PDF 
by Mike Gray
One of the supreme ironies of history would be if Hitler, who regarded all non-Aryans as inferior “mongrels” at best, actually was Jewish. The London Daily Telegraph recently reported on samples taken from his relatives:
Saliva samples taken from 39 relatives of the Nazi leader show he may have had biological links to the “subhuman” races that he tried to exterminate during the Holocaust.
. . . [the] Haplogroup E1b1b1 which showed up in their samples is rare in Western Europe and is most commonly found in the Berbers of Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia, as well as among Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews.
“This is a surprising result,” said Ronny Decorte, a genetic specialist at the Catholic University of Leuven. “The affair is fascinating if one compares it with the conception of the world of the Nazis, in which race and blood was central. Hitler’s concern over his descent was not unjustified. He was apparently not pure or ‘Ayran’.”
As the article notes, this isn’t the first time Hitler’s lineage has been called into question.
What, exactly, is the point of this? Is declaring Hitler a self-hating Jew really what we need?
I’m puzzled by your question, Daniel. Isn’t Adolph Hitler an important part of the history of the twentieth century? Wasn’t his effect on Western culture and Western civilization immense, and his toxic combination of extremes of Darwinism, occultism, and statism a distillation of crucial, anti-Western and inhuman nineteenth-century trends emblematic of much of what went wrong in the twentieth century and resulted in the murders of scores of millions of people? And isn’t all of that obviously why the Daily Telegraph, one of the world’s great newspapers, printed the article to which Mike Gray linked?
In answer to your questions: Yes, yes, and no.
He is an important part of history, his effect on the West was immense, but neither point addresses the question as to why it’s important to attempt to show a tenuous genetic link between Hitler and Berber, Ashkenazi, and Sephardic Jews, beyond the obvious – he wanted all Jews dead.
Would it make a bit of difference if some test his descendants showed that Nathan Bedford Forrest had blacks in his past? What does the statement, “Hitler was a hypocritical, self-hating Jew”, which is the gist of the Telegraph’s extremely brief story, add to what we know about the Holocaust?
As a human being, 70% of Hitler’s genetic makeup is shared with a sea sponge, and given his vegetarianism, does that change what we know about one of history’s most evil entities? No. It adds nothing.
Daniel, your continual contention that the Telegraph article characterizes Hitler as a “self-hating Jew” is unfounded and unedifying. The ethnic background of any important historical figure is of intrinsic interest. That’s enough justification, and continually repeating the same buzzwords does nothing to change it.