> did the Important Thinker's jusqu'auboutist Nazism
> derive from
>
> a) his Philosophical stance?
>
> b) his own depravity or psychosis?
In the passage I quoted, Heidegger makes the following claims:
"Beings as a whole, as the sway, are the overwhelming, *deinon* in the first sense."
"The *deinon* [in this sense] is the terrible in the sense of the overwhelming sway, which induces panicked fear, true anxiety, as well as collected, inwardly reverberating, reticent awe. The violent, the overwhelming is the essential character of the sway itself."
"on the other hand, *deinon* means the violent in the sense of one who needs to use violence - and does not just have violence at his disposal but is violence-doing, insofar as using violence is the basic trait not just of his doing but of his Dasein."
"humanity is *deinon*, first, inasmuch as it remains exposed to this overwhelming sway, because it essentially belongs to Being. However, humanity is also *deinon* because it is violence-doing in the sense we have indicated. [It gathers what holds sway and lets it enter into openness.} Humanity is violence-doing not in addition to and aside from other qualities but solely in the sense that from the ground up and in its doings violence, it uses violence against the over-whelming. Because it is doubly *deinon* in an originally united sense, it is *to deinotaton*, the most violent: violence-doing in the midst of the overwhelming."
"we are giving the expression 'doing violence' an essential sense that in principle reaches beyond the usual meaning of the expression, which generally means nothing but brutality and arbirtrariness. Violence is usually seen in terms of the domain in which concurring compromise and mutual assistance set the standard for Dasein, and accordingly all violence is necessarily deemed only a disturbance and offense."
This appears to be claiming that "the domain in which concurring compromise and mutual assistance set the standard for Dasein" and within which "all violence is necessarily deemed only a disturbance and offense" is inauthentic, the product of the "panicked fear, true anxiety" induced by the authenticity of "violence" and "violence- doing" as the "essential character" of "Beings as a whole" and "humanity" respectively.
Toward the end of Introduction to Metaphysics Heidegger, in the context what seems to be a criticism of National Socialism and Nietzsche for not being consistently nihilistic, says of National Socialism:
"what is peddled about nowadays as the philosophy of National Socialism, but which has not the least to do with the inner truth and greatness of this movement [namely, the encounter between global technology and modern humanity], is fishing in these troubled waters of 'values' and 'totalities.'" (The original 1935 version of this had "National Socialism" instead of "this movement" and was missing the material within the square brackets. Though he denied it, Heidegger made these changes when Introduction to Metaphysics was prepared for publication in 1953).
A reasonable inference would seem to be that it is "violence" and "violence-doing" that constitutes "the inner truth and greatness of National Socialism".
Ted