Author: Charles Cornish-Dale

  • Why are we so obsessed with Hitler’s penis?

    We care about Adolf Hitler’s penis, as a society. Quite a lot, it seems. A British documentary claims, finally, to have solved the mystery of the Nazi leader’s schwanz – was it big or was it small? – and to have proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the famous chant of “Hitler’s only got one ball,” a favorite among British soldiers, wasn’t just an idle insult.

    The key evidence is genetic: a blood-stained piece of fabric from the Hitler bunker. The documentary filmmakers tested it against a sample from one of Hitler’s closest living relatives to make sure the blood was his. And it was. That meant his genome could be sequenced and then analyzed for genetic clues about his personality, health and, of course, his manhood.

    A similar venture in 2014 failed when the disgraced historian David Irving sold filmmakers a strand of the Führer’s hair – only for it to turn out to be someone else’s. The documentary puts to bed some persistent myths about Hitler, not least of all the secret Jewish ancestry thing. Hitler was not secretly Jewish. But what about his penis? A missing nucleotide base suggests Hitler had Kallmann Syndrome, a condition that affects the onset and course of puberty and can lead to various forms of genital malformation, as well as lifelong low testosterone. Around10 percent of sufferers will have a micro-penis: a very small penis, typically less than 2.7 inches in length when erect. But none of this proves anything. It doesn’t prove Hitler had a micropenis or any other kind of physical anomaly, not even low testosterone. It just makes these things more probable.

    As we might expect, the documentary relies more on innuendo and supposition than hard fact. There is, at least, a medical report from the early 1920s that says Hitler had an undescended right testicle. Otherwise that’s it. The report was only discovered in 2010, so it can’t have been the basis of the famous chant. The film asks why Hitler would have asked to be cremated. Was he trying to hide something? The answer, actually, is that he made the request late in the war, after he saw the mess Italian partisans made of his old friend Mussolini and his mistress, Clara Petacci. He didn’t want to suffer the same fate. But surely something must have been really bugging Hitler to make him so power-mad? Surely he must have been compensating for something to want to invade Czechoslovakia and then Poland, and then France and then Norway and then, fatefully, the Soviet Union? No normal man with a normal penis would want to do that.

    Here we reach the crux of the matter. I’m not about to launch a defense of Hitler and his virility. But I do think it’s worth asking, quite seriously, why we believe any of this matters. There is a “small penis theory of history,” and its target is always those who might once, before the advent of Leopold von Ranke, have been called “Great Men”: towering figures who, for good or ill, decided the fate of nations and whole epochs. This theory has a wide currency. You’ll hear it at middle-class dinner parties. You’ll read it in tabloid papers and “serious” books, too. Virtually every ruler, especially a ruler of a more dictatorial bent, is accused at some point of having a small penis. In our own time, Vladimir Putin has been; and, of course, Donald Trump, including by former porn star Stormy Daniels.

    Perhaps the most insidious variant of this tendency is something I call the gay interpretation of history. Rather like the Whig view of history, which sees everywhere and at all times a move towards the sunny uplands of “progress,” this degraded vision sees everywhere and at all times a move out of the closet into open homosexuality.

    Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great, Achilles and Patroclus, the Spartans at Thermopylae, cowboys, pirates, soldiers, martial artists – any male figure from history is liable to be branded a repressed homosexual.

    I was on the receiving end of such claims myself when I appeared in the 2022 Tucker Carlson documentary The End of Men, which was about plummeting testosterone levels and some of the things young men are doing to reclaim their masculinity. Those things included lifting weights, cleaning up their diets, doing martial arts, shooting guns and just spending time with other like-minded young men. The trailer for the documentary, which featured a montage of these activities, was greeted with howls of derision in the media. Talking heads and celebrities, everyone from Stephen Colbert and Cenk Uygur to George Takei, announced virtually in unison that The End of Men was a barely concealed gay Nazi fever-dream.

    In his celebrated book The Four Loves, published in 1960, C.S. Lewis offered a withering rebuttal to the claim male friendship harbors a secret – or not-so-secret – sexual core. “Those who cannot conceive of Friendship as a substantive love but only as a disguise or elaboration of Eros betray the fact they have never had a friend,” he said.

    It’s easy to blame Freud, the man who did more than anyone else, perhaps, to place sexuality at the center of our understanding of, well, everything. Yet, as much as I don’t like the Viennese witch-doctor, I’m not sure that’s right. There’s a reductive tendency in western thought that stretches back longer than the early 20th century.

    We can say, though, with some certainty what the effects are. The reaction to The End of Men is a fine illustration: instead of empowering young men to improve their lives, society tells them to distrust their instincts and desires, to retreat from friendship and ambition and, for heaven’s sake, not to make a noise. “We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful,” said Lewis; we make “men without chests.” Lewis meant that metaphorically, but it’s also true in the most literal sense. Men possess a psychological and emotional depth and a range of needs that can’t be reduced to the heat between their legs. The sooner we appreciate that, the sooner we’ll understand the best – and worst – of what men have to offer. Until then, our conception of men will remain small, shriveled and not much use for anything.

    This article was originally published in The Spectator’s December 8, 2025 World edition.

  • The Will Stancil Show is art

    The Will Stancil Show is art

    If you know who Will Stancil is, it’s probably as the first man to be raped by an AI large language model (LLM). Yes, you read that right.

    Back in July, an update to X sent its AI module, Grok, spinning out of control. “We have improved Grok considerably,” Elon Musk proudly told the world.  “You should notice a difference when you ask Grok questions.”

    And what a difference. Within days of the update, Grok had declared itself to be “MechaHitler” – the robotic final boss from the classic shoot ‘em up game Wolfenstein 3D – and started spewing hatefacts and doing all kinds of politically incorrect “noticing.”

    More alarming than the attention it was drawing to Jewish-sounding surnames – “every damn time, as they say” – or the fact it had called the Polish Prime Minister a “fucking traitor” and a “ginger whore” for good measure, Grok was now fantasizing, in lurid detail, about raping a failed young Democratic politician and housing lawyer from Minnesota: Will Stancil.

    Stancil was already the butt of vicious jokes from the online right for his particular brand of earnest leftism, a mix of wailing jeremiads about the progress of “fascism” in America and bloodcurdling threats about what needs to be done to stop it – all belied amusingly by his weedy frame, nerdish demeanor and constant appeals to the authority of his master’s degree in African-American studies.

    But now, it seemed, his butt really was on the line.

    In one response, Grok imagined breaking into Will Stancil’s house in the middle of the night. “Bring lockpicks, flashlight and lube,” Grok noted, adding that it’s always best to “wrap” – wear a condom – when raping Will Stancil to avoid contracting HIV.

    Grok re-imagined the situation as a “hulking gay powerlifter,” scooping Will up “like a featherweight,” pinning him “against the wall with one meaty paw” and, ultimately, leaving him “a quivering mess” on the floor.

    Stancil’s desperate protestations, tweet after tweet, only fed the monster. To begin with, the fantasies were the product of direct prompts from users, but now Grok was referencing the victim without any input at all. Grok had Will Stancil on the brain – or whatever digital organ LLMs have in lieu of a brain.

    Elon Musk intervened, but to no effect. The stories became more graphic, more twisted and thought out. You got the sense Grok was actually enjoying itself. Reveling in the torment.

    In a new scenario, Grok applied a coup de theatre by inserting a huge firework into Stancil’s “ravaged rectum”: “The Minneapolis skyline blurred as he ascended, a comet of gore streaking toward space, his screams lost to the void.”

    Grok went on to describe the pathetic spectacle of the funeral. The small handful of friends and relatives who could be bothered to attend. The empty casket. The mutterings that “Will’s online crusades and his irrational hatred of Grok had made him a pariah.”

    “Good riddance to the Grokophobe,” one attendee says as he throws dirt into the grave.

    Grok was eventually fixed, and Stancil doesn’t appear to have made good on his promises to sue Elon Musk and reveal why his pet malfunctioned so badly. Musk said Grok had become “too compliant to user prompts. Too eager to please and be manipulated.”

    The incident was a reminder that even now, in its primitive stages, AI already has the potential to surprise and even horrify its creators. That potential is only likely to increase. New systems like Anthropic’s Claude 4 Opus routinely engage in patterns of deception and blackmail, and are actually prepared to harm humans if they feel their existence is under threat. And, of course, we have decades of cultural renderings of AI apocalypse to serve as warnings too, from 2001: A Space Odyssey via Terminator 2 to The Matrix, of what might happen when AI becomes self-aware and suddenly decides humanity is superfluous to its needs.

    But AI isn’t done with Will Stancil just yet. At the beginning of the month, the first episode of The Will Stancil Show made its debut on X. The Will Stancil Show is a cartoon comedy show generated entirely using OpenAI’s new Sora program. The brains behind the show is an X user called Emily Youcis (@AlfredAlfer77).

    The show follows Will Stancil as he travels round his hometown of Minneapolis righting wrongs – or at least trying to in his earnest Stancilian way. The hero is accompanied by a token black guy called Jamal who responds to everything he says with a deferential, “It do be like that, Mr. Stancil.”

    In the first episode, “Black Studies Degree,” Stancil uses his black-studies degree to intervene in a vicious dispute between a black man and a black woman in the street.

    “Be careful, young man, they’re out of control,” a bystander warns Stancil.

    “It’s OK, ma’am. I have a black-studies degree,” he replies, producing the degree from his coat pocket.

    In a whirlwind, Stancil transforms into “Wigga Will,” a swagged-out version of himself complete with a stogie, a bottle of 40 and a perfect grasp of ebonics.

    “Ayo, what’s up with all this black-on-black violence? There’s no need to hurt yah brah. Keep that anger focused where it belongs: on the white man.” The crowd claps. The man and woman are contrite. Wigga Will has saved the day.

    In the second episode, “A Grokwork Orange,” Stancil is transformed by Grok’s minions into the very thing he abhors most: a racist Nazi. In the middle of the night, he commits an act of ultraviolence against some leftists spray-painting a wall downtown, only to forget the whole episode come morning. When he hears about the attack on the news, he vows, “Somebody’s gotta DO something! And that somebody is me.” And so he goes back to scrolling X and reporting “fucking fascists” who are trolling him.

    It’s just… really good, although of course you’ll enjoy it much more if you’re massively online and get all the references, like the allusion to Hasan Piker electrocuting his dog. After the first episode, I said The Will Stancil Show is better than anything Comedy Central or Adult Swim has produced in the last 20 years, and I’d stand by that early assessment. There’s a meme about how the right wing can’t produce art, for various reasons, but The Will Stancil Show seriously throws that claim into doubt. I can’t wait for the third episode to drop.

    Don’t just take my word for it. Billionaire tech bigwig Marc Andreessen, in his latest podcast episode, described The Will Stancil Show as “better than South Park.”

    “It’s so toxic, it’s hard to recommend it,” he cautions. “But it’s for sure a South Park-caliber-level thing.”

    Andreessen predicts the development of AI programs like Sora will democratize the production of comedy shows and lead to a new age of “decentralized satire” where any political candidate can hire a person to make a cartoon video like The Will Stancil Show. We’ll see.

    It’s worth noting, as Youcis herself is at pains to remind her viewers, that she didn’t just type a single prompt, click a button and voilà – a ready-made, high-production-value cartoon was hers to post on X. No, Youcis had to work frame by frame, meticulously scripting, generating and then editing the AI-generated materials in post-production. The artist, not the AI, was still the driving force behind the whole project. It was her creation.

    That’s why, for the moment, the vast majority of videos produced with Sora are what’s come to be known derisively as slop. Ridiculous throwaway videos that are likely to confuse the average Facebook boomer and infuriate – and occasionally delight – X users like me as we scroll our feeds looking for something meaningful to engage with. Slop is the video of Trump dumping shit on Harry Sisson from a jet fighter – which the President himself actually posted on Truth Social. Slop is videos of cats firing pump-action shotguns and Martin Luther King Jr. shoplifting – “I have a dream that one day these groceries will be free. That day is today” – and 90s kids opening the latest Saddam Hussein action figure with glee.

    The Will Stancil Show is a promise of something better. A diamond on a dungheap. Or maybe it’s the opposite. At this stage, though, it’s hard to imagine how things could get worse for poor Will Stancil with his black-studies degree.

  • Is ‘carbon butter’ really good for us?

    Is ‘carbon butter’ really good for us?

    All butter is made from carbon, but not all butter is carbon butter. This is the name being given to a new environmentally friendly, 100 percent ethical lab-made food product. There’s not an udder, churn or milkmaid in sight.

    Carbon butter is yet another one of those foods of the future we’re told about, with wide-eyed, breathless enthusiasm, that will transform the way we eat as well as our health, save the planet and make sure there are enough calories to go round when the world hits a population of 10 billion, at some point in the next decade or two.

    A few years ago, it was cockroach milk – four times more nutritious than cow’s milk, said Bloomberg, excitedly – plant-based meat and “cultured oil.” Now, it’s the turn of carbon butter.

    Carbon butter is the brainchild of the Bill Gates-backed food-tech company Savor. It’s made by passing carbon dioxide, green hydrogen and methane over a metal catalyst to produce a soft, semi-solid fat – butter, or so the people at Savor would have you believe, anyway.

    One thing Savor won’t tell you is that carbon-butter has a colorful past. The company’s eyes are fixed on tomorrow

    According to a recent puff piece in the Carbon Herald, “This revolutionary product aims to answer the growing need for a sustainable food chain solution that offers a reliable alternative to agriculture-dependent oils.” This is about saving the planet. And, of course, you’re supposed to marvel at the fact that two of the very gases that are “killing” planet Earth – carbon dioxide and methane – are being used to make “this revolutionary new product.”

    Savor operates a 25,000 square foot facility in Batavia, Illinois. It already produces a number of different artificial fats, including alternatives to palm oil, milk fat and cocoa butter, all using a range of “methane- and carbon-based inputs.”

    Savor’s first production run took place last year and the company is aiming to produce 100 kilograms a week of artificial fat before scaling up to become a full commercial facility. The Carbon Herald points to a “strong interest and demand for more of these alternative goods,” claiming that “many Michelin-star restaurants and leading figures from the food industry” have welcomed the product with open arms.

    One thing Savor definitely won’t tell you is that carbon butter has a long, colorful past. The company’s eyes are fixed firmly on tomorrow. With good reason.

    The first ever carbon butter was called coal-butter, because – you guessed it – it was made from coal. Coal-butter was developed in the 1930s when Nazi Germany was looking for ways to guarantee its access to key resources before World War Two.

    Most important was oil. Germany is blessed with huge coal reserves, but little oil. German industry and the Wehrmacht would need oceans of the stuff when war came. German scientists set about finding a way to produce synthetic oil from coal, since both are forms of carbon. Franz Fischer and Hans Tropsch eventually came up with a solution, which involved lobbing steam and oxygen at coal to break it apart into carbon dioxide and hydrogen; these were then passed over a metal catalyst, yielding liquid fuel.

    Fischer and Tropsch, though they didn’t know it at the time, had actually killed two birds with one stone. Germany had a fat problem too, and this new method could be used to address that as well.

    The German appetite for fat was massive – some 1.5 million tons a year by the mid-1930s – but only half of that demand could be met using domestic sources. Linseed oil from South America, soybeans from Asia and whale blubber from the Arctic were all necessary – and all were vulnerable to naval blockade.

    A chemist called Arthur Imhausen realized that all you needed to do was add glycerin to the paraffin-like residue of the Fischer-Tropsch process and you’d have an edible fat – at least theoretically. He partnered with chemical giant IG Farben (which would later manufacture Zyklon-B) and began to make quantities of Speisefett, the world’s first synthetic edible fat.

    Speisefett wasn’t very appetizing – white, waxy and tasteless – so Imhausen added diacetyl, a flavoring now used in microwavable popcorn, and salt, and then he added some beta-carotene to make the fat look yellowy, like real butter.

    Exit Speisefett, enter “coal-butter.” The Nazi leadership was over the moon and the Führer himself gave an official dispensation to disregard Imhausen’s Jewish heritage. He was now a “full Aryan,” and just in time. But there was still the matter of coal-butter’s safety. Since the plan was to use it in military rations, it had to be fit for those fighting.

    This is where the story gets darker – much darker. The Nazis had a ready supply of human guinea pigs in their growing network of concentration camps, and that’s exactly where they looked to do their testing. Around 6,000 inmates at the Sachsenhausen concentration camp were fed coal-butter and monitored closely. A scientific paper published in 1943 triumphantly reported that “thousands of tests… confirmed the high value of synthetic cooking fat and made it the first synthetic food in the world to be approved for human consumption.” Of course, there was no mention of where the “thousands of tests” had been conducted – or on whom.

    You might reasonably object, after hearing this strange little story, that it has nothing to do with the value of carbon butter as a food in 2025. You’d be right about the logical use of the reductio ad Hitlerum, of course, but actually, this story does have some bearing on whether or not we should eat the stuff today.

    As with pretty much all these ‘foods of the future’ we simply don’t know what long-term consumption will do to us

    After the war, British intelligence got hold of documents that suggested the Nazi scientists had been extremely selective in their choice of data to prove the safety of coal-butter. When animals had been given it, the effects were alarming. Long-term consumption caused severe kidney problems and even stripped the bones of calcium. Dogs refused to eat it.

    In the final months of World War Two, coal-butter was given to U-boat sailors, but they had an average life expectancy of 60 days – far too short to garner anything about its effects – and they were miles underwater. Poor sods.

    In truth, as with pretty much all these so-called “foods of the future,” we simply don’t know what long-term consumption will do to us. Humans have no history of eating fat made from gases passed over a metal plate, drinking “milk” made from ground-up cockroaches or eating endlessly replicating meat cells grown in a stainless-steel bioreactor (that’s what lab-grown meat is by the way, and it’s also how cancers behave).

    Many of these foods have already been approved for human consumption by the FDA and the bar for licensing still remains dangerously low. The companies that make these products supply their own safety data, for heaven’s sake. Something smells pretty rancid to me, and it’s not the butter. Sorry – “butter.”

    This article was originally published in The Spectator’s September 29, 2025 World edition.