Image 01 Image 03

Publisher Puts Trump on Cover of New Edition of Hitler Speeches Book

Publisher Puts Trump on Cover of New Edition of Hitler Speeches Book

Grow up and stop with the Hitler comparisons on both sides.

Publisher Ishi Press International has put pictures of GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump on its new edition of Adolf Hitler speeches:

My New Order: Volumes One and Two cover Hitler’s speeches from 1918 to 1941. Volume One’s back cover features a picture raising his hand in a gesture similar to a Nazi salute.

In a blurb about the book published on Amazon, publisher Ishi Press International claims “There are clear similarities between the speeches of Trump and the speeches of Hitler.

“Here are examples: They repeat themselves constantly, saying the same things over and over again. They never admit they have made a mistake nor do they ever take anything back. To any criticism, they respond by insults and name calling. They use a low form of language, with simple sentences even a person with the lowest level of education or with no education at all can understand,” the blurb continues.

The publisher used the front page of the Philadelphia News from December 10 with its headline “The New Furor.” The version is available on Amazon.

Serious, or just trolling?

Trump’s first wife Ivana claimed he kept a book of Hitler’s speeches next to his bed:

In a Vanity Fair piece, by Marie Brenner, Trump said the book was a gift from “my friend Marty Davis from Paramount who gave me a copy of Mein Kampf, and he’s a Jew.” But Trump also denied reading the book. “If I had these speeches, and I am not saying that I do, I would never read them,” Trump said at the time.

Brenner noted in the Vanity Fair piece that “Trump is no reader” nor is he a history buff. “Perhaps his possession of Hitler’s speeches merely indicates an interest in Hitler’s genius at propaganda,” she wrote at the time.

David, the man who gave Trump the book, later told Brenner: “I did give him a book about Hitler. But it was My New Order, Hitler’s speeches, not Mein Kampf. I thought he would find it interesting. I am his friend, but I’m not Jewish.”

Question. Why the hell are you publishing Hitler’s speeches?

Second, you can say almost the exact same thing about Hillary Clinton or almost any other politician. When is the last time Hillary admitted she did anything wrong. Benghazi? Email scandal? Shall I continue? Oh, and using a picture of him raising his hand like Hitler? Yeah….

Give me a break.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


You have to love election season. Just today it’s Trump-is-Hitler, Bill Clinton’s biracial love child, HRC’s law firm, formerly known as the FBI, and the new hit Euro-play, “Waiting for Assange.”

It’s like Woodstock, Richard Speck, Tet, and Timothy Leary all rolled up in one.

Reddit has a theorem that every discussion, continued long enough, refers to Hitler or nazism, and a corollary, whoever goes there first, loses the discussion.

“Question. Why the hell are you publishing Hitler’s speeches?”
Historical inquiry.
Trump is not Hitler, but he satisfies the altRight craving for a fascistic leader. He’s as good as it gets in the US for a major party candidate.

    The fact that you even used the term Alt Right is a joke. It is a term created and used by the liberals. I guess it is ok if that describes you. Just like the so call “Right Wing Conspiracy” previously coined by Hillary. I refused to be sucked in to liberal made up label and give them credit.

      Self-described alt: Steve Sailor (Ijust wrote about him, so he’s on the tip of my tongue) Taki, American Renaissance, Milo, Jared Taylor, John Rivers Too — I can go on. The term dates back to 2009 Taki article, I believe.
      The fact that you are unaware of altRight points to a certain lack of curiosity, denial. If you are going to deny the existence of altRight, at least do some preliminary research. Cathy Young is a good secondary source, for one.

        “The fact that you are unaware of altRight points to a certain lack of curiosity”

        Not really. He’s right in that they were recently assigned as the new Monster by the same people who claimed the Republicans were going to repeal the right of blacks to vote. And yet here you are running interference for the Left. No wonder we keep losing.

        As for the Alt-right, if you did any serious research, you would know they are just a rag tag collection that ranges the spectrum, have no control over who joins their “group”, and simply enjoy using bigoted language because 1) they are tired of the PCBS and this is how they push back and 2) they enjoy giving people like you the vapors.

        You are feeding another false narrative of Left and giving it life. What are you going to do when they get around to blaming the Jews as The Bogeyman? Go along and enable them so they’ll invite you to the right parties?

        “The fact that you are unaware of altRight points to a certain lack of curiosity, denial. If you are going to deny the existence of altRight, at least do some preliminary research.”

        Fen got my point. I don’t deny that the fringe group exist and may have even coin themselves as alt-right. My issue is that the term “Alt Right” is now being used as a weapon by the left to paint this Nazism fringe as the main focus of Trump support. It’s not and you are just perpetuating that false view.

        A good example is the dirty word Neo-Con. How the media and left were able to hijack that word to have an altered meaning from what Irving Kristol gave birth to. Unlike the Neo-Con, the term Alt-Right appears to have its originates from the fringe groups. Your efforts to associate it with Trump (veil as it may be) is a disservice.

        If by any chance you have listen to Trump’s speeches or looked at his business dealing, he has indicated that Israel and Jews are our friends and allies. It appears his personal business deals include many Jewish relationships. Yes, the left is distorting Trump Nationalism “Make America Great” as alt-right, but those fringe groups are in for a big disappointment if Trump wins.

        Alt-Right does not equal Trump Nationalism and to imply it does indirectly or directly needs to be called out. That is exactly the point of this thread is. I put it back on you, prove to me that alt-right is driving Trump’s agenda? Only person saying that is Hillary.

          AltRight is well organized (they have their print publications, online presence) and well-financed:

          While they are clearly rejected by great majority of Americans, they do have Donald Trump’s ear:

          Trump himself is notorious for courting white nationalists.
          AltRight is uniquely dedicated to supporting the Trump candidacy:

          Don’t write off altRight as mere politically incorrect trolls. First, they are not limited to Holocaust jokes- dig a an inch deeper and you see “theories ” about genetic inferiority of blacks and Holocaust denial. Second, society has taboos for a reason, and I don’t see why it’s necessary to normalize racism and anti-Semitism via AltRight memes.
          No, majority of Trump supporters are not altRight, but a key minority are. It’s on Trump to disown them.
          I guess I’m a Neo-Con; I don’t see anything wrong with that. I’m simply a conservative who was once a liberal. Nothing wrong with the change of heart, nothing wrong with being a conservative. There is plenty wrong with white nationalism, however, so please don’t compare the two.
          And please note, what I’m saying about altRight is not at all different from what I’ve said in the past about the left’s anti-Semitism and violent tendencies.

          MarkSmith in reply to MarkSmith. | October 4, 2016 at 1:40 pm

          Did you really read those links?!! Come on. The tie back to Trump is BS. Using the Daily Beast and Huffy Post as your gold standard of truth?!!!

          Great place to get your research. /s

          Lets look at the logic here – far left leaning blogs – Huffy Post and Daily Beast references fringe nut case blogs and claims Trump association. Wow! I love it.

          Why not just quote Bill Maher as the Truth. I watch him for shits and giggles. Kellyanne Conway handed him his hat for the same BS that you are pushing. Same thing happened with Julian Assange. I am fine with your narrow minded focus that Alt Right is an influential focus on Trump. Like I said previously, even though Alt Right may support Trump, I doubt that Trump will be an “Anti Zionist” “Anti Semite” “Anti-Black” hate President.

          Can you address the substance of my comments?

          Also, “America First”. Where did that come from?

          MarkSmith in reply to MarkSmith. | October 4, 2016 at 5:01 pm

          Actually I did address the substance of your comments. You wish to paint Trump as an “Anti Zionist” “Anti Semite” “Anti-Black” hate President via thinly one way linked association that are not really connected with Trump. You back it up with weak Huffy Post and Daily Beast. Why not be upfront about your America First comment and cite your source (Washington Post wink wink).

          How about we talk about the real issue here. Soros funded activities such as BLM and Occupy Wall Street are violent and get people killed. Key donors in the Clinton Foundation are know to support state sponsored violence killing women, gays and other fun political sorts for the heck of it. Who gives a rat ass about a few wackos that want to call themselves alt-right. It is a distraction from the real issues that DNC supports oppressive foreign entities, domestic terrorist and illegals that support gangs. Considering that just about all the gun attacks in schools are done by registered democrats makes it even more interesting.

          Bottomline, you have no substance to actually address.

          Never said or implied Trump was anti-Zionist, racist or anti-Semite. I said that white nationalists are a prominent force in his campaign, implying that they will want some sort of return on the down payment. I presented evidence that altRight, far from being a rag-tag band of provocateurs, are well-organized, well-funded and deliberate in their goals. You refused to look at this evidence because it comes from “wrong” sources. Commentary wrote about it too, so did Mediate, Red State and a whole host of other (Neo-Con?) sources.
          BLM and George Soros is a Red Herring. We weren’t discussing them.

    Albigensian in reply to edgeofthesandbox. | October 4, 2016 at 4:24 pm

    “Question. Why the hell are you publishing Hitler’s speeches?”

    Why not? After all, one can find an English-language translation of “Mein Kampf” in just about every public library in the USA.

    Which is as it should be: you don’t want history (however horrific) locked up in a cabinet somewhere, for who would you trust with the key?

    Nonetheless, publishing a book of Hitler’s speeches with a photo of Trump on the back is just juvenile, right up there with drawing a beard on the image of a woman in a subway billboard.

    After “Bush=Hitler,” it seems every Republican candidate is compared with Hitler and, well, due to overuse this “candidate=Hitler” currency has become debased and practically worthless.

Godwin’s Law is a great disservice to civilization. All it really does is shield genuine Nazis.

“stop with the Hitler comparisons on both sides”

I wish people would stop damaging their credibility with the “both sides” fallacy.

The Left suspended Godwin’s Law so they could call Trump the next Hitler. They will reinstate it once they are done with Trump. Where were you then? Did you have anything to say? Nope.

So now the Right is playing that card right back at them, to show them what it feels like. Its the only way to get the Left to stop. And what do you do? You wait until you can use the “both sides” equivalence.

It’s as if you are afraid to call out poor behavior unless you can appear all Solomon-like by blaming both the perp and the victim, and Virtue Signal how you are “above” all parties in the dispute.

When everybody’s Hitler, then nobody’s Hitler.

Michael Johnson | October 4, 2016 at 9:44 am

“Unless the person wants to exterminate Jews or others then do not compare him or her to Hitler.”

How about if they want to send people who want to follow the Constitution to “re-education” camps and think 25 million deaths might cleanse the country?

How about people who agree with Bill Ayers but just haven’t made that specific statement?