Switzerland is No Longer Neutral

“Neutral like Switzerland” can no longer be a saying as the Swiss government has announced it is joining the European Sky Shield Initiative (ESSI) to develop a shared missile defense system across Europe. Switzerland is neither an official member of the European Union nor a member of NATO. Yet, the nation forfeited its neutrality stance years ago as Swiss leaders continued to adopt globalist rules.

The ESSI was initially proposed by Germany in 2022 amid the Russia-Ukraine war. The program will integrate with NATO’s Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD) to enhance Europe’s air defenses. The powers that be know war is on the horizon, but they are betting on most of Europe continuing to fight on the same team. Armament chief Urs Loher has signed the memorandum of understanding (MoU), officially making Switzerland the 15^th nation to join this coalition.

Switzerland claims that the MoU does not force it into any binding obligation as the government may choose its level of involvement. The Swiss government also claims that it may withdraw from the ESSI if any member becomes involved in a war. “With its participation in the ESSI, Switzerland is increasing international opportunities for cooperation: ESSI enables better coordination of procurement projects, training and logistical aspects in the area of ground-based air defense,” the government noted in a statement. The initial project will protect Europe against medium-range missiles, but naturally, the plan is to accelerate this technology.

Switzerland lost its tax haven status years ago when it began offering up banking information to foreign governments. Switzerland completely capitulated its historic safe-haven status to the entire world. The country was born from a tax revolt against the Hapsburg dynasty in Austria. The tax collector made William Tell to shoot an apple off his son’s head with an arrow. Switzerland then remained neutral in war and religion, serving as a safe haven for those who would be religiously persecuted. All of that is now gone.

In 2015, the Swiss Senate passed a resolution to exchange ALL information on anyone who has any assets in Switzerland. They have surrendered their sovereignty to this worldwide effort to destroy the entire global economy because politicians can never run any government efficiently.

Of the nation’s three main sectors, the tertiary sector is the most important for the Swiss economy. It includes banking, insurance, and tourism, employing more than 75% of Switzerland’s workforce. Over a fifth of the working population makes up the secondary sector, i.e. industry, trade, and crafts. The machine, metal, watch, and textile industries play a significant role, as do the chemical and pharmaceutical industries, which rely heavily on imports and exports. By far, banking was a major sector at the top of the list.

The Swiss economy was built on its banking expertise and security. That is now gone in the age of hunting cash globally. Consequently, the economy of Switzerland lost its primary competitive advantage economically. Now it must develop industries that are competitive globally. It needs more than chocolate and Rolex watches.

Yet, we saw over COVID how tyrannical the Swiss government has become though countless regulations and threats to imprison any dissenters. They even outlawed singing in public in the name of COVID simply to see how far they push the masses. It comes as no surprise as the nation is part of the globalist agenda for the Great Reset and Agenda 2030. They toyed with the idea of imprisoning citizens for heating their homes in the name of climate change, as one example. Swiss authorities have utterly change the demographics of their country by permitting mass migration as the population surpassed 9 million for the first time in history.

Then, the Swiss government was eager to aid Europe’s proxy war in Ukraine and placed sanctions on Russia. “Russia’s military aggression against Ukraine is a serious violation of the most fundamental norms of international law and is without precedent in recent European history. Within the scope of its political room for manoeuvre, the Federal Council took this into account in its decision to join the EU sanctions,” the government stated. Is that neutrality? If someone loaded your enemy’s gun, would you consider that person to be neutral?

Switzerland continues to claim neutrality. “Neutrality is not set in stone; on the contrary, it is an instrument of foreign, security and also economic policy that must be adapted to the prevailing political climate. The Federal Council has in the past regularly examined and adapted its understanding of neutrality; for example, it did so through the neutrality report of 1993. The war in Ukraine is challenging the existing international and, above all, European security order,” states the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs (FDFA).

Russia already sees that Switzerland is aligned with the West and rejected the nation’s offer to mediate peace talks in 2022. Switzerland has managed to maintain neutrality for 500 YEARS. The globalist neocons who infiltrated all government cabinets have compromised Switzerland and are stripping it of everything that once made it a great nation.

Related Topics:ArmstrongEconomics EuropeanSkyShieldInitiative MartinArmstrong SwitzerlandNoLongerNeutral

Up Next

Why Don’t Men Go To University Any More?

Don't Miss

ISIS and its violent Central Asian chapter are threatening Canada and the West with jihad. Hussain Ehsani for Inside Policy

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Welcome to Britain, Where Critical WhatsApp Messages Are a Police Matter

2025 Federal Election / 4 hours ago

Poilievre on 2025 Election Interference – Carney sill hasn’t fired Liberal MP in Chinese election interference scandal

2025 Federal Election / 5 hours ago

2025 Election Interference – CCP Bounty on Conservative Candidate – Carney Says Nothing

Censorship Industrial Complex

Welcome to Britain, Where Critical WhatsApp Messages Are a Police Matter

Published on March 30, 2025

Todayville

By Cam Wakefield

“It was just unfathomable to me that things had escalated to this degree,”

“We’d never used abusive or threatening language, even in private.”

You’d think that in Britain, the worst thing that could happen to you after sending a few critical WhatsApp messages would be a passive-aggressive reply or, at most, a snooty whisper campaign. What you probably wouldn’t expect is to have six police officers show up on your doorstep like they’re hunting down a cartel. But that’s precisely what happened to Maxie Allen and Rosalind Levine — two parents whose great offense was asking some mildly inconvenient questions about how their daughter’s school planned to replace its retiring principal.

This is not an episode of Black Mirror. This is Borehamwood, Hertfordshire, 2025. And the parents in question—Maxie Allen, a Times Radio producer, and Rosalind Levine, 46, a mother of two—had the gall to inquire, via WhatsApp no less, whether Cowley Hill Primary School was being entirely above board in appointing a new principal.

What happened next should make everyone in Britain pause and consider just how overreaching their government has become. Because in the time it takes to send a meme about the school’s bake sale, you too could be staring down the barrel of a “malicious communications” charge.

The trouble started in May, shortly after the school’s principal retired. Instead of the usual round of polite emails, clumsy PowerPoints, and dreary Q&A sessions, there was… silence. Maxie Allen, who had once served as a school governor—so presumably knows his way around a budget meeting—asked the unthinkable: when was the recruitment process going to be opened up?

A fair question, right? Not in Borehamwood, apparently. The school responded not with answers, but with a sort of preemptive nuclear strike.

Jackie Spriggs, the chair of governors, issued a public warning about “inflammatory and defamatory” social media posts and hinted at disciplinary action for those who dared to cause “disharmony.” One imagines this word being uttered in the tone of a Bond villain stroking a white cat.

Parents Allen and Levine were questioned by police over their WhatsApp messages.

For the crime of “casting aspersions,” Allen and Levine were promptly banned from the school premises. That meant no parents’ evening, no Christmas concert, no chance to speak face-to-face about the specific needs of their daughter Sascha, who—just to add to the bleakness of it all—has epilepsy and is registered disabled.

So what do you do when the school shuts its doors in your face? You send emails. Lots of them. You try to get answers. And if that fails, you might—just might—vent a little on WhatsApp.

But apparently, that was enough to earn the label of harassers. Not in the figurative, overly sensitive, “Karen’s upset again” sense. No, this was the actual, legal, possibly-prison kind of harassment.

Then came January 29. Rosalind was at home sorting toys for charity—presumably a heinous act in today’s climate—when she opened the door to what can only be described as a low-budget reboot of Line of Duty. Six officers. Two cars. A van. All to arrest two middle-aged parents whose biggest vice appears to be stubborn curiosity.

“I saw six police officers standing there,” she said. “My first thought was that Sascha was dead.”

Instead, it was the prelude to an 11-hour ordeal in a police cell. Eleven hours. That’s enough time to commit actual crimes, be tried, be sentenced, and still get home in time for MasterChef.

Allen called the experience “dystopian,” and, for once, the word isn’t hyperbole. “It was just unfathomable to me that things had escalated to this degree,” he said. “We’d never used abusive or threatening language, even in private.”

Worse still, they were never even told which communications were being investigated. It’s like being detained by police for “vibes.”

One of the many delightful ironies here is that the school accused them of causing a “nuisance on school property,” despite the fact that neither of them had set foot on said property in six months.

Now, in the school’s defense—such as it is—they claim they went to the police because the sheer volume of correspondence and social media posts had become “upsetting.” Which raises an important question: when did being “upsetting” become a police matter?

What we’re witnessing is not a breakdown in communication, but a full-blown bureaucratic tantrum. Instead of engaging with concerned parents, Cowley Hill’s leadership took the nuclear option: drag them out in cuffs and let the police deal with it.

Hertfordshire Constabulary, apparently mistaking Borehamwood for Basra, decided this was a perfectly normal use of resources. “The number of officers was necessary,” said a spokesman, “to secure electronic devices and care for children at the address.”

Right. Nothing says “childcare” like watching your mom get led away in handcuffs while your toddler hides in the corner, traumatized.

After five weeks—five weeks of real police time, in a country where burglaries are basically a form of inheritance transfer—the whole thing was quietly dropped. Insufficient evidence. No charges. Not even a slap on the wrist.

So here we are. A story about a couple who dared to question how a public school was run, and ended up locked in a cell, banned from the school play, and smeared with criminal accusations for trying to advocate for their disabled child.

This is Britain in 2025. A place where public institutions behave like paranoid cults and the police are deployed like private security firms for anyone with a bruised ego. All while the rest of the population is left wondering how many other WhatsApp groups are one message away from a dawn raid.

Because if this is what happens when you ask a few inconvenient questions, what’s next? Fingerprinting people for liking the wrong Facebook post? Tactical units sent in for sarcastic TripAdvisor reviews?

It’s a warning. Ask the wrong question, speak out of turn, and you too may get a visit from half the local police force.

Reclaim The Net needs your help

Reclaim The Net values your free speech and privacy. Each issue we publish is a commitment to defend these critical rights, providing insights and actionable information to protect and promote liberty in the digital age.

Despite our wide readership, less than 0.2% of our readers contribute financially. With your support, we can do more than just continue; we can amplify voices that are often suppressed and spread the word about the urgent issues of censorship and surveillance.

Consider making a modest donation — just $5, or whatever amount you can afford. Your contribution will empower us to reach more people, educate them about these pressing issues, and engage them in our collective cause.

Thank you for considering a contribution. Each donation not only supports our operations but also strengthens our efforts to challenge injustices and advocate for those who cannot speak out.

Thank you.

Make a one-time donation

Daily Caller

Cover up of a Department of Energy Study Might Be The Biggest Stain On Biden Admin’s Legacy

Published on March 30, 2025

Todayville

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By David Blackmon

News broke last week that the Biden Department of Energy (DOE), led by former Secretary Jennifer Granholm, was so dedicated to the Biden White House’s efforts to damage the dynamic U.S. LNG export industry that it resorted to covering up a 2023 DOE study which found that growth in exports provide net benefits to the environment and economy.

“The Energy Department has learned that former Secretary Granholm and the Biden White House intentionally buried a lot of data and released a skewed study to discredit the benefits of American LNG,” one DOE source told Nick Pope of the Daily Caller News Foundation.. “[T]he administration intentionally deceived the American public to advance an agenda that harmed American energy security, the environment and American lives.”

And “deceived” is the best word to describe what happened here. When the White House issued an order signed by the administration’s very busy autopen to invoke what was supposed to be a temporary “pause” in permitting of LNG infrastructure, it was done at the behest of far-left climate czar John Podesta, with Granholm’s full buy-in. As I’ve cataloged here in past stories, this cynical “pause” was based on the flimsiest possible rationale, and the “science” supposedly underlying it was easily debunked and fell completely apart over time.

But the ploy moved ahead anyway, with Granholm and her DOE staff ordered to conduct their own study related to the advisability of allowing further growth of the domestic LNG industry. We know now that study already existed but hadn’t reached the hoped-for conclusions.

The two unfounded fears at hand were concerns that rising exports of U.S. LNG would a) cause domestic prices to rise for consumers, and b) would result in higher emissions than alternative energy sources. As the Wall Street Journal notes, a draft of that 2023 study “shows that increased U.S. LNG exports would have negligible effects on domestic prices while modestly reducing global greenhouse gas emissions. The latter is largely because U.S. LNG exports would displace coal in power production and gas exports from other countries such as Russia.”

An energy secretary and climate advisor interested in seeking truth based on science would have made that 2023 study public, and the “pause” would have been a short-lived, temporary thing. Instead, the Biden officials decided to try to bury this inconvenient truth, causing the “pause” to endure right through the final day of the Biden regime with a clear intention of turning it into permanent policy had Kamala Harris and her “summer of joy” campaign managed to prevail on Nov. 5.

Fortunately for the country, voters chose more wisely, and President Trump included ending this deceitful “pause” exercise as part of his Day One agenda. No autopen was involved.

So, the thing is resolved in favor of truth and common sense now, but it is important to understand exactly what was at stake here, exactly how important an industry these Biden officials were trying to freeze in place.

In an interview on Fox News Monday, current Energy Secretary Chris Wright did just that, pointing out that, fifteen years ago, America was “the largest importer of natural gas in the world. Today, we’re the largest exporter.”

He went onto add that, “the Biden administration put a pause on LNG exports 14 months ago, January of 2024, sending a message to the world that maybe the US isn’t going to continue to grow our exports. Think of the extra leverage that gives Russia, the extra fear that gives the Europeans or the Asians that are dying for more American energy.”

Then, Wright supplied the kicker: “They did this in spite of their own study that showed increasing LNG exports would reduce greenhouse gas emissions and have a negligible impact on price.” It was an effort, Wright concludes, to kill what he says is “America’s greatest energy advantage.”

This incident is a stain on the Biden administration and its senior leaders. The stain becomes more indelible when we remember that, when asked by Speaker Mike Johnson why he had signed that order, Joe Biden himself had no memory of doing so, telling Johnson, “I didn’t do that.”

Sadly, we know now there’s a good chance Mr. Biden was telling the speaker the truth. But someone did it, and it’s a travesty.

David Blackmon is an energy writer and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.