Russian technology. A "bullet" of
radio-beam sound from small antenna
devices, possibly similar to the
satellite TV ones we are familiar with,
generates waves of sound that forming in
front of a target can kill through the
ears. Strobe lights can create similar
totally debilitating to lethal effects
through the eyes. Moreno says these
strobes can be used for crowd control,
but also can cause epileptic seizures.
These are the fantasies that are
becoming real.
An Active Denial System of the kind I
mentioned before has been deployed in
Iraq, according to the Sonoma State
report. Called “Project Sheriff,”
humvees were fitted out with the devices
by Raytheon Corporation. Their specific
use is not detailed, but Phillips, Brown
and Thornton refer to an Air Force
Report that says that people wearing
contact lenses and wearing anything
metal were more greatly affected.
Otherwise the effect was “pain
similar
to an intense sunburn.” Oddly enough,
uninformed of the specifics, I imagined
a medallion burned onto a heart attack
victim’s skin in The Mind Keepers,
and the U.S. Air Force is referenced as
saying that the imprint of a coin was
discovered on the skin of one target,
and that heart problems can be a result
of the weapon.
Q.
Waves of sound, you say? Are there other
uses that you tell us about in this
regard?
A.
Yes. The even more elusive and ethically
dangerous uses of sound “under cover”
are the extra-low-frequency
possibilities of what we have long heard
of as “subliminal suggestion.” In MC
research this has recently come to be
called "Synthetic Telepathy." In
ultimate terms, this means control of
the body and mind by inverting the
honest aims of familiar and valued
self-help and meditation tapes to
subliminally affect disruption to body
and mind. I use a term here drawn from
another Internet source, which seems
substantially documented: Richard Allen
Miller’s “Synthetic Telepathy and the
Early Mind Wars,” (2003).
These devices of subliminal suggestion,
a common term for decades, are not
likely to be described in government
public service documents, but they have
been used. On Manuel Noriega, for
example. It wasn't just "Rock Music"
that drove him in weeping despair out of
his Panama Vatican sanctuary, though it
might affect some of us that way. One
name I have been given for this device:
“Commander Solo.” Jonathan Moreno
suggests that targeted sound (“hyper
sound”) beamed to a single individual,
unheard by anyone near to him, will be
common in such places as shopping malls
within a few years, carrying startlingly
clear personal advertising suggestions.
If so, at least this will be open, if
offensive to some; I hope many.
But to answer your first key question
another way: equally important, I was
driven to write The Mind Keepers in
the hope that people would read and
think and imagine, as I have done, on
the basis of their love of this country
and the perception that they might share
their thoughts with others…that our
country is in serious danger of going
off the tracks ethically. Our nation is
justly proud of its technological
prowess, but as my novel’s introduction
says, every good invention of man seems
bound to be shadowed by abuse; the more
powerful and promising the technical
achievement, the greater the potential
for corruption by the struggle for
power, the motives of greed, the
“necessities” of warfare.
Q.
So, you are not an “expert” in such
things per se, but based on what you say
you have experienced yourself, and your
research into such things, you feel you
are uniquely qualified to write this
fictionalized book?
A.
Yes, as a student of this country
through its literature, but also as an
ordinary man with an extraordinary
message, yet hardly one that hasn't been
sent by other writers before. Consider
the continuous tension of Technology and
what Americans have always conceived of
as part of their spiritual cause and
being, little as they sometimes honor
it: Nature, the process given to us to
live in with endurance, dignity and the
modicum we can get of Jefferson's third
proposal—the legitimate pursuit of
happiness.
As I say elsewhere, Hawthorne based his
major tales on such tension. Thoreau
thought that the best gift the railway
had brought his Walden surroundings was,
despite its smoke and noise, a clean
pathway through the woods. The 60s and
70s of our recent past century renewed
this animosity, but in terms at once
more liberating and more troubling: The
LSD-hyped bravado and tragedy shadowing
the (now renewed) hour of Civil Rights
and resistance to government falsehood
in conducting war, with violence and
assassination. It was the machine of
government, its power to dislocate our
natural lives that young Americans were
struggling to re-define then. And,
today, the struggle continues in very
different terms: The machinery of our
culture is never more ominously present,
yet our concern for Nature, now becoming
a concern for survival, continues.
Perhaps The Mind Keepers, with
its puzzled small town citizens fighting
something they only partly comprehend,
is a qualifier as an American Novel in
more than the localized sense of the
term.
Q.
Accordingly, there are thousands of
people who claim electronic harassment
and mind control. Hearing voices can be
considered a form of psychosis, can’t
it?
A.
Of course. And in this regard, if what I
have suggested is even true in a single
instance, suggesting “heard” voices to a
person who is unaware of what is
happening to him or her and possibly of
delicate mental balance, is an instance
of the practice of true evil. I have
heard such “voices,” as have members of
my family. None of us are psychotic.
Even knowing what is happening, if the
instance of “hearing” is uncertain, as
in one member of a family, say, the
torture of not knowing the truth of such
an instance must be excruciating. In any
sense, it’s obvious that if such evil is
being done, there should be knowledge
(especially psychiatric knowledge) of
its sources and serious punishment for
the criminal offenders.
Q.
I agree, certainly. That’s a terrible
experience even to think about. But I’d
like to go back to your novel’s title.
It’s interesting—distinctive and
different. Was it something that just
came to you one day, or does it mean
something in particular?
A.
The original working title was
"Catch as Catch Can," from
no-holds-barred wrestling to suggest the
difficulty and possible damage or injury
involved in "catching" evil doers. But
that didn¹t suggest the more complex
possibilities of "The Mind
Keepers" as a title that is purposely
ambiguous.
This title suggests both the plotting
control group and their victims: In it
the controllers are implicitly connected
to the common terms for people who
govern caged animals, "clean up" public
places, bar the entryway to those
without status. But it also connects to
the plotters¹ resistant targets, targets
that "keep" their minds (and those of
others) through resistance.
In this way, both characters,
protagonist Michael Neilly and his
antagonist, Alden Kornwith, are
asserting their wills as "Mind Keepers."
Neilly and FBI agent Greves spy on
Kornwith, just as he spies on them. The
fact that Neilly "prevails" in a limited
way over Kornwith and the conspiracy
makes him what we commonly call the
"hero." But, if so, his heroism prevails
as an accident of his circumstances, his
experience and his ethical perception.
Realistically, his ability to influence
attitudes, so that his fellow citizens
might become resisters against the
conspirators¹ government associated
criminality, is limited. Still, this
limited victory is probably what makes
the novel most different from others of
its kind.
Q. What is the question at the heart of
this book?
A.
Can good men and women, faced with a
terrible force of modern technical
invention, maintain that which is most
necessary to a democracy: trust in the
fundamental values that bind them
together in mutual welfare? Are there
those with the knowledge, the ethical
perception and the will to force
dangerous secrecy into the open where it
can be judged? Doubtless many readers
drawn to the topic of The Mind
Keepers will quail at the idea of
even "renegade" FBI men acting as
partisans of open discourse and against
the ethical threat that inevitably
shadows their function. I can only hope
their characterization in the book
overcomes this, as I happen to believe,
in reality, it can, and does.
Q.
So, does this make The Mind Keepers
different from others written about this
topic?
A. In this way, yes. The book
differs in the topic as it has been so
brilliantly handled by others. It is not
a dystopia or a fantasy that may in the
worst realized nightmare (one thinks
here of Rebecca Ore's “Gaia's Toys”)
become the ultimate despair realized. It
is about resistance to that despair from
within the character of human dignity.
Q.
You say your novel is based on research,
but how factual is it?
A.
As factual as I could make it under the
restricted circumstances of 1995-2000,
which are now much better for anyone
researching the topic. I tried to be
most careful not to sensationalize, but
only to draw upon those kinds of
incidents that my personal experience
and research reading had proven to me
were existing or possible. I was
complimented by one researcher with the
suggestion that I must have had an
"inside source." He wanted to know who
it was. I might add here that in view of
the fact that some of my experienced
imaginings (predictions) have turned out
to be startlingly accurate, I have
considered the possibility of having
been aided in my writing by supportive
“synthetic telepathy,” myself. If so, it
is most heartening (for all of us?), and
I am, not forgetting the stated
negatives, most grateful for it. But I
am entirely without knowledge of any
such helpful resource.
Q. How did you research this book?
A.
It was difficult to research when
I began in 1995 because authoritative
writing about electronic harassment
devices and electronic weaponry was hard
to find. But Nicola Tesla’s physics are
open to anyone willing to read about
that remarkable man and his experiments
long-distance focused energy. I believe
our government, and others, surely the
Soviets, began public experimentation in
electronic manipulation of human
personality well before World War Two,
though I have no specific data to
support that, other than the general
development of Pavlov-based physical
behavior theory. Dr. Jose M. Delgado’s
experimentation with the manipulation of
animal behavior through directed radio
and a brain implant were widely
discussed and debated in the early
1950s. His work, Physical Control of the
Mind, (1969), though it did not specify
electronics, treated the promise of a
benign, if not utopian result through
recognition of the social necessity of
planned control. He balanced B. F.
Skinner’s psycho-civilized Walden Two
against Richard Condon’s The Manchurian
Candidate, and George Orwell’s 1984, in
his advocacy of psycho-civilized
society-to-be, produced through
conscious exterior treatment of the
human brain from childhood.
I began with ideas like this, available
from any good library, my bias and
experience being admittedly for Orwell
and Condon; against Delgado and anyone
who would try to parallel Thoreau’s
Walden as a planned society,
inviting the tragedy of Hawthorne’s
themes that I mentioned in your first
question. The chemical mind-control
revelations associated with the joint
FBI/CIA experimentation of the program
coded “MKULTRA” in the 1970s (my hero’s
undergraduate years) brought more
specific information into the open, much
of which can be sampled in books such as
those in my novel’s bibliography,
especially in the works of Dr. Robert O.
Becker whom I quote directly in my
novel. The Internet, too, has brought
electronic mind control practice to the
surface: research in the public files of
the U.S. Bureau of Patents can be
revealing. Several Internet chat groups
and forums on Mind Control subjects are
available. Three major ones: The Mind
Control Forum, handled by Vicky Kindhart; Allan Barker's Yahoo Group
McActivism, and Cheryl Welsh's Mind
Justice.
Q.
What is the most important message in
your book? Or, what is it that you want
readers to take away with them after
reading The Mind Keepers? Or, what
should readers be thinking about asking
themselves after reading…
A.
In troubled times (almost always)
freedom is hard to defend, easily lost.
Be alert to what is going on around you.
Read a sound newspaper every day from
cover to cover. That way it takes time
and attention. Pay special attention to
stories concerning science and
technology. But for those who
specifically understand the experience
of the novel, understand, too, that you
are not alone, nor are you helpless.
Q.
Recently, “Mind Games,” a story by
Sharon Weinberger, appeared in The
Washington Post. It’s posted on your
publisher’s Web site. Care to comment on
the story?
A.
The interesting thing for me was some
participants’ fanatical responses in
that publication’s subsequent online
discussion. They hated the idea that
such a thing as Mind Control should even
be discussed in public. Those who
accepted or said they had experienced
mind control seemed far more confident
and calm in their assertions, on the
whole. We simply don't want to believe
that we cannot be entirely secure in our
own most private selves, our thinking.
Secrecy is the key. What is open becomes
controllable.
Fiction
Writers May Be Interested...
Interviewer:
Good books stay with you long
after you’ve finished reading. Great
ones inspire you to change the way you
look at the world or yourself. What are
some of the stories that have altered
your views or changed your life?
Kenneth
MacLean:
Good reading does change lives.
Imagination is the vital soul of
intelligence. Some of my childhood
reading and much of my teaching has
been related to the New England
writers of the early American 19th
century: Poe, Hawthorne, Melville,
Thoreau, Emerson. In relation to
The Mind Keepers, it is not
difficult to see the novel sharing the
background myth of a tale such as
“Rappaccini’s Daughter,” the creation
and destruction of beauty in and by a
poisoned environment. It is the
classic (and American) conflict of
soul and science, heart and mind,
motive and means, peaceful existence
and violent change. It is still very
much with us. It is the myth
supporting Hawthorne’s brilliant story
and part of my background for a story
that frames frighteningly real
experience.
Interviewer:
How long have you been writing?
Kenneth
MacLean:
I would like to say since I was in
my late teens, but that would be both
true and in a sense somewhat
dishonest. The question seems to
suggest writing of the kind involved
here, the kind that takes years and
concentrated effort. I published
poetry and fiction in my undergraduate
university magazine; I became a
professional newspaperman for several
years after graduation; I wrote
advertising copy to help pay the
freight in graduate school. I wrote
literary criticism during my several
decades of teaching, much of it
published, and along the way I
published two small books of poetry.
But I was mostly a teacher (and a
father of five), not a professional
writer. Real concentration did not
come until I retired. Then I had both
the motive and the time. The Mind
Keepers is the product.
Interviewer: What is
your writing process like?
Kenneth
MacLean:
I assume it is like the process
of most imaginative writers. I could
answer in two seemingly opposed words.
First, the process is, for me,
rapt. The pure invention
process of story telling has to be one
of the most exclusive states of
self-consciousness known to humanity.
It is more conscious and controllable
than a dream, though it is dream-like,
the world outside the story telling
self almost completely obliterated.
Secondly, it is often passionately
hectic: Damn the contorted
sentences you’ve spent hours teaching
the young to avoid--full speed ahead!
The most difficult task of an author
is self-editing. He (or she) must
often face the task of what to retain
and what to cut from a first, second,
or third draft. It is crucial and it
needs the scalpel (or the ax) in the
writer’s hand before it meets any
editor. Through its several drafts,
The Mind Keepers
was cut by nearly two hundred typed
pages.
Interviewer:
How long did it take you to write
The Mind Keepers ?
Kenneth
MacLean:
About four and a half years, from
August of 1995 until the winter of
2000.
Interviewer: Do the
themes come before the characters for
you?
Kenneth
MacLean:
Both are important. I wanted The
Mind Keepers to be framed by a
readable, believable story. Terrible
as some of its described experience
may be, it is not a dystopia. It is an
attempt in part to give persons who
have suffered from electronic
harassment the sense of a normal
context, a rationale for the
“craziness” (sometimes literal)
imposed on them; a way of seeing how
good men might (can) come together to
understand and deal with such
instances of terrorism among us.
Interviewer:
What methods do you use to keep the
critic in your head quiet when
writing?
Kenneth
MacLean:
The critic in my head “comes to”
after I’ve written, not during
writing. I spend much of the ‘down’
time going over what I’ve done in my
head, struggling with narration and
plot problems, etc. After years of
teaching the best fiction, the critic
of my own writing has gotten pretty
good, I think.
Interviewer:
Have you ever suffered through
writer’s block and, if so, did it
surprise you?
Kenneth
MacLean:
Writer’s block for me is not having
anything to say combined with not
wanting to say it. It happens. I’m too
far down the road to worry much about
the future. If I don’t want to write
on a given day, I let it go until that
secret, silent writer inside has
stored up enough to force the issue.
Once I’m on the page it goes until I
feel the well is dry and I have to let
it fill again; until I’m not having
fun, feeling pleased with what I’m
saying. Then it’s time to stop. Am I
surprised by not wanting to work on a
given day?-never, but there comes a
day when I must.
Interviewer:
Do you have any advice for writers?
Kenneth
MacLean:
Read! Read, read, read! Write!
Write, write, write! If you have to
get up before dawn to do it--that’s a
good time. I wish I had always
followed this advice.
Interviewer:
You write about “mind control.” How
is this subject timely in the light of
today’s world events?
Kenneth
MacLean:
That seems obvious. There are
many forms of healing and many forms
of human abuse potential in the
torrentially swift technological
advancement we are undergoing. Be
aware that nothing subject to power is
ever an unmixed blessing.
Interviewer:
What are you working on now?
Kenneth
MacLean:
Depending on how the book is
received, I could write a sequel to
The Mind Keepers. I have a working
title: “The Work of Ravens.” That
suggests the ambiguous good/evil
character of a figure of Native
American myth. But I am not set on
that. By my own lights, I would like
to write a “serious” children’s book
sometime, one on the order of
Grahame’s work. With five children, I
have had some audience background. I
do have one short (22 page) work in
this field nearing final draft. I have
a third poetry manuscript that I would
like to see in print, and the first
elements of a fictionalized
autobiography,
Seattle Snow, begun, and
set aside, awaiting that inner
author’s plan, if there is one. It is
difficult to keep the personal
experience engaged in The Mind
Keepers from gaining dominance
over what otherwise might have been a
fine comedy in the autobiography.
Interviewer:
What writer, living or dead, would
you most like to have a conversation
with?
Kenneth
MacLean:
If I had to limit all the tremendous
possibilities down to one, it would be
the writer who named himself Mark
Twain. I suspect that would not be an
infrequent response among Americans
who try to re-create on paper some
true version of their national
identity.
|