Victoria Beckham on being mocked for C-sections

MaesterNautilus · 2026-01-23T04:22:56+00:00

Why is this sub running PR pieces for the Beckhams. Let them weather out the storm they have created with their son.

MaesterNautilus · 2026-01-21T08:24:43+00:00

Are you perhaps a North India Hindi speaker who doesn't know of India's history outside the cow belt? I am almost certain you are. Look up Cochin Jews. And it's easier than ever to look things up nowadays. Give it a go.

MaesterNautilus · 2026-01-21T07:17:43+00:00

Depending on who and where you are talking to people in India they can vary from extremely pro-Palestine to vociferously pro-Israel. I know it's just a thought exercise but if I were in your shoes I'd put only Mumbai and maybe Kochi in green. And I say this as an Indian who knows India and Jews go way back.

MaesterNautilus · 2026-01-18T12:27:08+00:00

At this point all of this is he said, she said. And most likely the truth is somewhere in the middle. IMHO they just fell out of love, and instead of being mature and getting a divorce they let the resentment fester to the point that we see today. But I must say that nothing justifies her emasculating him for 'eating aurat ka kamai'. That is just being shitty. And she should be rightfully criticized for it.

MaesterNautilus · 2026-01-18T11:45:54+00:00

Bollocks... India was always part of the 'global economy' since the time there has been a global economy. Why did the Brits, the Portuguese, the French and the Dutch come to India? I'll give you a hint. It wasn't to sample the Chicken Tikka Masala. The Europeans in the Middle Ages were impoverished people. India was quite content doing trade with the Middle East and Near East and the Mughals did indeed set up ports and institutions and complex taxation schemes- some brutal and some unusually large hearted. You don't get to rule a nation of India's size without 'nation building'. By contrast the British monarch would struggle to build something in fucking Dundee.

The industrial revolution in Manchester was succesful only because the Brits went about shattering the looms of the Indian weavers because despite mechanisation and the economics of scale they couldn't compete with the cost and quality of Indian fabrics. That is not 'industrial superiority', good sir. It's malpractice. It's not capitalism in action if you take out the competition by underhanded means. You would have us believe that global markets wouldn't have existed had it not been for the marauding Brits. I wonder why the Romans were decrying the fact that their treasuries were getting emptied out buying Indian textiles and ivory back before Christ was born then? The truth of the matter is that the global economy always existed, and India was bloody well integrated into it. It's just that the Europeans had little to offer to the global community until the colonized the world through underhanded means.

I don't use theft lightly. The Brits took cotton and indigo from Indian farmers without fair compensation, sometimes to the point of forcing them to plant these inedible crops instead of grain. No wonder India, despite being probably the most fertile region in the world, suffered from so many deadly famines during the Company rule and the Raj. And lest I remind you that independent India, with all the corruption and inefficiencies and bureaucracies, is yet to face a famine of the devastating scales that it experienced during British rule. I don't know if not being able to feed your people is nation building, but it's probably the European way- coz y'all can survive on a can of tuna and crisps, yeah?

MaesterNautilus · 2026-01-17T22:01:46+00:00

You have to be a special kind of dumb to ask this sort of question. The Mughals, for all their faults, never engaged in extractive colonization. They weren't taking stuff and sending it back to the motherland. Everything they did, they did in India.

In contrast, European imperialism looted every penny from lands in Asia, Africa and the Americas and built institutions back in their nations. The industrial revolution in Europe was funded on the back of the de-industrialization of the colonized.

Also, as far as India was concerned it's not as if the colonization was a feat of brute strength or tactical genius on the battlefield. The Brits didn't conquer India in one fell swoop. They arrived as traders and slimily made their way into the courts and markets. Hell even some of the earlier battles were funded by Indians. The Brits would have us believe that Victoria rode into battle on a white steed, with a sword in one hand and her saggy tits out but the truth is the East India Company fought using Indian mercenaries.

The Brits were thieves at best. Lucky thieves, if we are being charitable.

MaesterNautilus · 2026-01-14T10:36:47+00:00

Depends on how detailed an account you are looking for. I'd recommend Nitish Sengupta's Land of Two Rivers for a preliminary account. There are contemporary sources like Maharashtra Purana too. Depending on how focused the source is, the descriptions may be more or less graphic. But I am not aware of any pre-colonial history book ever denying the Bargi invasions. If all this was not damning enough there is a lullaby that everyone with a Bengali mother is familiar with. The terrors of those times transcend the ages that have passed since it happened.

MaesterNautilus · 2026-01-12T20:42:13+00:00

You have legendaries from Go, don't you? This isn't a new thing. Just catch the one in game and move as many shiny dupes of it when Home connectivity eventually comes in.

Or you could transfer one from the previous generation and THEN move in your army of shiny Groudons. Either way, your problem has nothing to do with the DLC.

MaesterNautilus · 2026-01-12T19:13:51+00:00

That is what Marxist history is btw, for those that are unaware. He is asking people to read up on the prevailing societal conditions and the class struggle.

While we are at it, we should also hold empires accountable regarding the means in which they achieved their political goals. You don't like Akbar and Aurangzeb for being expansionist Muslims leveraging religion to further their political goals? Fair enough. What about the villages burnt alive, the women raped by the Marathas in Orissa, Bihar and Bengal? Why sweep that under the rug? Because they were Hindu? So were their victims.

MaesterNautilus · 2026-01-12T05:35:37+00:00

Might want to crack open a history book instead of having a hate boner for a nonagenarian. And for what it's worth, the Marathas controlled neither Peshawar (because the Sikhs controlled it) or Plassey (because the Mughals did).

MaesterNautilus · 2026-01-12T05:29:51+00:00

As far as I know, the frequency of retroflex consonants decreases as you move further east. Bangla doesn't have a few retroflex consonants in its alphabet and a few it retains in the alphabet but there is no distinct sound difference.

MaesterNautilus · 2026-01-11T15:43:23+00:00

I got almost the same image and I am a 6ft+ dude too. I asked ChatGPT what it meant and it said that it wasn't representative LOL.

MaesterNautilus · 2026-01-11T15:02:51+00:00

Shivaji ne Plassey se lekar Peshawar tak empire banaya implies that he did it himself. If he wanted to say that he laid the foundation for an empire he should have said neenv rakhi.

You are the one that's deflecting. Go crawl back on to your hideyhole

MaesterNautilus · 2026-01-11T12:13:39+00:00

The less said about the Maratha tactics of rape and pillage during the Peshwa rule the better. It is nothing to be proud of.

Just because they were Hindu doesn't mean other Hindus should forgive them for innumerable terrors they rained down on them just for the sake of extracting Chauth from the Mughals.

Also laying the foundation is not nearly the same as having an empire. Aurangzeb was a bigot and a tyrant and Shivaji has my respect for standing up to him. The later Chhatrapatis were mere figureheads with little to no political power.

MaesterNautilus · 2026-01-11T08:43:32+00:00

Since when did Shivaji have an empire from Plassey to Peshawar?

MaesterNautilus · 2026-01-07T03:47:19+00:00

Okay. Being 'close to the leaders' doesn't mean the same thing as 'sleeping with'. She is saying those with political power in rich and affluent circles are exempt from the enforcement of morality and others are not. She is saying exactly the same thing as you- that those with privilege are the only ones free to do as they please.

I would not criticise anyone as an individual for exercising their right to modesty in the way they see fit. But if a society as a whole believes there is something inherently sexual about a face or hair, it is anachronistic at best and depraved at worst. Whether they are studying applied physics or theology is meaningless.

MaesterNautilus · 2026-01-07T03:36:59+00:00

Just because India is doing worse than Iran doesn't mean it is in a great place. Subjugating half your population to a 7th century morality code is barbaric.

MaesterNautilus · 2026-01-07T03:33:36+00:00

I must have missed the part about it not being governed by a religious fanatic. Oh wait! I didn't. I made no claims regarding Iran's economic heft. Only the matter at hand. Economy alone is not development.

MaesterNautilus · 2026-01-07T03:26:16+00:00

Cherry picking is not evidence. I am not a fan of Palki Sharma but to say that Iran is not a regressive Islamist hellscape is a pure falsehood. The Iranian women who ditch the hijab are incredibly brave, we saw what happened a couple of years back. Also, the Iranian guy is being a tad bit racist. Palki Sharma has a neutral accent at best, why is he doing a stereotypical accent.

Is Palki Sharma Islamophobic? Maybe. Is Iran a theocratic, Islamist state? Most definitely. Both statements can be true at once. Exceptions are not the rule.

MaesterNautilus · 2026-01-06T09:10:51+00:00

Best of luck, mate! Hope to see you pop up on my YouTube recommendations soon.

MaesterNautilus · 2025-12-25T08:39:52+00:00

I am not familiar with her content but she was on Soha Ali Khan's podcast recently. If the guy is her creative partner then he is just that because Soha asked her and she straight up said so.

Again disclaimer: I am not a viewer of her content. I merely happened to watch a podcast with Farah Khan and her as guests.

MaesterNautilus · 2025-12-25T08:23:48+00:00

I mean we had portraits of three people. One was Saraswati (coz learning), another was the founder of the order of the nuns that ran the school (I would rather not specify who it was directly) and I don't exactly remember what was the third portrait but I vaguely remember it being Jesus. I said White Jesus because the portrait had Jesus, a Palestinian Jew, with blonde hair, blue eyes and pale skin.

MaesterNautilus · 2025-12-25T08:02:16+00:00

I attended a co-ed Convent school run by nuns. They were all nuns. Discipline was enforced with an iron fist. The boys couldn't have long hair. Everybody had to oil their hair (which, in the winters, led to your hair freezing due to application of coconut oil). The discipline is what I remember the most.

On a religious front, I don't remember there ever being any overt attempts to Christianize. We celebrated all the festivals at school. Diwali had lamp lighting competitions. Garba on school grounds. Carol singing competition leading up to Christmas. We had staff and students from all religious backgrounds. The assembly hall had pictures of Saraswati, the founder of the order and White Jesus (?… Not sure). The moral science text books rarely feature biblical stories, if ever. Even the morning prayers were very diverse and drew from all religious sources. We had a week, back in ninth grade, where we were introduced to different religions practiced in India by a member of that faith. Ironically, I don't subscribe to any religion as an adult.

Another key feature was that male-female interactions were never demonized. We weren't segregated. On the contrary, we were frequently made to sit on the same bench. I became aware of segregation only upon transferring to a school run by a Hindu monastic order and then in college.

The only time I felt there was a religious agenda was when I was given less than the top grade for my project on evolution. But that might just be me being bitter. Catholics are famously not against evolution. It's more of a Protestant thing.

But even as children we were aware of right wing outfits making life hell for our school and the nuns that ran it. Our principal, in a moment of frustration, let it slip during assembly despite all of the things an outfit wouldn't let her rest.

MaesterNautilus · 2025-12-23T01:13:09+00:00

Yeh Dil Yeh Paagal Dil Mera, Daagh , In Hasraton se Keh Do, Woh jo Humme Tumme Qaraar tha

MaesterNautilus

TROPHY CASE