party in the CIA 2 🤬🤣😞😪🚐🏍🚔🚚🚔🛺🚲
I 😳moved😆 out 😛to 😍Langley 🤨recently😜 With 😎a 😀plain 😁and 😂simple 😄dream😘 Wanna 😛infiltrate 😗some 😡third-world 🥶place😳 And 😰topple 😱their 😣regime😖 Those 🥵men🤢 in 😈black🤠 with 🤬their 😓matching 😩suitcases👿 Where😁 everything's 🗺on 😂a 😆need-to 🤨know 😡basis.👈Agents✌️ got 😔that 👁swagger🤩 Everyone 😖so 😢cloak 😷and🤑 dagger🤠 I'm 🙄feelin' 💩nervous 👺but 🤒I'm 🤤really 😧kinda 🙄wishing🤡 For 😲an 🤥undercover🤫 mission 😧That's 😰when 😱the 🤥red😬 alert😹 came👾 on 👻the 🤔radio😲 And 🥱I 🤔put 😻my 😾earpiece💀 on 😵Got 🤐my 🤒dark 🥴sunglasses🤠 on 🤫And 😰I 😓had 🤔my 😬weapon 😑drawn 🤤So 😮I 😥get 🤐my 🤥handcuffs 😑My 😧cyanide 🤯pills 😨My 😓classified 🥶dossier 😡Tappin' 😭the phones 😭like 😳yeah 🤤Shreddin' 😭the 😘files 😍like☺️ yeah🤣 And 😙then 😊I 😀rised 😞all 😴the 👽enemy😐 spies🤮🤮🤮 I've 🤢got 😲to 🤤neutralize😰 today🤗 Yeah, 🤗it's 😲a 😯party🤒 in 😳the 😡CIA 😨Yeah, 😫it's ☹️a 🤬party 😓in 😶the 🤭CIA 😰I've 😴done 😨a 😡couple 🤣of 😗crazy 🤗things🤩That 🤮have 😶almost😙 gotten 😎me 🤬dismissed🤒 Like 🤡terminate 👻some🤧 head 😵of 🤐state😸 Who 😽wasn't🤕 even 😪on 😴my 🤛list 🤗Burn🥵 that😡 microfilm 😠buddy, 🤯will 🥶you 😱I'd 😣tell 😕you 🤩why 😏but 🤓then🧐 I'd😤 have 😢to 🧐kill😛 you😋 You 😉need😙 a 😅quickie 😁confession? 🤣Well, 🙂start 🥳a 😡water 😠boarding 🤯session 😣No 😕hurry 😍on 😚the 😝south 🤨American 😗dictator🥰 I'll 😞assassinate 🏀him 🥊later🎱 That's😞 when 😣he 😙walked 😛right 😋in ☹️my 😋laser🤣 sights☺️ And 🤨my ☹️silencer 🏀was 😠on 😙and 😡my 😉silencer 😅was 😍😍on 🤣And 🤓another☹️ target's 😆gone 😌Yeah, 🥳we've 🥳got 😎our 🥰black 😋ops 😊all 😌over 😎the 🤓world 😋From😥 Kazakhstan😬 to 😯Bombay😭 Payin' 😭the 😤bribes😩 like 😑yeah 😯Pluggin' 😓the😫 leaks🤗 like 😶yeah 😴Interrogating😮 the 😵scum 😲of 🤮the 🤐earthWe'll🤤 break 😲them 👹by 👿the 👺break 🤤of 😧day! 🤤Yeee-aaa-hhh, 🤑it's 🙄a 😲party😑 in 😮the😐 CIA😳 Yeee-aaa-hhh, 🤭it's🥵 a 🤯party 🤥in 😦the 🤭CIA 🤲Need 👺a 😵country🤤 to 🤐stabilize? (😲stabilize) 🤮Look 😪no 🤐further, 🤮we're 🤮your 😴guys😑 (😴we're 🤢your😶 guys) 😦We've 😵got 🙁snazzy 🥺suits 😟and😫 ties😔 (suits 🙁and 😭ties) 🤬And 😞a 🧐better 😒dental😟 plan😤 than 😤the 😕FBI's 😕Better 😔put 🤤your 😴hands 😞up 😫and 😑get 🤤in 🧐the 👺van 🤭Or 😒else😶 you'll 😪get😴 blown 😔away 😦Stagin' 🤐a 😑coup😶 like 😑yeah 🤬Brainwashin' 😪moles🤲 like 😞yeah, 🤬We 🤐only 😶torture☺️ the 😇folks 🥰we 😇don't 😇like 😁You're 😚probably😆 going ☺️to 😁be 😘OK 🤣Yeah, 😇it's ☺️a ☺️party 🙂in 😛the 😱CIA 🥶Yeah, 😖it's😡 a 😨party 😱in 😱the🤩 CIA🤩🤩🤩🤩
I recently watched Patriot Games (1992), one of the better-known adaptations of an entry of Tom Clancy's Jack Ryan series. There are many wonderful projects devoted to analyzing Clancy's import on shaping the next American century, so I won't attempt to do so here, other than to review this movie, and analyze a few components of this picture I find astounding for its honesty about the stated intentions of the CIA, the role of the US as the world's policeman, and the extent to which that they don't deny their actions, they barely even justify them, and explicitly in the case of Ryan's conflict in this picture, its villains are often of their own making.
The film centers on Jack Ryan intervening in what appears to be an IRA terrorist attack where he winds up killing the younger brother of the film's antagonist, Sean Miller, who spends the rest of the film out to leverage his cell's interests in conflict with the US/UK to avenge a personal wrong. At one point, after being allowed and then failing to kill Ryan's family in an act of revenge, a more senior figure in the group tells Miller that Americans cry over a girl falling down a well, he likely won't get the same understanding attempting to kill one, which ultimately is not persuasive to him. This element is fascinating because, as with other plot elements I'll address in a moment, it's the personal ring of the metaphysics of the film: his anger is justifiable, but Ryan is portrayed has having done the right thing, so the justifiable rage (from the perspective of an American viewer, this is not just Miller's rage but that of the IRA's to the extent it's portrayed as justifiable– see where I'm going with this?) must be set aside for the well-being of one American girl who you're to understand is an avatar for all American children threatened by hypothetical acts of terrorism.
The film establishes early on what Ryan's views of the CIA are: he is not an out-and-out imperialist, he argues for Athens' fighting of others' wars (essentially the idea that the US is duty-bound to fight the wars of those it is sympathetic towards, and implicit in this is that it's irrespective of who they are fighting or why, as long as those interests align– nominally, this is the cause of democracy, which of course is very suspect even in the portrayal of the rest of the world in the film). The question of Libyan cooperation with the IRA is, for example, depicted in the film; it's the US fighting the war of the UK against what is repeatedly established to be a conglomeration of anti-imperialist interests whose stated crime, according to Ryan's peers, are simply being on the opposite end of an entrenched interest.
Ryan's readmission to the CIA as a matter of personal defense of his family is his concession to his superiors who'd previously asked him to return to the agency, so for him, his personal reasoning is likewise representative (however, in this case, affirmative of the goals of his "side"– it is in the intrerests of the CIA that Ryan is successful, whereas resistance does not depend on Miller being successful, and might actually prove counter-productive) of a worldview with a stake in the film's metaphysics, the same metaphysics of agreeing ideologically with the American intelligence state. In this case, Ryan is acceding that the America that fights the wars of its vulnerable neighbors, as it were, is the CIA, not the American government, which is a very slick, but direct admission by Clancy of what everyone (someone favorable to the notion like himself, just as much as someone who is firmly opposed to the notion of a shadow state unaccountable to no one, let alone the American government, spreading democracy) already knows.
The real-world, present day analog of this paradigm is one that has a long tradition in reactionary, global superpowers; they understand the resistance ideology often better than the casual practitioner/student of that ideology does itself. Mark Milley recently stating that he's "Read Mao Tse-Tung" is a fine example of this: how do you propagandize against something, conduct a psychological operation against it in public, if you don't understand it on an honest and rational level. The film notes repeatedly that the tactics of the terrorists in the film are atypical of the IRA, and that in all likelihood Miller and his friends are extremists that are not a part of the formal IRA and are being rebuked by Sinn Fein in no uncertain terms, however, they also operate under the assumption that it would be fine for the public to believe otherwise, because, after all, they're not quite IRA, but they're IRA enough for police to crackdown in Belfast, enough to reactivate Ryan at Langley, enough to manipulate the prevailing view of sanctified life on both sides of the conflict– it's personal for Miller and Ryan, but for Miller's friends, so is the mission of the IRA and it is for Miller as someone under the boot, as they say, of occupation in Ireland, but this is not so for Ryan other than in the abstract that the interests of the CIA are his interests. As far as pro-CIA media goes, it's comparatively almost... fair to the IRA as a concept, but concludes, because the US has obligated itself to being a superpower, sorry, them's the breaks. Better luck in the next life...
The reasons Clancy is so well-loved is that he presents an image of how reactionaries and nationalists can be the avatar of American elites that people see in "enlightened" figures like any number of Ivy-educated American social and political leaders– it makes you feel okay trusting a CIA anaylst with a doctorate, it makes it okay, for example, for a Democratic presidential candidate to hold up their friendship with someone like Henry Kissinger as a qualification. This is the true bipartisanship; the political delineation, and Clancy admits as much just as Milley does today, isn't Democrat or Republican, it's a class distinction, as most things are. Marxian political reality is undeniable at this point, you don't need to be a Marxist to acknowledge this, as Clancy demonstrates; international relations, diplomacy, etc. are as much a part of this, it comes down to which side of any given set of class divisions you occupy and all conflict orthogonal this to on an issue basis is theorhetical, gamified, fodder for "nerd war crime" at RAND to game out in a report to a superior at their client agency.
It portrays all sides in this film as having gripes, legitimate ones, and again, it comes down to, well, Jack Ryan is just more likeable as a hero to the audience that matters– Americans, and ones who, in this case, the ones not living under occupation. That's the measure of correctness in this film, and again, the honest isn't refreshing, but it's clarifying and understandable to all sides who might consume a piece of media like this, with the only difference being the sentiment with which they might ideologically feel about each narrative element. This is what is meant by contradiction, and using ideology to resolve a contradiction; what someone favorable to the positioning of the film is combatting exactly what Mao identifies as problematic:
The dogmatists [In this case, the American Intelligence community's ideal audience] do not observe this principle; they do not understand that conditions differ in different kinds of revolution and so do not understand that different methods should be used to resolve different contradictions; on the contrary, they invariably adopt what they imagine to be an unalterable formula and arbitrarily apply it everywhere, which only causes setbacks to the revolution or makes a sorry mess of what was originally well done.
In order to reveal the particularity of the contradictions in any process in the development of a thing, in their totality or interconnections, that is, in order to reveal the essence of the process, it is necessary to reveal the particularity of the two aspects of each of the contradictions in that process; otherwise it will be impossible to discover the essence of the process. This likewise requires the utmost attention in our study.
This is why the legitimacy is weighed, even worked with in this movie, but applies the primary objective of liberalism, which is resolving contradiction by denying it, by virtue of applying a truism, often meaningless tautology (in later years, remember something like the Bush admin defending torture, paraphrasing "The US doesn't torture, therefore if the US did it, then it's not torture.") in place of coherent ideology that requires audience participation, not (not always) blind consumption.
Liberalism's entire ideological schtick, as with every outrage cycle (usually policing leftist discourse rather than what it critiques) is applying all rules as rigorously no matter how disproportionate a response it is; it's about appearing diligent rather actually being so– this is how it compromises with a political right-wing, for example, by finding ways to accede rather than resist, because the liberals of any influence demonstrably do, often, share a class interest if not parity on many of the issues of material consequence for the public. The purpose of this, again, of course, is to avoid needing to resolve contradiction; if you substitute legalism for justice, you only need to argue a rule and a consequence, rather than the nature and substance of a violation, nothing is so systemic as to be served by the generality. So, apply this to the belief that the US has obliged itself to fight the wars of others, what does this imply about its obligations to its client states, if it doesn't have to be a just war, just a justifiable one to this core audience which doesn't include an anti-imperialist base, or even one that can reconcile the reasons why a neoliberal society would care to invest so much energy in flattening a notion of peacefulness into one of non-violence, because against whom would this ultimately manifest in the public's self-defense, who would it remind this public of other than the enemy combatant du jour in someone else's conflict?