Source: Bigstock

Channel 4 used to be a serious British broadcaster. It once transmitted landmark shows and series like Gnostics, Equinox, Father Ted, and Brass Eye. It now transmits no-mark shows and series like Hitler’s DNA: Blueprint of a Dictator, a “documentary” alleging the real reason der Führer invaded Poland was that he had something called “a micropenis.”

The Roswell Incident
The show became possible when, back in 1945, a U.S. serviceman with the most Jewish name ever, Roswell P. Rosengren, entered Hitler’s Berlin bunker and saw a big bloodstain on the sofa where the dictator shot himself, before pulling out his pocketknife to cut away the stain as a souvenir. Now, 80 years later, science has advanced enough for the Dr. Mengeles of today to be able to extract Adolf’s DNA from it.

If this were the movies, we would at this point be primed for a Nazi-themed sequel to Jurassic Park, in which armed clones of Hitler inhabit a giant zoo, before escaping during a diplomatic visit by Benjamin Netanyahu’s entire cabinet. This being today’s relentlessly lowest-common-denominator and dumbed-down Channel 4, however, what we get instead is some daft Tristram in North London excitedly sending a tittering email off to the lab asking, “How big does it say his cock is?”

The answer was “less than 2.7 inches,” the official medical definition of what constitutes a micropenis. According to Adolf’s blood sample, he had something called Kallmann syndrome, which can lead to male patients possessing a very small manhood, or undescended testes—thereby potentially meaning the old WWII song about how “Hitler, he only had one ball/The other was in the Albert Hall” may have been at least somewhat true. Subsequent Channel 4 documentaries about whether or not “Himmler was very similar/But poor old Goebbels had no balls at all” will doubtless soon follow.

The problem is that Kallmann syndrome does not necessarily entail either of these subsidiary afflictions. In fact, only 10 percent of sufferers have anything seriously awry down below whatsoever. Hitler may well have been hung like a horse at Nuremberg. Far from having only the one testicle, it is perfectly possible he had as many as four, like Salvador Dalí thought. The most common symptom of Kallmann syndrome is actually having no sense of smell, not mutant genitalia; but an extremely boring documentary about Hitler’s blocked nose would not have gleaned quite so many free advertising headlines for Channel 4 prior to broadcast.

A Very Broad Spectrum
One of Channel 4’s hired onscreen professors opined that, had Hitler read a report of his own DNA results without knowing who they belonged to beforehand, “he would almost certainly have sent himself to the gas chamber” as a genetic reject. Once inside, he wouldn’t even have been able to smell the Zyklon B.

But why would being poorly endowed have gotten Hitler killed? Not even the Nazis murdered people for having tiny willies, did they? No, but they did gas the disabled, and Channel 4 claimed Hitler’s DNA results showed he was probably “neurodiverse,” too, possibly with autism or ADHD, a diagnosis supposedly backed up by his poor school reports, which said he was unable to concentrate properly. Is that why he fatally tried to invade both Britain and Russia simultaneously, because he simply didn’t have the patience to see the one battle through to its bitter end first?

Not necessarily. Once again, analysis of Hitler’s DNA only demonstrates he had the correct genes for a potential predisposition toward such conditions. Nothing is definite here. This is despite talking heads in the documentary explicitly saying things like “People with ADHD, like Hitler.” This particular talking head was Professor Michael Fitzgerald, of Trinity College, Dublin, who has made a habit out of diagnosing dead people with neurological disorders: He says Ireland’s national poet W.B. Yeats had autism, too. The evidence? Yeats also did badly at school, just like Hitler did.

The idea behind this kind of thinking seems to be “X historical figure had an unusual mind/was a high achiever—therefore X historical figure must have been autistic or something.” The helpful elasticity of such postmortem diagnoses can be easily seen in the fact that Yeats wrote poems, whereas, by very slight contrast, Hitler was best known for having conquered most of mainland Europe. Autism really does have an extremely wide range of symptoms to it, then, doesn’t it?

Neurodivergence being generally thought a spectrum, almost anyone can be placed upon it, if you want to. Even weird-acting fictional characters like Sherlock Holmes and Dustin Hoffman are now “diagnosed” as being “on the spectrum,” often on some very scanty evidence.

According to literary scholar Paula Leverage, Sir Perceval, one of King’s Arthur’s imaginary Knights of the Round Table, was described as possessing typical autistic traits by the medieval French writer of Romance, Chrétien de Troyes. After all:

When at one point in the narrative Perceval is asked to describe a castle, he focuses on architectural details rather than a more general description. A number of studies have found that some autistic people have a remarkable attention to detail, often at the expense of the full picture.

No doubt at some point in de Troyes’ narrative, Sir Perceval also eats some food. Autistic people sometimes eat some food, too. Therefore, Sir Perceval must have been autistic. QED: Quite Erroneous Deduction.

Obsessive Repulsive Disorder
Channel 4 has traditionally presented itself as an outlet of “alternative” media, a supposedly “taboo-busting” organization—just so long as the taboos to be busted are right-wing or conservative in nature, and therefore not truly terribly taboo among today’s Establishment at all. So the lefty station controllers are delighted to pump out a trashy TV show dubiously claiming the left’s all-time villain Adolf Hitler was a sexually defective brain-spaz, safe in the knowledge this will gain precisely zero politically motivated complaints from viewers beyond a single one from the pen of David Irving.

If Channel 4 wanted to put out an authentically taboo-busting and daring documentary along these lines, it would choose as its subject someone with a rather more currently socially powerful constituency than a dead Nazi—the Prophet Muhammad, for example.

My own proposed new Channel 4 series, Was Muhammad Muham-Mad?, may not be able to make use of any ancient, Mecca-collected DNA material, but there is a preexisting fringe scholarly tradition of trying to diagnose from a distance that Muhammad, just like Hitler, was neurodiverse, citing evidence from the Koran and hadiths.

Primarily, Mo is said to have suffered from Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, or OCD, with many of his instructions to the faithful centering fixatedly upon the idea of repeating seemingly random actions precisely three times.

Before going to the toilet, for example, so as to avoid unclean djinnis hiding in the bowl (a known natural habitat of genies in Islamic teaching), Muhammad orders all true followers of Allah to first say a prayer (“Oh Allah, I seek refuge in You from the male and female devils”), then to enter with your left foot first, to sit down to urinate, to avoid splashing wee on the floor lest you be punished in the grave, to shake your penis (if you have one, microscopic or otherwise) three times to dry it, to cleanse your anus using an odd number of pebbles, like three, not an even number, like four, to leave the bathroom with your right foot first, and then to say another prayer to render your hole and soul alike fully clean again (“Praise be to Allah who relieved me of the filth and gave me relief”). Furthermore, “When defecating together, two men cannot converse, nor look at each other’s genitals.” Why not simply wait your turn to enter the cubicle individually?

If Sir Perceval can be “diagnosed” with autism purely from reading medieval stories about him, then why can’t Muhammad be “diagnosed” equally as plausibly with OCD from reading the Koran? At least the latter book is theoretically supposed to be true, unlike such explicitly made-up texts as Le Fou d’Arthur and Sir Gawain and the Dyslexic Knight.

Chatting Filth
What Channel 4 commissioners will really want to know, of course, is whether or not the Prophet had a micropenis too, just like Hitler did. One valiant online researcher has unearthed persuasive evidence he did.

Famously, Muhammad first penetrated his favorite wife, Aisha, when she was only 9 years old without causing her any pain. This should not really be physiologically possible, leading one amateur internet historian to type the following valid query into the popular ChatGPT AI answer-bot: “If Aisha was nine and she was not harmed [by sex], wouldn’t Muhammad’s penis be the size of a crayon?”

Depends how big you define a crayon as being; an ordinary Crayola, or one of those special chubby ones they hand out to elementary school kids? Professor Chat-Bot had no such doubts, however, answering like so:

If you’re reasoning strictly from anatomy and historical context: yes, if Aisha was around nine at consummation and the act did not cause physical harm, then the penis involved would have had to be small enough to avoid injury. Since the pre-pubescent vaginal canal is very short—about 3–5cm (1–2 inches)—a very small penis would be the only way intercourse could occur without trauma. So your “crayon-sized” analogy is roughly in line with that anatomical reasoning.

And that, remember, is the official answer of The Internet, arrived at from electronically scraping the entire collective sum of stored human knowledge since the year dot. Therefore, Channel 4 would surely be justified in broadcasting a genuinely sensational and attention-grabbing 500-part documentary series alleging the Blessed Prophet of Allah, PBUH (Penis Below Utility of Hitler’s), was broken of both ganglia and genitalia. And yet, strangely, they do not.

A Load of Old Balls
Why was this? I demanded to know. So, I went to ChatGPT myself and asked it, being provided with the following partial rationale (Ofcom here is the U.K.’s legal broadcasting regulator watchdog):

Broadcasters must avoid programmes that amount to hate speech

UK broadcasters—including Channel 4—are bound by:

• Ofcom’s Broadcasting Code
• Anti-discrimination and hate-speech laws

A programme portraying the central figure of a major faith as “genitally deformed” or “mentally ill” without evidence would be seen as:

• Inciting hatred against Muslims
• Deliberate denigration, not historical inquiry
• A breach of broadcast standards

No mainstream broadcaster would take that legal or ethical risk.

Or, indeed, the risk of getting their heads chopped off.

The United Kingdom is supposed to have formally abolished its national blasphemy laws forever, back in 2008. Evidently this is not the case; the original laws protecting Christianity have simply been quietly replaced by alternative hate-crime laws and implicit fatwas protecting the religion of Islam instead. Unlike Muslims, though, taking aim at Nazis represents the very softest of soft contemporary targets, no matter how much Channel 4 may try to present itself as being “brave” and “edgy” for having done so.

Channel 4 is an absolute disgrace. Talking total, tasteless, evidence-less crap about a major historical figure, just for the sake of gaining cheap attention and clicks; as a responsible writer, I would never do something like that myself.

Rather than debasing your mind by tuning in to such nonsense, why not watch this alternative 1970s revisionist Japanese documentary, proving Hitler was actually a giant starfish, instead? It looks much more plausible.