The main problem with talking about the semiotics of fascism (as I have (is that it only becomes so within the context of a fascist experiment. In other words, fascism (much like Capitalism (tends to wind its spindly little fingers into everything that might serve its purposes, things that under different circumstances would seem, for the most part, benign and innocuous.
To give you an example: I have, before, brought up the phenomenon of the ‘hot chick’ we often see on media as an evolutionary step up in the fascist process from fascism-proper’s emphasis on the wife’s submission to her ‘domestic duties’. And put in mind here that the hot chick is capitalism’s addition to the fascist process to the extent that while it offers women that have more options than the subjugated housewife, it also offers the fantasy of turning such a woman into one. The perfect life; right?
(And here I would bring in the connection of Eva Braun who was Hitler’s hot chick who was also a bit of a party girl. And I would also ask you to think: Melonia (even Eva Peron).)
And nowhere does this become more obvious than these shows you see where hot chicks are working on cars: the perfect convolution of beauty as we understand it under Capitalism and the hyper-masculinity that is associated with fascism proper. I mean what man wouldn’t fantasize about making such a woman his subservient and doting wife? And what extremes would that man submit to in order to make it so?
That said, we might concede that there is some merit to Hannah Arendt’s assertion of the role that the banal plays in fascist experiments even though some thinkers (such as Žižek (have tried to move beyond it. It seems to me a perfectly working explanation as to how the semiotics of it can evolve like they do.