In ancient Rome, Human/animal #Pee is used as a mouthwash for whitening teeth (hey liberals, why use toothpaste?) well they also used it in laundry to remove stains. King taxed #Pee & there are special persons appointed to collect #Pee from public toilets, called "fullers"
#HinduPhobia | #Gaumutra I History of #Pee of different Civilizations.
As a left-commie-abhrahamic nexus craves for western validation when it comes to Hindu customs. First, Lets start with the #Pee usage in western civilizations.
In ancient Rome, Human/animal #Pee is used as a mouthwash for whitening teeth (hey liberals, why use toothpaste?) well they also used it in laundry to remove stains. King taxed #Pee & there are special persons appointed to collect #Pee from public toilets, called "fullers"
Ancient Greek physicians recommended #Pee to cure burns, inflammations, and skin diseases. Chinese too used it to clean their armpits to get rid of foul smell.
medieval Europe, #Pee is used to diagnose diabetes. But, how? they used to taste it whether it is sweet or not. But, Hindus used aurvedic technique "Mutra pipeeliha abhisarana", i.e urine attracts ants. Have to see which one left cable chooses as they oppose Hindu knowledge.
The father of chemistry in Europe, Robert Boyle, advised patients to drink every morning "a moderate amount of their own #Pee", preferably while "it's yet warm".
Thomas Willis – the richest doctor in England at the time – was instructing a young gentlewoman to drink her own warm urine against "extreme sourness" in her throat.
Doctor of Queen Elizabeth, William Bullein suggested to wash face with own #Pee to get clean & fair face.
@MahuaMoitra tries to defame Hindus, must know at least we have alternative, I'm curious what she uses, as she have blind hatred to Hindu customs.
I don't Stereotype practices in ancient/early modern European times. As there are no chemical lab's to produce urea & sodium salts. People looked for alternative natural sources. Same with the Hindus. Our Hindu Ayurveda knowledge dates back to 5000 years BC.
You May Also Like
I just finished Eric Adler's The Battle of the Classics, and wanted to say something about Joel Christiansen's review linked below. I am not sure what motivates the review (I speculate a bit below), but it gives a very misleading impression of the book. 1/x
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x
As someone\u2019s who\u2019s read the book, this review strikes me as tremendously unfair. It mostly faults Adler for not writing the book the reviewer wishes he had! https://t.co/pqpt5Ziivj
— Teresa M. Bejan (@tmbejan) January 12, 2021
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x
Trump is gonna let the Mueller investigation end all on it's own. It's obvious. All the hysteria of the past 2 weeks about his supposed impending firing of Mueller was a distraction. He was never going to fire Mueller and he's not going to
Mueller's officially end his investigation all on his own and he's gonna say he found no evidence of Trump campaign/Russian collusion during the 2016 election.
Democrats & DNC Media are going to LITERALLY have nothing coherent to say in response to that.
Mueller's team was 100% partisan.
That's why it's brilliant. NOBODY will be able to claim this team of partisan Democrats didn't go the EXTRA 20 MILES looking for ANY evidence they could find of Trump campaign/Russian collusion during the 2016 election
They looked high.
They looked low.
They looked underneath every rock, behind every tree, into every bush.
And they found...NOTHING.
Those saying Mueller will file obstruction charges against Trump: laughable.
What documents did Trump tell the Mueller team it couldn't have? What witnesses were withheld and never interviewed?
THERE WEREN'T ANY.
Mueller got full 100% cooperation as the record will show.
BREAKING: President Donald Trump has submitted his answers to questions from special counsel Robert Mueller
— Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) November 20, 2018
Mueller's officially end his investigation all on his own and he's gonna say he found no evidence of Trump campaign/Russian collusion during the 2016 election.
Democrats & DNC Media are going to LITERALLY have nothing coherent to say in response to that.
Mueller's team was 100% partisan.
That's why it's brilliant. NOBODY will be able to claim this team of partisan Democrats didn't go the EXTRA 20 MILES looking for ANY evidence they could find of Trump campaign/Russian collusion during the 2016 election
They looked high.
They looked low.
They looked underneath every rock, behind every tree, into every bush.
And they found...NOTHING.
Those saying Mueller will file obstruction charges against Trump: laughable.
What documents did Trump tell the Mueller team it couldn't have? What witnesses were withheld and never interviewed?
THERE WEREN'T ANY.
Mueller got full 100% cooperation as the record will show.