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 formulation of Israel as an intelligence partner whose cooperation is conditional rather than allied — friendly when it suits, and equally willing to deal with Russia, China or Germany — offered as the reason an Israeli-run source could end up passing American information to a service hostile to the United States, and given each time with an acknowledgement that saying it brings him threats.
The Israelis are free agents is the phrase John Kiriakou uses for a claim he makes about intelligence liaison rather than about politics: that Israeli cooperation with the United States is contingent, and that treating it as an alliance produces bad predictions about where American product ends up.[1]
He states it each time with a preface about what saying it costs him: “I’m going to get threats from the Israelis again. Every time I say something like this, I get threats — but I’m going to say it again anyway.”[1]
The claim
“The Israelis are free agents. The Israelis are not necessarily our friends. They are when it suits them. But when it suits them to be friendly with the Russians, they go with the Russians, or with the Chinese or the Germans or, you know, anybody. It doesn’t make any difference. The Israelis do what’s best for the Israelis.”
The operational consequence is the point of the formulation. If an Israeli-run access agent collects something of value, nothing in the relationship prevents it travelling onward: “if that means using a source like Jeffrey Epstein and passing information on to a hostile intelligence service — or at least one that’s hostile to the United States — that’s exactly what they’re going to do.”[2]
Where he applies it
He advances it in support of his standing reading of Jeffrey Epstein as an access agent most likely run by Mossad, and it is the premise behind his exchange with Alan Dershowitz about what an admission of Israeli espionage would actually have done to Epstein’s sentence.[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.
