CMR is the leading provider of funding and management support for small to medium-sized businesses and entrepreneurs 

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz is quite upset, after Vladimir Putin quoted German philosopher Immanuel Kant - who the Russian president called "one of the greatest thinkers of both his time and ours," and said that the philosopher's call "to live by one's own wits" is relevant today.

"A country must live by its own wits… This does not mean that we do not care about the interests of others... but we will never allow Russia’s interests to be neglected. In some countries, among our neighbors, this thesis has been forgotten. Many live by someone else’s wits. This will not bring them any good," Putin told a group of college students in Kaliningrad - where Kant was born in 1724 (previously known as Königsberg, which belonged to the Kingdom of Prussia before becoming part of the Russian empire).

According to Scholz, "Putin doesn’t have the slightest right to quote Kant, yet Putin’s regime remains committed to poaching Kant and his work at almost any cost," he told an audience at the Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences, Die Zeit reports.

According to Scholz, the Russian invasion of Ukraine is not in alignment with Kant's teachings - noting that the philosopher spoke of the interference of states in the affairs of other nations. He also defended Ukraine's decision not to enter into peace talks with Moscow, and that 'forced treaties' could not achieve 'perpetual peace' - something Kant spoke of.

Putin has praised Kant over the years - suggesting in 2013 that he should be made an official symbol of the Kaliningrad Region.

Kaliningrad administrators hit back at Scholz' comments - saying in a Tuesday statement that nobody has done more than Russia to "perpetuate the memory of the great philosopher and his teachings," adding "Immanuel Kant died as a subject of the Russian crown. It seems to me that this, more than any words of all possible German politicians, shows the position of the great philosopher regarding Russia."

Kant was born in 1724 and died in 1804, and spent his entire life in Königsberg. During his later years, specifically from 1758 until his death, Königsberg and the entirety of East Prussia temporarily came under Russian control due to the events of the Seven Years' War (1756-1763). Although Prussia regained control over Königsberg after the war, Kant's status during those specific years was technically as a subject of the Russian Empire.

In 2011, Bhutan sponsored a UN resolution that invited governments to prioritize happiness and well-being as a way to measure social and economic development.

And thus, the World Happiness Report was born.

In 2012, the first report released, examining Gallup poll data from 2006–2010 that asked respondents in nearly every country to evaluate their life on a 0–10 scale. From this they extrapolated a single “happiness score” out of 10 to compare how happy countries are.

More than a decade later, the 2024 World Happiness Report continues the mission to quantify, measure, and compare well-being. Its latest findings also include how countries have become happier in the intervening years.

Visual Capitalist's Pallavi Rao visualizes these findings in the chart below, which shows the 20 countries that have seen their happiness scores grow the most since 2010.

Which Countries Have Become Happier Since 2010?

Serbia leads a list of 12 Eastern European nations whose average happiness score has improved more than 20% in the last decade.

In the same time period, the Serbian economy has doubled to $80 billion, and its per capita GDP has nearly doubled to $9,538 in current dollar terms.

Since the first report, Western Europe has on average been happier than Eastern Europe. But as seen with these happiness gains, Eastern Europe is now seeing their happiness levels converge closer to their Western counterparts. In fact, when looking at those under the age of 30, the most recent happiness scores are nearly the same across the continent.

All in all, 20 countries have increased their happiness score by a full point or more since 2010, on the 0–10 scale.

Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.us,

In October of 2023 in my article ‘It’s A Trap! The Wave Of Repercussions As The Middle East Fights “The Last War”’ I predicted that a multi-front war was about to develop between Israel and various Muslim nations including Lebanon and Iran. I noted:

“Israel is going to pound Gaza into gravel, there’s no doubt about that. A ground invasion will meet far more resistance than the Israelis seem to expect, but Israel controls the air and Gaza is a fixed target with limited territory. The problem for them is not the Palestinians, but the multiple war fronts that will open up if they do what I think they are about to do (attempted sanitization). Lebanon, Iran and Syria will immediately engage and Israel will not be able to fight them all…”

So far, both Lebanon and Iran have directly engaged Israeli military forces and civilian targets. Syrian militias are also declaring they will once again start attacking US military bases in the region. In my article ‘World War III Is Now Inevitable – Here’s Why It Can’t Be Avoided’ published on April 5th I noted that:

“I warned months ago…that the war in Gaza would expand into a multi-front conflict that would probably include Iran. I also warned that it would be to Israel’s benefit if Iran entered the war because this would eventually force the US to become directly involved. To be sure, Iran has already been engaging in proxy attacks on Israel through Lebanon, but Israel’s attack on the Iranian “embassy” or diplomatic station in Syria basically ensures that Iran will now directly commit to strikes on Israeli targets.”

Iran did indeed commit to a large scale missile and drone based attack on Israel, a situation which has had some curious consequences. Of course, US naval forces aided Israel’s Iron Dome in shooting down the majority of drones and missiles sent by Iran. However, even though there are several videos showing that some cruise missiles hit their targets, the Israelis have been reticent to admit that any damage was done.

I suspect it’s because the cruise missiles struck military targets instead of civilian targets and Israel doesn’t want to release any information on what was hit. Iran’s drones were likely meant to act as decoys for anti-air defenses. They are much cheaper than the missiles used by Israel and the US to shoot them down.

Whether or not these strikes had any real affect on Israeli offensive capabilities we’ll probably never know. What we do know is that Israel’s counter-strike was much smaller than most analysts expected. Does this mean that the tit-for-tat is over and both sides are going hands-off? That would probably be the smart decision, but no, that’s not what’s happening here.

Israel’s limited response was likely due to a lack of clarity on how much the US government under Biden is willing to participate in the war during an election year. What we will see in the next six months is a steady escalation towards winter, followed by new bombardments with far more extensive destruction than we recently witnessed.

In other words, spring is just the dress rehearsal for what will happen in winter.

Here are the most probable scenarios as 2024 rolls forward…

Air Strikes On Iran

I have little doubt that Israel will commit to extensive aerial strikes on Iran this year or very early in 2025, and we’ll see very quickly if Russian air defense technology sold to the Iranians is effective or ineffective. Iran’s drone program may be useful in helping to even the playing field against Israeli fighter jets, but then again, the technology gap could be extensive.

The Israeli public position will be that their strikes are focused on taking down any existing Iranian nuclear labs. There is no solid evidence that Iran has made much headway in developing nukes (they might have dirty bombs), but the notion of nukes is more than enough in terms of public relations and justification for the war.

Iran Blocks The Strait Of Hormuz

The Strait of Hormuz would be at the top of the list of primary targets for Iran. It is the narrowest point of access to the Persian Gulf and oversees the passage of around 25%-30% of the world’s total oil exports. Blocking it is relatively easy – All Iran has to do is sink a few tankers into the shallow waters or destroy enemy ships passing through, creating a barrier that will make transport of oil impossible.

This would also make naval operations for Israel or the US difficult. Clearing obstructions would take time and expose forces to Iranian artillery which can be fired from up to 450 miles away. Once artillery is locked in on a narrow point or pasage, nothing is going to get through. As we’ve seen in Ukraine, a blanket of artillery fire is essentially unstoppable.

Anti-ship missiles wouldn’t even be necessary and would probably prove less effective, unless they are hypersonic. Iran can also utilize its small fleet of diesel submarines to deploy naval mines in the strait.

Once the Hormuz is disrupted and global oil shipments slow down the US military will join the war if they haven’t done so already.

Israeli Attack Leads To Ground War With Iran/Lebanon

A ground war between Iran and Israel is inevitable if the tit-for-tat continues, and much of it will be fought (at least in the beginning) in Lebanon and perhaps Syria. Iran has a mutual defense pact with both countries and Lebanon is generally a proxy for Iranian defense policy.

Iran will have active troops or proxy forces in all of these regions, not to mention the Houthis in Yemen striking ships in the Red Sea. There are questions in terms of how Iraq will respond to this situation, but there’s not a lot of love between the current government and Israel or the US.

The Iraq government did not initially condemn the attack by Hamas against Israel on October 7th and has voiced support for the Palestinians in Gaza. It’s unlikely that they would willingly allow the use of their territory for projecting an offensive against Iran. The use of Saudi Arabian and Kuwaiti territory is possible for invasion IF the US gets involved, and the Persian Gulf would be a primary point of attack. But, both the US and Israel lack enough regional bases needed to project large scale ground forces into Iran (keep in mind that bases in Afghanistan are now gone).

Turkey is another staging ground for US forces but they certainly don’t like Israel, meaningTurkey is going to be off limits. Like Iraq, I think it will be difficult to convince Turkey, a vocal defender of Gaza, to support an invasion force or exploit their border for operations.

What about Pakistan? No, not a chance. It’s important to remember that many of these nations have worked with the US in the past, but they have angry populations to deal with. Support for an attack on Iran could lead to civil unrest at home.

The war would mostly be fought by air and by sea with US and Israel seeking to dominate the Persian Gulf. A lot of the ground fighting will be done in neighboring countries. A direct invasion of Iran would be an exhaustive affair with mountain terrain that must be reached by going through allied territories.

Can it be done? Yes. Could the US and Israel/allies win? Yes, as long as the goal is destruction and not occupation. Would it be costly? Absolutely. Far too costly to be acceptable to the western public these days, and a war that would require extensive military recruitment or a draft which Americans in particular will not tolerate.

Gas Prices Skyrocket

Think gas prices are high now? Just wait until 25% of the world oil exports are locked out of the market for months at a time. We might see double the prices at the pump; perhaps even triple, and that’s not counting the inflationary conditions already ongoing in the west.

This would be a disaster for the economy as energy prices affect EVERYTHING else. Costs on the shelf will climb right along with oil.

Military Draft And Attacks On Liberty Activists

Below the surface, there are many benefits to expanding the war in the Middle East for the globalists. War can be blamed for the inflationary collapse they created. War can be used as an excuse to implement even more aggressive censorship standards in Europe and the US. War can be used to create a military draft which will trigger great unrest in the US and some parts of the EU. War could invariably be used to rationalize martial law. And, it could even be used to stall or disrupt elections.

At bottom, the war in Ukraine, the war in the Middle East and the many other regional wars that will probably erupt in the next few years have a cumulative effect that causes confusion and chaos. All that is needed is a short period of disarray and a lot of economic panic and the public may even forget who created the mess in the first place Liberty activists caught in the middle of these events will take action to defend their freedoms, and I have no doubt we will be accused of “aiding foreign enemies” or working as “agents of the Russians, Iranians, etc.”

Russian Involvement And World War

Given that NATO has seen fit to engage in a proxy war in Ukraine it makes sense that Russia would return the favor and engage in a proxy war in Iran. Don’t be surprised to see a lot of discussion in the media in the coming months about Russian “advisers” in Iran as well as Russian weaponry. Russia already has military bases in Syria and defense agreements with Iran. It would appear that the US and allies are being set on a collision course with Russia that will lead to direct kinetic interactions.

At this stage world war will already be well underway. Russia and the US may never actually try to strike each other’s territory and nuclear exchange makes little sense for anyone (especially the globalists who would lose their financial and surveillance empire in the blink of an eye) but they will be fighting each other in regional wars in multiple spots across the globe. It seems to me that this process has already been set in motion, and once the avalanche starts, it’s very hard to stop.

*  *  *

If you would like to support the work that Alt-Market does while also receiving content on advanced tactics for defeating the globalist agenda, subscribe to our exclusive newsletter The Wild Bunch Dispatch.  Learn more about it HERE.

Russia has just vetoed a very rare and interesting resolution set before the United Nations Security Council focused on banning nuclear weapons in space:

The treaty bars signatories, including the U.S. and Russia, from placing "in orbit around the Earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction" or anywhere else in outer space.

On Wednesday Russia registered the lone veto which shot down the draft resolution aimed ultimately at preventing a future nuclear arms race in outer space.

China was the only abstention while the US was among the 13 UNSC members that voted in favor. It had been drafted and brought forward by the US and Japan.

In February the US government alleged that Russia was preparing to deploy a 'space weapon' which might be nuclear, which subsequently set off a frenzy of media speculation. 

Reuters  had reported at the time, "The space-based weapon U.S. intelligence believes Russia may be developing is more likely a nuclear-powered device to blind, jam or fry the electronics inside satellites than an explosive nuclear warhead to shoot them down, analysts said."

The Kremlin has blasted what it characterized as a "malicious fabrication". It claimed US officials were seeking to distract the public and ram through more foreign aid and defense spending in Congress.

The US press release summarizing Wednesday's failed resolution included the following description:

The detonation of a nuclear weapon in space would destroy satellites that are vital to communications, agriculture, national security, and more worldwide, with grave implications for sustainable development, and other aspects of international peace and security. The diverse group of cosponsors of this resolution reflects the strong shared interest in avoiding such an outcome.

Additionally National Security Council spokesman John Kirby warned that in the absence of any international prohibition or treaty, nukes in space could cause "physical destruction" on Earth.

Putin issues orders for nuclear space program https://t.co/t07yQ26tku pic.twitter.com/IGJQf0MTf2

— Newsweek (@Newsweek) April 11, 2024

US Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield after Moscow's no vote lashed out at Russia's ambassador: "Today's veto begs the question: why? Why, if you are following the rules, would you not support a resolution that reaffirms them? What could you possibly be hiding," she said.

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times,

Children who received an original COVID-19 vaccine have little protection against hospitalization just months after vaccination, according to a new study from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Children initially have 52 percent protection against hospitalization but that estimated effectiveness plummeted to 19 percent after four months, according to the paper.

Protection against so-called critical illness also dropped sharply, from 57 percent to 25 percent, researchers found.

The researchers include CDC employees and the paper was published in the CDC’s weekly digest on April 18.

The study covered children who received two or more doses of the original Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna COVID-19 vaccines from Dec. 19, 2021, through Oct. 29, 2023.

The study involved children aged 5 to 18 who were hospitalized with acute COVID-19 and tested positive for the illness and compared them to a control group of children hospitalized with COVID-19-like symptoms but who tested negative for COVID-19.

Researchers drew data from the Overcoming COVID-19 Network, which includes health care sites in most of the United States, and ended up with 1,551 case patients and 1,797 in the control group.

The study found that “receipt of =2 original monovalent COVID-19 vaccine doses was associated with fewer COVID-19–related hospitalizations in children and adolescents aged 5–18 years; however, protection from original vaccines was not sustained over time,” Laura Zambrano, a CDC epidemiologist, and her co-authors wrote.

It also recorded a similar drop in protection against critical illness, defined as being placed on mechanical ventilation, vasoactive infusions, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, or dying.

The researchers asserted that the results highlighted the current CDC guidance that all people aged 6 months and older receive one of the newest COVID-19 vaccines, which were introduced in the fall of 2023 with clinical data from just 50 humans and no efficacy estimates. The CDC only publishes papers in its weekly digest, the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, after they’re shaped to “comport with CDC policy.” The papers are not peer-reviewed.

Ms. Zambrano did not respond when asked for data suggesting that the currently available shots provide longer-lasting protection than the original vaccines.

The CDC’s website says, in promoting vaccination, that COVID-19 vaccines are “effective at protecting people from getting seriously ill, being hospitalized, and dying” but the hyperlink that ostensibly supports the statement goes to a page that is not live.

U.S. authorities have been moving COVID-19 vaccines to a once-a-year model, similar to influenza vaccines. The model features updating the formulation of the vaccines on an annual basis, in an acknowledgment that any protection the vaccines give quickly wanes. The formulation is typically updated in the fall.

Just 14 percent of children, and 23 percent of adults, have received one of the newest vaccines as of April 6, according to CDC estimates. The available vaccines are messenger RNA (mRNA) shots from Pfizer and Moderna and an alternative from Novavax.

Dr. Jane Orient, executive director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, noted that, according to the new paper, the maximum effectiveness estimates against hospitalization were 61 percent, regardless of how the data were sliced, that more deaths were recorded among the case patients, and the median hospitalization duration was four days for both groups.

“I do not see how a clinician whose concern is treating patients and whose job does not depend on pushing mRNA vaccines would find this a basis for recommending shots—quite the contrary,” Dr. Orient, who was not involved in the research, told The Epoch Times in an email.

“It reeks of conflict of interest.”

Stated limitations of the paper include not assessing post-infection immunity and a lack of sequencing data.

The conflict of interest section runs 688 words and includes some of the authors reporting funding from Pfizer and Moderna or ownership of Pfizer stock.