Self determination and health

Just a brief note, as I haven’t yet reached certainty about some things I hope to write about in the future.

I was reading some literature about Scanian food-culture, books by Nils-Arvid Bringéus and Bo Swensson, and articles in the magazine Svenska Landsmål ock Svenskt Folkliv (Transl: Swedish Land-lects (or perhaps Regiolects) and Swedish Ethnology), kindly provided in PDF on-line by the government agency ISOF.

It looks like Scanian food-culture has been altered into its diametrical opposite over the last 300 years. So whereas old recipes often have the form of: mix two or three ingredients plus a herb, today’s food culture mixes a long list of ingredients plus sugar. Since ingredients are digested at different paces, when many of them get mixed, some of them will feed pathogens instead of feeding us.

This mixing seems to be a Sweonic thing. They mix everything — including people — which is perhaps (I’m 100% convinced, but I understand if you aren’t) why Jordanes/Cassiodorus describe Scandza (present day Sweden & Norway) as a “vagina of nations”. This is where shards of nations flee from genocide, yet find themselves unable to survive, because the demands for assimilation will wipe out the culture they need to stay healthy, form families and rear children.

Somewhat more speculative, in the catalogue of nations of Scandza, when the text of Getica reads:

Mixi & euagreotingi

mixi could mean ‘mixed people’, euagre could mean ‘people without farm land’ and otingi would be people who lack the judicial protection offered by a court (called ting ‘thing’).

One of the books mentioned that Scanians, since we have throughout history lived in farmlands, eat more grains and vegetables than (other) Swedes. This necessitates a very different food culture. What we see instead is a perverse consensus that being vegetarian would be wrong, unless it is for the sake of the animals so that they shouldent have to be slaughtered. Meanwhile, syntetic meat is introduced by fast-food restaurants as if it were vegetarian. What if you don’t mind killing animals but still don’t want to eat them because your body doesn’t like meat? A nurse in school once hinted that I would get no health care if I was stupid enough to remain vegetarian. Two medical doctors, so far, have suggested that I should turn to God, because he is supposed to be almighty and would therefore be able to help me, instead of turning to a health care system funded with my tax money, which is really meant for others.

We see the liberal idea: let people keep their culture agree completely with the conservative idea: the olden ways are superior. Both have been rejected by a large state full of progressives who pretend to know better than the previous 10.000 generations combined, and who use compulsory education, ubiquitous TV and public libraries to replace culture with whim.

A somewhat related issue is that of women’s veils. Two Scanian towns — Sturup and Staffanstorp — have forbidden them in schools, as it is an attempt to change Scanian culture from something Christian leaning into a very foreign fusion of Islam and Socialism.

Now, a government court has decided that the municipalities were not allowed to decree such a prohibition, because it runs counter to what freedom of religion is perceived to encompass in other parts of the caphirate.

“Rätten att bära religiösa kläder är inte absolut och Europadomstolen har i flera domar godtagit förbud mot huvudduk. Men i de fallen har förbuden ansetts legitima och godtagbara i de aktuella länderna, säger rådmannen Henrik Hedberg, domare i målet mot Staffanstorps kommun.”

En: “The right to wear religious clothes is not absolute and the European Court of Human Rights has, in several verdicts, accepted a prohibition against hijab. But in these cases, the prohibitions have been seen as legitimate and acceptable in the respective countries, says magistrate Henrik Hedberg, judge in the case against the municipality of Staffanstorp.”

The article goes on to explain that prohibitions against head coverings have been proposed several times in the Riksdag (Swedish parliament) and always been rejected. So the “land” which Hedberg refers to must be Sweden rather than Scania.

My comments:
As a starting point, certainly, everybody should be allowed to wear what they want. However, wherever veils are common in conjunction with Islamism, women dare not dress without veil. Thus, this ruling will take the right to dress as they wish from some women, and give it to some other women.

If people A invites people B into their land, A should provide B with full freedom of religion. However, if people A invites people B into the land of people C. They should not allow B to force-convert C while prohibiting C from trying to defend themselves.

In a case like this, in my opinion, the principle of national self-determination is the obvious arbitrator and the verdict of the court “Förvaltningsrätten” needs to be overturned.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *