Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old July 10th, 2012 #61
Bev
drinking tea
 
Bev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: England
Posts: 38,898
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven L. Akins View Post
What you quoted from the Wikipedia editor is an excellent example of the sort of misinformation, outright lies and half-truths that Wikipedia engages in as part of its agenda.

Here is the actual truth where Scots law, the Lord Lyon, and clan chiefships are concerned; something I pointed out to the other Wikipedia editors to no avail:

So if you proved this with reputable links or authentic documentation and the Wiki editors rejected an edit on something as (and I mean no offence to you with this but I can't think of a better way of putting it) as obscure, uncontroversial and generally unimportant to the general public as the Clan Akins page, what makes you think we can wander in and begin changing pages that matter to the WN viewpoint and have the edits remain unchallenged?
__________________
Above post is my opinion unless it's a quote.
 
Old July 10th, 2012 #62
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh View Post
Wikipedia etc is just a diversionary tactic.

The vast majority of people don't read, they watch videos or TV.

Even those who do read, are affected far more by pictures than words.

A picture, especially a gif, paints a thousand words.

[IMG]http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/web04/2012/1/20/14/anigif_enhanced-buzz-21522-1327086701-23.gif[IMG]

How many adverts consist of text, and how many consist of images. There's a reason for that.

With freely available poster/meme generators, they are far easier and more effective to put together than articles no-one who matters reads anyway.

How many people read something doesn't matter. What does matter is who reads it, and what actions they take thereafter.

Those few that do read who matter, certainly don't get their info from anonymous writers on Wikipedia.

They always use primary sources, read analysts they trust, and speak to those they know.

They make up their minds usually based on self-interest, on what their peer group thinks, and most important to them is what the people they know personally think.

They know all to well how easy it is to be led to conclusions

Leading Questions - Yes Prime Minister - YouTube



As V stated,

"And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. I know why you did it. I know you were afraid. Who wouldn't be? War, terror, disease. There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense."


v speech - YouTube


And there, in a nutshell, is how Jews led Whites into this labyrinth of nightmares. Whites now wander about lost, as Jews pop their heads around various corners shouting "Here!" No! This way" " Follow me!" then shrieking and giggling insanely like maniacs as they waddle off, panting and squealing with excitement, as they lead Whites ever deeper into the labyrinth.

We can see here how they developed the labyrinth.



Power Of Nightmares 1of6 - YouTube



The action that stops a nightmare, is waking up.

As with all Jewish productions, the labyrinth is just an illusion. The moment you awaken and see the Jew as they are, the nightmare fades away, and the entire illusion Jews have spent so many millenia building, fades away like mist before the morning sun.

Once people understand the Jew and how they work, Jewish tricks, propaganda etc mean nothing.

If people don't understand the Jews, then no matter what we do, people will simply get confused.

The primary task we have before us is to awaken the critical mass of people to the Jew.

Nothing else we do can ever be of greater significance, and if people do nothing else but awaken others to the Jew, then they have done the most important thing they could possibly have done.


We each over the course of our lives know and come into contact with thousands of people personally, family, friends, colleagues etc. and thus we are already part of immense networks, where we have great influence.

We do not need to form networks, we each already have them. Over time, slowly, carefully, where we are, monitor and guide the people in our networks, select who is ready for awakening, and then awaken them.

It is always easier to awaken those we know, and those who know and trust us, than try to persuade absolute strangers to trust absolute strangers.

That's why its important WN join as mnay mainstream organisations as possible, not to speak about these issues to them at large, but so as to expand our networks, improve our appearance and abilities, and increase the number we can seek through to find those ready for awakening.

Appearance is everything. If you appear to be a pillar of the community, and appear to be a leader, then what you say will be taken seriously.
If you appear to be a lowlife, or appear to be a follower, then no-one will pay any attention to you. Dress, look and speak like other leaders do, and people will treat you like one. If you don't, they won't.

We can see this with the political leaders of today.

People support the person who looks like the person they always wanted to be, or who looks like father they always wanted to have.
Good post, I think you're right.

I just get irritated by 'appearance' arguments. Yes, you should dress and look and speak well/good, but if you don't have a consistent, principled position you stick to over time and in the face of hostility, it doesn't matter whether you're an assclown or Jared Taylor. No one will respect or follow you.

So let's not underestimate that it all begins with an accurate understanding of the situation and what needs to be done with it. And the willingness and ability to explain this in clear language to anyone you meet, from child to a Ph.D. If you have that, you have the bare minimum you need. And you can augment your political viability by removing obstacles-of-person (bad grammar, spelling, weird dress, tattoos, piercings) that get between the person you're trying to teach and your message. You want everything about you-the-man to back up and reinforce what you're saying, not contradict it. Get it all in line. Believe your bullshit. Live your bullshit. That's how you prove it's not bullshit, it's the real thing. And people will be forced against themselves, against what they've heard, against what they want to think, against their tastes, maybe, to believe that if you're not right, you might be, and you have personal credibility based on your lived integrity.

But if we're going to be skulking, giggling nerds who only cut loose behind closed doors, we will never get anywhere. See Rockwell on this. Look at Golden Dawn. Look at the difference between Golden Dawn or the Nazis operated and an AmRen Conference. AmRen is all about people having fun and entertaining themselves. Nazis and Golden Dawn are all about solving problems facing their people.

We are not conservatives. The conservatives are our enemies. We must attack them, not emulate them and their failure patterns.

Last edited by Alex Linder; July 10th, 2012 at 04:47 PM.
 
Old July 10th, 2012 #63
Steven L. Akins
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: The Heart of Dixie
Posts: 13,170
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bev View Post
So if you proved this with reputable links or authentic documentation and the Wiki editors rejected an edit on something as (and I mean no offence to you with this but I can't think of a better way of putting it) as obscure, uncontroversial and generally unimportant to the general public as the Clan Akins page, what makes you think we can wander in and begin changing pages that matter to the WN viewpoint and have the edits remain unchallenged?
It would only be possible to do so by overwhelming the opposition. One person could not do it alone, not even a few people could; but we are more than just a few; or at least that is what we are always telling ourselves. Here we have a chance to wage war without breaking any laws, with no bullets and no one being convicted of "war crimes" because it would be an ideological war of ideas.

Is WN up to that challege? Or are we resigned to admitting we are too stupid and incapable as a group to fight the opposition?
 
Old July 10th, 2012 #64
Bev
drinking tea
 
Bev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: England
Posts: 38,898
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven L. Akins View Post
It would only be possible to do so by overwhelming the opposition. One person could not do it alone, not even a few people could; but we are more than just a few; or at least that is what we are always telling ourselves. Here we have a chance to wage war without breaking any laws, with no bullets and no one being convicted of "war crimes" because it would be an ideological war of ideas.

Is WN up to that challege? Or are we resigned to admitting we are too stupid and incapable as a group to fight the opposition?
Let's reverse it for a minute. Let's imagine that somewhere, there is a forum with a hidden group and they are all mutually backslapping themselves on their newly-conceived plan to head to VNNF en masse and flood us with their version of the truth.

What would we do?

I'm not saying we're too stupid to carry out your plan, I'm saying we are (or should be) clever enough to pick our battles wisely and on this one, we stand no chance. But it won't hurt to try (except wasting time) so have a go. Just don't expect to win.
__________________
Above post is my opinion unless it's a quote.
 
Old July 10th, 2012 #65
Steven L. Akins
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: The Heart of Dixie
Posts: 13,170
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bev View Post
Let's reverse it for a minute. Let's imagine that somewhere, there is a forum with a hidden group and they are all mutually backslapping themselves on their newly-conceived plan to head to VNNF en masse and flood us with their version of the truth.

What would we do?

I'm not saying we're too stupid to carry out your plan, I'm saying we are (or should be) clever enough to pick our battles wisely and on this one, we stand no chance. But it won't hurt to try (except wasting time) so have a go. Just don't expect to win.
If we can't win that, I personally don't think we stand a chance at winning anything.

We've been losing, by degrees, for a long time now; starting with our religion.
 
Old July 10th, 2012 #66
Steven L. Akins
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: The Heart of Dixie
Posts: 13,170
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by varg View Post
Was merely bringing it to your attention. Personally I don't care if you want to give yourself the title of grand poobah of clan Akins. I don't see the point though. Do you even have citizenship to Scotland? Upon being recognized, will you get the title to a castle, get your own plaid design, be able to change Scotch Tape's logo, or something cool like that?
We have our own tartans, three in fact - a clan pattern, a dress pattern and a hunting pattern.

The castle belonging to our clan's ancestors was long ago inherited by a different line whose descendants went on to found a different clan.

Being a citizen of the country called Scotland has no more to do with being Scottish than being a citizen of Scotland, Missouri, or Scotland, North Carolina - they are just pieces of dirt named after us as an ethnic group, because we happened to settle on those bits of geography at one time or another.

If Scottish citizenship made people Scots, then there are a great many Indians, Pakistanis, Arabs and even negros who could claim to be Scots because they have citizenship in Scotland.

Being a Scot is a matter of genetics and ancestry, not one of geography or politics.
 
Old July 10th, 2012 #67
Steven L. Akins
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: The Heart of Dixie
Posts: 13,170
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh View Post
No, what we are seeing is a typical case of your disinformation.

What actually matters is the official response by the Lord Lyons to you regarding your claim.

Where is his official response to you in full regarding your claim?
Lord Lyon realizes that he has no legal authority to make a substantive legal determination in the matter as to whether I am the chief of my clan or not, as the law clearly states that it is outwith his jurisdiction. He avoids admitting this however and tries to skirt the issue and makes an effort to perpetuate the myth that he has any sort of say so in the matter, but in fact he doesn't.

When someone else asked about this, Sir Crispin Agnew, one of the heralds in Lyon Court issued the following statement:

Quote:
Steven Akins of that Ilk has not been officially recognised by the Lord Lyon as chief of the clan.

That does not mean that he is not chief of the clan. All it means is that no Akins has ever applied to the Lord Lyon to be confirmed in the plain undifferenced arms of Akins, so there is no judicial determination of the issue.

Under Scots law a person may call themselves what they like, provided they do not use their name for "fradulant purposes" However a person is unlikely to be referred to by a territorial designation in an official document, unless they are the person, the son or grandson of the person, who was so officially recognised by the Lord Lyon. The general rule is that everyone (mostly) knows their grandfather, but further back than that you have to prove it."

Sir Crispin Agnew of Lochnaw Bt, QC.
Rothsay Herald, Court of the Lord Lyon
You see Lyon could say that he recognizes my position as a chief of a Scottish clan if he chose to do so, but he has no legal capacity to make such a determination in a legal manner, in other words his recognition, or lack thereof, is worthless in terms of legality as far as clan chiefships go. In matters of heraldry, which is the right to bear certain coats of arms, he does have legal authority, but only inside the geo-political boundaries of Scotland itself, and no where else.
 
Old July 10th, 2012 #68
Swede
morsning korsning
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Terra Scania
Posts: 674
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven L. Akins View Post
We have our own tartans, three in fact - a clan pattern, a dress pattern and a hunting pattern.

The castle belonging to our clan's ancestors was long ago inherited by a different line whose descendants went on to found a different clan.

Being a citizen of the country called Scotland has no more to do with being Scottish than being a citizen of Scotland, Missouri, or Scotland, North Carolina - they are just pieces of dirt named after us as an ethnic group, because we happened to settle on those bits of geography at one time or another.

If Scottish citizenship made people Scots, then there are a great many Indians, Pakistanis, Arabs and even negros who could claim to be Scots because they have citizenship in Scotland.

Being a Scot is a matter of genetics and ancestry, not one of geography or politics.
Hold your horses now.

So you are saying that you are 100% scotish, am I right? Even if you;

*Don't speak gaelic

* Don't speak their accent

* Don't have scotish citisenship

* Have only visited scotland once

* Are being banned from forums because people say there that you are a fraud


Being scotish (or any other nationality) isnt just about genetics, its about the little things, like;

* Concept of beauty

* Work ethic

* View on nature

* Body language

* Expressions of face

* Relation to animals

* Food culture

etc etc etc
 
Old July 10th, 2012 #69
Steven L. Akins
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: The Heart of Dixie
Posts: 13,170
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Swede View Post
Hold your horses now.

So you are saying that you are 100% scotish, am I right? Even if you;

*Don't speak gaelic

* Don't speak their accent

* Don't have scotish citisenship

* Have only visited scotland once

* Are being banned from forums because people say there that you are a fraud


Being scotish (or any other nationality) isnt just about genetics, its about the little things, like;

* Concept of beauty

* Work ethic

* View on nature

* Body language

* Expressions of face

* Relation to animals

* Food culture

etc etc etc
My ancestry is not 100% pure Scot - not even the inhabitants of Scotland whose ancestors have lived there for centuries (as mine did before they left) can claim to have 100% undiluted Scots blood, because the Scots are only one of several groups of people, including the Picts, the Britons, the Angles, the Vikings, and the Normans, who Scottish people are descended from. Apart from having a great many Scots ancestors, I like any other Scotsman, also have ancestors who were Picts, Britons, Angles, Vikings and Normans.
 
Old July 10th, 2012 #70
Hugh
Holorep survivor
 
Hugh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The wild frontier
Posts: 4,849
Default

Quote:
You see Lyon could say that he recognizes my position as a chief of a Scottish clan if he chose to do so
There's no reason he wouldn't choose to do so if you can prove your case.
If you thought it wasn't important, then you wouldn't have applied to them. Since you applied to them, you thought it actually was important.

Further, I asked you for his actual response. Please post his actual response to you, in full. Not your interpretation of it, not what someone else said about it, but his actual response.

Whilst we wait for you to post the actual, official response by the Lord Lyons to your application, did you follow the procedure they outline, and if not, why not?

It would have validated your claim to everyones satisfaction, and if you had no claim, you could still have formed a clan, legally, and simply, that it would also be recorded in the offical lawbooks of Scotland.

http://www.lyon-court.com/lordlyon/241.html

The search for clan chiefs

The revival of interest in Scottish ancestry over the last 50 years has encouraged many clans and families, who had not previously done so, to look for a leader. For many clans this has involved searching for the person most directly descended from the last known chief of the clan.

A large number of clans who had had chiefs in the sixteenth or seventeenth centuries went into decline after 1745. In many cases it has been possible for genealogical research to establish the identity of the last chiefs descendants and thus to find the person with the closest blood link back to the last chief. In other cases this research is either still being conducted or is now being embarked upon.

Once genealogical evidence has been found to identify the person most directly descended from the last chief, application may be made to the Lord Lyon for confirmation that the chiefly Coat of Arms, enjoyed by the last chief, should be confirmed to such a person.

The Lord Lyon reviews the genealogical evidence and must be satisfied that the applicant's descent is correctly proved. If the Lord Lyon is satisfied he recognises the applicant as chief of the clan and confirms him in the chiefly Arms.

All those who were chiefs prior to 1745 had Arms, although they have not all been recorded in the Public Register of All Arms and Bearings in Scotland which was only started in 1672. The Scottish clan and heraldic systems have always been closely interlinked. Thus a clan which existed in the past will find its chief in the person entitled, under heraldic law, to bear the historic Arms enjoyed by the last known chief.

But the increasing interest in Scottish ancestry has led many families, who had not in the past been regarded as clans in their own right, to look for a leader who could rally the family as a group. While content historically to owe their allegiance as a sept or cadet to a particular clan, such families may now wish to have a distinct identity of their own.

Where such a family is able to prove that it has existed historically as an independent family group, then the Lord Lyon may be prepared to recognise them as a distinct clan or name.

If a person is able to prove descent from an individual who was historically accepted as the head of the main family within this group, then such a descendant might be confirmed in the Arms and recognised by the Lord Lyon as Representer of the name concerned.

The situation may, however, be that a family group has no clear historical evidence of its existence as a group in the distant past. In such a case it may be possible for a group to move towards being treated as a clan or name by various stages.

Since the clan and heraldic systems are so closely linked, the first stage would be for there to be a number of individuals using the same surname to record their own Arms. Once there was a significant number of armigers within the group it would be possible for a derbhfine of the group to convene and make a proposal to the Lord Lyon for the appointment of one of the group as Commander. Regulations have been laid down as to the procedure to be followed in the conduct of such a derbhfine.

If the Lord Lyon is so minded a Commander will be appointed. Once that has happened a 10 year period must then elapse before any question of a chief can be considered.

After the 10 year period a further derbhfine could, if the group desire, be held. This derbhfine could then make a proposal to the Lord Lyon for the appointment of a chief. Again regulations exist for the way in which such a derbhfine should proceed
__________________
Secede. Control taxbases/municipalities. Use boycotts, divestment, sanctions, strikes.
http://www.aeinstein.org/wp-content/...d-Jan-2015.pdf
https://canvasopedia.org/wp-content/...Points-web.pdf
 
Old July 10th, 2012 #71
Steven L. Akins
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: The Heart of Dixie
Posts: 13,170
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh View Post
There's no reason he wouldn't choose to do so if you can prove your case.
If you thought it wasn't important, then you wouldn't have applied to them. Since you applied to them, you thought it actually was important.

Further, I asked you for his actual response. Please post his actual response to you, in full. Not your interpretation of it, not what someone else said about it, but his actual response.

Whilst we wait for you to post the actual, official response by the Lord Lyons to your application, did you follow the procedure they outline, and if not, why not?

It would have validated your claim to everyones satisfaction, and if you had no claim, you could still have formed a clan, legally, and simply, that it would also be recorded in the offical lawbooks of Scotland.

http://www.lyon-court.com/lordlyon/241.html

The search for clan chiefs

The revival of interest in Scottish ancestry over the last 50 years has encouraged many clans and families, who had not previously done so, to look for a leader. For many clans this has involved searching for the person most directly descended from the last known chief of the clan.

A large number of clans who had had chiefs in the sixteenth or seventeenth centuries went into decline after 1745. In many cases it has been possible for genealogical research to establish the identity of the last chiefs descendants and thus to find the person with the closest blood link back to the last chief. In other cases this research is either still being conducted or is now being embarked upon.

Once genealogical evidence has been found to identify the person most directly descended from the last chief, application may be made to the Lord Lyon for confirmation that the chiefly Coat of Arms, enjoyed by the last chief, should be confirmed to such a person.

The Lord Lyon reviews the genealogical evidence and must be satisfied that the applicant's descent is correctly proved. If the Lord Lyon is satisfied he recognises the applicant as chief of the clan and confirms him in the chiefly Arms.

All those who were chiefs prior to 1745 had Arms, although they have not all been recorded in the Public Register of All Arms and Bearings in Scotland which was only started in 1672. The Scottish clan and heraldic systems have always been closely interlinked. Thus a clan which existed in the past will find its chief in the person entitled, under heraldic law, to bear the historic Arms enjoyed by the last known chief.

But the increasing interest in Scottish ancestry has led many families, who had not in the past been regarded as clans in their own right, to look for a leader who could rally the family as a group. While content historically to owe their allegiance as a sept or cadet to a particular clan, such families may now wish to have a distinct identity of their own.

Where such a family is able to prove that it has existed historically as an independent family group, then the Lord Lyon may be prepared to recognise them as a distinct clan or name.

If a person is able to prove descent from an individual who was historically accepted as the head of the main family within this group, then such a descendant might be confirmed in the Arms and recognised by the Lord Lyon as Representer of the name concerned.

The situation may, however, be that a family group has no clear historical evidence of its existence as a group in the distant past. In such a case it may be possible for a group to move towards being treated as a clan or name by various stages.

Since the clan and heraldic systems are so closely linked, the first stage would be for there to be a number of individuals using the same surname to record their own Arms. Once there was a significant number of armigers within the group it would be possible for a derbhfine of the group to convene and make a proposal to the Lord Lyon for the appointment of one of the group as Commander. Regulations have been laid down as to the procedure to be followed in the conduct of such a derbhfine.

If the Lord Lyon is so minded a Commander will be appointed. Once that has happened a 10 year period must then elapse before any question of a chief can be considered.

After the 10 year period a further derbhfine could, if the group desire, be held. This derbhfine could then make a proposal to the Lord Lyon for the appointment of a chief. Again regulations exist for the way in which such a derbhfine should proceed
What I applied to Lord Lyon for (at the suggestion of Sir Crispin Agnew) was a "confirmation of ancient arms."

In Scottish heraldic law, the term "ancient arms" is applied to those coats of arms that were in use prior to the establishment of Lyon Court's Register of All Arms and Bearings in Scotland that was begun in 1672.

The coat of arms I was petitioning Lord Lyon to confirm as ancient arms, was the coat of arms that has been borne by my direct paternal line of Akins ancestors for the past several centuries.

The use of this coat of arms - the one that you see in my avatar, can be established back to my 10th great-grandfather, Alexander Akins of that Ilk, who was born in Lanarkshire, Scotland in 1618 and who died in Baltimore Co., Maryland in 1669, which was three years before Lyon Register was established in 1672.

However because the evidence for my ancestor's use of the coat of arms is in Maryland, and not in Scotland, Lord Lyon rejected my petition for the confirmation of ancient arms on the grounds that they were outside of his jurisdiction, being here in America and not in Scotland.

Therefore he ruled that he had no jurisdiction to confirm the arms, being that his jurisdiction begins and ends within the geographical borders of Scotland.

It should also be noted that the person holding the office of Lord Lyon had changed during the time when my application to Lyon Court was pending. When I first applied, Sir Malcolm Innes of Edingight was Lord Lyon, and he retired before ever rendering a judgement on my petition, which was put on hold for several months until Lord Lyon Blair took office. It was Lord Lyon Blair that refused my petition shortly after he became Lord Lyon.

Last edited by Steven L. Akins; July 10th, 2012 at 04:32 PM.
 
Old July 10th, 2012 #72
Hugh
Holorep survivor
 
Hugh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The wild frontier
Posts: 4,849
Default

More avoidance and evasion.The story keeps changing.

Why for over 5000 posts have you refused to simply post his response, so we can see for ourselves. You duck and dive, evade, ignore, twist and turn when any honest person would have posted such a basic fundamental thing as a matter of course.

Have you applied to be registered as a clan, following the standard procedure?

Quote:
However because the evidence for my ancestor's use of the coat of arms is in Maryland, and not in Scotland, Lord Lyon rejected my petition for the confirmation of ancient arms on the grounds that they were outside of his jurisdiction, being here in America and not in Scotland.
Please post his letter to you, as nothing you are saying makes any sense at all.

What matters is the genealogy, not the use of the arms.

You need to prove descent, use of the arms within the US is irrelevant.

He does have jurisdiction within Scotland, so would be able to confirm your claims regarding geneaology within Scotland.

He would have been able to confirm the existence of the clan within Scotland, to confirm the use of arms within Scotland by the clan, been able to confirm the connection between the last ancestor in Scotland, and the first ancestor in the US, as the first ancestor in the us was from Scotland.

Title and use of arms would simply have passed to the next in line within Scotland, and the leadership of the clan and all its rights within Scotland would have continued within the family that remained within Scotland.
Yours is not the first family where a member has emigrated.

Records go back to 1538. At least.

http://www.scotlandspeople.gov.uk/
__________________
Secede. Control taxbases/municipalities. Use boycotts, divestment, sanctions, strikes.
http://www.aeinstein.org/wp-content/...d-Jan-2015.pdf
https://canvasopedia.org/wp-content/...Points-web.pdf
 
Old July 10th, 2012 #73
Steven L. Akins
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: The Heart of Dixie
Posts: 13,170
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh View Post
More avoidance and evasion.The story keeps changing.

Why for over 5000 posts have you refused to simply post his response, so we can see for ourselves. You duck and dive, evade, ignore, twist and turn when any honest person would have posted such a basic fundamental thing as a matter of course.

Have you applied to be registered as a clan, following the standard procedure?



Please post his letter to you, as nothing you are saying makes any sense at all.

What matters is the genealogy, not the use of the arms.

You need to prove descent, use of the arms within the US is irrelevant.

He does have jurisdiction within Scotland, so would be able to confirm your claims regarding geneaology within Scotland.

He would have been able to confirm the existence of the clan within Scotland, to confirm the use of arms within Scotland by the clan, been able to confirm the connection between the last ancestor in Scotland, and the first ancestor in the US, as the first ancestor in the us was from Scotland.

Title and use of arms would simply have passed to the next in line within Scotland, and the leadership of the clan and all its rights within Scotland would have continued within the family that remained within Scotland.
Yours is not the first family where a member has emigrated.

Records go back to 1538. At least.

http://www.scotlandspeople.gov.uk/
But Lyon Register was not started until 1672. I know far more about this than you do, as is apparent from much of what you have said, which is nonsense.
 
Old July 10th, 2012 #74
Swede
morsning korsning
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Terra Scania
Posts: 674
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven L. Akins View Post
But Lyon Register was not started until 1672. I know far more about this than you do, as is apparent from much of what you have said, which is nonsense.
You don't have any honor, do you?
 
Old July 10th, 2012 #75
Hugh
Holorep survivor
 
Hugh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The wild frontier
Posts: 4,849
Default

Have you applied to be registered as a clan, following the standard procedure?

Why do you refuse to post The Letter?

What are you hiding, Akins?

What shocking secrets are contained in The Letter that you are so terrified we would see?

This is like a Sherlock Holmes mystery.

Quote:
But Lyon Register was not started until 1672. I know far more about this than you do, as is apparent from much of what you have said, which is nonsense.

Its starting date is totally irrelevant.

Are you claiming that prior to the Lyons Register, that prior to 1672 there were no official records of clans, coats of arms or people in Scotland?

That the Kings of Scotland and the Scottish church and courts had no records?
That the church does not hold any records of births, deaths, marriages?
That the tax and court rolls do not exist?
That there were and are no copies of records of Scottish clans held within England?

Being a clan chieftain was a serious matter. They had the power of life and death, gave and took away land, led their people to war, sat in judgement.

People went to war over it, thousands died over these issues, massive tracts of land changed hands over it, kings made alliances with them.

Many held the equivalent lands and wealth and titles as earls and Dukes and were in line for the throne. Yet you blithely pretend there were no records of any of this. You seem to think it was like being a member of Rotary.

In many areas, births and deaths and marriages, and grants of land have been recorded in church and court documents going back to the 800's.

These records are all available, and that is what is making you sweat.

You have claimed over and over that you have evidence that you can trace your family back over a thousand years to specific individuals.

Not such a big deal, many can, especially members of the nobility, and you have assured us that you are descended from the highest nobility. As such, the royal courts would have preserved your records, as would the church.

Yet actually producing that evidence seems to be a problem for you.
__________________
Secede. Control taxbases/municipalities. Use boycotts, divestment, sanctions, strikes.
http://www.aeinstein.org/wp-content/...d-Jan-2015.pdf
https://canvasopedia.org/wp-content/...Points-web.pdf

Last edited by Hugh; July 10th, 2012 at 07:58 PM.
 
Old July 10th, 2012 #76
Steven L. Akins
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: The Heart of Dixie
Posts: 13,170
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh View Post
Have you applied to be registered as a clan, following the standard procedure?

Why do you refuse to post The Letter?

What are you hiding, Akins?

What shocking secrets are contained in The Letter that you are so terrified we would see?

<snip>

Yet actually producing that evidence seems to be a problem for you.
I've nothing to hide, in fact, to satisfy your curiousity, I went to the trouble of digging them out of my files and scanned them for you and have uploaded them to an album on photobucket for your perusal. You can find them here: http://s1038.photobucket.com/albums/...on%20Petition/
 
Old July 10th, 2012 #77
H.B.
Senior Member
 
H.B.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,749
Default

If we can, absolutely. Wikipedia is totally jew-occupied territory. All their so-called "rules" go out the window when they are trying to either make hook-nosed demons look "good" - or make us humans look "evil." If we can somehow flip that bias, it would be a great start.
__________________
Smash jewish supremacy. Smash globalism. Smash ZOG. Use ad blockers at all times to starve off the (((beast))).
 
Old July 10th, 2012 #78
SmokyMtn
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: East Tennessee
Posts: 8,506
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by H.B. View Post
If we can, absolutely. Wikipedia is totally jew-occupied territory. All their so-called "rules" go out the window when they are trying to either make hook-nosed demons look "good" - or make us humans look "evil." If we can somehow flip that bias, it would be a great start.
TOTAL WASTE OF TIME.

First of all, it is now common knowledge that Wiki is a poor source of information when it comes to controversial information/issues.

Three years ago, I watched three Creators waste hours of their time, trying to correct minute details on Wiki pages, only to see their efforts amount to nothing when a week later another Kike/Anti/Troll launched the next round of debates on the issue at hand.

Haven't any of you fools on VNN figured out yet that Steven L. Akins is a troll, who's M.O. is to get you all to waste hours on end in left field running after a ball that was hit in right field?
 
Old July 10th, 2012 #79
Clancy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 555
Default

I've been able to make changes to Wikipedia articles, on racial topics, that still stand.
 
Old July 10th, 2012 #80
Steven L. Akins
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: The Heart of Dixie
Posts: 13,170
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clancy View Post
I've been able to make changes to Wikipedia articles, on racial topics, that still stand.
Making long-standing changes at Wikipedia is possible, provided that your sources are verifiable - that is Wikipedia's criteria. I was told in my arguing with other Wikipedia editors that Wikipedia's purpose was not to publish "truth", but to publish what could be verified in independantly published sources. If you can cite something from a verifiable, published source, they will generally let it stand.
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:28 PM.
Page generated in 0.14809 seconds.