Psychopaths Develop Technology to Detect Angry Normals

Oct 10th 2011

Psychopaths Develop Technology to Detect Angry Normals

by Dr Kevin Barrett

A cabal of psychopaths that rules the former USA has developed a new tool to detect and neutralize non-psychopaths who threaten their power.

That, at least, is the implication of a recently-uncovered Department of Homeland Security document revealing the existence of Future Attribute Screening Technology (FAST) – a “pre-crime” detection unit not unlike the one dystopian novelist Philip K. Dick dreamed up for “Minority Report,” which inspired the Tom Cruise film. And by way of homage to another great dystopian writer, George Orwell, FAST will red-flag individuals harboring what the ruling psychopaths call “malintent.”

As reports:

This new “pre-crime” detection facility was discovered via a June 2010 DHS document that was acquired by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC). The document states that information is currently collected and retained on “members of the public” as part of the pre-crime system, which is called Future Attribute Screening Technology (FAST).

FAST is made up of algorithms that use factors including gender, age, ethnicity, heart rate, body movements, occupation, voice pitch changes, body heat fluctuations and breathing patterns to identify clues as to whether the individual(s) will commit a crime in the future.

The idea behind FAST is to prevent crimes from happening before individuals even have a chance to commit them based on the factors listed above. It is able to do this through the use of sensors that collect audio recordings, video images and psychophysiological measurements.

“The department’s Science and Technology Directorate has conducted preliminary research in operational settings to determine the feasibility of using non-invasive physiological and behavioral sensor technology and observational techniques to detect signs of stress, which are often associated with intent to do harm,” said Peter Boogaard, the deputy press secretary for the Department of Homeland Security.

The problem is that this kind of emotion-detection technology does not work against psychopaths – especially those psychopaths or near-psychopaths who have been trained to beat it by professional criminal organizations and intelligence agencies. Psychopaths compose that 1%-2% of the population that lacks normal emotional inhibitory barriers to grossly immoral and/or antisocial conduct. As Harrison Koehli said on my radio show, “If you were locked in a room in a burning building with an axe at hand, you would chop through the door to get away. A psychopath would chop through a human being just as easily as you would chop through that door.”

John Perkins describes how he was selected by IMF banksters as an economic hitman: They discovered that he was a bright guy who had been peripherally involved in a low-level crime and had successfully lied to cover up the more serious involvement of a friend. The bankers then administered Perkins a battery of tests. We may assume that the banksters were administering their own version of the standard exam for psychopathy, tweaked to select the kind of people they were looking for: those who score in the top 20% or so on the psychopathy test, who have high IQ’s and decent social skills, and who are capable of teaming up with other relatively amoral people against what we might call the moral majority, if that word hadn’t already been appropriated by another, religious-manipulative variety of psychopath.

Perkins, we may assume, is not a psychopath – not one of the top 1%. That’s why they made him an economic hit man, rather than one of the professional killers or “asteroids” sent to murder heads of state who refused to take Perkins’ bribes. And that’s why he had enough of a conscience that the sight of the smoking rubble at Ground Zero, and the knowledge that his former colleagues had done it, made him a whistleblower. Listen to John Perkins on my radio show:


My point is that the banksters behind the series of coups d’état beginning with the establishment of the Federal Reserve in 1913, the aborted Smedley Butler coup in the 1930s, the Kennedy assassinations of the 1960s, the October Surprise of 1980, and the mother of all coups on 9/11/2001, have assembled a team of psychopaths and near psychopaths to take over and rule the planet. (The banksters themselves are probably DIPs, or Dominant Inbred Psychopaths, as Karen Tostado put it on last Wednesday’s radio show.)

Their problem: The psychopaths are being found out, and the normals are getting angry.

How to stop angry normals from coalescing into an anti-psychopath coalition capable of overthrowing the pathocracy? To stop the angry normals, the pathocrats need a detection system. They need to be able to figure out which normals are angry at the pathocracy, and intent on acting against it – in other words, which normals have “malinent” toward the DIPs.

And that’s where emotion-reading technologies like FAST come in.

Psychopaths, unlike normal people, cannot “read” emotions naturally and empathically. They spend their lives trying to cerebrally figure out how to predict and control the behavior of normal humans, by coldly “reading” emotional signs and responding with the appropriate manipulations.

Shock-and-awe operations like 9/11 are designed by such high-IQ psychopaths as Paul Wolfowitz and Philip Zelikow to induce learned helplessless in the terrorized majority of normals, allowing the DIPs to run roughshod over them.

The pathocrats are designing a dystopia that would boggle the combined minds of Philip K. Dick and George Orwell. They would love to set up a FAST-style pre-crime detection system to red-flag people harboring inappropriate emotions, such as anger at the pathocracy, which – when combined with a certain kind of steadfastness – marks that person a potential threat to their misrule.

I don’t know about you, but I am one of the people that FAST would red-flag: I am furious at the pathocracy, and committed to bringing it down by any means necessary.

We had better act swiftly, before FAST is deployed and all of us anti-pathocrats are neutralized.


For background on this topic, check out my article “Twilight of the Psychopaths.”

October 10, 2011 – 10:43 am
Good article. I’ve been wondering about Total Info Awareness, lately, and whether FAST is a subset of TIA, that Congress said it would not fund….but….we all know that’s a bunch of crap…it morphed and went elsewhere.

Reply kelli
October 10, 2011 – 12:26 pm
They’re too late! Too many of us are angry and want them destroyed. They will have to round up a whole buch of people now. Once that happens the genie is out of the bottle and they’re really in trouble. They should be extremely careful in planning their next move. It may be their last. Just walk away slowly Geraldo, walk away.


2 responses to “Psychopaths Develop Technology to Detect Angry Normals

  1. October 2nd, 2011

    Posted by Kevin Barrett Fatty Bin Laden “Confession Video” : Fake or Bogus?

    I think the “Fatty Bin Laden smoking gun confession video” is fake.

    by Kevin Barrett

    Maher Osserian thinks it is merely bogus.

    Actually, Maher doesn’t use that word. Professor Bruce Lawrence of Duke University, the leading Bin Laden expert, does. He says the Fatty Bin Laden video is not only bogus, but that all his friends on the 24/7 Bin Laden detail in Homeland Security KNOW it is bogus. (Listen to Bruce Lawrence ridicule and debunk the Fatty Bin Laden “confession video.”)

    Maher argues that the Fatty Bin Laden video, which the US government and media have cited as alleged proof of Bin Laden’s guilt, was forged by gathering Bin Laden footage from various filmings, one of them a US intelligence “sting operation,” and cutting and pasting the footage in such a way as to make Bin Laden look guilty.

    That wouldn’t exactly surprise me.

    Obviously the criminals who put out the OBL “confession video” did some cutting and pasting of low-grade “OBL footage,” whether found or fabricated. Personally I think they probably found a fat guy who almost resembles a member of the Bin Laden family if you squint really, really hard, and hired him to do a really bad fake. Maher thinks the fat guy is actually Bin Laden. He explains the guy’s obesity by citing an alleged funhouse mirror effect of digital compression. He thinks some of the original footage, but not all, was produced by an elaborate conspiracy of intelligence agents. Sounds like a crazy conspiracy theory to me. But crazier-sounding things have turned out to be true.

    Maher, like many 9/11 researchers, is passionately attached to his chosen area of research. He is absolutely adamant that the bogus Fatty Bin Laden video was forged in the manner he suggests, rather than some other way. The problem is, Maher has picked a meaningless fight with David Ray Griffin and Bruce Lawrence in an apparent attempt to obscure the indisputable fact that the video is indeed bogus – a forgery – and a clear case of obstruction of justice, incitement to genocide, and a long list of other crimes; and that Bin Laden was obviously innocent of the crimes of 9/11/2001.

    The title of Maher’s article “How Osama was Caught Confessing to 9/11” is a typical example of the treasonous disinformation cranked out by Counterpunch, whose reasons for running interference for the 9/11 criminals could perhaps be discovered by waterboarding Alexander Cockburn. If he got the same treatment that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed got, Cockburn could easily be set up as a self-confessed 9/11 mastermind. Come to think of it, let’s waterboard ALL the 9/11-traitor journalists until they confess to being 9/11 masterminds. That would be an appropriate punishment for their crime of not debunking the 9/11 Commission Report, whose preposterous “19 hijackers” fable is sourced to secondhand alleged reports from KSM’s endless waterboardings.

    Below are some claims Maher sent me (in italics) followed by my responses.

    On Oct 2, 2011, at 7:01 AM, Maher Osseiran wrote:
    * Dr. Lawrence’s statement that [the Fatty Bin Laden “confession video”] was bogus or a fake is based on hearsay. He based on statements by supposedly people in the know, some intelligence buddies; are we now placing our faith in the veracity of people in intelligence. Has Dr. Lawrence gone back to them and said, hey guys, look what this guy is saying, please weigh in. Example, if I had taken the word of those CIA guys that the Predator intentionally rammed the helicopter without any scrutiny, I would have pushed the article into the conspiracy theory area. In later article I did relate what they said and said that the incident is worthy of an investigation.

    There is hearsay and there is hearsay. Dr. Lawrence, as someone with a prestigious scholarly position, risked his career to say what he said. (Look what happened to me!) He clearly would not say something so potentially destructive to his career and reputation if it were not true. And if there were even the slightest doubt (or perhaps even if there were not, but he just wanted to insure his career and perhaps his life) he would retract his statement in the most clear and forceful way, and he would have done so immediately. Since he has not, the statement stands and is absolute “gold standard” for truth and accuracy.

    ■Please explain to me the intermingling of Predator part and Black Hawk parts with bin Laden’s kids handling them.

    Please explain to ME why, if this was really OBL, they’d throw the body in the ocean before any independent ID could be performed.

    ■Please explain to me how a portion of the tape has strictly digital anomalies while the other half has strictly analog anomalies.
    It’s a forgery badly stitched together from various kinds of footage. The details are interesting to speculate about, as you do, but that speculation is of very limited relevance, because any way you slice it, it’s “bogus.”

    ■ Did you read “Osama’s Confession; Osama’s Reprieve” or just did a rush job.
    Maher, I’ve read thousands and thousands of articles on these and related subjects. Let me go back and look at it.

    Okay, I just looked at it. Yes, of course I read it when it came out. The documentation, which should include the dates, times, and transcripts or recordings of any interviews you did with sources that gave you this information, is grossly inadequate by scholarly standards. (Lawrence’s statement, by contrast, is fully documented and, while hearsay, “gold standard” due to the improbability of its being false for reasons already mentioned.)

    ■Did you read “Enough is Enough” or just did a rush job? You don’t seem to mention anything about Ed Haas’ work. You guys all stuck like glue on the FBI statement and never bothered to mention anything about the total picture Ed Haas painted.
    I don’t find Ed’s total picture necessarily convincing. [Ed Haas implies that the only reason not to support the illegal invasion of Afghanistan is because the Fatty Bin Laden tape is of doubtful provenance. Likewise Maher overestimates the importance of his own work on the tape. That tape is obviously “bogus” no matter how it was forged, and not especially important given that Bin Laden couldn’t possibly have demolished the WTC, bombed the Pentagon, run a shell game with airliners, etc.]

    ■Did you read his piece “Afghanistan; why I cannot support the war“? it was the last piece he wrote and summarizes all his findings.
    The article is fine as far as it goes. But since we KNOW that Zelikow must have scripted the coverup from a script for the operation itself (presumably his own), that the WTC skyscrapers were demolitions, that no big plane hit the Pentagon or crashed in Shanksville, that there were no hijackers or hijackings, etc. etc., the whole Bin Laden – 9/11 connection is a moot issue anyway, and harping on it the way you do seems to be a disinformation operation intended to support the myth that Muslims, rather than the enemies of Muslims, might have somehow conducted the attack.

    Finally, you believe the tape is a fake, I don’t,

    You claim it was stitched together from real home/sting video footage, out of context, in a way designed to make it look like Bin Laden is taking credit for 9/11. That is just as “fake” as if it were completely digitally created. No meaningful difference. Either way, whoever created the final product is guilty of obstruction of justice in a case of mass murder and high treason.

    but, in either case, since this tape was never authenticated, do you seen the need for an independent and transparent authentication process. If your answer is no, drop the open mindedness claim.

    I would in the least expect you to call for an independent and transparent authentication process.

    Again, since we know 9/11 was a false-flag attack by the enemies of Muslims, designed to trigger an anti-Muslim genocide, Bin Laden’s statements on a tape that is an obvious forgery, whether produced the way you suggest or by other means, are irrelevant. I could pay a department store Santa Claus to confess to 9/11, and it would link Santa to 9/11 in the same way discussion of this tape links OBL: at the level of myth, not reality.


    October 2, 2011 – 11:36 pm
    ‘Waterboard Alexander Cockburn’.
    I like that

    Reply Maher Osseiran
    October 3, 2011 – 3:54 am
    I am quoting Kevin here “Personally I think they probably found a fat guy who almost resembles a member of the Bin Laden family if you squint really, really hard, and hired him to do a really bad fake”
    I viewed 90,000 frames of that tape frame by frame and certain sections multitude of times.
    He personally believes, no proof here, that the bin Laden in that tape is an actor. I would like him to explain how Al Zawahiri was also in the same shots, Abou Ghaith was in those shots, bin Laden’s own kids were on that continuous segment of the video; are they all actors?
    Most importantly, on that video, the kids led bin Laden into the house where the taping took place. Hamza bin Laden was trying to stay at the meeting and hid in an alcove, his father, Osama, noticed that and went to him first, leaned forward as if to tell him go home, will catch up later. Bin Laden did that before he even greeted his guest; I find totally unsupportive of Kevin’s belief.

    The following is my position and that of Ed Haas, whose work was cherry picked by Kevin and David Ray Griffin, and this a quote from a join article we wrote no need for Kevin to put words into my mouth: “Bin Laden is a patsy who was aided and abetted at every turn during the execution of the attacks by components in the Bush administration.

    If law enforcement were allowed to do their work, Bin Laden’s complicity would have been limited to conspiring and planning the attacks and thousands in Manhattan, Afghanistan, and Iraq, would have been alive today.”

    Because counterpunch published my first work on the tape, the tape is tainted because Alexander Cockburn is the publisher of counterpunch. The recent criticism by Paul Craig Roberts was very similar to mine about four years earlier to Alexander in an email dated 9/9/2007: “Based on what I know, I cannot deny anyone the right to question, and there is no denying that the 9/11 commission report is full of holes.” This email was sent to him after one of his articles criticizing the truth movement.

    Counterpunch did publish the article but in the eyes of the truth movement, that is incrimination by association and we need to resort to waterboarding Alexander in order to get to the truth, hmmmm!?

    I am quoting Kevin here: “Okay, I just looked at it [Osama’s Confession; Osama’s Reprieve]…The documentation, which should include the dates, times, and transcripts or recordings of any interviews you did with sources that gave you this information, is grossly inadequate by scholarly standards.” This is very interesting and tells me you did not read it. First of all the article was purely analysis of the tape, I did not interview anyone for it. It is an analysis of a document that the government provided. True, there are sources that I could have listed, they are all public domain, I will link them at the bottom of the article within the next few days in order to meet your high scholarly standard. As to Dr Lawrence, I have asked him way back to go back to his sources and ask them about my findings; he has not done that yet. I think his sources are bogus.

    I don’t really know if veterans come here. If they do, I wonder if they would want to know if their comrades in arms are dying for a true cause or a lie.

    The only evidence the US government provided of bin Laden’s guilt is that tape that has not been authenticated by anyone. “Osama’s Confession; Osama’s Reprieve” is the only work that can be called an authentication. Isn’t it time that the so called evidence is authenticated. I have tried to reach a single item that we could both agree on in the search for the truth and Kevin goes off with a diatribe about Muslims and Islam, well, I am a Muslim too and do believe that the truth would set us free and that the power of the pen is mightier than that of the sword.

    If you veterans come here, please go read “Enough is Enough” found at

    The article acuses the Bush administration of Murder, treason, dereliction of duty in time of war, and aiding and abetting a criminal. All crimes Kevin agrees that the government committed; the difference is that we can easily prove it in a court of law.

    Please when you are at that page, don’t forget to sign the petition.

    Best to all,
    Maher Osseiran

    Reply Debbie Menon
    October 3, 2011 – 11:18 am
    Everyone agrees that the videos are bogus.
    Yes, they are bogus.
    Yes, the CIA or Mossad (does it matter who?) made them.
    Yes, they are not very well done.
    Yes, Osama has been dead for nearly ten years now, so it would have been impossible to film him, even on a ghostly camera, even if he had made them.

    Reply TroubleMaker
    October 4, 2011 – 8:22 am
    Kevin, please start putting together the list of people you’d like to have waterboarded — along with the questions you want answered. We are about to get a lot more truthful answers. You just need to start putting together the detailed list of what you’d like to know. If you will formulate the questions, the answers will be found.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s