Racist content on whatreallyhappened.com

[clu]

Hi,

I was disappointed to learn that this site was no longer permitted as a source on this forum. It is stated elsewhere that since this site (in addition to rense, which IMO has a flaky element) merely re-posts various news articles, we should link to those news articles instead of linking to wrh.com.

I've read some of wrh.com, but I haven't seen any content that in my opinion could be called racist.

Can anyone share some examples?

[Lithos]

1. A few reasons (and locking)

1) Use search terms and scan the archives for the likes of AmericanFreePress, fpp.co.uk, libertyforum.org, amnotes.com and you will find that WRH thinks material from these well known hate sites are valid news items. He also cites material from other sites (rense.com, serendipity.li) which also engage in a similar policy.

This either indicates tolerance for their views or extremely poor editorial judgement. Either makes WRH unfit for citation.

2) WRH was and remains among those sites who have posted original material advocating that Israel was behind 9/11. (Side Note: An associate of Rivero, Justin Raimondo, wrote a book along these lines as well. )

I'm not talking statements that US-Israeli policy helped fuel 9/11, but that Israel was actually behind the planning and operation of 9/11. This canard has been debunked and shown for the bigoted statement that it is.

3) He frequently uses the notion that it is okay to attack Zionists, but then substitutes the word "Zionist" for "Jew" in articles which were not about "Zionists" or Israel. For someone claiming precise definitions in what is acceptable to attack, this slip is unforgiveable.

Ex.
1/26/02 THE 50 MOST INFLUENTIAL ZIONISTS IN AMERICA

(the article was about the 50 most influential Jews in America).

4) He actually attempted to justify the Protocols of Zion.

11/27/02 FINAL WARNING: THE PROTOCOLS OF THE LEARNED ELDERS OF ZION If it explains current events clearly, then the question of whether it is a forgery becomes irrelevant.

The italics is his commentary.