Chapt. 21 National Socialism and the Depersonalization of Man
National Socialism and Fascism shared a common world view. Both rejected what they called the bourgeois system of values and substituted for it a belief in the organic state, as well as action and struggle. Hermann Rauschnigg, who was close to Hitler at one time, called the national socialist advance to power the “Revolution of Nihilism,” and there was in German fascism something of the same emphasis upon action for action’s sake that was seen in Italian fascism. Italian fascism based itself upon a view that history was the prime determinant of man’s struggle; thus truth itself was relativized. Whatever had succeeded in history was a final reality, was a truth, and this success was due to the action of men of will. Hitler had a similar view of the importance of man’s will, for this will, if sufficiently ruthless in the constant struggle, would transform man into a “heroic personality.” Both shared also, and most importantly, the ideal of the organic state with which everyone must integrate himself for it expresses the soul of the people. With neither of these fascisms did this view of state led to an abrogation of the existing class structure or the social revolution. (pg.359; Westview Press, 3rd Edition, 1988)
—Physio-semiotic projection, but initially within the anthropological stability and complacency that can effectively sustain such a projection;
—In this way does the rational clearly become a structural pretext to the physiological itself, and as long existing anthropological complacency as stability can sustain the physiological.
—Thus can it be inferred that anthropological complacency as stability, in order to effectively remain in place, must itself provide forms of physiological invigoration and expanse ultimately towards its own structural permanence and reinforcement; otherwise the impetus of the physiological will impose on, and eventually undermine, the structurally stable, collective possibility of physio-semiotic projection;
—From this it must also be inferred that human beings live in a physiological and physiologically sensory need of sustenance that is made even more problematic by sedentary experience, forcing the historically logical intensification (universally, in all cultures and again and again) of the auxiliary anthropological development of a sensory sphere of representation—in the physiologically aesthetic in all its forms—to effectively compensate for the circumstance of sedentary experience.
—In a certain sense and from the standpoint of the structural integrity of human groups, through time, truth is always relativized, and given that a more important supremacy of collective, physiologically semiotic possibility depends critically on the working definition as limitation of collective, socially congruent rationality; the stability of capitalist, consumer societies, similarly, has always preserved above all a physiological freedom of self-definition and imposition for individuals, logically at the expense of higher—but frequently illusive—forms of understanding, preferring the wholesome tension of ideals to the necessarily destabilizing consequences of the real implementation of those ideals.
—Thus does rational non-definition itself become key to the accommodation of the paradox of structurally anthropological contexts, in human survival as preservation of groups rather than individuals, and in regards to singularly bodily experience that, in its deeper socio-genetic essence, can therefore only exist itself as a dictate and physiological homogenization of the group; that thus makes the “heroic personality” really a deeper, physiological-corporeal paradigm of the universally cryptic primer to all cultural rationalities and the social congruence of all human identities—the universal and very much napoleonic, physiologically corporeal self who is, universally, raison d’être and shadow force of the possibility of human rationality; a shadow element permanently external to our rational understanding, but that is the catalyst—vector, even—of your rational understanding of you being you, and your not being me. Cain of the Old Testament is another name and avatar; and perhaps even the conceptualization of Ataman (which is, of course, Brahman), who is no one, but also simultaneously everyone—until the physiological self is structurally pushed to the socio-genetic, living community of culturally singular, individual identity.