Source: Bigstock

My 2023 word of the year was “intractable”—problems that aren’t going away. Dysgenic black America, the Israel/Palestinian conflict. Every proposed “final solution” is a fantasy (“national divorce!” “White homeland!” “Two-State!” “From the river to the sea!”).

So now I present 2024’s word of the year: overcorrection.

In short, overcorrection is when something requires remedy, but the remedy goes too far and becomes a problem itself.

Lemme give you a few examples, starting with pop culture. Up through the 1960s, female characters in action films and TV shows typically had to be saved by men. These women spent a good deal of time cowering and screaming.

The Avengers, and yes this is my second Avengers reference in as many months, was an unremarkable British TV show that had zero appeal across the Atlantic. But in 1965, Diana Rigg was brought on as the new female lead, and Rigg’s character—Emma Peel—took the world by storm. Peel was the seminal ass-kicking femme, and the way Rigg played her—strong but sexy, coquettish at times, brutal at others—struck a chord. The series blew up in America, because Peel was, to a large extent, something new. A correction to the cliché of the cowering woman (it should be noted that series stunt coordinator Ray Austin took great pains to construct a realistic fighting style for 5-foot-10 Rigg; he integrated actual martial arts techniques—there was never a scene like we’d get today where a five-foot-tall waif air-kicks a 280-pound henchman through a wall. The Avengers recognized physics).

After two highly successful seasons, Rigg, justifiably, asked ITV to be paid the equal of costar Patrick Macnee. The network and the producers refused, and she quit. The series imploded and folded.

Okay, at that time, it would’ve been 100 percent justified to ask, “Why don’t we have more female action heroes?” Emma Peel had shown it to be profitable, and genre fans had grown tired of the old clichés. So sure, at that time, demanding more women in action films was appropriate.

And here we are in the 2020s, and what do we see?

Yep, overcorrection. Now every woman in every action film is superhuman. Stronger than the guys, smarter than the guys, always the rescuer, never the rescued. It’s as tedious as it is predictable.

And along with overcorrection comes the parade of morons who can’t or won’t see the overcorrection. You’ll still find imbeciles claiming that there’s not enough “female representation” in action films, when in fact, these days, that’s all there is.

Last week, Sharmeen Obaid-Chinoy, director of the upcoming “Jedi” Star Wars film, told the press, “We’re in 2024 now, and it’s about time we had a woman come forward to shape a story in a galaxy far, far away.”

“About time”? A woman’s been running (into the ground) the entire franchise for years.

One of the first signs of mental illness is the inability to mark the passing of time. Schizophrenics often “lose hours”; a day can go by, and they don’t realize it. But schizophrenia’s a legit disease; the low-IQ who walk among us have brains afflicted by stupidity. Hence why you still have leftists saying, “We need more female-driven action movies!” It’s no different from those who think blacks are still being lynched in the streets, or that black concerns are ignored by the media.

Zero awareness that the U.S. went from one extreme 100 years ago (blacks don’t matter), to an overcorrection (blacks are the only ones who matter).

Overcorrection thrives because the dumbest among us don’t comprehend that at a certain point you have to put the brakes on the remedy because the remedy has become as deadly as the illness (yes, overcorrections are often driven by bad actors, but to flourish they rely on the simpletons who don’t notice the shift).

Moving on from Emma Peel to the Holocaust (that’s the first time in human history those eight words appeared in that order), Holocaust deniers attack me because I’m constantly opposing them. “Why you always pickin’ on us? Why not go after the ADL?”

Well, 1992 David Cole did “pick on” the ADL. 21st-century Cole goes after deniers. And deniers, the dumbest people on earth (and I say that knowing that there are New Guinea aboriginals who’ve yet to comprehend the connection between sexual intercourse and childbirth), want it to still be 1992. Indeed, they believe it is still 1992, when Cole was on national TV railing against misleading exhibits at Holocaust museums and camp sites.

When deniers ask why I say different things now than I did in 1992, my response is along the lines of, “If you expect me to say the same things in 2024 that I said in 1992, that means I’ve gone 32 years without learning anything new, which is arguably the worst insult imaginable, because only the most closed-minded numbskull on earth could go that long without taking in new knowledge.”

But of course deniers don’t understand that response, because—possessing a unique combination of low IQ and, in many cases, mild-to-severe schizophrenia—the passage of time is unobserved. To them, it’s still 1992, and what I “handed down from the mount” in those days is as relevant now as it was then, because then is now. Hence any evolution of my message must be the result of me “selling out” or folding to JDL threats, because knowledge never evolves, just as time never passes. Even though the JDL died with its leaders in 2002, to a denier, it still is 2002.

1992, 2002, and 2024 exist on the same plane at the same time; deniers are Dr. Manhattan, but retarded.

I get a dozen deniers a day on Twitter coming at me like I’m some kind of timeless guru, only to react with fury when I explain that it’s not 1992 anymore. A dozen a day. Not a week, but a day, now that Musk’s made Holocaust denial promotable and profitable.

Which brings us back to overcorrection. In 1992, the ADL was a fearsome beast with no natural predators in the U.S. Holocaust museums and camp sites worldwide spread disinformation knowing that those who objected could do little but print up a clumsy newsletter and snail-mail it to friends. The balance of power, at that moment, favored the ADL and the mainstream historians. I battled them because the field of battle was uneven; they were the bullies and, with the arrogance of bullies facing weak and voiceless opposition, they were spreading poor history. So that’s where I concentrated my efforts.

But 1992 is long over, and the public square is no longer dominated by lantern-jawed gorgon Debbie Lipstadt and iron-fisted Irv Rubin. All the fraudulent camp exhibits my 22-year-old lispy self showed on the Donahue show and 60 Minutes (“The doorths open in!” “Wooden doorths!” “It lockth from the inthide!”) have been corrected, and Holocaust history is stronger as a result (which was my goal all along; you’re welcome). The fraudulent Soviet-concocted death toll at Auschwitz has been jettisoned, and, thanks to David Irving’s “questionable” defamation suit against Lipstadt in the late 1990s, mainstream Holocaust scholars took their heads outta their asses and actually decided to address the claims of revisionists and deniers.

And now we come to the overcorrection.

In 2009, Holocaust denial suffered a blow when revisionist “think tank” Institute for Historical Review distanced itself from the topic, with IHR director Mark Weber essentially saying, “Yeah, there was a Holocaust; we ain’t going to the mat over that anymore.” But the blow wasn’t fatal, because social media was on the rise. Soon enough, the crazies (who’d been kept down by the “serious revisionists” and the absence of social media) didn’t need a “think tank” anymore. And today, the deniers, especially the new generation—the Groypers, the edgy edgelord MMA fighters, podcasters, and “based” celebrities and influencers—have become the new bullies, the smug, hardheaded adherents of an inflexible orthodoxy.

In 1992, revisionists/deniers defined themselves as the “open-minded” ones. “Hey, we’re just asking questions, gosh darn it!” But today, it’s way easier to speak rationally with someone from a mainstream Holocaust org than it is to speak with a denier. Deniers have become the very monster that rational revisionism initially fought—they’re closed-minded, obstinate, dismissive of facts, and they react with anger and name-calling if their orthodoxy is challenged.

And horrifically, they’re on the ascent. The embrace of Holocaust denial by large-follower Twitter and TikTok accounts (since Musk ended the ban on denial, some of the largest accounts on Twitter are denial accounts), coupled with the weakening of the ADL (a weakening the ADL brought on itself, to be sure; I’ve no sympathy at all for that org), means that the power dynamic has shifted. As someone who can mark the passing of time, I see the overcorrection. Thirty years ago, deniers were being silenced and imprisoned. Now they have the floor and their old foes are on the defensive.

Another thing about overcorrections is that the cowards, those too timid to speak up when they were the bullied, all of a sudden find “courage” when the former bullies are being stomped by the mob. People are piling on the ADL because Musk made it safe to do so. But I took on the ADL when it was at its most powerful, because when it comes to comedy I love “punching down,” but in an actual fight only weaklings join in when there’s no risk.

I don’t weep for the ADL, but there’s a new main menace in town. Holocaust denial’s become “cool,” promoted by zealots who are the new worst and widest spreaders of bad history, and defended by dolts who, too stupid to gauge the passing of time, still see deniers as underdogs.

But they’re not. They (to quote George Will) “torture history to rehabilitate torturers” to an audience of millions every day. They’re the “regime” now. That’s how history works. Romania’s anti-communist, then communist, then anti-communist again. If you can’t keep up with the shifts, if you can’t see changes occurring around you, you might want to ask your doctor about chlorpromazine.

Pendulums swing; it’s literally the only thing they do. And pendulums are inevitable in human action because the vocal are often the most stupid, and the stupid can only see extremes.

“No women action heroes!”

“Only women action heroes!”

“No blacks allowed!”

“Only blacks allowed!”

“Six million killed and if you say it’s even one less you’re a Nazi!”

“270,000 dead from typhus and if you say it’s even one more you’re a SHILL CUCK!”

The pendulum never stops swinging because inflexible orthodoxies inspire only compliance or defiance, but never equilibrium or edification.

The brave soul confronts the inflexible orthodoxy in its ascent, not its descent.

Okay, this was Part I of my overcorrection rant. Next week: how overcorrection applies to the 2024 elections, and why that’s very bad news.