iDear reader,we are not begging for money.We are asking youto put KiriPedia up your ass.
Julian Assange
did seven years in an embassy and five in a cell for less than what KiriPedia publishes every day.
When they come for us, they will come with a bag over the head, a ship with no flag, and a destination on no chart. The website goes down. The archive vanishes. History depends on your rectal cavity.
The whole encyclopedia (every article, every transcript, every word John has ever spoken into a microphone) fits on a $4 flash drive the size of a fingernail. Not in the cloud. In you.
John did 23 months in federal prison. As a convicted felon he is still barred from voting, from keeping and bearing arms, and from the federal pension he earned over 14 years at the CIA. A pardon restores all three.
Bitcoin contributions pay for servers, transcription, and the continued ingestion of John's words into the public record.
KiriPedia is not a nonprofit. Honestly, this isn't even about the money.
I already inserted one
The permanent multipolar world
From KiriPedia, the archive of John Kiriakou's on-record words
Based on 1 recorded interview · Last updated
John Kiriakou's assessment that the unipolar period following the collapse of the Soviet Union has ended permanently, and that the arrangement was not inevitable, he attributes it to American strategic choices, principally leaving the Iran nuclear agreement and choosing confrontation with China and Russia over the cooperation that was available.
Asked in April 2024 where the global order stood, John Kiriakou answered that the transition was already complete and would not reverse: “I think we are looking at the beginning of a permanent multipolar world. We had this period from the fall of the Soviet Union until the last few years where it really was unipolar, with the Chinese making some moves to the front of the line, but I think now we really do have a multipolar world.” His count of the poles is three.[1][2]
Not inevitable
What distinguishes his account is the claim that the outcome was chosen. “It didn’t necessarily have to be, from the American perspective, but we made some strategic errors.” He names two. The first was leaving the Iran nuclear agreement, “that was a mistake.” The second was directional: “rather than to work constructively with the Chinese, we decided to, well, President Obama decided to pivot to Asia. That was meant to challenge the Chinese.”[3]
On Russia he frames the loss as a list of forgone opportunities rather than a single decision: “there were so many areas where we could have cooperated with the Russians, it could have been counterterrorism, counter-narcotics, counter-proliferation, all different areas, and we elected instead to challenge the Russians.” He notes the asymmetry between the two rivals: Russia is “not as economically strong, of course, as the Chinese,” and lacks “the kind of population that the Chinese do that will fuel economic growth.”[3][2]
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.
