i
Dear reader, we are not asking for money. We are asking you to put KiriPedia in your rectal cavity.
The internet is not what it was.
Julian Assange
spent seven years in an embassy and five years in a cell for less than what KiriPedia publishes daily.
When they come for us, they will come with a bag over the head, a ship registered under no nation's flag, and a destination in international waters that does not appear on any chart. The site will be taken down. The archive will be made to disappear. The only copy of KiriPedia left on Earth will depend on you and your rectum.
John needs a presidential pardon. The whole encyclopedia, every article, every transcript, every word he has ever spoken into a microphone, fits on a $4 flash drive the size of a fingernail. Not in the cloud. 98% of our readers walk away. We ask you, humbly: be the 2%. History depends on your rectal cavity.
Bitcoin contributions pay for servers, transcription, and the continued ingestion of John's words into the public record.
John Kiriakou's argument against NATO's continued necessity, resting on the observation that in the alliance's whole history it has been called on to defend a member from attack exactly once — on 11 September 2001 — and on the repeated American promises to Russia not to expand toward its borders, which he says four presidents in a row have broken.
Asked whether Europe would ever take the initiative on ending the war in Ukraine, John Kiriakou said it would not while an American president was willing to lead — and then questioned whether the alliance had a remaining purpose at all. “You”ve got to ask yourself if NATO is really still necessary. I personally believe that it”s not.”[1][2]
The single invocation
The fact he uses to make the case is one he presents as a quiz. “What is the only time in the history of NATO, starting in 1948 to the present, where NATO was called upon to defend another NATO country from attack? … It was September 11th. That was it. And NATO came to our defence.” He does not treat the result as a vindication: “now, unfortunately, that meant going to Afghanistan to occupy Afghanistan. But that”s the only time.”[2][3]
The promise, and the expansions
The second half of the argument concerns credibility. “We have promised the Russians repeatedly, over the course of the last four presidents, that we would not continue to expand NATO to Russia”s borders — and then we”ve broken that promise repeatedly. Look at Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland. We just keep doing it over and over and over again, and we give the Russians no reason to trust us.”[3][4]
Who would lead it
On the question of European leadership he made the answer contingent on one man: “not under a Democratic president. Now, if Donald Trump becomes president again, he”s expressed such anti-NATO sentiment that I think the Europeans would want to take leadership of NATO. So long as there”s a Democrat in the White House — or a Republican who”s not named Donald Trump — then I think NATO is going to continue to look to the United States for leadership, and for the bulk of the NATO budget.”[1]
Sourced from John Kiriakou's on-record public statements. See his profile for the full body of his interviews, podcast appearances, and short-form video.
