If you want to educate me on the official narratives, you a…

I don't trust governments. I do have some faith in extensive, rigorous, peer reviewed scholarship. Which is what you have behind the claims about the holocaust

Financed by who?

Also, you don't appear to be fully educated about the mainstream narrative, as you raised the argument about the 6 million being cremated being hard to believe

I think 6 billion were cremated and they used advanced nazi saucer tech to do it. There's studies proving it, but they are secret and buried under Antarctica.

I don't know who financed the research. Who usually finances historical research? Publishers? If you want to pick some renowned holocaust historians, review their works and the funding behind their works and raise an objection be my guest. But I assume if this was a legitimate concern it would have been raised by now and I haven't heard anything about it.

You don't seem to know how science works in the context of power.

I already told you: you don't know the truth about it and neither do I.

It depends how much you trust authority and their experts and scientists.

If you do, you should probably go and get another booster. I won't.

Unfortunately, my limit of how much lies I am willing to take from authority and their experts was crossed a long time ago.

I understand - you put no faith in any kind of scholarship. Then I guess debates are kind of pointless. Your secret saucer tech hidden under Antarctica is very distinct from peer reviewed historical research.

For example, as I've mentioned several times, there's just mounds and mounds of documentation about the Hungarian deportation of Jews in 1944. There's nazi SS records, Hungarian records, train company records.

They all point to about 450k Jews being sent to Auschwits. Other than some ten thousand of those which are recorded as being transported further to other labor camps, where do you suppose those 450k souls disappeared to?

Trust "the science", if you want.

I don't. I was alive during Waco, 9/11, swine flu, bird flue, Covid and all the illegal wars.

Have you ever looked into peer review and how that works? Here's a name Robert Maxwell.

Scientists are payed by the state (grants). If you study and find things that contradict important narratives, you are out.

Ask Peter Deusberg while you're at it.

We don't all have to wallow in this black hole of self imposed ignorance. There's research you can do. The puzzle pieces are out there. You can gather them, evaluate their credibility, cross reference them with other sources and piece together theories that more closely approximate the truth.

Your arguments remind me of the Sandy Hook elementry conspiracy theory. Where, according to the conspiracy, everything was government lies. But it always seemed so absurd to me. It seemed so easy to go and piece that one together. The names of the victims were public. I imagine one could pretty easily go and track down the families, knock on their doors or call them and ask about it. I expect it would become pretty clear pretty quickly.

Why should anyone believe the theories of the people sitting on the couch speculating? If you want to reject the narrative and discuss it seriously, at least do some extensive research. If you read about the Leuchter report, find out about any rebuttals or counter arguments. Evaluate them, see which ones seem to be formulated more correctly. Which arguments do they make and which ones are persuasive. If you're not in a position to evaluate that, might mean you need more of an education. It just seems silly to reject a narrative without putting in the work, especially since it seems obvious that this process of research has already been done many times over on this topic. You just don't know about it.

Are there any cases where you believe the alternative narrative rather than the official one?

If so, which one?

I'm not sure what you mean by official narrative. I feel like that term only makes sense in terms of what political entities are saying? There's organizations and individuals doing research and scholarly work that, while no doubt influenced by politics, is also more accurately described as genuine scholarship.

The official narrative, if meant to represent the position of a government entity, has been, more often than not, in conflict with genuine scholarship.

One of the challenges, as you've mentioned, is identifying where politics and scholarship intersect and how one influences the other. It's certainly challenging, but not by any means impossible.

For example - any big controversy of the past century - at every stage there have been dissenters. Fortunately for us, we don't live in an information autocracy. Theres propaganda and government pressure, but counter narratives seem to always get their time in the sun.

Sorry if I didn't answer your question, maybe a better way to address your point would be for you to point out a narrative, and I'll point out the debate that raged around it and how we can look at that debate to try to identify the genuine scholarship

My rule is this: whoever is trying to silence dissenting voices is most likely lying.

They put 90yo grandmothers in jail because they deny the Holocaust.

That has desperation written all over it.

I've always fared well with this rule.

But if you tend to trust people who silence others, you are free to do so.

I think that's just a misunderstanding of history and politics in relation to genocides. I think nearly every genocide in recent history have countries with laws criminalizing denying or minimizing it. It should be obvious why. Is the Rwandan massacre a lie? The Armenian genocide? Massacres and genocides committed by soviets in ex Soviet countries? All are criminalized somewhere.

As I said, it's a rule. Exceptions prove the rule.

Some believe the censors, some the silenced.

Whom did you believe during Covid and how did that turn out?