Sunday, May 4, 2014

James Rickards Is Today's Guest on The Robert Wenzel Show

Today's Guest:
James Rickards

Miss a show? Here's the archive.
**Thanks to John Daubert, Head of Editing and Mastering.**


  1. Interesting interview. Was really hoping for your post-interview review. Time always constrains these interviews, of course, but the overall feel of the interview sounded strained. I haven't read his book, so take my comments, or not, with a grain of salt. Rickards was audibly uncomfortable sharing his cooperation with the CIA on your show. He knew where the questions were leading. His mention of Iglar Sechin and the Chinese head of the IMF was interesting, if only for identifying them by name. He offered nothing really on either account. Then Rickards cut the interview short. His explanation that Germany doesn't really want its gold and the US doesn't really want to give it to Germany sounded half baked.

    1. "His explanation that Germany doesn't really want its gold and the US doesn't really want to give it to Germany sounded half baked."

      In retrospect now, Rickards was way off on that one, wasn't he?

  2. Excellent take on the show. My thoughts exactly.

  3. Yeah I'd like a post-show wrap-up w/ Rossini on this episode. I think it would be cool if you took a day or two to review the interview and then released a follow-up mini-podcast on that. [Easy for me to make requests of your time though] In any case, his answers definitely felt like they needed more scrutiny. Look at his conclusion on "signal amplification" (I think that was what it was referred to). His takeaway was essentially to investigate the small guy (the small trades) rather than the big banks (who are just amplifying the small trades).

    Also he made some snide comment about 9/11 truthers ("I'll leave it to the internet conspiracy theorists" or something like that). Also on 9/11, he praised the 9/11 report (that he read cover-to-cover) with the exception that they just didn't have experts from the financial world involved in studying the insider trading plus "they had other things to do". Blaming it on the bureaucrats just seems awfully convenient/tidy.

    "Germany doesn't want their gold back" didn't ring true to me either.

    Also I wouldn't be surprised if there was a lot more to his association w/ the FBI. Would be interesting if someone researched that.

    Aside from that, Rickards definitely does come off as an intelligent guy. I'm not saying I'm convinced he's a phony either btw. Just that I think there's a real chance.

  4. Rickards was audibly uncomfortable as his kook-dar was on high alert. First a question about 9/11, then Robert started talking about his personal knowledge of political insiders, then a question about why HE was recruited, then questions about the CIA and specific banks, etc. Rickards was curt but quick to shoot this down as inappropriate, especially in this tone of voice. No single question was out there, but on the whole, his kook-dar went ballistic. Rickards goes to grave pains to keep his mainstream credibility - for example, saying a fractional gold standard is fine). By the end, Roberts was literally going through a list of insiders and asking "who they were", as if he was listing suspects in some world conspiracy. Rickards had to shut the conversation down himself at the end, as Roberts was showing no signs of winding the interview down.

    Finally as to Germany, Rickards makes a pretty sound case - the Bundesbank - you know, the people who are engaged in manipulation of gold - doesn't want it back because it's "out of play" unless it's in New York. Confusing that with "Germany wants it back" is meaningless. The question is, WHO in Germany wants it back. The public does, and certain parties do, but the Bundesbank obviously does not.

    Rickards is not a "phoney". What are you, Holden Caulfield?

    1. Yeah right. Rickards was scared shitless in the interview, Wenzel brings out that Rickards worked for the CIA and worked out of Langley. Then Wenzel draws out of him that he worked for Citigroup and Wenzel asks him about CIA operatives at Citi and Rickards doesn't deny the possibility that they are there but dodges the question.

      No wonder Rickards, rushed off the call, Wenzel had him by the balls.

    2. Scared shitless? More like annoyed. He had been drawn into what he regards as the gutter. "Had him by the balls" - yeah totally. HE WAS SO SCREWED! His secret life as agent 008 was uncovered! His collaboration with the CIA, that we _wrote a book about_ was totally "drawn out". He didn't dodge the question, he just flat-out said he doesn't know. Rickards "rushed" off the call at around the 30 minute mark, which was probably the allotted time. Normally hosts "wind-down" a conversation in the last minute, but Robert just kept going. Rickards was probably pissed at that too.

  5. Im half way through book and he pulls no punches. His views are very realistic on nos topics and he calls out the banking oligarchs, imf, etc. I was surprised at his analysis.

    We know for a fact those first 9/11 trades were made by Buzz Kongards firm Alex Brown and Sons and when Kaiser pressed him on it he was visably nervous.

    He brags about his work for DoD, NSA, etc and I'm sure he wants those fat checks to flow.....

  6. I found this interview fascinating, and the comments so far all very interesting, including the Anon @ 1:30PM who almost seems to be agenda driven.

    So it's clear that Rickards from this video (@ 5 mins in, to around 7:30) sees the SDR/IMF as the global solution to the broken money system. He seems just 'warm' on gold. (see his commentary on the vid @ 15 mins in)

    Clearly he has knowledge way behind the standard financial analyst probably due to his close ties to the CIA(and that of the consulting firm he words for-his boss was a CIA director).

    Great interview RW.

  7. Wetzel - How long was the interview scheduled for?

    He did the same thing more or less to Max Kaiser when he brought up that the original trades were made by Alex, Brown, inc and one A.B. Krongard, who luckily grabbed a job BACK at the CIA right after 9/11. It's all a little too nice and neat to be coincidence.

    I think Rickards tells it like it is and everything I've read so far I agree with. I think he spends too much time name dropping and does skirt some very serious issues especially regarding 9/11.

    It's not like we don't know who made the trades. I tried to start #showmethetradeticket on his twitter but w/ no success. The guy can't stop tweeting about how awesome he is I say we just hammer him on twitter.

  8. Interviews like that are great at exposing someone like Rickards as what he is. A tool for the system.

    Read Tragedy and Hope, et al regarding the dominating of all sides of the debate.

    His conclusions:

    1. Insider trading before 911. (No kidding, that has been established for a long time)
    2. The terrorists did the trading. (No evidence of this at all. This is similar to 911 conclusion that there was no evidence of insider trading because the terrorists were not connected to the trades. Fallacious logic)
    3. There is gold manipulation (no kidding)
    4. Again, we don't know who is doing it. Maybe China, US. ( Wrong again, international banking syndicate manipulates the markets. He should know that being so connected to the IMF and CIA. Here is the secret; he does know it.
    5. A quick dismissal of the detonation theories for the collapse of the building as crazy. ( Again, a form of ad hom argument )
    6. Was involved with the CIA at Langley, but downplays his role (BS)

    This guy is a complete fraud. Just because he parrots some issues we may agree with doesn't mean he is on your side.

    Good interview