In my essay “Our Weapon: The Truth”, published on The Occidental Observer in December 2011, I said this:
The fact that somebody expresses a forbidden thought, and forces the system and the public to tolerate it, is already a victory that puts the system into a defensive posture.
Essentially the same idea had been stated by Milovan Mracevich in this final paragraph from an article about “Holocaust Denial” that appeared in 1984 in The Montreal Gazette:
Many Jews fear that revisionist propaganda may eventually succeed in denigrating the central fact of the Holocaust, namely the murder of millions of Jews in gas chambers, from an absolute historical truth into a subject of debate. If a sizable portion of the public ever begins even to question the genocide as having occurred, the revisionists will, in a large sense, have already won. [M. Mracevich, “‘Holocaust-Denial Movement’ Steps Up Attack” The Montreal Gazette, 1 March 1984]
The problem that the Holocaustian establishment has is that if they engage the revisionists, they will lose the argument because the facts are on the revisionist side, and if they are seen forcibly stifling expressions of revisionism, they will lose moral status and credibility by abandoning the pretense of being truly liberal and committed to fairness. Either way, discussing or refusing to discuss, they lose — if only someone raises the question.
Another point that I made in my essay “Our Weapon: The Truth” was that the success of a publicity-campaign should not be measured by the number of people willing to stand up and publicly agree. Most of the people influenced by such a campaign will not be willing to do that.
Disbelief toward the Jewish Holocaust story may not always be expressed as disbelief, since we all know that lack of faith here is strongly disapproved. We are all familiar with the concept of avoiding trouble by not saying exactly what we really think. Private doubt about the Holocaust may come out as impatience with having to hear about the Holocaust yet again, or as criticisms of how the Holocaust story is used, often introduced by a concatenation like, “I am not a Holocaust-Denier but … “
The paucity of overt expressions of outright support for revisionism therefore should not be taken as a sign of failure. On the contrary, merely having Holocaust-skepticism accepted as an opinion to which one is entitled is an enormous success. That is what Milovan Mracevich told us in 1984.
Anyone who says that revisionism has had no impact is willfully blind. Jews are no longer securely established on the pedestal that they occupied a few decades ago, and widespread doubt about their Holocaust story is certainly a large part of the reason for that change.
The Holocaust and the rest of the Jewish mythology that we are all expected to endorse is a mere house of cards just waiting to be knocked down.