Adolf Hitler may have been descended from both Jews and Africans, DNA tests are indicating, the Daily Mail reported. . . .
Mulders told Belgian magazine Knack that “[o]ne can from this postulate that Hitler was related to people whom he despised,” the Daily Mail reported.
I’m not sure it qualifies as news to determine that someone was related to people whom he despised.
More importantly, the news reports on this topic consider this conclusion to be ironic, showing that they don’t actually understand nineteenth-century ideas about evolution. Evolution-based racism is not tribalist and conservative, as it is ordinarily depicted by ignorant, snotty progressives. It is fundamentally a progressive idea, just like eugenics. The idea is to prevent members of the unevolved groups from reproducing, so that their lines die out; and to encourage members of the evolved groups to reproduce in abundance. So, of course the evolved groups will have less-evolved ancestors.
The purpose is to prevent congenitally defective and dysfunctional people from being born at all, thus improving the human race as a whole. The backwards people already born were merely being sacrificed to make the race as a whole more sustainable. But wait, the evolutionist objects; they were decreasing biodiversity. Biodiversity, however, is a red herring used by evolutionists to cover the fact that they don’t know the mechanism of evolution. Evolution requires biodiversity, they say, in order to naturally select the best possible genes. Of course, then the carriers of the less useful genes become extinct through competition and biodiversity is drastically reduced (naturally, so it’s OK). Evolutionists consider this to be a big problem for finches and salmon, though not so much for crocodiles and gingko trees.
Moreover, progressives don’t consider genetic sustainability to be important with human evolutionary dead ends, such as homosexuals and autistics. People in both of these groups are unlikely to survive and reproduce, yet we are told that their conditions are genetically determined. The argument is that they somehow contribute to the survival and reproduction of their group, which therefore passes on their genes, presumably in some sort of recessive, unexpressed form.