Socialism, Accommodation, Armed Neutrality, and Swiss Sovereignty

JLH has translated three articles about current issues in Switzerland. All of them have in common the fear that the Swiss federal government is attempting to surrender the country’s ancient traditions of liberty, autonomy, and local governance.

The process pushing the Swiss towards accommodation with the New World Order comes both from the outside — via the hegemonic aspirations of the European Union — and the inside, from progressive-minded big-state Gutmenschen.

The translator includes this note:

The first two articles have to do with the encroaching power of the EU. The third — hinted at in one of the others — is dismally familiar as a socialist trend in our own countries.

Some of us think of the Swiss as the last bastion against the creeping despotism of the EU, but the tiny country that defied a mighty empire to become free is under external and internal pressure to morph into another one of the marbles in the game being played by the unelected elites of the EU. I just hope that the SVP is able to use the referendum effectively as before, but what is happening to the country is not unfamiliar to any of us in Europe or America.

At the top in the EU and in every country in and outside of it, there is a web of intrigue and greed that I think of as “Where the elite meet to cheat.”

As someone said here not too long ago: “God help us all.”

The first article is from Neue Zürcher Zeitung:

Christoph Blocher Warns Against a Silent Coup

by Stefan Hotz

Alfred Heer, president of the SVP (Swiss People’s Party) of Canton Zurich, did not hold back in his welcome address on Friday evening in the Schützenhaus Albisgütli. In his opinion, the intention of the national government to apply for a seat for Switzerland in the UN Security Council is a sign of megalomania.

In the face of the malaise in the asylum system, the Bundesrat (Federal Council) is acting “like a stupid elementary school child incapable of doing the simplest homework, but dreaming of someday being a professor at Harvard,” said Heer.

The Albisgütli as the Cradle of Freedom

Then, as every year, the national councilor Christoph Blocher strode up to the podium, in front of at least 1200 people. The former Bundesrat councilor recalled that almost twenty years ago the Zurich SVP was the first cantonal party to reject the European Economic Area. And so the hall in the Albisgütli became the cradle of freedom and independence. Quite possibly this hall would one day be as important a memorial for Swiss freedom as Rütli.[1]

In Blocher’s view, the highly indebted European states and the United States are conducting a financial and economic war against Switzerland. Instead of resisting, those responsible in Bern would fold and continue to accommodate.

“Durehebe” — Blocher’s Call to Persevere

The speaker dwelled at length on a report commissioned by the Bundesrat and authored by Professor Daniel Thürer in 2011, on the implementation of the bilateral treaties with the EU. Blocher interpreted the language in it as an attempt to effectuate entry to the EU without a plebiscite, even as a coup by the government and administration.

The remedy for that, he said, is: “Durehebe — nöd lugg laa gwünnt.”[2] Specifically, Blocher demanded that all bilateral agreements that bind Switzerland to accept EU law and foreign jurisdiction be subject to an obligatory referendum. Otherwise, a referendum must be activated, as also against the removal of the Depositors’ Right to Privacy.

“Welfare-Sponger” Initiative only Touched Upon

To combat treasonous proposals and the obsequious behavior of the government, Blocher demanded that meetings of the Bundesrat be public.

The SVP councilor touched only briefly on the “Welfare-Sponger” initiative, which was talked about in recent days. Much more important, said Blocher, is the blueprint for family policy, which will be voted on March 3rd. It will occasion costs in the billions and will disenfranchise families.

Maurer’s Plea for the Military Draft

The guest speaker, Federal President Ueli Maurer, did not say one word about Blocher’s speech. With reference to Henry Durant, he characterized the humanitarian tradition as an important guidepost for Switzerland. But the basis for its good works is armed neutrality.

This gave Maurer opportunity for a plea for a universal military draft: “An army of volunteers is not enough to ensure security.”

Under Pressure

Faced with the debt crisis, the sovereignty of small countries like Switzerland, he said, will come under pressure. “We must see to it that the law — not power — means something,” said the president. “We want to live in freedom and in peace with other countries.”

The 150th anniversary of the Red Cross this year, according to Maurer, is an opportunity to demonstrate the humanitarian tradition of Switzerland.

1.   Where the four cantons bound themselves by oath to resist the imperial Habsburg army.
2.   Wild guess by non-Schwyzerdütsch speaker: “Persevere, don’t loosen your grip, and you’ll win.”


The second article is from the Swiss People’s Party website:

Switzerland is Not Dependent on a New Agreement With the EU

The SVP asks that the Bundesrat react calmly to the message from EU commission president Barroso on the relations between Switzerland and the EU. Switzerland is not dependent on any new agreement with the EU. The EU is demanding a dynamic legal takeover of Switzerland via present and future treaties. It does not accept national jurisdiction, preferring an institutional mechanism oriented to the EWR [EEA — European Economic Area]. The EU also expects further “cohesion payments.”

To agree to the EU’s demands would be to accept a colonialist treaty a là the EEA and to allow ourselves to be blackmailed. In its suggestions on the question of institutional matters sent to the EU in the summer, the Bundesrat has already gone too far. Switzerland is presently dependent on no new agreement with the EU. The existing agreements are already causing numerous problems (e.g., personal freedom of movement, Schengen), which must be addressed with the EU by the Bundesrat. Therefore, the Bundesrat must in no case react to the demands of the EU commission with further accommodations. The SVP absolutely rejects renewed payments into the “cohesion fund” as a result of Croatia joining the EU. There is no basis for that.

Also from the SVP:

No to the Nationalization of the Family

by National Councilor Rutz Gregor

The federal decision on family policy is a model whose consequences are nearly incalculable. Until now, it has been clear that the family is a private matter. Parents are responsible for the raising and care of children. Diverse laws and duties apply. When there are problems, the community is primarily responsible, where social committees attend to the relevant needs. Canton-wide decrees may apply here and there. This is all about to change. Family affairs are being declared federal business. At first glance, the model sounds friendly and harmless. Who would not want the federal government to be considerate of “the needs of the family”? Shouldn’t it be possible to combine family tasks and an occupation?

But that is not what it is going to be about on March 3rd. Put succinctly, it is dangerous and expensive. The impending federal decision is about a massive expansion of the socialist state. The comprehensive responsibilities of the federation will cost the taxpayers dearly. The new article to the constitution can spawn such claims that the financial consequences will be incalculable in extent.

The State Takes Care of Everything

One may justifiably ask what is still private. Down to the last inch, private life is regulated. Even ancient areas of family life are to be visibly transferred into the responsibilities of state organs. What is the constitutionally guaranteed protection of private and family life still worth? The tension between freedom and security also shows up here. Previously, rights and freedoms were understood as defensive rights against state interventions. The present welfare state, on the other hand, is shaped by an increasing mentality of entitlement. So freedom of the media is no longer a protection against state intervention against the press, but it is a task of the state, under the rubric of “public service,” to make as many programs as possible available. The impression is that personal freedom is best maintained when the state takes as many decisions as possible away from the citizen. The state is also exerting greater influence in sport and culture. Thanks to generous money streams, almost no one resists the increasing interventions from the bureaucracy. And now the family is to be declared an affair for the state.

The total care of the individual by the state seems to have become the leading thought of the welfare state. So that even the youngest are cared for, the state shall in the future make available “an adequate daily structure for families and the supplementing of school programs.” Further, the state will determine the “basis for facilitating the compatibility of family with an occupation or an education.” The financial consequences of the family proposal are serious. When UN authorities recommend 1% of gross domestic product for extra-familial care in the pre-school years, that means an annual expenditure of 5.5 billion francs for Switzerland. At present, we pay out one-fifth of that. Are the education, care and rearing of children really to be completely regulated by the state? The growing federal bureaucracy in the area of family is unhealthy — indeed absurd. We remember only too well the decree on child care with its diverse required authorizations for protecting children. If the justice department had succeeded then, the care of children would already be regulated down to the last detail: neighbors, friends, uncles and aunts needed official permission to regularly supervise their nephews, nieces or neighbor children. In the face of massive pressure, the justice department withdrew the ordinance, which would have required permission for care by uncles and aunts. Now it is back.

The state bureaucracy impedes many things. When private day nurseries are not built, the reason is often not a lack of entrepreneurial spirit. Exaggerated legal requirements, bureaucratic behavior by the relevant office-holders and competitive, wasteful spending driven by tax-subsidized government nurseries can destroy private initiative. Deregulation would bring families more than new paragraphs.

Politicians Want Laws

We have been fighting the same essential evil for centuries. When politicians want to make something happen, they pass laws, so they can show the voters that they have not been doing nothing. The family proposal can also be explained against this background. Because politicians wanted to “improve the situation,” they “expanded the constitution by one new article.” Many were unaware of the financial consequences, the shrinking of the private sphere, and the increasing centralization. Albert Einstein is supposed to have said: “To be a perfect member of a flock of sheep, one must first and foremost be a sheep.” Anyone who holds this vision for Switzerland may vote Yes on March 3rd. But whoever wants to protect families and ensure a political system based on individual responsibility and decentralized structures will vote No. Massive expansion of the socialist state and its wasteful consequences are the wrong path. An adventure we are better not to undertake.

3 thoughts on “Socialism, Accommodation, Armed Neutrality, and Swiss Sovereignty

  1. Switzerland is eroding, just some 20 years behind the rest of Western Europe and 10 years behind the US on the road to Orwellian Erewhon. However, it still has three major and unique advantages over the rest of the world: a tradition of liberty and self-determination, a federal structure, and SVP/Blocher. The .U.S., which has the former two , if to a lesser degree, could build on them too if it had the third: SVP/Blocher. Alas, it doesn’t. Its opposition. i.e. GOP, is so pitiful as to make any digs redundant; it’s like kicking a dying dog.

    Federalism provides a solution for both countries, though more so in Switzerland. That’s because its German-speaking cantons, except for Bern, are far more conservative and traditionally Swiss than the French-speakig cantons are. If things get much worse, the Germanics might consider bidding adieu to their French-speaking erstwhile compatriots. It would be a painful historical shock, but far easier to take than the creeping Eurabian-NeoMarxist madness infecting that once-blessed country.

    In the US such a separation between the Blues and the Reds would be more difficult, partly because the Blue margins bracket the large, fly-over Red in a continent-sized country.

  2. The only way to expose the ‘bought’ politicians, and it seems many in Switzerland
    have already been got at, is to somehow instal a policy of total financial
    transparency for ALL politicians. That means every time they go down to Carrefour supermarket for a litre of milk, the purchase will be recorded. Imagine we did that to Cameron or Blair, wow!!!

  3. I never liked Switzerland very much as a culture. It’s people always seemed rigid and not very imaginative to me. They were more German than the Germans.

    Nevertheless, I have to wish them well in this critical endeavor to maintain their freedom and independence. I would hope the first response of the German-speaking provinces would be to engage the French provinces in dialog and debate, rather than considering withdrawing altogether.

    Recall that the US Civil was was brought on by the southern reaction to the election of Lincoln. Lincoln himself was elected only because of the rigid determination of the southern states to support a regional candidate for president, Breckinridge, who was totally uncompromising on the slavery issue. As a result of the southern withdrawal from meaningful participation in the real presidential contest between Stephen Douglas and Abraham Lincoln, Lincoln won.

    The lesson is that sometimes a compromise is far better than a rigid adherence to principles, which keeps your philosophy pure, but erodes your ability to realistically shape your future.

Comments are closed.