The main problem I have with this analysis is that it ignores what came before. Nazism was, after all, something that properly started in Germany in around the 1920s, and had to climb from thuggish street gangs all the way to power first. If you define Nazism only by the 12-year period when it was in power then, by definition, you're ignoring all the features that allowed Nazis to get there in the first place.
A point-by-point comparison of policies of the SD and the Nazis is probably a little too simplistic, but still, the general rhetoric is not exactly promising: an obsession with national identity, an anti-immigration platform, advocacy of pseudoscientific policies, and the like, all fit the mould. It's also interesting that even on some very specific points there are eerie parallels: a focus on traditional family structures, aggressive increases in provisions for the elderly, harsh punishments for particular violent crimes, and the like, all sound variously reasonable in principle, but could just as well be grabbed from the Nazi playbook too (eg points 16, 18, 19 and 20 of the 25-Point Program). Naturally, anyone who wishes to grab power will need to include such treats in order to attract support for their main agenda.
Nazism in the 1920s was something to be sneered at, rather than feared, but people soon stopped sneering once 1933 came around.
And that is true Nazism.