Tik-Tok Appreciation Thread.

As we all know, Tik-Tok sometimes is a little bit offensive towards certain individuals. But this is not by any means intentional. You see, Tik-Tok, like any other civilized man, seeks to spread the truth. He might be a prick, but his intentions are genuine. Some of you,enraged by his friendly rethoric, might wish for him to keep his mouth shut and perhaps banish forever. But do we all not live bewitched by the lovely spell of western civillization? That desire to seek the bitter, uncomfortable truth? and don't we all do this at the expense of sweet, well meant untruths? So why is it that when ever Tik-Tok kindly goes out of his way to share some of his truths, individuals go out of their way to attack him?

Tik-Tok is one of the few reasons I and others even bother opening the forum. We can't lose him, so please don't chase him away. Give the guy a chance to speak and hear what he has to say and if u are offended, respond in a civilized manner. Some people respond to him like barbarians. If anything,consider being cordial to him as a form of gratitude after he put his body and soul creating ult ww2 for all of us to enjoy.

Give that smelly brit a chance, deep down he is a good guy. Please.

Wr1tt3n by Tundy, 25.10.2019 at 15:29

deep down he is a good guy.

He's got some pretty vile and outdated views on race. I'm not quite sure he qualifies as a "good guy".

Wr1tt3n by Player 999, 25.10.2019 at 16:31

He's got some pretty vile and outdated views on race. I'm not quite sure he qualifies as a "good guy".

Bruh, come on man

Tik-Tok is a demon baby from Hell. The more he's around these forums the more sins he will persuade us to commit, good riddance

I've known Tik for a very long time, and I'd love to be able to chat with him outside of the forums again sometime. I don't agree with everything he says, but it is always nice to see a different point of view.

I would miss our friendly neighbourhood holocaust denier

LIL PUMP NEVER SPENDS HIS MONEY ON A BITCH

Muslims gay
-tik-tok

Wr1tt3n by Player 999, 25.10.2019 at 16:31

He's got some pretty vile and outdated views on race.

So does every human being that lives and has ever lived:

Qu0t3:

U of T Professor Kang Lee says two of his recent studies indicate that racial bias may arise in babies as young as six to nine months of age.

He and researchers from the University of Toronto, the U.S., U.K., France and China, show that six to nine month olds demonstrate racial bias in favour of members of their own race and racial bias against those of other races

https://www.utoronto.ca/news/racial-bias-may-begin-babies-six-months-u-t-research-reveals

I know the snarky rebuttal that is coming:

Qu0t3:

"Lee, a professor at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, says that lack of exposure to other races may be the cause."

Yeah, sure, because exposure hasn't raised tensions at all. Using that logic, Brazil and South Africa should be the least racist and safest countries in the world. They are in fact the most violent worldwide.

Wr1tt3n by Player 999, 25.10.2019 at 16:31

I'm not quite sure he qualifies as a "good guy".

Also, how does preferring to be around, and ruled by ones own people make one a 'bad guy'?

-

Wr1tt3n by Tribune Aquila, 25.10.2019 at 17:54

Tik-Tok is a demon baby from Hell. The more he's around these forums the more sins he will persuade us to commit, good riddance

What's wrong, Spicer? Are my words giving you strong urges to...



-

Wr1tt3n by Tirpitz406, 26.10.2019 at 03:47

I would miss our friendly neighbourhood holocaust denier

https://www.timesofisrael.com/remember-the-11-million-why-an-inflated-victims-tally-irks-holocaust-historians/

Are you still going to tell me I should let this narrative dictate my national destiny when half the story is an admitted lie?

-

Cheers for the thread, m8, but I do have one slight contention:

Wr1tt3n by Tundy, 25.10.2019 at 15:29

"Tik-Tok sometimes is a little bit offensive towards certain individuals."

I usually don't use insults unless they are aimed at me first. If someone calls me a 'son of a bitch' or claims I desire to 'commit a holocaust', I'm taking the gloves off. I didn't insult Tito or Garde. I did say Columa 'spouts childish shit', but saying Trump is a neo-Fascist is childish. You're not engaging in a serious adult politic if you say things like that which just aren't true.

Wr1tt3n by Tik-Tok, 27.10.2019 at 01:42

At some point I mixed some of your sound cloud music because I still listened to it and wanted higher quality, thought I would share.

Wr1tt3n by Tik-Tok, 27.10.2019 at 01:42

https://www.timesofisrael.com/remember-the-11-million-why-an-inflated-victims-tally-irks-holocaust-historians/

Are you still going to tell me I should let this narrative dictate my national destiny when half the story is an admitted lie?

We know from the Bible that Jews will be persecuted again when the Empire is revived, therefore i assume large-scale propaganda machine is logical precursor to the events(war justification). And since Israel is a state today, it won't be easy to arrest them, first it have to be occupied militarily(invasion). And guess where is the location of the Last Great Battle. Yep you guessed it.

Armageddon.

Wr1tt3n by Player 999, 25.10.2019 at 16:31

Wr1tt3n by Tundy, 25.10.2019 at 15:29

deep down he is a good guy.

He's got some pretty vile and outdated views on race. I'm not quite sure he qualifies as a "good guy".

He is a nice person
trust me i'm slavic scientist

Ps stay away from Panteri he is pure 450 kg evil.

Wr1tt3n by Player 999, 27.10.2019 at 09:19

You act like people with that viewpoint are such good people

Funny. In one thread you say this perspective is 'ok' but in another you declare it immoral. You also didn't give any rebuttal to the point. You're incapable of giving one.

Wr1tt3n by Player 999, 27.10.2019 at 09:19

only wanting to "be around and ruled by ones one people"

In your words is 'ok'. Changing your mind from threat to thread, from person to person.

Wr1tt3n by Player 999, 27.10.2019 at 09:19

while simultaneously dehumanizing every other race

Denying collective self-determination is dehumanising. Truthly observing collective behaviors is not dehumanising.

Wr1tt3n by Player 999, 27.10.2019 at 09:19

and wishing to forcibly remove them.

At no point have I ever said this. This is blood libel. A common rebuttal to serious concerns and as I said in another thread: an unwinnable condition. No matter how nativism is presented and no matter how innocently it is discussed, you will accuse them of seeking genocide. It is racial tribal libel. It is blood libel.

Wr1tt3n by Player 999, 27.10.2019 at 09:19

Try harder next time . You're very see-through and are fooling no one.

The irony of this is amusing, and clear projection. I also noticed you ignored the Times of Israel source which showed that American Institutions for the Holocaust deliberately lied about victim numbers for propaganda purposes.

Ok, let's say you are right Tik-Tok, Israel is apartheid and tries to conquer the world by subverting our tribes: isn't that what UK tried in the past?

UK tried to conquer as many land and people as possible, using force, lies or subversion when necessary (turning indian castes and ethnic groups against each other for example). How is this different than Israel and how can you point fingers to Israel when your own tribe did the same thing?

Next point i want to make is; if Israel tries to conquer the world, why are you accusing the people and not oligarchs? When it suits you, you say how your country is great and was an empire, but when it doesn't, you blame your government or nobility for crimes and dehumanization, why don't you blame the English people?

Wr1tt3n by Skanderbeg, 30.10.2019 at 13:19

Ok, let's say you are right Tik-Tok, Israel is apartheid and tries to conquer the world by subverting our tribes: isn't that what UK tried in the past?

No. Britain never did this. Britain never claimed to be a victim or altered the foundational stories of those it ruled over. It was a blunt, overt occupier. Much of the Empire benefited from these occupations materially and technologically, though some did not. That doesn't mean people should tolerate such an occupation. It's completely understandable that even the lowliest hunter gather er tribe does not wish to be occupied by an advanced outsider regardless of any material or technological benefits, simply because it is not their own people ruling them, who understand their needs better than anyone else. Britain didn't force homosexuality, inter-mixing or guilt narratives on those it ruled. It did not undermine their national stories, it usually aided whatever ruling hierarchy was already there. It didn't force 'democracy' and only demanded economic policy changes. It generally didn't care what social system you had and didn't seek to change it. There are a few areas of conquest and policy I vehemently disagree with and wish never happened, such as the opium wars or the migration of Indians to South Africa. That was downright immoral and fucked up, but the line of thinking between post-America aristocrats and modern day Jewish supremacists isn't much different. Much of colonial policy was designed to keep their colonial settlers in check.

Aristocratic thinking changed post-America. They changed from seeing colonists as their most loyal clients to seeing them as their most dangerous. This was reinforced by the growth of working class politics in the 19th century. Overtime, they began to see the working class and settlers as the most difficult groups to maintain control over and setup systems to ensure total dominance over them. They also began to see non-white populations as more compliant and reliable. Their treatment of Boers compared to Bantu Africans is a good example of this and Cecil Rhodes exemplifies this attitude. Many white nationalists see Rhodes as a hero but he was an ardent British Imperialist and viewed white settlers as dangerous to its interests. While White settlers desired a homogeneous area to expand upon, the Empire imported workers from other parts of the Empire for both cheap labor and to keep their white settlers in check, forcing them to depend upon the Empire for protection. Independent, homogeneous and safe white settlers tended to rebel for obvious reasons, while surrounded white settlers forced into segregated compounds will keep kissing the ring.

Aristocratic and Jewish interests merged during the Victorian period. It is this relationship which soured continental nationalist relations with England ever since. This hierarchy saw the white working class as an obstacle and today, thanks to the intermingling interests with Jewish supremacists, they view them as the enemy.

Wr1tt3n by Skanderbeg, 30.10.2019 at 13:19

UK tried to conquer as many land and people as possible, using force, lies or subversion when necessary (turning indian castes and ethnic groups against each other for example).

The Indian caste system has existed since the beginning of Hinduism. It's ancient and gained strength as time went by. When the British took control of India, it was through an Empire that had already thrown off the Mughal's with British support. The hierarchy of before stayed the same. It remains the same today. It's been the same for thousands of years.

Wr1tt3n by Skanderbeg, 30.10.2019 at 13:19

How is this different than Israel and how can you point fingers to Israel when your own tribe did the same thing?

What Israel and its diaspora supremacists do is completely unique to human history. The British never claimed those it occupied were 'racists' for daring to mention who ruled them. They knew who did. If what you say is true, then it's admittance of a Jewish Supremacist hierarchy and everyone is at least justified to resent it, and seek its removal from power. They deny such power exists and seek totalitarian measures against the lowliest peasant who dares even ask questions.

Wr1tt3n by Skanderbeg, 30.10.2019 at 13:19

Next point i want to make is; if Israel tries to conquer the world, why are you accusing the people and not oligarchs?

One is an an expression of the other, utterly merged in an ethnic/religious tribe. Do you see average Jews decrying the policies? No, they seem quite eager to support them. The serfs of the British Empire were an unruly bunch who fought long and hard for their liberties and fruits of their labour. Immoral policies were challenged by the serfs and middle class, and to this day we oppose deliberate oligarchical actions. The same cannot be said of Israeli's and the diaspora who are overtly eager to see expansion and greater totalitarian control over the serfs.

Wr1tt3n by Skanderbeg, 30.10.2019 at 13:19

When it suits you, you say how your country is great and was an empire, but when it doesn't, you blame your government or nobility for crimes and dehumanization, why don't you blame the English people?

Because very little our government does or has done for a century has been an expression of public will and is almost always done in opposition of public will. Our policies have almost always served the interests of aristocrats and zionists and no one else. If public was was served, we would be an entirely different nation with entirely different interests, allies and goals.

Fundamentally, you did not ask the right questions. You are asserting that everything I say is true, so why shouldn't I oppose a foreign occupational government that actively harms my people? I don't expect the world to be fair, I don't deny the innate immorality of the human condition when it competes, but why should I be content with the situation? If the world is one of interests and expanding influence, why shouldn't I seek my peoples interests and oppose my enemies?

Clearly, I have proven there is a malicious intent and foreign occupation if this latest goalpost of yours is to demand that I roll over to foreign occupation simply because my nation once occupied others?

Didn't you read the 'Hypocrisy and Hate in AtWar' thread? C Sharp isn't Black. He's not African. He doesn't live in Sudan. He's Jewish. You need to update your radar. Anyone can put 'Sudan' as their country name, and people that do, are generally Jewish. It's some in-joke amongst them. He's also not involved in the discussion because his hypocrisy and worldview was outed in the thread. I doubt we will see much of him in the conversations anymore as his C Sharp persona. I suspect he'll create a new one.

Wr1tt3n by Augustus Caesar, 03.11.2019 at 06:37

You can't deny that the English speaking world is far more successful than others, India is a rich country but it falls short to corruption and a lack of their government caring about their citizens(not our fault since its no longer a colony)

True, India's leaders were truly idiotic after independence, until the 1990s. Though the British did rob the country out of all there was to rob and caused the 1943 Bengali Famine, in which 3 million people died of hunger due to the UK's callousness, India's leaders leaned toward socialism and thus fucked the country after 1947. India only really opened up its economy in the early 1990s, while China did it in the later 1970s, which is why China is 5 times richer than India today. But yes, the current problems of India are due to corrupt politicians. The British caused a lot of harm, but India failed to properly grow its economy to its potential after it gained its independence. It's been growing in the last 30 years or so, but 30 years is not very long at all to develop; India would be far richer today if it's leaders had followed a proper economic policy way back in the 1950s.

In regards to your saying that the English speaking world is more successful, that is because settler colonialism was practiced in countries such as the modern day US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc. These countries were filled with english and other european colonists, who thus were treated relatively well by the UK (as in not massacred or exploited) and were able to develop their economies properly. But former english colonies in Africa or South Asia are not rich at all, per capita, due to the british extractative economic model in those places. So the UK isn't some magic benefactor; they robbed their colonies just as other colonial powers did. The US, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand are relatively wealthy because the settlers were not ruthlessly exploited as they were seen as the "same people" as native UK (the native populations of US/Can/Aus/NZ were of course were murdered and many enslaved, but that's a discussion for another day).

Wr1tt3n by Augustus Caesar, 03.11.2019 at 19:03

Yeah by no means am i saying the English were all great and never did anything wrong... but it's idiotic to blame a whole period of history on one nation who in some regard treated their colonies far better than other nations did. South America literally hate the spanish, I called a girl from Chile Hispanic and she had a huge fit at me because of it. Most former British colonies have somewhat of a decent relationship with the UK which even goes further with the commonwealth realms(nations that claim Queen Elizabeth II as their head of state). I wouldn't say the positives outweigh the negatives but it'd be pure ignorance to deny what the English has given the world and how better off we are cause of some of it.

True, the spanish/portugese did do atrocities in South America. The only issue with praising England is that they harmed Africa and South (and even China) FAR more than they helped xD. So I feel a bit hesitant praising England. But I suppose England did benefit the settlers in US/Can/Aus/NZ; those countries are wealthy today directly because of Britain's influence there. For Africa/Asia, not so much. British scientists have contributed a lot to humanity. The British Empire has overall caused far more harm than good, but British scientists and perhaps British culture have been a positive influence overall.

Wr1tt3n by Augustus Caesar, 03.11.2019 at 02:39

And you can thank the UK for giving Palestine to the Europeans of Jewish faith too which they then chose to call themselves Israeli cause after all they were just a mixed group of European colonizers who needed some identity to legitimize their claim to the land.

We gonna question their origin now? Am I on croatian forum again?

Wr1tt3n by Tik-Tok, 02.11.2019 at 12:30

What Israel and its diaspora supremacists do is completely unique to human history

Well i wouldn't say unique, you want unique?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust_in_the_Independent_State_of_Croatia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Serbs_in_the_Independent_State_of_Croatia#Revisionism_in_modern-day_Croatia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jasenovac_concentration_camp
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far-right_politics_in_Croatia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croatian_diaspora (20k fled after WW2, i guess from commies and not nuremberg)

First it was 700,000, then 300,000, then 100,000, now they say 50,000, and there are rumors they will reduce this to 15,000 and start to teach their children it is Croats who suffered there, not Serbs.


Croatians leave medal awards after basketball final, they lost, but their hate cant make them stay until the end
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPZMebw3D4Y

Serbian sportsman had a match in Croatia, bar waiter saw him, called friends and chased him, sportsman ran into the cold water to save himself
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUYzNgjfCEg

Serbia beat Croatia in Water Polo, Croatians start to riot due to aforementioned hate which they are not able to control. Credit goes to croatian team which protected serbian players in the water
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeHxshN9SCs

There is also one video where croatian commentator couldn't bear to hear serbian anthem before the match and started screaming, so his own croatian studio had to turn off his mic, but can't find the video on youtube.

And one video where Croatia built fence towards Serbia due to migrant crisis 2015, and said 'civilization is on this side, shows croatia, and barbarians are on this side, shows serbia'. Do i have to explain?

Not to mention how many Serbian families get their car pushed into the water in Croatia, or their car get extremist sticker, the usualy summer experience.

Or Sack of Magdeburg, where Croat unit did such horrors, Europe didn't forget, and made proverb 'God save us from famine, plague and croats'
https://rgshistory.wordpress.com/2015/05/20/the-sack-of-magdeburg/




You still think Jews are malicious, evil and true enemy? There is no other anti-White force in Europe?

Wr1tt3n by Red.Army, 04.11.2019 at 00:39

The British Empire was great but anti-whites like you will try degrade it at every chance possible.

3 million people died in the Bengal Famine, and tens of millions more died in other famines in India during British rule. India's/Africa's/China's economies were extremely weak after colonialism, which directly led to tens millions of further deaths because of undeveloped agriculture supply chains, bad healthcare access etc. Even Ireland's Great Famine of 1848 (I'm sure they count as white to you) was a man-made famine in which 1 million people died.

But sure, keep saying that holding empires responsible for the crimes they did is "anti-white". With your logic, being against Hitler is also "anti-white". Perhaps disliking the various genocides that Spain/Portugal/France did is also "anti-white"? Maybe I should also not criticize slavery, because by your logic, being against slavery is also "anti-white"?

Literally no one is attacking white people, they are attacking the empires/countries that committed the crimes. There's no need for you to be guilty, no is saying you are at blame for any of those crimes. So relax and learn some history . No need to feel personally attacked by what historically happened; you are innocent of all of that.

Wr1tt3n by Red.Army, 05.11.2019 at 00:36

The European empires did more good than harm, they developed shitholes in Africa

Yeah you don't know history. Not even gonna bother tbh.

Wr1tt3n by Player 999, 05.11.2019 at 16:34

Yeah you don't know history. Not even gonna bother tbh.

And your historical perspective is fluid and occasionally ahistorical when it benefits you. There is no denying the immense amount of infrastructure and technological benefits Africa gained from colonialism. Nor is there any denying the fact that many Africans would prefer colonialism over their current leadership. Rhodesia is a perfect example of this. Who treats their farm hands better? The European who rewards their workers and generally has doctors on hand to ensure they are healthy, or the Bantu warlord who forces them to work as slaves in all but name with little chance of any proper rations?

Whatever horrors you will claim of European colonialism, barring the Belgian atrocitiies, no one is more brutal than the African to his fellow African. We cannot even compete.

Wr1tt3n by Tik-Tok, 05.11.2019 at 23:10

And your historical perspective is fluid and occasionally ahistorical when it benefits you. There is no denying the immense amount of infrastructure and technological benefits Africa gained from colonialism. Nor is there any denying the fact that many Africans would prefer colonialism over their current leadership. Rhodesia is a perfect example of this. Who treats their farm hands better? The European who rewards their workers and generally has doctors on hand to ensure they are healthy, or the Bantu warlord who forces them to work as slaves in all but name with little chance of any proper rations?

Whatever horrors you will claim of European colonialism, barring the Belgian atrocitiies, no one is more brutal than the African to his fellow African. We cannot even compete.

During Cold War, we did business with Africa and many friends and collegues of my grandfathers and father worked there (architecture, infrastructure, military), they said that the Westerners treat Africans like trash, they say they were shocked and couldnt believe it. One even said he witnessed an African burry his son who died of sickness, and they missed few hours from work, so African got fired and no one complained about Slav. And i believe them(slavs), they are simple folk who work during the day and drink at night, apolitical and doesn't care for ideologies, not even party members, so they have no reason to lie.

This was 30-40 years ago, and i don't believe the situation changed much. I am aware african treat african liek trash, but so is western white. I dont know how would eastern white treat african, but certainly not as such, we lack trait for profit genetically, so there is no need to treat others as slaves when there is no job to get done.

Wr1tt3n by Skanderbeg, 06.11.2019 at 12:22

During Cold War, we did business with Africa and many friends and collegues of my grandfathers and father worked there (architecture, infrastructure, military), they said that the Westerners treat Africans like trash, they say they were shocked and couldnt believe it.One even said he witnessed an African burry his son who died of sickness, and they missed few hours from work, so African got fired and no one complained about Slav. And i believe them(slavs), they are simple folk who work during the day and drink at night, apolitical and doesn't care for ideologies, not even party members, so they have no reason to lie.

That isn't colonialism. That's post-colonial. These countries were independent and were taken over by tribal leaders who hired mercantile privateers. I never implied they treated them well. I made a very different argument.

Wr1tt3n by Skanderbeg, 06.11.2019 at 12:22

This was 30-40 years ago, and i don't believe the situation changed much. I am aware african treat african liek trash, but so is western white.

That's generally not true. They were treated far better. The quality of life in many of these countries gets worse every year. Your anecdotal singular incident plays no bearing on hard fact and statistics.

Wr1tt3n by Skanderbeg, 06.11.2019 at 12:22

I dont know how would eastern white treat african, but certainly not as such, we lack trait for profit genetically, so there is no need to treat others as slaves when there is no job to get done.

I don't know what argument you are making here, or what strawman you are attacking, but I was pretty clear. Whites treat blacks better than blacks treat blacks.