We agree that the Nazi plan was intended only to benefit (a subset of) themselves.

We also agree that Nazis intended to treat slavs as prior empires had treated their Worthy Oriental Gentlemen (wogs, in the vernacular).

I'd like to make the distinction on the first point that they marketed[1] their intentions differently. I should have said "sold" instead of "viewed", sorry. And my "benevolently" had not been meant to be taken in a positive light. (If someone tells you they are benevolent, keep a hand on your wallet.)

To me it is clear that Goebbels said that the Nazis must protect 2'000 years of Western Civilisation from the Communists (who, you correctly note, were severely conflated with jews in that speech), and that not only was everyone who was not For Them implicitly Against Them, but that it didn't matter anyway, because they were totes going to protect even countries whose governments/intellectuals didn't wish such protection[2].

Would it help if I translate the parts I left in german into english? (I hadn't because I think the original translation pretty much got it right, but will try if you'd like fresh phrasing.)

As to sheep, dogs, and pigs, they're from Animal Farm[3], repurposed to fit one of PG's recent essays[4]:

Concrete groups:

pigs - animals who seizing power for animals from humans.
(aggressive unconventionals / Nazi leadership)

Somehow the benefits from this change of power don't extend much beyond pigs. At the end of the book, the pigs and the neighbouring human farmers get along just fine.

dogs - herd sheep on behalf of pigs.
(aggressive conventionals / blackshirts, SS)

Compare recent US police use of the "sheepdog metaphor", which I believe dates back at least to the conflict in Korea. Dogs get the pigs' table scraps, so they think themselves better than the sheep, who don't.

sheep - those who happily repeat all the domestic propaganda produced by the pigs
(passive conventionals / NSDAP rank and file, general populace)

The existence of many potential leaders with authoritarian tendencies is not necessarily a social problem. The existence of many followers with authoritarian tendencies, is.

Does the distinction between how the plan was intended by the leaders and how it was sold to the followers make more sense now?

[1] I doubt the Sportpalastrede was intended to be external propaganda: it was domestic propaganda to motivate "Total War". So maybe ordinary NSDAP members (the sheep) really bought into a "They are sick, and We are the cure" line even though the Nazi leadership (the pigs) and the SS (the dogs) knew it was, finally, all about whose knee was to be on whose neck.

Compare https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGAqYNFQdZ4

Or the Sith Rule of Two.

[2] "Gee, nice country you've got here. Wouldn't want anything to happen to it." is the stereotypical anglophone expression of a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_racket

[3] a book taught in the anglophone world as having been about Stalin, but it also maps to other targets. Considering that was written by an anglophone author for an anglophone audience, we should not be too surprised when we can find many parallels in the anglophone experience. (Goldstein's book in 1984 goes so far as to claim that Animal Farm is how things always work. For as much as I've read of Durant's Story of Civilization, Goldstein seems to be correct.)

[4] http://paulgraham.com/conformism.html

mapped to Animal Farm in: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23975900