If you bothered to read my post in its entirety, you would have known that I am already in agreement with you that genes do not lead to Nazism.

As I understand your argument, should conditions favorable to Nazism come about, any number of people might become a Nazi leader, therefore the efforts of the Hitler family are hopelessly in vain.

Perhaps; I don't suppose they believe they are forestalling the possibility, only helping modify conditions that might bring about such a scenario. You mention deteriorating social conditions. Certainly these would be part of recipe, but a glance at the historical record of fascist and revolutionary movements show that other "conditions", namely human factors such as organizational ability and the efficacy of propaganda also play a determining role. While we both may find the bloodline theory superstitious, its propaganda value as a morale booster is indisputable. Movements are energized by figures who can project the mantle of legitimacy.

Disagree with the family if you will, but I'd hope you agree that the choice to reproduce is a personal decision that rests ultimately with them alone. Many people choose to be childless; this overpopulated world is at no great loss because one family decided otherwise.

They'd be better off having kids and instilling them with good, noble qualities, then. Genes don't make someone a Nazi or any other kind of fascist. And even if by chance some descendant of theirs got into fascism (and was aware of their genetic heritage--why pass that knowledge on?) they'd still be the leader of a group of detested outcasts. Who cares if Neo-Nazis think someone's the bee's knees? They don't matter in the grand scheme of things; if someday Nazis should have power, well... dictators aren't spawned from the aether... social conditions would have to be in very bad shape, in which case it would just be someone else stepping up to the role. It's still just bad, silly, superstitious logic.

Suppose three or four generations down the line, an inheritor of the bloodline becomes involved in fascist ideology. The credibility (among neo-Nazis) conferred by the name might be enough to launch the career of someone who believes he has the "Hitler magic" within him. Given the Nazi's obsession with racial mysticism, it conceivable that they would embrace such a character as a sort of reincarnation of Der Fuhrer.

So I view the choice not to reproduce as an honorable effort to guard future generations. Though if they chose otherwise, I would also understand (they are humans, and within all of our DNA is the potential for great good and great evil).

They deserve their privacy

Who knows what some delusional lunatic might want to do to them

Still, I don't really see why they'd end the bloodline on purpose. I'm sure not ALL the Hitler genes are bad. There are distant cousins to consider (and Hitler wasn't even a "real" Hitler; his father took the name, probably because it sounded better than Schicklgruber).

Besides, it's how you use what you've got that counts. Imagine if Hitler had used his power for good instead of evil...

If the name Hitler is not on any of their marriage or birth certificates, why identify so strongly with it as their "true" name? Why say there's an "Adolf Hitler" out there if that's not the name he uses or is officially identified by? (Actually, why name the eldest son Adolf in the first place?)

And the sons aren't directly descended from THE Hitler, nor would there be anything inherently "bad" about their genes [even if they were his sons] that not having children should seem logical to them. People are funny creatures with all their bloodline mysticism.

So if Abel had lived, Cain would have married him?

Oh, yeah, the Hitlers, whatever.