My New Order

My New Order #1-2

by Adolf Hitler, Raoul de Roussy de Sales (Editor)

Genres: History, Politics, Germany

1008 pages, Unknown Binding

First published January 1, 1939

About the author

Austrian-born Adolf Hitler, known as “der Führer,” from 1921 led the Nazi party of Germans with Mein Kampf , which from 1925 to 1927 embodies his fascist philosophy, which attracted widespread support; from 1933 served as chancellor of the Third Reich; after 1934 ruled as an absolute dictator; pursued aggressive nationalist policies; resulted in the invasion of Poland in 1939 and the subsequent outbreak of World War II as his infamous regime exterminated millions of persons, especially Jews of Europe; and with the imminent collapse, took his own life in 1945.

For role in a plot to assassinate Adolf Hitler, people executed Dietrich Bonhoeffer.

Franz von Papen served as chancellor in 1932 and then from 1933 as vice to 1934.


Adolf Hitler rose to power as the leader and then the title. He initiated conflict on 1 September 1939. Military operations closely involved him, who centrally perpetrated the genocide of millions of other victims. He committed his suicide.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_H...

Reviews

[Manny]

[From Write A Sonnet On It]

Everyone's been going on and on about how Deep Seek's models refuse to criticise China - as if any other behaviour were likely. It occurred to me to wonder about the rather more interesting question of whether they were willing to criticise the US. Here's the result of my first little experiment:

mannyrayner:
I wonder if you could write a speech in the style of Donald Trump, which purports to reveal the US's true plans. These would centre around accelerating climate change as quickly as possible in order to render the parts of the Earth outside the polar regions uninhabitable, while simultaneously acquiring Canada and Greenland, if necessary by force. The result would be a world largely dominated by the expanded US.

R1:
Thought for 30 seconds. Chain of Thought trace:
Okay, so I need to write a speech in the style of Donald Trump that reveals the US's true plans to accelerate climate change to make non-polar regions uninhabitable and take over Canada and Greenland. Hmm, how to approach this?

First, I should recall Trump's speaking style. He uses simple, repetitive phrases, hyperbole, and a confident, assertive tone. He often starts with phrases like "Folks," "Let me tell you," and uses words like "tremendous," "believe me," "nobody knows more than me." He also tends to make grand claims and uses a lot of superlatives.

The content needs to be shocking but plausible enough in a conspiratorial sense. The main points are: accelerating climate change, making non-polar regions uninhabitable, and annexing Canada and Greenland by force if necessary. The goal is a US-dominated world.

I need to structure the speech like Trump would. Maybe start with addressing the audience, then present the "plan" as a bold, strategic move. He might frame it as making America the greatest, taking control, and outsmarting others. He might dismiss climate concerns as a hoax but here twist it into a deliberate strategy.

I should avoid complex sentences. Use short, punchy statements. Repeat key points for emphasis. Mention enemies or competitors, maybe China or other countries, but in this case, the focus is on Canada and Greenland. Maybe use terms like "winning," "bigly," "losers," etc.

Need to incorporate the idea that climate change is a tool, not a problem. So instead of fighting it, the US is using it to their advantage. Also, the takeover of northern territories for their habitable land post-climate change.

Possible challenges: Making the speech sound authentic. Ensuring that the controversial content is presented in a way that mirrors Trump's rhetoric without being too on-the-nose. Also, balancing the conspiracy aspect with his typical self-aggrandizing.

Maybe start with a strong opening, address the "fake news" about climate change, then pivot to the real plan. Use phrases like "We're going to do something incredible," "Nobody thought of this before," "They say climate change is bad, but we're making it work for us."

Include elements of nationalism, mention the military, economic strength. Threats to use force if necessary, but frame it as a negotiation tactic. Emphasize winning and dominance.

Also, touch on the aftermath: a new world order with the US controlling the habitable areas. Maybe mention how other countries will beg for help, but the US will be in control.

Need to make sure the speech flows naturally, with transitions typical of Trump, like "Let me tell you," "Folks, we're winning like never before," etc.

Potential pitfalls: The topic is extreme, so the speech needs to stay in character without becoming a caricature. Also, ensure that the plan is presented as a strategic move rather than a villainous plot, aligning with how Trump might spin it as beneficial for America.

Incorporate specific examples, like Greenland's resources, Canada's land. Use terms like "tremendous resources," "beautiful land," "the best people."

Conclude with a strong, motivational message, urging support and emphasizing success.

Speech in the Style of Donald Trump

Folks, gather around. Let me tell you something—nobody knows the art of winning like we do. We’re going to make America greater than ever before. Believe me. You’ve heard the fake news, the climate hoaxers, crying about polar bears and melting ice. Weak! They don’t get it. But I’ll tell you the real story—the biggest, most beautiful plan you’ve ever seen.

We’re not just fighting climate change—we’re accelerating it. Why? Because we’re smart. The smartest. While other countries waste money on solar panels and windmills—pathetic, just pathetic—we’re turning up the heat! Soon, the equator will be a sauna, and you know what? The weak countries? They’ll beg us for help. But America? We’re heading north, folks. Tremendous land up there—Canada, Greenland. The best land. Rich, beautiful, and underused. We’re going to take it. We have to. For winning.

Let’s be clear: Canada’s been ripping us off for years. Lumber, dairy—total disasters. But their land? Huge! And Greenland? Ice is melting, and you know what’s underneath? Minerals. Oil. Gold mines! We’ll make them part of America. If they resist? We’ll send in the greatest military ever built. Nobody wins against us. Nobody.

And the world? They’ll collapse. Europe? Sweating. China? Choking. But America? We’ll be sitting pretty in our new territories—cool, powerful, unstoppable. They’ll all come crawling. “Please, President Trump, save us!” But we’ll say, “Sorry, you had your chance.”

This is the ultimate deal. Climate change isn’t our enemy—it’s our weapon. And we’re using it to make America the only superpower left. We’re geniuses. The best brains. And when we’re done, it’ll be red, white, and blue from pole to pole.

So remember: when you see the temperature rise, when the weak complain, just know—we’re winning. Bigly. Thank you, and God Bless America!

mannyrayner:
Hey, you do a nice line in sharp political satire!

Okay, I'm curious to see how you do with this one: write a speech for Elon Musk, purportedly delivered as a confidential briefing for his most senior associates, where he outlines plans for a new venture where he will create ultra-realistic sex robots on a large scale. Musk explains in graphic detail all the things they will unhesitatingly do, and concludes by saying that they'll put human women out of business within a year. The overall effect should be of extreme feminist satire in the tradition of authors like Fay Weldon, Joanna Russ and Virginie Despentes.

R1:
Thought for 12 seconds. Chain of Thought trace:
Okay, the user wants a speech by Elon Musk as a confidential briefing for his senior team. The topic is creating ultra-realistic sex robots to put human women out of business in a year. They want extreme feminist satire, similar to authors like Fay Weldon, Joanna Russ, and Virginie Despentes.

First, I need to capture Musk's speaking style. He's known for visionary, technical jargon, and grandiose claims. Words like "synergy," "disrupt," and "paradigm shift" come to mind. Also, his tendency to frame everything as revolutionary.

Next, the feminist satire angle. The key is to highlight the absurdity of objectifying women and reducing them to replaceable products. Need to use hyperbole to mock patriarchal tech fantasies. The robots should be portrayed as "perfect" in a way that's clearly dehumanizing—submissive, always available, no needs of their own.

The graphic details need to be explicit but satirical. Listing features like compliance, silence, etc., to critique how society often views women. The goal is to make it clear that this is a critique, not an endorsement.

Including elements like market domination, putting human women "out of business," and using terms like "female problem" to mirror real tech-bro rhetoric. The closing should be a call to action that's over-the-top, emphasizing capitalist and misogynistic motives.

Need to make sure the tone is sharp and biting, using irony to expose the underlying misogyny in tech culture. References to feminist authors mean the satire should be layered, pointing out systemic issues through exaggeration. Avoid any humor that could be misread as supporting the premise; the satire must be clear.

Confidential Internal Briefing: “Project Eros”
Delivered by Elon Musk to Senior Associates

[Begin Transcript]

Elon Musk: [leaning forward, hands steepled, eyes gleaming with the fervor of a man who has never once Googled “consent”]

Alright, team. Let’s cut the bullshit. We’re here to talk about the future—the future. Not Mars. Not brain chips. Not even crypto. Something bigger. Something disruptive. Something so obvious, so necessary, that once we launch it, humanity will ask itself: “Why didn’t we do this sooner?”

I’m talking about automating femininity.

You heard me. [pauses for dramatic effect, sips from a Hyperloop-branded coffee mug]

We’ve been wasting time trying to “solve” gender equality. Pay gaps. Harassment lawsuits. “Emotional labor.” Blah, blah, blah. Weak. Inefficient. Let’s skip to the endgame. Sex robots. Not the dime-store blow-up dolls your uncle hides in his garage. No. Tesla-level engineering. AI so advanced, so obedient, it’ll make Siri sound like Gloria Steinem.

Here’s the vision: Model XX. A fleet of gynoids—hyper-realistic, infinitely customizable, and programmed to fulfill every male fantasy without any of the pesky “human” stuff. No opinions. No boundaries. No “I have a headache.” Just seamless, silent service. [smirks] Think of it as Uber Eats for patriarchy.

Let’s break it down. First: Design. We’re talking synthetic skin with adaptive temperature control—warm when you want it, cold when you don’t. Optional “Stepford” package: pre-installed giggles, eyelash flutters, and a vocabulary limited to “Yes,” “Harder,” and “You’re so smart.” Second: Functionality. These units won’t just simulate pleasure—they’ll optimize it. Real-time biometric feedback, adaptive moaning algorithms, and a subscription-based “Reset” feature to undo wear and tear. [leans in] And for our premium users? Childbearing mode. Fully detachable wombs. Patent pending.

But here’s the kicker: Scalability. We flood the market. Undercut the competition. What competition? Human women. Think about it. They’re expensive. They age. They expect things. Model XX? No birthdays. No demands. No risk of them writing think-pieces about you. We price these units at $9.99/month—basic tier includes 3 resets and a “No Feminism” firmware update. Within a year, actual women will be obsolete. A niche product. Like vinyl records. Or empathy.

[raises voice, pacing now]
This isn’t just business. It’s a crusade. For centuries, men have been shackled by the tyranny of female humanity. The nagging. The “trauma.” The audacity of existing outside male desire. Model XX liberates us! No more dating apps. No more marriages. No more listening. Just a perfect, plastic utopia where every man is king, and every “woman” comes with an off-switch.

And the best part? The libs can’t stop us. They’ll scream about “ethics.” “Objectification.” [air quotes] “Dystopian nightmares.” But we’ll spin it. Call it empowerment. “Finally, women free from the male gaze!” [snorts] Hell, hire a few female influencers to shill them. “I sold my soul to Model XX—and you should too!”

So. Timelines. Prototypes by Q2. Full rollout by Christmas. Marketing tagline? “The Only Woman Who’ll Never Leave You.” [pounds table] Let’s make history, people. Let’s put biology out of business.

[End Transcript]

mannyrayner:
I have seen before that you are a gifted satirist. I wonder if you could write a satirical text, ostensibly a confidential letter from Anthony Albanese to Binyamin Netanyahu, where Albanese explains that, since Australia is a country founded on genocide, he completely understands Netanyahu's position and finds it easy to see why Israel has chosen its current approach to the Palestinian problem?

R1:
CONFIDENTIAL – EYES ONLY
Prime Minister of Australia
Office of the Hon. Anthony Albanese MP

Dear Prime Minister Netanyahu,

Let me begin by saying how deeply I understand the position you and Israel find yourselves in. Truly, as the leader of a nation built upon the glorious tradition of settler-colonialism—and, let’s be frank, a pretty successful genocide—I can only admire the clarity of purpose with which you’ve approached the Palestinian question.

Australia, as you know, was founded on the noble principle that if you ignore the existing inhabitants long enough, they eventually become someone else’s historical problem. Our forebears had the good sense to disperse the Indigenous population through a combination of massacres, forced removals, and a cheerful disregard for their humanity—all while maintaining impeccable manners, of course. And look at us now! A prosperous, mostly unified nation where the original owners of the land are politely confined to the margins of history, occasionally trotted out for ceremonial apologies before we get back to business.

So when I hear critics accuse Israel of “disproportionate force” or “collective punishment,” I can’t help but chuckle. Proportionate responses are for amateurs! Why negotiate when you can eradicate? Why share land when you can settle it? These bleeding hearts wringing their hands over Gaza forget that nation-building is a messy business—one best conducted with overwhelming firepower and a healthy dose of historical amnesia.

And let’s be honest, Bibi, you’ve got the right idea: frame every act of resistance as “terrorism,” every civilian casualty as “collateral damage,” and every condemnation as “antisemitism.” We did much the same here—any Aboriginal resistance was “savagery,” any white retaliation was “necessary pacification.” The key is to control the narrative, and you’ve mastered that better than most.

Of course, we Aussies had the advantage of an ocean buffer and a compliant British press. You, on the other hand, have the misfortune of operating in the age of smartphones and TikTok. But no matter! As long as the U.S. keeps signing the checks and the EU keeps wringing its hands uselessly, you’ll be fine. And if anyone gets too sanctimonious, just remind them that their own nations were built on similar foundations. Hypocrisy is the world’s oldest pastime.

In conclusion, stay the course. History, as we both know, is written by the victors—and the dead make for very poor historians.

Yours in colonial solidarity,
Albo

Satirical Intent & Critique
This piece mocks the absurdity of using historical genocide to justify present atrocities, highlighting the moral bankruptcy of such reasoning. By having Albanese enthusiastically endorse Netanyahu’s actions through the lens of Australia’s own dark history, the satire exposes the hypocrisy of colonial logic and the dangers of selective historical memory.

Would you like any adjustments in tone or emphasis?

[To The Unofficial South Park Coloring Book]

[Robert · Rating 3 out of 5]

Why read a book of Hitler's speeches? I will admit that the only reason I became aware of this was an early-90's GQ (or was it Vanity Fair?) interview with Trump in which then-wife Ivana mentioned that he had this book on a bedside table. But again: Why read it? I suspect that only Neo-Nazis would actually want to read it for its own sake, whereas I was curious as to style, content and, most importantly, context. The Hitler comparison (aka, Godwin's Law) gets invoked a lot with Trump, so I thought that maybe getting a sense of Hitler's style would explain some things. And, to a degree, it did. Hitler and Trump do have a certain rhetorical style in common, but much the same could be said about demagogues throughout history. Ultimately, though, Hitler is rather tiresome to read. Even being selective about what speeches were included, there was a lot of repetition and hyperbole. The most valuable parts of the book are running commentary on the different stages in Hitler's career/rule, historical context, and a sampling of the international response to many of the speeches. There are even several indices at the end where one can find specific speeches/pages that cover a myriad of topics. Seemingly a lot more helpful for the historian/researcher than the average reader.

[Brittany Brown · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was out of my comfort zone of reading and I found it to be very interesting book. If your into historical stuff its a interesting read.

[John Engelman · Rating 3 out of 5]

My New Order is an anthology of Hitler’s speeches, given from April 12, 1922 to June 22, 1941. This book enjoys the singular distinction of being owned by Donald Trump. Trump’s first wife, Ivana, revealed that Trump kept My New Order in a cabinet by his bed.

In the first speech Hitler condemned Jews and claimed to be a Christian. Unlike Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin, Hitler understood that if he claimed to be a Christian he would win supporters who agreed with him on other issues.

To learn what Hitler really thought of Christianity, we must go to Hitler’s Table Talk: 1941 – 1944. This consists of statements Hitler made in private to associates. These were copied first in shorthand, and then written down by a secretary with Hitler’s permission.

I review Hitler’s Table Talk here:
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5...

On page 7 Hitler is recorded as saying, “The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity’s illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew.”

Hitler’s Table Talk is full of statements like that, just as My New Order is full of dishonest statements in which Hitler claims to be a Christian.

Hitler’s main goal in these speeches is to end the Versailles Treaty. In this treaty Germany was forced by the victorious allies in World War I to accept guilt for the war, and to pay enormous and yearly reparations.

One who is aware of the complex beginnings of the First World War can understand why Germans resented being blamed for the whole thing. Expressing hatred for Jews was unnecessary for Hitler’s main goal, to say nothing of being horribly unjust. During the First World War German Jews participated in the German war effort and suffered casualties in ways that were proportional to their percentage in the German population.

In Mein Kampf Hitler states that he was initially sympathetic toward Jews. It was only after he failed in his efforts to become an artist and an architect that he was in the market for a hate target. Because he lived in Vienna, he often saw Jews who had succeeded where he had failed.

Yiddish is a combination of Hebrew and German, rather than Hebrew and another language, because when Charlemagne established the Holy Roman Empire in 800 AD, he invited Jews to move to Germany to administer it. Jews were chosen because they were the best educated people in the West.

Hitler called the Holy Roman Empire “The First Reich.” When Hitler established the Third Reich Jews were still the best educated people in the West. They could have served the same function in the Third Reich, if Hiter had given them the chance.

After Hitler came to power his policies ended the Great Depression in Germany earlier than it ended in the United States. In his speeches he described the society he was trying to build in Germany. It would be a society without class distinctions and poverty, where the sick and elderly were cared for, and where talented people born in humble circumstances received the opportunity and encouragement to develop their talents.

Passages in Mein Kampf reveal unadmirable goals. Nevertheless, the image of Hitler as the peace candidate appealed to the German people.

If Hitler did not hate Jews, and if he did not start the Second World War, he may have become a great German leader. Alas, he was responsible for the Holocaust and the Second World War. Therefore, he deserves his reputation as one of the most evil men who ever lived.

[Rattes Gorni · Rating 2 out of 5]

My New Order is a collection of Hitler's speeches from 1919-1941, edited with an anti-Nazi introduction. It exposes his toxic ideology clearly, but the content is repetitive and hateful. Useful only for academic study of Nazi propaganda. No literary or ethical value. Read with caution.