In the Swiss cantons of Appenzell Innerrhoden and Glarus, the voting population gathers once a year for the “Landsgemeinde.”
In keeping with a long-standing Swiss tradition, they then vote on laws outdoors by a show of hands.
Following this example, a symbolic Swiss Landsgemeinde was held for the second time on May 23, 2026, on Bundesplatz in Bern.
Just outside Bern, between 500 and 700 participants gathered to vote on matters such as constitutional amendments, legislative
proposals, and loans, as is customary at “Landsgemeinden.”
Among other things, the following matters were discussed:
“Switzerland’s Neutrality” (pursuant to Art. 173/185 of the Federal Constitution)
“Vaccination Policies at the Federal and Cantonal Levels” (pursuant to Art. 10 of the Federal Constitution)
“Framework Agreements vs. Bilateral Agreements III” (pursuant to Art. 2 of the Federal Constitution)
The results of the non-binding votes were sent by certified mail to the Federal President, the two Presidents of
the National Council and the Council of States, and the Federal Chancellor for their information.
The organizers cite Article 6 of the Swiss Federal Constitution:
It states that every person must take responsibility for themselves and do their utmost to contribute to
the fulfillment of the tasks of the state and society.
They want to make the public aware that politicians often disregard the will of the
people and make decisions on their own authority.
However, Switzerland should remain independent and not submit to organizations such as the EU, NATO, and the WHO.
Ultimately, they are working toward a one-world government without nation-states.
The five speakers at this year's Landsgemeinde also advocated for these goals:
Christoph Pfluger, founder of the neutrality movement “bene.swiss”; Andrea Staubli, an attorney
with the “Aktionsbündnis Freie Schweiz” (ABF Switzerland); and three other Swiss politicians.
Christoph Pfluger, one of the co-initiators of the Movement for Neutrality, spoke out in support
of the Neutrality Initiative during his speech.
Swiss neutrality is being increasingly eroded, and Switzerland is gradually being integrated into the military
structures of NATO and the EU through a creeping process.
To preserve neutrality, it must therefore be enshrined in the Constitution, as called for in the initiative.
Attention, Swiss voters: If you want Switzerland to remain sovereign and neutral, vote YES
on the Neutrality Initiative on September 27.
Take advantage of this opportunity for “direct democracy,” which could also serve as a model—and indeed send a
strong signal—to other European countries, in order to break free from international interference.
Now listen to some excerpts from the speeches by Christoph Pfluger and Andrea Staubli, which may also
be of great interest to citizens of other countries:
Switzerland is currently undergoing a transformation—and it is happening through military means.
If we integrate militarily into the EU now, then later on we’ll hardly need to vote on these treaties with the EU at all.
So neutrality is a very important issue.
As you've all noticed, neutrality is being gradually eroded—and not just since the war in
Ukraine, when it became obvious to everyone.
Since 1992, the DDPS —or, on its behalf, ETH Zurich—has been conducting surveys to gauge our willingness to join NATO.
This is an issue that has been on the agenda for over 30 years.
And now I hope everyone has noticed, even though most of these changes happened gradually—in a bureaucratic,
technocratic way—without the vast majority realizing it.
But there's a lot at stake, and the problem is that there isn't an honest debate taking place.
This isn't about joining NATO; it's about vague notions of security that we
supposedly can only achieve through NATO or the EU.
We are gradually being integrated into the military structures of NATO and the EU.
About a month and a half ago, Ursula von der Leyen said in an internal speech to EU ambassadors that defense
and security are the new guiding principles of the EU.
The EU is fully focused on war.
And a few days later, our foreign minister issued a joint statement with the EU foreign minister, Kaja Kallas.
This integration into military alliances is referred to as cooperation.
But cooperation between a small state and a large state is not true cooperation.
That is conformity, and ultimately, it is submission.
And the military blocs aren't here for peace.
They're doing nothing for peace; they're doing everything for war, and Switzerland is expected to
get more and more involved in this step by step.
What does neutrality mean?
Neutrality means that Switzerland does not align itself with these power blocs.
We have been neutral for 175 years. We have lived in peace for 175 years.
For 175 years, neutrality and peace have been the foundation—it must be said—of our prosperity as well.
And now all that is at stake.
For 175 years, we have been mediators, not a party to the conflict.
And the biggest, most decisive, and most important advantage—or the special characteristic—of neutrality is:
When we make our own decisions, we are free and independent.
When decisions are made in Brussels, Washington, or wherever the centers of power are located, we are giving up
our sovereignty, and direct democracy goes out the window.
But war is not fought only with weapons; it is also fought with information, with fear, and with psychological pressure.
And there is an interesting document from the Department of Defense titled “Background Paper on the Information Space.”
It's about 60 pages long, is full of NATO terminology, and describes how cognitive warfare is waged.
– Not against the outside world, but against ourselves, against the people, against the citizens, against the sovereign.
And this document—I have to show it to you—has 25 pages with blacked-out sections.
It lists the measures, the cooperative structures, the new positions—everything needed to control public opinion
in Switzerland and to silence those who advocate for peace and neutrality—and who therefore pose a threat.
And this strategy was hatched right here in this building (the Federal Palace, Switzerland).
It's a war against ourselves.
That is why it is important that, when we vote on the Neutrality Initiative in September or
November, we do everything in our power to support it.
The point is to enshrine perpetual armed neutrality in the Constitution.
That's not what it is now. That's why it's being modernized, updated, softened, etc.
The initiative calls for: No accession to the military alliance.
It also prohibits participation in economic warfare, that is, sanctions.
Sanctions only benefit authoritarian regimes.
They harm us and lead to more deaths.
There was a pretty good study on the wars currently being fought.
Peace is not a matter of chance. Peace requires credibility.
We need a solid foundation in the Constitution.
We need neutrality with backbone.
Andrea Staubli, an attorney with the “Aktionsbündnis freie Schweiz” (Alliance for a Free Switzerland),
advocates for the Swiss people’s right to self-determination in the area of healthcare.
She points out that the Epidemic Act is set to be significantly tightened at the federal level.
This also applies to the continued approval of gene therapies, including modRNA vaccination .
It was approved during the COVID-19 pandemic without meeting scientific standards
and—as we now know—led to serious side effects.
Staubli is calling for the abolition of all mandatory vaccination requirements at the federal and cantonal levels.
Policymakers must immediately impose a moratorium on mRNA-based vaccines and enforce it without compromise.
Below are some excerpts from her speech:
We still remember exactly when the Director-General of the WHO declared a fake—that is, a public health
emergency—of international concern on January 30, 2020.
On February 28, 2020, the Federal Council obediently declared a “special situation” under the Epidemics Act, and on
March 16, it even declared an “extraordinary situation.”
And without further ado, he put us on lockdown.
That doesn't have much to do with confidence anymore.
That’s exactly how our Federal Councilors Sommaruga and Cassis explained it to us: “That’s what the WHO requires.”
The Federal Council, the Federal Office of Public Health (FOPH), and several cantons are currently in the
process of fundamentally restructuring health policy in accordance with international guidelines.
At the federal level, the Epidemic Act is being significantly tightened.
For example, with regard to the “extraordinary situation” we experienced in the spring of 2020.
The Medicines Act discusses so-called “advanced therapy medicinal products,” abbreviated as ATMP—make a note of this term.
These include, for example, gene therapies, including mRNA vaccines—which should more accurately be called
“modRNA” and are not vaccines in the conventional sense at all.
According to the Paul Ehrlich Institute, this is a genetic vaccine.
You may recall the outcry earlier this year in the canton of St. Gallen.
The government is planning a comprehensive revision of the cantonal health law and intends to introduce
a mandatory vaccination requirement, with fines of up to 20,000 francs for violations.
That's not what the people of St. Gallen want—and neither do many other people in Switzerland.
Within a very short time, approximately 2,500 responses to the consultation were submitted.
People took to the streets.
In light of this, the responsible state councilor made remarks to SRF to the effect that: If they had known that, they would
have handled the matter differently and would not have referred to the vaccination requirement as a “mandatory vaccination.”
In the canton of Zurich, however, there was no such outcry during the comprehensive revision of the Health Act, even though
Zurich has had a mandatory vaccination requirement in place since March 2020, with fines of up to 50,000 francs.
It's funny, isn't it? Are the people of Zurich really so different from those in St. Gallen in this regard?
We don't know that yet. But here's what we've found out: The Zurich Department of Health simply omitted
the penalty provision—that is, the 50,000-franc fine—from the consultation documents.
In other words, whoever drafted the consultation document certainly did not comment on this penal
provision, since it wasn't even included in the materials.
Does this provide a comprehensive and complete picture?
Does the Department of Health now know what the political parties, the associations, and the public think
about the penal provision and the amount of the fine?
The state councilor in charge apparently believes that the public comment period does not need to be repeated for this reason.
We don't think that's the way to go about it.
I therefore propose that policymakers and lawmakers must at all times guarantee and respect our right to
self-determination in matters of health, particularly with regard to vaccinations and mRNA injections.
It follows, therefore, that all mandatory vaccination requirements at the federal and cantonal
levels must be abolished or removed from the statutes.
And finally, that policymakers immediately impose a moratorium on mRNA-based vaccines and enforce it without compromise.