In the ideological discourse of our time, no term is more emotionally charged than the epithet “Nazi.” Is it an accurate descriptive label for the National Socialist philosophy and those who embrace it, or does it suggest something else—something quite different, in fact. In the following editorial, which appeared in the November 1980 issue of White Power, NEW ORDER Commander Matt Koehl discusses this question.
***
Are We ‘Nazis’?
Is a “Nazi” the same as a National Socialist?
The news media, our opponents and an uninformed public would all say so. But are they correct?
This is more than a mere academic question. On the proper answer hinge certain significant implications for us as National Socialists.
It is true, of course, that in its early phase our Movement was referred to as the “American Nazi Party.” This designation was consciously and deliberately exploited for its publicity value.
Some have questioned the feasibility of this approach, arguing that it would have been better if the term, National Socialist, had been employed exclusively and consistently since the very beginning. Whether or not this argument is correct is rather moot at this point. Whatever utility the name “Nazi” may or may not have had in the past, the important point is that for our present and future work as National Socialists it is useless.
It is a fact that the label “Nazi” was originally used by a hostile press during the Weimar period as a term of contempt and derision against Adolf Hitler and his Movement. Nowhere did the Leader himself use this designation, either in his speeches or in Mein Kampf.
Not only is the expression a distortion of our real name, but it connotes a certain lack of substance or seriousness, which in turn makes it difficult for anyone to take our message seriously. Indeed, if the public is to gain a credible perception and conception of us, then we must present ourselves honestly and forthrightly as exactly what we are—National Socialists—and not some sort of political caricature. Otherwise we can expect to have as must credibility as dedicated Marxist-Leninist revolutionaries would have if they were to go around referring to themselves as “Commies.”
There is perhaps a more important reason, however, why we National Socialists must reject the use of the term “Nazi.” If this label was originally used to belittle the National Socialist cause, subsequent wartime propaganda introduced sinister new connotations. Conjured up was the monstrous image of hate and evil, an image which every decent person must find repulsive.
But if the “Nazi” image has repelled good people, too often has it had another unfortunate effect: it has attracted the very ones who fit the “Nazi” stereotype–the unstable, the unsavory, the mentally sick and spiritually defective—marginal types—who may make good Hollywood props, but who have absolutely no place in a true National Socialist movement.
Therefore we can only conclude that at best, continued use of the term “Nazi” is self-defeating. At worst, it is nothing but an opportunistic gimmick by misfits and mini-führers craving lots of personal attention–little boys who don’t have the slightest idea what real National Socialism is all about.
We, of course, have no control over what our enemies may decide to call us. But what we choose to call ourselves is quite another matter.
The truth is that we don’t need any nicknames. We are National Socialists, not “Nazis.” There’s a big difference.
[Source: White Power: The Revolutionary Voice of National Socialism, number 96 (November-December 1980), p. 8. Spelling corrections: N. Lawrence. A PDF of this article can be downloaded here.]
Neo-Nutzism/Nazism is a Jewish caricature of Aryan National Socialism; a Jewish distortion and corruption sold to the sheeple and adopted by the gullible and naïve. See False Salvation: The Hollywood Nazi from The Fall of Western Man by Mark Collett & Hollywood Nazis from Colin Jordan’s National Socialism: World Creed for the Future. It can also be accessed here. Rockwell also expressed wishes to discontinue use of the term Nazi.]
This is an interesting topic, and one of which I was sent a link about on X regarding the term “Nazi” and that Goebbels use it in his booklet, Nazi-Sozi. There conversation happened here, here and here.
Elsewhere MK has stated:
“Imo that is intellectual sperg.
There are much greater thing, problems and questions we need to solve than just a name.
I honestly dont care if someone calls me a nazi/neonazi, neofascist, neoustaša, white supremacist/nationalist etc.
Labels arent of big importance, only deeds and things we do.”
Arthur responds:
“That’s a reckless mentality. I couldn’t disagree more with it.
There are many problems with this.
First of all, the separation of the words ‘National Socialism’ leads to ideological and political confusion among those who consider themselves Nationalsocialists but have no real idea what that means, and it allows the enemy who can redefine what being a Nationalsocialist means to their advantage. Both problems occur as a result of this poorly translated phrase. To counter this, by encouraging the correct spelling, it cements in peoples mind what the word means, and discourages people from taking wilful liberties with it. This helps us because it’s harder to misrepresent our worldview.
Second. You should care what people call you, otherwise you allow your enemies to frame you in any way they want.
You might not realise it, but this has very serious repercussions.
There is a real world example which I won’t name in order to avoid potential discord, but I will explain it like this: If you allow your enemy to define you with their adjectives, and you take it upon yourself, you allow them to infiltrate you because they’d call you that anyway, and they want to call you what it is they invent. Strict rules of identification allow you to be just a bit more impregnable to subversion. It isn’t a strength to simply say “I don’t care”, although it seems like it.
Not caring – you probably think – takes away the power from your enemy, when in reality their power increases because they also hold the power of persuasion over everyone else. You’re only doing them a favour in the end.”
MK replies:
“I agree 100% but also im not 100% sure if that will be the factor that will lead us to endsieg.
We need to become militant in order to maintain peace and remove anti-white terror, yet we need to be smart to see manipulative dark forces and infiltrators.”
Arthur states:
“Of course it won’t, and that’s not the point. Does shining your shoes lead to victory? No. Does being pedantic with your uniform? No. Not one singe thing leads anyone to victory, it is the culmination of many things great and small which do this and instill discipline and higher moral value in a people. On their own some things may seem pointless, but in the larger picture it’s a contributing factor. The negation of “small” seemingly insignificant things is what allows a snowball to turn into an avalanche.”
And then shares a graphic:
Click to enlarge
“That weird guy before mentioned that the word “Nazi” is used in the diaries of Rosenberg and Goebbels. Checking the former, it was used only TWICE. I made a graphic quoting both the original German and the English text, as well attaching pages from the original handwritten diary.
The reality is that Rosenberg utilises the word ‘Nationalsozialist’ over 100 times and the word ‘Nazi’, as said, twice. Hardly a prolific utilization and certainly not officially used.”
See also main page, Don’t Be Another White Mug!
