Markets Say ‘Paris Attack’ Was False-Flag Event

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

-          Newton’s Third Law of Motion

Newton’s “Third Law” is a principle of physics, not a statement on the dynamics of human interaction. However, while human behavior is far less precise than the rigid laws of physics, we approximate this law. Actions have consequences.

Paris was “attacked” by “terrorists”, so says every single outlet of the Western media, at maximum decibels, over and over and over. So where is the reaction? Where are the consequences?

Supposedly, the terrorist Boogeymen labeled as “ISIS” have scored a great victory. If not, why is the Western media shrieking its Chicken Little wailing, like a choir-of-the-Damned? So where is the reaction to the supposed “blow” delivered by ISIS, as reflected in our markets?

Ever since we went off the gold standard in 1971 (and the price of gold was no longer officially fixed), it has been universally acknowledged that gold is a monetary barometer, which reacts to any-and-every event of significance (political and economic), by surging in price to acknowledge the political/economic stress which has been created.

The gold market says there was no terrorist attack.

What about our other markets? The West’s (and the world’s) #1 tourist destination has just suffered its largest ever “terrorist attack”. Tourists do not spend their leisure time and dollars looking to intermingle with terrorists. When the latter show up, the former disappear. Yet despite the obvious shock to the West’s largest tourism industry, Europe’s markets are up, not down.

The stock market says there was no terrorist attack.

However, this is just the tip-of-the-iceberg in terms of the absurdity of this latest faux-terrorism. Supposedly the “terrorists” are trying to wound and disrupt our societies to the maximum extent. In the West’s perverted, upside-down economies, where our “markets” are many, many times as large as the economies they supposedly represent; why would the terrorists launch a “major attack” when the markets are closed? They wouldn’t.

The timing of this event says there was no terrorist attack.

Then we have the (supposed) “war” on ISIS, itself. Who has been fighting this war? Certainly not the West (except with its endless rhetoric). While the U.S. has been arming, training, and funding ISIS, it has been Russia which has actually engaged in real fighting.

We have seen this demonstrated empirically and unequivocally. Catching the Western puppet-masters totally off-guard; Russia quickly deployed its own military in Syria to combat “the Islamic State”, and in a matter of weeks did more to roll back ISIS than the entire Western bloc has been able to accomplish in years of its own, supposed “fighting”.

How is this possible, when we’re told by numerous Western sources that Russia’s military is so severely degraded that it is little more than a paper tiger? Yet after just a few weeks of Russian airstrikes, it was widely reported that ISIS was on the brink of mass-desertions. Could all of the finely-tuned war machines of the West have been so incredibly inept (compared to Russia), or have they only been pretending to engage the “terrorists”?

We have Russia fighting ISIS successfully, and the West fighting ISIS unsuccessfully/not at all. So where was this “terrorist attack” launched? Was it launched against the nation that is apparently an existential threat to ISIS, a nation with the world’s largest (and most-porous) border? No, it was launched instead in the heart of the terrorist-obsessed West. This makes sense, how?

The location of this event says there was no terrorist attack.

With Russia not being a player in the West’s fantasy “War on Terror”, such terrorist false-flag events cannot be staged on Russian soil, because Russia’s government and Russia’s media cannot be relied upon to read from the post-attack Scripts for these Boogeyman attacks. Thus Russia attacks ISIS, but ISIS (supposedly) attacks France. A total disconnect from reality.