Imagine for a moment a documentary about the Soviet Union. They are explaining the origins of Communism and Marxism, and the commentator continuously refers to them as “commies”, “sozis” and “marxies” (I just made that last one up, don’t know if it really exists). It would sound so childish.

I have talked to many people who were there back in the day (family members, and others), and none of them ever refered to themselves as “nazis”, or talked about “nazism” (or anything similar like that). And I do mean NEVER.

Just say it in German people: “NATIONALER SOZIALISMUS”… it just roles of the tongue with such beauty and elegance. 🙂

You won’t find the term “Nazi-Sozi” in the archives of English-language news-reports even once. “Nazi” is what the enemies National-Socialism called it.

http://archive.org/details/GoebbelsJoseph-DerNazi-sozi-FragenUndAntwortenFuerDen

Author: Joseph Goebbels
Keywords: nazi; socialism
Publisher: Valley Forge, Pen; Landpost Press
Year: 1992
Language: English

http://archive.org/details/NaziSozi

The Nazi-Sozi: Q&A for National-Socialists

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qKNajQbTRA&list=PLA5F4ABACB529CAB4&bpctr=1373748392

Hadding, you make a good point in noting that the word ‘Nazi’ allows leftists to hide the ‘socialist’ aspect of NS and therefore avoid complications with associations to their form of socialism.
You also say ‘I have never seen an original publication of the NSDAP that used “Nazi” instead of National-Socialist.’

Okay, it makes sense that in any official publication they would use NS, but what about everyday use among party members in their unofficial writings or speech? It would seem they didn’t, according to the following.

In the book SS Panzergrenadier – A true story of World War II by Hans Schmidt (Second Edition), in a footnote on pages 23 and 24 he writes:

“The designations “Nazi” party and “Nazis” were coined by the enemies of the National Socialists in the early 1920s, and had derogatory connotations, albeit without a specific pejorative interpretation except, after 1945, in connection with “Nazi Germany,” for the never-ending wartime allegations. In the meantime though both designations have become part of everyday use, and in the minds of many Americans they do not generally contain a negative value judgment, obviously to the dismay of the public opinion molders in the so-called democracies.”

What I find interesting is his last sentence. The term ‘Nazi’, itself, for me has never really meant anything other than being a kind of shorthand for the NS. Whether this shorthand is associated with evil deeds or not it’s been a handy label.

The label ‘Nazi’ is just that. We will get Whites on side about NS by explaining NS. The ‘Nazi’ label will then become no longer negative.

A couple years ago before I started realizing that we have been totally lied to about that era, the word ‘Nazi’ was a label for a movement that carried out ‘unspeakable evil’. Now days, it has a positive ring about it.

So, to return to Carolyn’s question, expressed as, ‘To say Nazi or not to say Nazi – that is the question’, I’m still inclined to think that we can use it and turn it to our advantage. But as Will and Hadding has indicated it’s a double edged sword at this point in time, all depending.

In our future, the day will surely come when Hitler and his whole era will be vindicated as the truly heroic movement that it was, and whether it is referred to as NS or the ‘Nazi’ movement will both be a source of pride.

I can’t recommend that method; it’s just what I did that happened to work in that circumstance. I can recommend Dr. Pierce’s advice on how to deal with those who call us “Nazis” and “neo-Nazis,” however.

There is no link to what I posted from the National Alliance Membership Handbook because, to my knowledge, that book is not to be found online. That excerpt is something I transcribed from the original book. Here, I did post it as a comment a couple of years ago to one of Dr. Pierce’s transcribed editorial replies, if your readers want to see the part you cropped: http://williamlutherpierce.blogspot.com/2011/06/in-defense-of-national-socialism.html

FYI, I wrote to justice4germans just 2 days ago telling him that the blog post you link to was directly lifted from 2 Wikipedia pages and 1 Metapedia page, and I just thought he should make it more clear when he does that. I am not attacking him or his site, which does a good job. My point is that the Internet is full of “information” circulating, copied again and again with no source given, but becoming accepted as fact because of familiarity. Or because people trust a certain site or person. But everything needs to be sourced so the reader can judge. Otherwise it’s plagiarism … putting your name on someone else’s words and thinking.

An obvious motive for using this nickname instead of the proper name is that it omits any indication of what National-Socialism was about. It becomes easier to misrepresent the doctrine as unregulated capitalism and anti-labor (which leftists today still say) if one doesn’t have to deal with the word socialism in the name. “Nazi” in itself is gibberish that conveys no meaning, and thus could be molded by propagandists into whatever they wanted it to be.

Today, that “nazi” is used as a word of attack because of the stereotypes that propaganda has attached to it.

National-Socialist, by contrast, carries very little emotional baggage, because Anglo-American and Jewish propaganda have rarely used that term. When somebody calls you a nazi, he is automatically making a load of accusations and applying a caricature. If he calls you a national-socialist, there is no caricature or inherent accusation in that.

Here is an example of how much difference that word makes. On The Occidental Observer’s blog, I had at times to endure sniping from BUGSters. The BUGSters’ rules tell them to use emotional;y loaded words, to try to stimulate an irrational response in their favor. I understood that this was what BUGSter Jason Speaks was trying to do with his constant use of that word in his nonstop sniping at me. His rhetoric for attacking me revolved entirely around that word and the stereotypes associated with it. When Professor MacDonald banned that word from TOO at my request, Jason Speaks was left empty-handed, because if he had tried to state his accusations and justify his caricature of me instead of simply using a word that did it all at once, it would have been too easy to pick apart.

I am trying to get people to view national-socialism with fresh eyes, without bias, and the word nazi is a tool used to prevent that. This is a very good reason for not using that word and for objecting to its use.