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.
A New York Times column arguing that genocidal statements by Israeli officials after October 7 were intemperate rather than policy, which John Kiriakou answered with a test of his own: if the remarks had not been official policy, the officials who made them would have been fired, and instead two of them became ministers.
The Brett Stephens column is a New York Times opinion piece published in late July 2025 that John Kiriakou said he was “still haunted by” two days after reading it.[1]
The argument in the column
As Kiriakou summarises it, the column conceded that people who call the war in Gaza a genocide point to the genocidal comments made by high-ranking Israeli officials in the days after October 7, and answered that those officials “were just being intemperate. They were being spicy. They were just angry about October 7th.”[1]
The test he applies
Kiriakou does not dispute the premise directly. He grants it for the sake of argument — “let’s just say that, you know, we’re going to pretend here that Brett Stevens is telling the truth” — and then applies a single test. If the remarks had genuinely not been the official policy of the Israeli government, “those people would have been fired.”[2]
He supplies the response a government that meant it would have given, in the voice of a hypothetical Israeli president: “what are you doing? That’s not who we are. Please leave. Leave your ID at the door.” Instead, he says, the government “left them in there.”[2] His own view is that the policy is not in doubt in any case, “because all the journalists have reported that it is.”[2]
The two ministers
The officials he has in mind are Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir, and the point he adds is a matter of record rather than of interpretation: both “were successfully prosecuted for felony hate crimes against Palestinians years before ever becoming ministers in the Netanyahu government.”[3]
His measure of that record is Nuremberg. “People went to prison at Nuremberg for less,” he says, and reaches for Julius Streicher as the example — a man who, however nasty a piece of work, “just” published a newspaper.[3][4]
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.
