DailyBriefs.info LennyAndMariaPodcasts.com The Intelligence Community Split and Its Implications by Miles Mathis

https://mileswmathis.com/flame.pdf 

The text, an essay by Miles Mathis, posits that the United States Intelligence Community is experiencing a significant internal split, evident in the conflicting agendas of political regimes like Trump's and Biden's. Mathis argues this division is deeper than mere political theater, suggesting that the exponential growth of intelligence agencies since Watergate, particularly after 9/11 with the rise of DHS, has led to competition and differing visions for imposing future tyranny. The author illustrates this purported split through the antagonism between the CIA and DHS, noting that a faction within the intelligence apparatus, potentially the "Deep State," seems to be intentionally releasing truths via platforms like YouTube and through figures like Matt Kibbe and RFK Jr., which both harms establishment interests like Big Pharma and undermines the control of information previously held by the government. Mathis speculates that this strategic release of information serves the self-interest of top rulers, either by demonstrating a temporary, calculated benevolence or by using controlled truths to manage public reaction and prepare for a later, more severe imposition of control. 

welcome to the LennyAndMariaPodcasts.com series

Today, we are delving into an analysis of deep political divisions, drawing on recent observations regarding the ruling class and the structure of US Intelligence agencies, as presented in the source titled "THE SPLIT" by Miles Mathis.

The source provides a detailed perspective on a profound split that is showing signs of occurring within Intelligence, becoming more visible than ever before. While the differences between the Trump and Biden regimes clearly illustrate a split in the ruling class, much of that distinction is often viewed as mere "window dressing" or an engineered effort to incite a civil war. The source, however, argues that the current situation transcends simple political manipulation, noting that some recent governmental actions would be counterproductive and "extremely ill-advised" for any regime seeking full-on tyranny. Historically, the governors maintained power by keeping the public ignorant. Their method, Operation Chaos, necessitates flooding the public with massive amounts of content, inadvertently mixing in a significant amount of truth, either by design or by oversight, though this tactic is reportedly no longer working effectively. The governors, who once controlled all information, are now experiencing a loss of control due to the exponential rise in information, effectively becoming victims of the very chaos they initiated.

This loss of control is attributed partly to individuals who challenge the official narratives, but also significantly to the described split within Intelligence itself. The source explains that the immense size of the US Intelligence system, particularly its expansion into numerous subagencies following Watergate, was a critical factor. Initially, these agencies competed for resources, but quickly began competing over different plans for the future, advocating for various "forms and flavors of tyranny" and differing execution speeds.

This internal friction became strikingly apparent after the 9/11 attacks, which led to the creation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), an agency that almost immediately began competing with the CIA. The figures behind DHS, like Cheney and Rumsfeld, are characterized as the "blackest of the blacks hats," favoring overt authoritarianism. This harsh stance has made the older-school fascists at the CIA appear relatively charming by comparison. Although the source maintains that there are no "white hats" in this scenario, it posits that there are "grayer shades of black".

The observable evidence for the split is quite direct, such as when Donald Trump, during his first term, gave a speech at Langley (CIA) assuring them of his complete support. Conversely, Trump demonstrates disdain for DHS, which Dick Cheney helped establish. Despite both men being categorized as "RED all the way," they are not allies. Trump has not expressed similar support for DHS and nominated Kristi Noem, described as a "hairdo/nobody," to lead the agency, indicating his disregard. Furthermore, one of the proposals of Project 2025 includes defunding or even completely abolishing DHS, making the CIA/DHS split extremely obvious.

Beyond internal political struggles, the source identifies a significant "sea change" in the information landscape, notably on platforms like YouTube. The author observed a recent reversal in the prevailing wind, coinciding with the Charlie Kirk event. New channels have surfaced that seriously question that event, though many attempt to spin the narrative toward suggesting second shooters rather than calling the entire event a fabrication. The significant aspect is that such videos would have been censored just six months prior, particularly since the period following the Sandy Hook incident, when YouTube deleted almost all citizen journalist videos questioning mainstream events, leaving only slick, government-produced material.

These new videos are characterized as very slick, suggesting they are not the work of "the guy next door," even if they use titles like "Dad saves America" to appear as such. This shift suggests invisible forces are at play. For example, the source points to Matt Kibbe, a former Ron Paul affiliate who now works for Glenn Beck’s BlazeTV, who is currently stating things about Fauci and vaccines that would not have been permissible a year ago. Kibbe is noted for "selling Friedrich Hayek" in one clip, which is presented as proof that he is some type of Intel front. Nevertheless, these agents, regardless of their ultimate allegiances, are currently informing the populace and are attacking genuinely "evil people". For instance, Hayek came out of the London School of Economics, won the Nobel, and was promoted by Look magazine and General Motors.

The attack on Big Pharma is a further sign of this change and does not appear to be merely a feint, as it is causing substantial harm both financially and to public opinion. An example is Trump’s public acknowledgement of the Amish community’s low rates of autism during a press conference with Kennedy. Pharma companies are reportedly losing billions in direct sales and government contracts, and this pressure is originating from the executive branch, which is ostensibly easier to influence than Congress.

The source emphasizes that this anti-Pharma offensive is not driven by Trump’s initiative or goodwill, but rather by his function as a front for a much larger and deeper consortium. This makes the movement more important because Pfizer cannot halt it simply by removing Trump. If Trump nods to the Amish, it is because the larger interests he represents are also nodding to the Amish. Similarly, both Trump and Kennedy are protected and promoted by forces operating "from way above".

The Charlie Kirk event provides insight into these rivalries. The event was clearly executed to garner sympathy for Republicans and further discredit Democrats, thereby escalating the Red/Blue conflicts; therefore, it was likely run by the Red side of Intel. However, a specific faction within Intelligence is now actively exposing the cover of the event through platforms like YouTube, Rogan, and Infowars. This effort to blow the cover does not appear to be coming from the Blue faction of Intel. The Blue faction, exemplified by Jimmy Kimmel attempting to blame the event on MAGA supporters, aims to spin the event their way, but has no motivation to entirely expose its fraudulent nature or encourage broader conspiracy theories.

Crucially, neither the Red nor the Blue factions have an interest in fully blowing the cover of such operations, as doing so would risk revealing the operators behind the curtain—which are themselves.

What appears to be happening is that a powerful entity is exploiting the gap between the Red and Blue factions, thwarting the interests of both for an unknown reason. Given the necessary reach, this entity can only be the group previously known as the Deep State. The source offers three possible explanations for why the Deep State would take such action:

1. The top rulers have experienced a degree of enlightenment and have decided to become more benevolent.

2. The top rulers have acknowledged the warnings provided to them and are agreeing that it is politically prudent to ease up for the time being.

3. The actions constitute a "further turn of the invisible screw," wherein the populace is temporarily lulled into complacency by having "a few bones thrown our way," before the ultimate imposition of power.

The author states that they oscillate between the second and third possibilities. While dismissing the possibility of true benevolence, the source suggests that some members of the ruling class may be capable of recognizing how their current actions are self-destructive. This self-interest could paradoxically make them the "most dangerous revolutionaries of all". The source reminds us that, in governance, a feigned benevolence—using the carrot—can often be more effective than poorly disguised malevolence—the stick—especially when the public is already "balking".

Finally, the source notes a potential connection that ties the Kirk event back to the CIA/DHS split: Erika Kirk’s mother is an employee of DHS. If DHS ran the Kirk event, the CIA may be deliberately blowing its cover to further undermine the agency. This type of inter-agency conflict has precedent. The complexity, however, is that Trump seems to support both sides, promoting the Kirk storyline while potentially planning to blackwash DHS through the event later, illustrating the tangled nature of these webs.

thank you for listening to another session of the LennyAndMariaPodcasts.com series produced and archived at the website LennyAndMariaPodcasts.com

The central premise of this analysis is that the United States Intelligence Community is experiencing a significant internal division, which the author terms "The Split." This schism is evident in the perceived ideological clashes between agencies like the CIA and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which are described as representing different "flavors of tyranny" and execution speeds. The author observes that the immense size and complexity of these intelligence structures, initially an advantage for maintaining control, has ironically led to a loss of unified command and a chaotic release of information where some truths are unintentionally revealed. This new dynamic is allegedly manifesting in the form of certain "truth-telling" narratives about events and figures like Anthony Fauci and Big Pharma, which are being pushed by specific Intel factions, possibly the "Deep State," through various media channels like YouTube. Ultimately, the author posits three possibilities for this seemingly counterproductive behavior: the rulers are experiencing a limited change of heart, they are responding to warnings to ease off temporarily, or this is simply a further manipulative tactic to lull the public into complacency before a final tyrannical push.

Intelligence split

Government control

Political factions

Discuss Intelligence split.

The sources indicate that the Intelligence community shows signs of a split, which is being observed "like never before"1. This split is noted alongside the split in the ruling class, visible in the conflicting nature of the Trump and Biden administrations1.

Origin and Nature of the Split

The split in Intelligence is attributed in part to the system having grown so large and complex2. While the sheer size of the US initially benefited "the governors" by making organized revolution difficult, that size became detrimental to the Intelligence agencies, particularly after Watergate2. Following Watergate, these agencies expanded exponentially, splitting into an increasing number of subagencies2.

Initially, these agencies merely competed for resources, but they soon began competing in their plans for the future2. Their differing agendas involved preparing scripts that called for varied "forms and flavors of tyranny and different speeds of execution"2.

The CIA/DHS Competition

The split became particularly evident after 9/11 with the formation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which almost immediately began competing with the CIA2.

Key characteristics used to differentiate these competing factions include:

• DHS Faction: Individuals associated with DHS, such as Cheney and Rumsfeld, are described as the "blackest of the blacks hats," favoring "the jackboot grinding in your face"2.

• CIA Faction: This agency is associated with "old-school fascists" but is made to look "relatively charming" compared to the DHS group, suggesting there are "grayer shades of black" within this overall dynamic, rather than any true "white hats"2.

Evidence of Conflict (Trump and DHS)

The CIA/DHS split is evident in the relationship between former President Trump and the agencies3:

1. Support for CIA: Early in his first term, Trump delivered a speech at Langley (CIA headquarters) and assured the agency of his support "1000%"3.

2. Disregard for DHS: Trump despises the Cheneys, who were involved in founding DHS3. He has never stated that he supports DHS "all the way"3.

3. Actions Against DHS: Trump showed disregard for DHS by nominating a figure described as a "hairdo/nobody," Kristi Noem, to lead the agency3. Furthermore, part of the platform of Project 2025 involves either defunding or abolishing DHS3.

The source emphasizes that this CIA/DHS split is highly obvious3. It is also speculated that the CIA may be attempting to expose DHS's cover to cause damage to the rival agency4.

The Red/Blue and Deep State Dynamic

The split manifests along political lines, resulting in "Red/Blue wars"5:

• Red Side of Intel: This faction is identified as running events, such as the "Kirk event," specifically to create sympathy for Republicans and further blackwash the Democrats5.

• Blue Faction of Intel: This faction seeks to spin events, such as attempting to blame the Kirk event on MAGA5.

Crucially, neither the Red nor the Blue faction is interested in completely blowing the cover of mainstream events or damaging the existing propaganda mechanism (the "old Wurlitzer"), as doing so would point to themselves as the ones behind the curtain5.

However, the sources observe a shift where a powerful entity is moving into the gap between Red and Blue, thwarting the interests of both6. This entity possesses the necessary reach and can only be what is often referred to as the Deep State6. This mysterious intervention leads to information being released that attacks "really evil people" and informs the public, even if the agents involved are still fronts for larger interests78.

Possible reasons offered for this intervention by the "top rulers" (Deep State) include69:

1. A decision to be more benevolent6.

2. Agreeing to warnings and deciding to back off somewhat (for political reasons)9.

3. Throwing "a few bones" to the public to induce further complacency before the final "crush" (a "further turn of the invisible screw")9.

The source suggests that while true benevolence is unlikely, it is possible that elements within the ruling class realize that the current state is not serving their own self-interests, potentially making them dangerous revolutionaries10.

keep_pinSave to note

copy_all

thumb_up

thumb_down

Discuss Government control.

Government control, according to the sources, is characterized by the long-standing efforts of the ruling class to maintain authority, but is currently marked by a significant loss of control and internal splits within intelligence agencies12.

Mechanisms and Intent of Government Control

The ruling class, referred to as the "governors," has historically prospered by keeping the populace ignorant1. Their overall goal involves preparations for "full-on tyranny"1.

Key mechanisms of control have included:

• Information Control: Until recently, the governors maintained control over all information1. After events like the Sandy Hook controversy, when information the government could not spin became public, platforms like YouTube began deleting almost all videos that questioned mainstream events. The only questioning videos allowed were "slick mainstream productions" that "obviously came from the government itself"3.

• Operation Chaos: Control is maintained through "Operation Chaos," which requires vast amounts of content to be "dumped" on the public. This content mixes lies with truth, intentionally creating confusion1. This method worked well until recently because people were unable to separate the truth from the lies1.

• Fronts and Protection: The source asserts that figures like Trump serve as "just a front for a far deeper and larger consortium"4. The executive branch, being a single individual, is described as being easier to "buy off" than Congress5. Furthermore, "Everyone in DC and in media is protected and promoted from way above"4.

The Loss and Splitting of Control

The sources indicate that the governors have suffered a loss of control that they did not anticipate, becoming "victims of the chaos they themselves created"1. This loss of control stems partly from the rise in available information1.

A major factor contributing to this loss is the split in Intelligence12:

• System Overgrowth: The large size of the US population and area initially aided the governors by making revolution hard to organize. However, this size became a negative factor when Intelligence agencies expanded exponentially following Watergate, splitting into multiple subagencies2.

• Competing Forms of Tyranny: These agencies began competing, first for resources, and then in their future plans, advocating for differing "forms and flavors of tyranny and different speeds of execution"2.

• The CIA/DHS Split: This fragmentation became apparent after 9/11 when the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) split off and began competing with the CIA2. The individuals behind DHS, such as Cheney and Rumsfeld, are characterized as the "blackest of the blacks hats," favoring a severe, heavy-handed approach to control2. The split is visible in the differences between the Trump and Biden regimes1. For instance, Trump showed disregard for DHS, contrasting sharply with his immediate support for the CIA6. The platform of Project 2025 includes plans for defunding or abolishing DHS, making the CIA/DHS split "more obvious"6.

Strategic Shifts in Control

Recently, the sources observe a "sea change" in information dissemination, suggesting that a powerful entity, theorized to be the Deep State, is moving into the conflict between the Red and Blue Intelligence factions and thwarting the interests of both78. This entity possesses the necessary reach to accomplish this8.

The source offers three possibilities for why this powerful entity is changing tactics, potentially loosening control or allowing information out:

1. Genuine Benevolence: The top rulers have seen the light and are deciding to be more benevolent8. (This is deemed unlikely because these people are viewed as "almost wholly self-interested"9.)

2. Strategic Retreat: The rulers have heard warnings and decided it is politically shrewd to "back off somewhat for the time being"9.

3. Lulling the Public: The new actions are merely a "further turn of the invisible screw," intended to lull the populace into "further complacency by a few bones being thrown our way, before the final crush"9.

The source leans toward the latter two possibilities9. This strategic shift suggests that controlling the populace via feigned benevolence might be more effective than overt malevolence10. In governance, the "carrot" works better than the "stick," especially when the public ("the mule") is already resisting ("balking")10. A feigned benevolence can be the most useful form of egoism and can take them further than a "poorly cloaked malevolence"10.

keep_pinSave to note

copy_all

thumb_up

thumb_down

Discuss Political factions.

The discussion of political factions in the sources centers primarily on internal divisions within the ruling class and the Intelligence community, often resulting in conflicting agendas, even among groups that might appear ideologically aligned12.

Factional Splits in Intelligence and the Ruling Class

The sources indicate that there is a recognizable split in the ruling class, evidenced by the distinct differences between the Trump and Biden regimes, which have been described as being "like night and day"1.

More specifically, the Intelligence community shows signs of a split that has become apparent1. This factionalization was an inevitable result of the system growing so large and complex, especially after Intelligence agencies expanded exponentially and split into numerous subagencies following Watergate2. While initially these agencies competed mainly for resources, they quickly began competing in their plans for the future, advocating for different "forms and flavors of tyranny and different speeds of execution"2.

The CIA/DHS Conflict

A key example of this internal factional competition is the immediate rivalry that developed between the CIA and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) after DHS split off following 9/112.

• Ideological Differences: The individuals behind DHS, such as Cheney and Rumsfeld, are characterized as the "blackest of the blacks hats" who favor harsh repression (the "jackboot grinding in your face")2. Their presence makes the CIA's "old-school fascists look relatively charming," suggesting that while there are no entirely "white hats," there are "grayer shades of black" among these groups2.

• Political Evidence of the Split: The conflict is considered obvious, even playing out through presidential politics3.

    ◦ Trump, upon taking office, assured Langley (CIA) that he was behind them "1000%"3.

    ◦ Simultaneously, Trump despises the Cheneys (who helped found DHS)3.

    ◦ Despite both Trump and Cheney being categorized as "RED all the way," they are not allies3.

    ◦ Trump has shown his disregard for DHS by nominating a "nobody" (Kristi Noem) to lead it, and he has not expressed full support for the agency3.

    ◦ The platform of Project 2025 even includes the possibility of defunding or abolishing DHS3.

• Blowback: Factional conflicts may lead to one agency attempting to damage another4. If a specific event (like the Charlie Kirk event) was run by DHS, the CIA may be exposing its cover to further undermine the agency4.

Red, Blue, and the Deep State

The Intelligence split is also discussed in terms of political color coding: Red and Blue5.

• Red Faction: The Red side of Intel is associated with running the Kirk event, which was designed to escalate the "Red/Blue wars," create sympathy for Republicans, and "blackwash the Democrats"5.

• Blue Faction: The Blue faction of Intel is seen attempting to counter the Red side's messaging (e.g., through figures like Jimmy Kimmel trying to blame the Kirk event on MAGA)5.

• Shared Interests: Crucially, neither the Red nor the Blue factions desire to completely expose the details of events or damage the information structure ("the old Wurlitzer"), because doing so would reveal themselves as the power "behind the curtain"5.

However, the sources suggest the emergence of a powerful entity that is moving into the gap between the Red and Blue factions, actively thwarting the interests of both6. This entity is believed to be what has previously been referred to as the Deep State, possessing the necessary reach to operate independently of both major political factions6.

keep_pinSave to note

copy_all

thumb_up

thumb_down

Discuss Media influence.

The media's influence, according to the sources, is deeply intertwined with government control, the manipulation of information, and the current internal conflicts within the intelligence community.

Historical Control and Recent Loss

Historically, the "governors" (the ruling class) maintained control over all information1. The ruling class has prospered for millennia mainly by keeping the populace ignorant1. This control mechanism worked effectively until recently1.

With the rise of widespread information sharing, the governors have experienced a loss of control that they did not anticipate, making them "victims of the chaos they themselves created"1.

Mechanisms of Manipulation

Media influence is frequently exerted through planned campaigns designed to confuse the public:

• Operation Chaos: This operation requires "huge amounts of content being dumped on us," and a lot of truth is mixed in, either intentionally or by oversight, to create confusion1.

• Controlled Narratives: The sources suggest that powerful figures in D.C. and the media are protected and promoted by interests "way above" them2. Figures like Matt Kibbe, who works for Glenn Beck's BlazeTV, are identified as potential Intel fronts who are only allowed to speak certain truths because of their ultimate allegiances3.

• The Wurlitzer: The intelligence community uses the media as a means of control, referred to metaphorically as the "old Wurlitzer"4. Neither the Red nor the Blue faction of Intel wants to completely damage this system, as that would expose the manipulator behind the curtain (themselves)4.

• Promotion of Specific Ideologies: Individuals promoted through media channels, such as Matt Kibbe selling Friedrich Hayek on BlazeTV, are treated with suspicion, with the source noting that if Hayek was promoted by Look magazine and General Motors, "we know not to trust him no matter what he is saying"35.

Changes and Splits in Media Output

The sources note a recent and significant change in the type of content being disseminated through platforms like YouTube, suggesting a shift in media control or influence6:

• Censorship of Citizen Journalists: Following the Sandy Hook controversy, when "real info got out that even CNN couldn't spin," YouTube began deleting almost any videos questioning mainstream events. Only slick, professional productions, often originating from the government, were allowed, and "citizen journalist videos were a thing of the past"6.

• Emergence of "Slick" New Content: Recently, the "wind has reversed course" on YouTube6. New channels are appearing that seriously question events like the Charlie Kirk event6. These videos are described as "very slick," suggesting they are not being made by "the guy next door," even when they use that persona (e.g., titling themselves "Dad saves America")3.

• Controlled Leaks of Truth: These new videos are "informing the populace" and "attacking some really evil people," such as Fauci and vaccines3. However, the source suggests these are agents who are being allowed to disseminate information they could not have told the public the year prior3.

Media Influence and Intelligence Conflicts

The internal "split" within the Intelligence community is being fought, in part, through media influence and the use of manufactured events4:

• The Charlie Kirk Event: This event was "clearly run" to boost sympathy for Republicans and "further blackwash the Democrats," indicating it was run by the Red side of Intel4.

• Blowing the Cover: Subsequently, "some faction in Intel is now blowing the cover of the event" through platforms like YouTube, Rogan, and Infowars4.

• Conflicting Factions: The Blue faction of Intel is also exerting media influence, exemplified by Jimmy Kimmel trying to blame the event on MAGA supporters4.

• A Third Entity: The most recent development is the possibility of a "powerful entity" (potentially the Deep State) moving into the gap between the Red and Blue Intel factions and thwarting the interests of both by allowing damaging information to surface on platforms like YouTube7.

Ultimately, even when media figures inform the populace or attack evil people, it is suggested that they are agents, and the content is permitted only if it serves the interests of some greater, powerful consortium23.

keep_pinSave to note

copy_all

thumb_up

thumb_down

Discuss Ruling class.

The ruling class, referred to as the "governors" in the sources, is discussed primarily in the context of maintaining control, experiencing internal division, and making strategic shifts in governance.

Historical Power and Maintenance of Control

The ruling class has historically prospered for millennia mainly by keeping the populace ignorant1. Their methods of control have involved detailed planning for the future, including the preparation of "scripts" calling for different "forms and flavors of tyranny and different speeds of execution"2.

Until recently, the governors were in control of all information1. To maintain this control and create confusion, they employ "Operation Chaos," which requires "huge amounts of content being dumped on us" that mixes lies with truth1.

Internal Splits and Loss of Control

Despite their historical dominance, the governors are currently facing significant challenges, including a loss of control and internal fracturing:

• Loss of Control: The governors did not anticipate the loss of control that has come with the rise in available information. They are described as having become "hoist on their own petards—victims of the chaos they themselves created"1.

• The Ruling Class Split: There is a recognized split in the ruling class, visible through the conflicting natures of the Trump and Biden regimes1. While some of this conflict may be "window dressing" or an attempt to incite a civil war, the split is believed to go deeper1.

• Intelligence Split: A major part of this division is the split in Intelligence, which the sources are observing "like never before"1. This fragmentation occurred as the Intelligence agencies expanded exponentially after Watergate, ultimately competing not just for resources but also in their strategic plans for the future2.

• Competing Factions: The division is highlighted by the competition between the CIA and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)2. Figures associated with DHS, such as Cheney and Rumsfeld, are characterized as the "blackest of the blacks hats," favoring an aggressive approach to control ("the jackboot grinding in your face")2. The "old-school fascists at CIA" are made to look "relatively charming" in comparison, suggesting that while there are no "white hats," there are "grayer shades of black" within the overall dynamic of the ruling class23.

Strategic Shifts in Governance

The ruling class appears to be shifting its strategies, possibly in response to the chaos or external pressures:

• Feigned Benevolence: The governors understand that feigned benevolence can be the "most useful form of egoism" and may be a more effective governance strategy than poorly concealed malevolence4. The sources suggest that the "carrot" works better than the "stick," especially when the public ("the mule") is "already balking"4.

• Realization of Self-Interest: It is considered possible that some members of the ruling class are realizing that their own self-interests are not being served by the current state of affairs4. This realization, ironically, could make them "the most dangerous revolutionaries of all"4.

• Possible Reasons for Change: The sources present three possibilities for the recent "sea change" in information control, which suggests a change in tactics by the top rulers5:

    1. They have become genuinely more benevolent6. (This is deemed unlikely as they are viewed as "almost wholly self-interested"6).

    2. They have decided it is politically shrewd to "back off somewhat for the time being"6.

    3. The changes are a "further turn of the invisible screw," meant to lull the populace into "further complacency" before a "final crush"6.

The sources lean toward the latter two possibilities, viewing any apparent benevolence as strategic maneuvering rather than genuine change46.

keep_pinSave to note

copy_all

thumb_up

thumb_down

1 source

send

chevron_right

Analysis of "The Split" within U.S. Intelligence

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes an analysis of a perceived schism within the United States Intelligence Community, as detailed in the source text "THE SPLIT" by Miles Mathis. The core argument posits that a significant and increasingly visible conflict exists between major intelligence factions, most prominently the CIA and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). This internal struggle is not a traditional political divide but a competition between different "shades of black," with varying strategies for population control and governance.

Evidence for this split is drawn from contradictory political regimes (Trump vs. Biden), targeted political actions, and a notable shift in online information control. Specifically, the analysis highlights Donald Trump's demonstrated support for the CIA versus his public disdain for DHS, a sentiment echoed in Project 2025's proposal to abolish the latter agency. Furthermore, a recent change in online censorship allows for the dissemination of previously suppressed narratives—such as critiques of the "Charlie Kirk event" and "Big Pharma"—which is interpreted as one faction exposing the operations of another. The author speculates that a "third entity," possibly the true "Deep State," may be intervening to thwart the plans of both primary factions. The ultimate motive for this intervention remains uncertain, potentially ranging from a strategic retreat to a more sophisticated form of psychological control designed to lull the populace into complacency.

I. The Core Thesis: A Schism in the Ruling Class

The central argument is that the U.S. Intelligence apparatus shows unprecedented signs of a split. This division is considered more profound than the superficial "night and day" difference between the Trump and Biden regimes, which could be dismissed as political theater intended to spark civil war. The analysis contends that many recent events would be counterproductive and "extremely ill-advised" for a unified government preparing for tyranny.

• Loss of Information Control: For millennia, the ruling class prospered by keeping the populace ignorant. However, the modern strategy of "Operation Chaos"—dumping vast amounts of content to create confusion—has backfired. This operation intentionally mixed truth with lies, but the rise of independent analysis has led to a loss of control the governors "didn't see coming." They have become "hoist on their own petards."

• Complexity and Expansion: The sheer size and complexity of the U.S. government and its intelligence agencies are cited as a root cause of the split. Following Watergate, the intelligence community expanded exponentially, leading to the creation of numerous subagencies. This growth fostered competition not just for resources, but over competing scripts for the future, including different "forms and flavors of tyranny and different speeds of execution."

II. The Primary Factions: CIA vs. DHS

The analysis identifies the most obvious fault line as being between the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The text asserts that while there are no "white hats" in this scenario, there are "grayer shades of black."

• Characterization of Factions:

    ◦ DHS: Described as the "blackest of the black hats," associated with figures like Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. Their philosophy is characterized as liking "nothing more than the jackboot grinding in your face."

    ◦ CIA: Portrayed as "old-school fascists" who, in comparison to DHS, look "relatively charming."

• Evidence of the Rivalry: The schism is demonstrated through the actions and allegiances of political figures, particularly Donald Trump.

Evidence Point

CIA Alignment

DHS Opposition

Presidential Rhetoric

Upon taking office, Trump gave a speech at Langley assuring the CIA he was behind them "1000%."

Trump has never expressed similar support for DHS and despises the Cheneys, with Dick Cheney being a founder of the agency.

Agency Leadership

(Not specified)

Trump nominated Kristi Noem, described as a "hairdo/nobody," to head DHS, showing his "disregard for the agency."

Policy Platforms

(Not specified)

A key part of the Project 2025 platform is the defunding or outright abolition of DHS.

Staged Events

The CIA may be blowing the cover of the Charlie Kirk event, which is suspected of being a DHS operation.

Erika Kirk's mother reportedly works for DHS, suggesting a connection and potential agency involvement in the event.

III. Manifestations of the Split in Public Discourse

The document argues that the internal intelligence conflict is now publicly visible through a strategic shift in information control and political messaging.

A. The Shift in Online Information Control

A significant "reversal of the wind" has been observed on platforms like YouTube.

• Questioning Official Events: In the past, especially after the "Sandy Hook debacle," YouTube heavily censored videos that questioned mainstream events. Now, many new, slickly produced channels are appearing that seriously question recent events, such as the Charlie Kirk event.

• Controlled Opposition: While these new channels often feign a "citizen journalist" persona (e.g., "Dad saves America"), their high production quality suggests they are official fronts. An example cited is Matt Kibbe of BlazeTV, who is now permitted to speak truths about Fauci and vaccines. This is interpreted not as a genuine opening of discourse but as agents being deployed to inform the populace on specific topics to serve a strategic goal. The text notes Kibbe's promotion of Friedrich Hayek as proof that he is an "Intel front."

• Strategic Information Release: The core point is that these agents, regardless of their ultimate allegiance, are "actually informing the populace" and "attacking some really evil people," which marks a significant change in strategy.

B. Political Signaling and The "Big Pharma" Attack

The executive branch is seen as leading a targeted attack on major industries, which is more significant because it is orchestrated by a small group rather than a large, diffuse body like Congress.

• Trump's Rhetoric: At a press conference with Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Trump made a "shout-out to the Amish for their lack of autism." This is viewed as a direct and serious attack on Big Pharma.

• Tangible Harm: This campaign is assessed as more than a feint, as it is causing "real harm" to the pharmaceutical industry, both financially (lost government contracts, declining direct sales) and in public opinion. The "Tylenol fiasco" is expected to accelerate this trend.

• Consortium of Interests: The analysis stresses that these actions are not Trump's personal initiative. He is considered "just a front for a far deeper and larger consortium." This makes the attack more significant, as it cannot be stopped by simply removing Trump from the stage. Both Trump and Kennedy are seen as being "protected and promoted from way above."

IV. Case Study: The Charlie Kirk Event

The handling of the "Charlie Kirk event" is presented as a clear example of the competing intelligence factions at work.

• Initial Purpose (Red Faction): The event was "clearly run to create more sympathy for the Republicans and further blackwash the Democrats, as well as to escalate the Red/Blue wars." This suggests it was an operation by the "Red side of Intel."

• Covert Exposure (Third Entity): Simultaneously, some other faction within Intelligence is "blowing the cover of the event" via YouTube, Joe Rogan, Infowars, and other sites.

• Contradictory Motives: This exposure is not believed to be the work of the "Blue faction" (e.g., Jimmy Kimmel, who is spinning the event to blame MAGA). Neither Red nor Blue factions would typically have an interest in blowing the cover of a staged event, as doing so points to the "man behind the curtain," which is themselves. This action damages the credibility of their entire propaganda machine (the "old Wurlitzer").

• Tangled Webs: The situation is complex. The connection of Erika Kirk's mother to DHS suggests DHS may have run the event. If so, the CIA may be the entity blowing its cover to damage a rival agency. However, Trump is seen promoting the official Kirk storyline, suggesting he has "a leg in both cars." This could be a multi-layered plan to gain short-term Republican benefits while setting up DHS for a future blackwashing.

V. Theorizing the "Third Entity" and Its Motives

The analysis concludes by speculating on the identity and goals of the powerful entity that appears to be intervening between the Red and Blue factions. This entity is theorized to be the true "Deep State."

Three possible reasons are presented for its actions:

1. Genuine Benevolence: The top rulers have "seen the light" and decided to become more benevolent. This is considered unlikely, as the author believes they are "almost wholly self-interested."

2. Strategic Retreat: The rulers have heeded warnings (such as those from the author) and agree it is "politic to back off somewhat for the time being" to avoid self-destruction.

3. Sophisticated Deception: This is merely a "further turn of the invisible screw," where the populace is lulled into complacency with a few concessions ("bones being thrown our way") before a "final crush."

The author personally "teeters between two and three." The analysis suggests that while true benevolence is unlikely, some rulers may be capable of seeing how current strategies are harming their own long-term interests. In this view, a "feigned benevolence" may be a more effective tool of governance than "poorly cloaked malevolence"—the "carrot working better than the stick, especially when the mule is already balking." This makes these calculating members of the ruling class potentially the "most dangerous revolutionaries of all."

thumb_upGood report

thumb_downBad report

NotebookLM can be inaccurate; please double check its responses.

A Divided House: Understanding the Theory of a Split in US Intelligence

content_copy

delete

Based on 1 source

A Divided House: Understanding the Theory of a Split in US Intelligence

1. Introduction: The Core Idea

To understand certain undercurrents in contemporary political discourse, it is useful to deconstruct a prominent conspiratorial framework that posits the United States intelligence community is not a unified, monolithic entity. This theory argues that the community is, in fact, a house divided, fractured into competing factions whose internal power struggles manifest as major political shifts. The stark contrast between the Trump and Biden administrations, described in the source text as being "like night and day," is presented as prima facie evidence of this deep schism. This document will analyze this theory, examining its core claims, the evidence marshaled in its support, and its ultimate explanation for the complex political events unfolding in the public sphere.

This alleged conflict is theorized to be most clearly embodied by the rivalry between two powerful agencies: the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

2. The Key Factions: CIA vs. DHS

The framework identifies the CIA and DHS as the primary antagonists in this internal intelligence war. While the theory alleges both are aligned with the conservative or "Red" side of the political spectrum, they are depicted as ideologically and operationally distinct entities vying for dominance.

Feature

Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)

Department of Homeland Security (DHS)

Alleged Characterization

Described as the "old-school fascists."

Portrayed as "the blackest of the black hats," preferring a "jackboot grinding in your face" approach.

Key Figures/Founders

The source theory presents an informational asymmetry, leaving this faction's leadership vaguely defined.

Specifically founded by figures such as Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld.

Associated Political Leanings

"RED all the way."

"RED all the way."

With these key players identified, we can proceed to an analysis of the specific actions and phenomena presented as evidence for their ongoing conflict.

3. Analyzing the Evidence

The theory synthesizes observable political actions with shifts in the digital information space, interpreting both as components of a coherent, albeit covert, factional struggle. The emergence of professionally produced, anti-establishment content, for example, is thus interpreted not as organic dissent but as a potential information warfare tactic deployed by one intelligence faction against another.

3.1. Presidential Actions and Alignments

The theory uses the public actions and personnel choices of Donald Trump as proxies for a hidden power struggle, presenting them as a primary indicator of his alignment with the CIA faction and against the DHS faction.

• Support for the CIA: Early in his first term, Trump's speech at CIA headquarters in Langley, assuring the agency he was "1000%" behind them, is interpreted as a clear signal of allegiance.

• Disdain for DHS Founders: Trump's well-documented contempt for the Cheney family is cited as significant, given Dick Cheney’s central role in the creation of DHS.

• Disregard for DHS Leadership: The nomination of Kristi Noem, whom the source describes as a "hairdo/nobody," to lead DHS is viewed as a demonstration of fundamental disregard for the agency.

• Platform to Abolish DHS: The inclusion of a platform to defund or even abolish DHS within Project 2025 is presented as the theory's most direct evidence of this factional opposition.

3.2. A Shift in Online Information

The framework points to a recent and noticeable "reversal" in the type of content promoted on platforms like YouTube as further evidence of this internal conflict.

• Emergence of Formerly Censored Content: Videos that question official narratives surrounding major public events—content that would have been systematically censored in the recent past—are now reportedly appearing and gaining algorithmic traction.

• Professional Production Quality: The theory emphasizes that these new videos are "very slick" productions, suggesting they are not the work of amateur "citizen journalists" but are disseminated by an organized, well-funded source within the intelligence apparatus itself.

3.3. Case Study: The "Charlie Kirk Event"

A specific event involving political commentator Charlie Kirk is leveraged to illustrate the complex dynamics of this internal conflict. The central puzzle of the event is framed as follows:

The Kirk event is also very informative in this regard, since it was clearly run to create more sympathy for the Republicans and further blackwash the Democrats, as well as to escalate the Red/Blue wars. So we can say it was run by the Red side of Intel. But some faction in Intel is now blowing the cover of the event, via Youtube, Rogan, Infowars, and many other sites...

The theory speculates that one intelligence faction is sabotaging another. Given that Erika Kirk's mother reportedly works for DHS, it is hypothesized that DHS ran the event and that the rival CIA faction is now "blowing their cover to further damage the agency." However, the source text immediately introduces a critical contradiction that complicates this neat explanation: "The problem there is that if so, Trump seems to have a leg in both cars, since we have seen him promoting the Kirk storyline." This suggests a multi-layered game where a single political figure might be working with, and against, different factions simultaneously, underscoring that, as the source notes, "The webs as usual are very tangled."

4. Root Causes of the Internal Conflict

The theory attributes this schism to two primary structural and informational catalysts that have developed over several decades.

1. Size and Complexity: The exponential growth of intelligence agencies following events like Watergate and 9/11 created a vast, unwieldy bureaucracy. What began as simple competition for resources is said to have evolved into a more profound competition between factions with differing long-term "scripts for the future," each favoring different forms and speeds of implementation.

2. Loss of Information Control: The ruling "governors" traditionally maintained power through tight control over information. The source argues that the rise of the internet created a level of "chaos they themselves created," leading to a loss of their information monopoly. In this new environment, they have become "hoist on their own petards," unable to fully manage the narrative.

This loss of control leads to the final, most speculative layer of the theory, which considers the motives of a possible third, overarching player.

5. A Third Player? The "Deep State's" Motives

The analysis speculates that the entity exposing these operations may not be the "Red" (CIA) or "Blue" factions, but a third, more powerful entity referred to as the "Deep State," which appears to be acting against the interests of both lower-level factions. The source posits three potential motivations for these actions:

1. A genuine turn toward benevolence, in which top rulers have decided to become less oppressive.

2. A strategic retreat, based on warnings that their current path is self-destructive, compelling them to "back off somewhat for the time being."

3. A deceptive tactic to lull the public into complacency with a few concessions ("bones being thrown our way") before a "final crush."

The theory concludes that the most likely motivation is a sophisticated form of self-interest. Rather than genuine goodwill, this entity may be adapting its tactics for an era where total information control is no longer feasible. In this context, "feigned benevolence" becomes a more effective tool of governance—a strategic pivot recognizing that the carrot can be more effective than the stick, especially when dealing with an increasingly resistant populace.

6. Conclusion: What to Take Away

This conspiratorial framework offers a heuristic for interpreting seemingly chaotic political signaling through the lens of a fractured US intelligence community. Its central thesis posits that a deep-seated conflict, primarily between the CIA and DHS, drives major policy decisions, personnel appointments, and public narratives. Evidence for this schism is synthesized from presidential allegiances, shifts in online information control, and the tactical exposure of covert operations. Ultimately, the theory suggests that these internal battles and the adaptive strategies of a potential "Deep State" are not driven by public interest but by a complex calculus of power, control, and strategic self-preservation. It serves as one model for understanding the often-inscrutable actions of powerful, clandestine institutions.

thumb_upGood report

thumb_downBad report

NotebookLM can be inaccurate; please double check its responses.

I. THE SPLIT by Miles Mathis

The author observes significant signs of a split within Intelligence and the ruling class, noting differences between the Trump and Biden regimes.

I have mentioned before that Intelligence shows signs of a split, and we are seeing it now like never before.

We know there is a split in the ruling class just from the Trump and Biden regimes, which have been like night and day.

II. While regime differences might seem like window dressing to spark civil war, current actions sometimes appear counterproductive to establishing full tyranny.

But it could be argued most of that is window dressing or the attempt to spark a civil war.

But it goes beyond that because a good deal of what we are seeing now would be counterproductive for any government prepping us for full-on tyranny.

III. The prosperity of the governors has relied on keeping the populace ignorant, making recent admissions of crimes ultimately unspinnable.

They have prospered for millennia mainly by keeping us ignorant, so admitting to any fraction of their crimes is ultimately unspinnable.

Operation Chaos requires huge amounts of content being dumped on us, as we know, and a lot of truth ends up getting mixed in, by intention or oversight.

IV. The recent rise in information has led to a loss of control for the governors, making them victims of the chaos they created.

The governors were in control of all information until recently, but with the rise in information has come a loss of control they didn't see coming.

They have become hoist on their own petards—victims of the chaos they themselves created.

V. The exponential expansion and splitting of Intelligence agencies, particularly after Watergate, contributed to the loss of control and internal competition.

The size of the US, both in population and area, was a plus for the governors from the beginning, since it made revolution almost impossible to organize after a certain point in time.

But that same size became a negative with the Intelligence agencies, especially after Watergate, when they expanded exponentially, splitting into more and more subagencies.

VI. Competition between subagencies escalated beyond resources to competing plans for the future, involving different forms and speeds of tyranny execution.

At first they just competed for resources, but very soon they were competing in their plans for the future.

Their scripts called for different forms and flavors of tyranny and different speeds of execution.

VII. The split became acutely obvious after 9/11 with the creation of DHS, which immediately began competing with the CIA.

This became even more obvious after 911, when DHS split off and almost immediately began competing with CIA.

The guys behind DHS like Cheney and Rumsfeld were the blackest of the blacks hats, liking nothing more than the jackboot grinding in your face.

VIII. The extreme actions of DHS leadership (Cheney and Rumsfeld) make the CIA look relatively charming by comparison, suggesting shades of black rather than white hats.

The guys behind DHS like Cheney and Rumsfeld were the blackest of the blacks hats, liking nothing more than the jackboot grinding in your face.

So although we don't have any white hats in this saga, we do have some grayer shades of black.

IX. The rivalry between CIA and DHS is evident in Trump's actions and stated disregard for DHS, despite both sides being politically "RED".

Not following me?

You can see the CIA/DHS split right there.

X. Trump demonstrated support for the CIA but showed disregard for DHS, notably by nominating Kristi Noem to head the agency and supporting its defunding.

I remind you that when Trump came in in his first term, one of the first things he did is give a speech at Langley (CIA) assuring them he was behind them 1000%.

He nominated the hairdo/nobody Kristi Noem to head up DHS, showing his disregard for the agency.

XI. Recent changes indicate a reversal of the wind on platforms like YouTube, marked by new channels seriously questioning mainstream events, such as the Charlie Kirk event.

Well, the wind has reversed course in the past couple of weeks, and it seems to have something to do with the Charlie Kirk event.

The first thing I noticed was many new channels popping up seriously questioning that event.

XII. These new videos, often slick and professional, suggest an "invisible sea change" because such questioning videos were heavily censored previously.

These new videos are very slick, again indicating they are not just “the guy next door” making them.

These were the kind of videos that would have been censored six months ago.

XIII. Certain agents, regardless of their ultimate allegiances, are currently informing the populace and attacking powerful figures like Fauci and evil people.

For example, that last link takes you to a guy being interviewed and pretty much just telling you the truth about something he could not have told you the truth about last year, that is, about Fauci and vaccines.

But my point is these agents, whoever they are and whatever their ultimate allegiances may be, are actually informing the populace.

XIV. Trump publicly attacked Big Pharma by shouting out to the Amish regarding their lack of autism, indicating that the attack on Pharma is serious and doing financial harm.

Another sign of this change in the wind was Trump's press conference with Kennedy last week, where he actually made a shout-out to the Amish for their lack of autism.

It looks like this attack on Big Pharma is not just a feint, since it is doing them real harm, both financially and in public opinion, and the Tylenol fiasco will accelerate that.

XV. Trump is merely a front for a larger, deeper consortium, ensuring that the attack on Pharma cannot be stopped simply by removing him from the stage.

And no, I am not naive enough to think this is all being done on Trump's initiative, or that it is due to his goodwill.

Trump is the actor fronting far bigger interests, and if he nods to the Amish, for instance, it is because they are nodding to the Amish.

XVI. The Kirk event was intended to benefit the "Red side of Intel" by generating sympathy for Republicans and escalating the Red/Blue wars.

The Kirk event is also very informative in this regard, since it was clearly run to create more sympathy for the Republicans and further blackwash the Democrats, as well as to escalate the Red/Blue wars.

So we can say it was run by the Red side of Intel.

XVII. A powerful faction, which does not appear to be the "Blue faction," is currently blowing the cover of the Kirk event through various platforms like YouTube and Rogan.

But some faction in Intel is now blowing the cover of the event, via Youtube, Rogan, Infowars, and many other sites, and the uncanny thing is that it doesn't look like the Blue faction doing it.

Neither Red nor Blue wants to blow cover, or further damage the old Wurlitzer, for obvious reasons: that would be to point at the man behind the curtain, which is themselves.

XVIII. This entity operating in the gap between Red and Blue factions can only be the Deep State, owing to its extensive reach.

So what we seem to be seeing, even at Youtube, is some powerful entity moving into the gap between Red and Blue, and thwarting the interests of both for some reason.

This entity can only be what has heretofore been called the Deep State—only they would have that reach.

XIX. Three possible reasons exist for the Deep State thwarting the interests of both Red and Blue factions: genuine change, strategic backing off, or further deception.

I can see only three possible reasons.

1) The top rulers have seen the light to some extent, deciding to be more benevolent, 2) The top rulers have heard my warnings, agreeing that it is politic to back off somewhat for the time being, 3) This is just a further turn of the invisible screw, whereby we are lulled into further complacency by a few bones being thrown our way, before the final crush.

XX. The most useful form of governance for the ruling class involves feigned benevolence, as the carrot often works better than the stick, especially when facing public resistance.

In governance, a feigned benevolence can take you further than a poorly cloaked malevolence.

the carrot working better than the stick, especially when the mule is already balking.

STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT: RULING CLASS SCHISMS AND THE EVOLVING INFORMATION ENVIRONMENT

Deep State Fragmentation and the Paradoxical Shift Towards Transparency

Prepared for Internal Review Date: September 29, 2025 (Based on Source Material)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Page 1: Executive Summary & Key Findings

Executive Summary

Recent developments suggest a profound and intensifying fragmentation within the United States ruling class and its associated Intelligence Community (IC), referred to herein as "The Split"1. This schism, driven by systemic size and complex internal competition2, is leading to unprecedented instability in information control and presenting operational challenges for achieving full-on tyranny1.

Crucially, a powerful, heretofore unseen entity—the Deep State—appears to be intervening in the gap between the established Red (Republican/Conservative aligned) and Blue (Democrat/Liberal aligned) factions of Intelligence, thwarting the interests of both34. This intervention is manifesting as controlled information leakage and tactical attacks on previous high-priority assets, specifically Big Pharma5.

Key Findings

1. Systemic Loss of Control: The governors have experienced a significant loss of information control, becoming "hoist on their own petards" by the chaos they initiated, which allows truth to leak out, either by intention or oversight1.

2. Intelligence Community Polarization (CIA vs. DHS): A clear institutional rivalry exists between the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)26. DHS, associated with "blackest of the black hats" like Cheney and Rumsfeld, favors immediate, visible tyranny ("jackboot grinding in your face")2, while the CIA represents older-school fascism and comparatively "grayer shades of black"2.

3. Explicit Political Manifestation: The political dynamic of the Trump regime explicitly highlights the CIA/DHS split6. Donald Trump, while "RED all the way," publicly endorsed the CIA 1000% at Langley and demonstrated overt contempt for DHS, advocating for its defunding or abolition via Project 20256.

4. Strategic Shift against Big Pharma: A large, deep consortium, operating above the Executive Branch front (e.g., Trump), has initiated a targeted campaign against Big Pharma57. This initiative is causing real financial harm and damage to public opinion, accelerated by events like the Tylenol fiasco and public statements linking vaccines and autism (e.g., Trump nodding to the Amish)57.

5. Emergence of a Third Faction (Deep State): A powerful entity is utilizing high-production, non-citizen journalist media (YouTube, Rogan, Infowars) to blow the cover of events orchestrated by the IC factions38. This entity has the reach of the Deep State and is acting against the standard protocol of both Red and Blue factions, who usually seek to maintain cover and avoid pointing at "the man behind the curtain"34.

Implications and Scenarios

The intervention of the Deep State suggests three primary strategic possibilities49:

Scenario

Description

Likelihood (Source-Based Assessment)

A

Genuine Benevolence: Top rulers have experienced a moral shift and decided to back off from current oppressive strategies4.

Highly unlikely; ruling class is "almost wholly self-interested"910.

B

Politic Back-Off: Rulers recognize that current aggressive tactics are self-harming (e.g., burning the Phoenix) and are temporarily shifting strategy based on warnings or self-preservation9.

Plausible; suggests calculated self-interest and awareness of systemic risks910.

C

Invisible Screw Turn: A tactical feigned benevolence (throwing a few bones) designed to lull the populace into further complacency before the "final crush"9.

Plausible; aligns with the concept that "fake altruism" and "feigned benevolence" are highly useful forms of egoism and governance10.

The most likely underlying motivation remains self-interest, recognizing that a poorly cloaked malevolence is less effective than strategic, feigned benevolence—the "carrot working better than the stick" when resistance is rising10.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Page 2: Introduction and Contextual Drivers of Internal Conflict

1. The Paradox of Total Control: Operation Chaos and Truth Leakage

The foundation of the ruling class's enduring power has been the deliberate maintenance of ignorance among the populace1. For millennia, this strategy proved highly effective1. However, current governmental operations utilize Operation Chaos, which requires the continuous dumping of vast amounts of content, inadvertently mixing in "a lot of truth"1.

This paradoxical approach, originally intended to foster confusion and maintain control, is now failing1:

• Information Saturation: The rise in total available information has led to a consequential loss of control by the governors, a development they failed to anticipate1.

• Unspinnable Admissions: Admitting even a fraction of crimes is ultimately detrimental and "unspinnable" if the goal is absolute, full-on tyranny1.

• Self-Inflicted Damage: The chaos intended to manage the population has boomeranged, making the governors "victims of the chaos they themselves created"1.

2. Systemic Drivers of the Intelligence Split

The expansion and complexity of the US security apparatus have inadvertently created the conditions for profound internal schism2. Initially, the vast size of the US population and area was beneficial for the governors, making organized revolution extremely difficult2. Post-Watergate, however, the exponential expansion of Intelligence agencies reversed this advantage2.

2.1. Escalation of Internal Competition:

• Resource Competition: Initial conflicts were simply competitions for resources among subagencies2.

• Ideological/Strategic Competition: Conflicts quickly escalated into competition over long-term strategic plans, encompassing different "forms and flavors of tyranny" and varying "speeds of execution"2.

2.2. The 9/11 Catalyst (DHS Formation):

The formation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) following 9/11 solidified the institutional split2. DHS immediately began competing with the established CIA2.

Agency/Faction

Ideological Alignment

Strategic Approach

Comparative Stance

DHS (Black Hats)

Linked to figures like Cheney and Rumsfeld2.

Advocates for direct, rapid, and aggressive tyranny ("jackboot grinding")2.

The "blackest of the blacks hats"2.

CIA (Grayer Shades)

Represents older-school, traditional fascism2.

More measured, slower execution of tyranny2.

Made to look "relatively charming" by DHS actions2.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Page 3: Deep Dive: The CIA/DHS Schism and Political Fronts

3. Explicit Evidence of the Institutional Schism

The conflict between the CIA and DHS transcends mere bureaucratic rivalry and is observable through high-level political posturing and policy execution6.

3.1. Trump Regime as a Proxy Battleground:

The behavior of Donald Trump, despite being categorized as "RED all the way," provides explicit confirmation of the CIA/DHS rivalry6:

• CIA Endorsement: Early in his first term, Trump delivered a speech at Langley, assuring the CIA of his "1000% support"6.

• DHS Antagonism: Simultaneously, Trump expresses deep disregard for DHS and its founders, despising the Cheneys6.

• Policy Initiatives: Concrete actions against DHS include the nomination of Kristi Noem (characterized as a "hairdo/nobody") to head the agency, signaling disrespect6. Furthermore, the platform of Project 2025 explicitly includes proposals for defunding or even abolishing DHS6.

3.2. Red/Blue Factions and the Wurlitzer Mechanism

The broader IC split is often simplified into Red (Republican-aligned) and Blue (Democrat-aligned) factions, with each utilizing propaganda (the "Wurlitzer") to advance its agenda3.

• Red Faction Goal: Generally seeks to benefit Republicans, create sympathy, and "blackwash" Democrats (e.g., initial intent of the Charlie Kirk event)3.

• Blue Faction Goal: Seeks to counter Red narratives, often by attempting to spin events (e.g., Jimmy Kimmel blaming the Kirk event on MAGA)3.

Crucially, neither the Red nor the Blue faction has an interest in blowing the cover of major orchestrated events, as this would expose the mechanisms of the Deep State itself—pointing at the men behind the curtain3.

4. Coordinated Attack on Big Pharma

The recent, highly significant strategic shift involves a consortium far larger than the Executive Branch, executing a deep and impactful attack on pharmaceutical interests57.

4.1. Financial and Public Opinion Damage:

• This campaign is not originating from Congress5.

• The attack is causing billions in losses for Pharma, affecting both government contracts and direct consumer sales5.

• Public opinion is rapidly deteriorating5.

4.2. High-Profile Messaging:

The consortium is utilizing high-level fronts (such as Trump) to promote specific, damaging narratives7:

• The Amish Narrative: Trump's "shout-out to the Amish for their lack of autism" serves as a direct, high-impact nod confirming the strategic pivot against vaccines57.

• Actor Protection: Trump is merely the actor fronting far bigger interests7. His protection, and the protection of other key figures like Robert F. Kennedy, comes from "way above," ensuring the strategy survives potential changes in political leadership (e.g., assassination)7.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Page 4: Analysis of Operational Shifts and Third-Party Intervention

5. Shifts in the Information Ecosystem

The recent "reversal of wind" in information flow indicates a new level of strategic coordination that deviates from standard Red/Blue operational procedures8.

5.1. Censorship Relaxation and New Content Profiles:

Previously, after the Sandy Hook event, YouTube systematically deleted citizen journalist videos questioning mainstream events, allowing only government-originated, slick mainstream productions8. This has changed:

• New Videos: Many new channels are popping up, seriously questioning established narratives (e.g., the Charlie Kirk event)8.

• Production Quality: These videos are "very slick," indicating professional backing rather than "the guy next door"11.

• Intel Fronts as Informers: Agents who are clearly Intelligence fronts (e.g., Matt Kibbe from BlazeTV, noted for promoting figures like Friedrich Hayek, who must not be trusted due to his establishment backing1112) are now actively informing the populace about sensitive subjects, such as Fauci and vaccines11. These agents are attacking genuinely evil people11.

5.2. Analysis of the Charlie Kirk Event Cover Blow

The Charlie Kirk event provides the clearest example of the institutional conflict and the emergence of the powerful third entity3.

Phase

Faction Involved

Motivation/Outcome

Evidence/Actions

Phase 1: Orchestration

Red Faction (Likely DHS connected)

To escalate Red/Blue wars, create Republican sympathy, and blackwash Democrats3.

Erika Kirk's mother works for DHS, suggesting a potential DHS connection to the event12.

Phase 2: Spinning

Blue Faction

To spin the event against opponents (e.g., blaming MAGA)3.

Jimmy Kimmel's actions are noted as Blue faction spinning3.

Phase 3: Cover Blow

Unknown (Deep State)

To thwart the interests of both Red and Blue factions for undisclosed strategic reasons34.

Videos appearing on YouTube, Rogan, and Infowars completely blowing the cover, suggesting the entire event was a fake38.

It is speculated that if the event was run by DHS, the CIA might be blowing their cover to further damage the rival agency12. However, the complicated position of Trump, who promoted the Kirk storyline but also targets DHS, suggests intricate, tangled webs where directors may utilize Trump to support the story short-term while still finding a way to later blackwash DHS through the event12.

6. Defining the Deep State Intervener

The powerful entity moving into the informational gap, thwarting the efforts of both Red and Blue Intel factions, can only be what has been historically termed the Deep State4. This entity is defined by its extensive reach, allowing it to manipulate information flows across major platforms4.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Page 5: Strategic Implications and Future Scenarios

7. Strategic Assessment of Deep State Motives

The key question remains: Why is the Deep State acting against the short-term, controlling interests of its own factions? The three primary scenarios (A, B, C) are based on the core motivation: benevolence versus self-preservation versus manipulation49.

7.1. Feigned Benevolence (Egoism as Altruism)

The most compelling explanation focuses on high-level strategic egoism10:

• Calculated Self-Interest: The rulers are realizing that their own self-interests are being undermined by the current, highly visible state of governance10.

• Avoiding Catastrophe: A poorly controlled, visible system risks self-immolation ("avoid burning up to start with")9. It is strategically safer to remove "the torch from the pyre beneath the Phoenix"9.

• The Carrot over the Stick: In governance, effective control is often achieved when a "feigned benevolence" or "fake altruism" is employed10. When the populace ("the mule") is already balking, the carrot (throwing a few truths or "bones") works better than the stick (poorly cloaked malevolence)910.

This realization transforms some members of the ruling class into "the most dangerous revolutionaries of all," ironically driven by their commitment to self-interest10.

7.2. Historical Context of Controlled Opposition:

The use of agents and controlled opposition (e.g., Matt Kibbe) that appear to be telling the truth, even while working for Intelligence fronts (BlazeTV/Glenn Beck), reinforces the Deep State’s capacity for controlled narrative11. Warnings about tyranny, when delivered by established fronts (e.g., Hayek, promoted by General Motors and Look magazine; or Orwell), should be treated with skepticism, as they may not be what they seem12.

Conclusion: Navigating the Split

The Intelligence Community split, driven by exponential expansion and competing visions of tyranny2, has destabilized centralized information control1. The rise of a powerful third entity (the Deep State) that actively undermines Red and Blue faction events, particularly targeting powerful entities like Big Pharma35, represents a major strategic pivot.

The shift toward limited transparency and attacks on high-profile targets is not likely driven by genuine benevolence, but by a refined strategy of self-preservation and calculated manipulation—a highly useful form of egoism intended to maintain long-term control by slowing the pace of the crush910. Stakeholders must recognize that all actors in this saga are promoted and protected from "way above"7, and that webs of allegiance remain intensely tangled12.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Exhibits (Source Citations)1

Mathis, M. "THE SPLIT," September 29, 2025. (Discussion of Split, Operation Chaos, loss of control, and unspinnable crimes.) 2 Mathis, M. "THE SPLIT." (System size, post-Watergate expansion, DHS/CIA split, black hats/grayer shades.) 6 Mathis, M. "THE SPLIT." (Trump's support for CIA, disdain for Cheneys/DHS, Project 2025.) 8 Mathis, M. "THE SPLIT." (Reversal of the wind, censorship post-Sandy Hook, new slick videos.) 11 Mathis, M. "THE SPLIT." (Matt Kibbe example, Intel fronts informing populace, attacking evil people.) 5 Mathis, M. "THE SPLIT." (Attack on Big Pharma, Amish/autism shout-out, Tylenol fiasco, financial harm.) 7 Mathis, M. "THE SPLIT." (Trump as a front, large consortium, protection of actors.) 3 Mathis, M. "THE SPLIT." (Charlie Kirk event, Red/Blue wars, third faction blowing cover.) 4 Mathis, M. "THE SPLIT." (Deep State entity, three reasons for action.) 9 Mathis, M. "THE SPLIT." (Benevolence assessment, backing off, invisible screw.) 10 Mathis, M. "THE SPLIT." (Fake altruism, feigned benevolence, carrot over stick, self-interested revolutionaries.) 12 Mathis, M. "THE SPLIT." (Hayek/Orwell warning, DHS/Erika Kirk connection, CIA blowing DHS cover, tangled webs.)