"Zionist movement is controlling the agenda in the UK ( and elsewhere)." This is pure Antisemitism = Fascism.

"It does not really commit one to anything" - Could you imagine somebody speaking without involving a kind of illocutionary commitment? There is no illocutary force without some related commitment.

"How the Zionist movement is controlling the agenda in the UK ( and elsewhere)." Are you serious about this statement? It is an absolute conspirological statement - similarly, it is possible to fabricate whatever you wish about everything. Russia's meddling into last American election - there was some meddling, no doubt about this - but when this fact is taken by mass media and becomes a dominating and excluding all different points of view discourse, it indeed becomes a fascistic one. By the way, getting back to the beginning of this thread about fascism- these are very good examples of how some particular motivations, equipped by seemingly rational discourse, can became the embodiment of fascistic desire.

"The idea of Brexit is related to Brexit as process" You are right. So, there are idea, and a reality as process, but there is also a slogan between them. And slogan can transform them, but also it is transformed itself. For example,
" Make America great again!" is absolutely multitasking slogan.

" They voted for the return of the British Empire". This is the very important point, that I tried to develop. There is nothing wrong in the slogan :" We want our country back!" Yet, under certain conditions, the slogan loses its significance and gains absolutely different and even perverse meanings.
It can illustrate the transformation of desire and motivation of all sides that were using this slogan somehow.
I do not like to use the word fascistic desire as having too many negative connotations, but obviously we
find here a deep transformation of the initial desire.

Sorry, I do not have my computer with me now, so I can not bring the exact quote. I meant the famous discussion between Derrida and Foucault about Cogito. You are right about reading Descartes's texts - but how many people are reading them? But even when we read them, isn't our understanding is distorted by the changed Language as whole? Our language is absolutely different from Descartes's one. ( Exept for the meaning of single simple words) I think ( from my own reading of Descartes) as well as from what Derrida, Foucault and Deleuse wrote about Descartes's Cogito - they used his texted for their own powerful
theories and interpretations.

Basically, your answer is verifying what I said before. We do not agree
just because the word " Brexit" has two possible meanings: 1) Brexit as idea 2) Brexit as a real complicated situation after the referendum, today. Similarly, we can talk about Communism as idea
and Communism as real society - they are absolutely different.

I do not doubt that you are able perfectly articulate what ( was) and is Brexit about!
But what is your government position? It is opened to endless interpretations!
By the way, what is the opinion of ordinary, simple people who voted for Brexit? What would they say today?

Of course! But what can we say new about Descartes'Cogito after intensive discussions of greatest thinkers of 20- s century! - by the way, most of them were French, as Descartes himselve. As Derrida pointed out, it is practically impossible to understand Descartes intentions and motivations.

I think it is impossible to apply the concept of fascism ( understood as existing for long period of time regime like real Hitler's one or imaginary Orwell's ) to present situation. What is actual - the escalation of extremely emotional
political short term strategies ( which can be called fascistic), causing the explosion of fragile and complex equilibrium of modern American society.
In the last tweets Trump states that media can cause war, and he uses the jargon of"The enemies of the People" - quite Stalinist terminology!
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-08-05/fake-news-can-cause-war-trump-blasts-he-defends-trade-war-china

You are talking about quite narrow class of statements. What about
" I love you" or "Make America great again!"? What is their relation with truth?

" What cultural resources tend to support fascism?"I think it is the political culture of "fake news" and "whitch hunt".
In the last few years, mass media and most of political establishment care just about getting
public's immediate attention, exploiting the most primitive collective emotions.

It is not clear if Trump's ambitions are limited by some rational frames. Indeed, sometimes it looks like he believes in a kind of Napoleonic mission.

"People want their countries back" - what do people want?
We can take an example of Brexit - now it is almost impossible to say what is Brexit about!
It was clear for a short while, but today, when the slogan went through mass media, numerous burocracies, unprincipled politicians it is absolutely not clear. So analyses of present situation requires a new type of rationality.

" I generally follow Taine in the French Revolution and the parallel seems
clear from that" - Could you explain how Taine can be applied to our situation? Do we have a kind of revolution coming soon?

On the face of it, it makes far more sense to say that loss of worker power through trade unions, loss of the benefits of colonial exploitation, loss of power and income is what is driving the search for scapegoats, - lefties, feminists, others of any kind. — unenlightened

But why all these has gotten an additional momentum in the last few years? And why Trump's presidency has become so catalyzing factor?

To understand what's going on, I think you have to go back a bit further, to the causes of the French Revolution. — gurugeorge

There are so many versions and interpretations why the French Revolution happened. Yet,there is no working explanatory model that can be applied to our situation.

Hitler and Mussolini were, in many ways, unsuccessful in exploiting the masses. Hitler, for instance, usually received no more than the 30%-40% of the popular vote.
Neither Hitler nor Mussolini were swept into power by popular landslides — Bitter Crank

It is right. However,
It is quiet unprecedented that such politicians could receive 30%-40% of the popular vote. One can ask a question how even a small group of people could support Hitler - he was maniacal actor with
crazy ideas. Nevertheless, he was widely accepted as a new Messiah.

American fascists did a reasonably good job of it too -- white robes and hoods, marching around in circles out in the woods, burning torches, burning crosses, some half-baked rigamarole, and a lynching every now and then. — Bitter Crank

It does not look like they can get kind of massive support. When Berardi attributed "new fascism"
to Trump he meant that even after coming to power, he would need constantly mobilize masses.
Indeed, Trump's presidency is overshedowed by ongoing escalation of hysteric political struggle.

Can we not say that desire is fascistic by nature. Whether i desire to make America great again, or make unenlightened great again, or some other thing - make Jesus crucified again, whatever, it takes no account of what you want unless I want it to? In which case, desire becomes fascistic whenever it is able to overwhelm the opposition. — unenlightened

This is a very important point. Foucault in his preface to Anti-Oedipus differentiate between two kinds
of fascistic desire: "the major enemy, the strategic adversary is
fascism (whereas Anti-Oedipus' opposition to the others is more of a
tactical engagement). And not only historical fascism, the fascism of
Hitler and Mussolini—which was able to mobilize and use the desire of
the masses so effectively—but also the fascism in us all, in our heads and
in our everyday behavior, the fascism that causes us to love power, to
desire the very thing that dominates and exploits us." What is common in these two kinds?
Both give foundation to the dominating power, both are unconsciousness and disguised, but first one has an absolute and irreversible cumulative effect.

I loathe Donald Trump and his allies, but whether he will usher in a fascist episode of history is unclear -- of course; the future is always unclear. The extremely tight control over politics wielded by the Democrat and Republican parties is not conducive to the political disorder that fascists quite often exploit. Our representative system is harder to crack than parliamentary systems. The economy is less healthy than it could be, but it doesn't appear to be on the verge of collapse. Were the economy to collapse (I mean, really fall apart here and globally) all bets would be off about political developments.
41 minutes ago — Bitter Crank

You are right. Berardi was quite superficial.Yet, there are some factors that he did not brought: the speed of the events plus accumulative effect of unexpected - for example, the game that Trump played
(and still playing) with Kim

There were just few actual cases of fascism in history. Even stalinism was not fascism. So we have just Germany and Italy, may be Spain.Therefore, we can ask if simple Germans,who supported Hitler, actually wanted a global war and absolute destruction. Of course, not. But, somehow,in their private motivations, they nevertheless supported the total and absolute will of Hitler. It was the will of absolute change, and absolute sacrifice. Desire becomes fascistic when it takes over (normal) individual
and rational will and reasoning, even if it is masking itself as normal, so the mass and its leader lose control over events.
As you wrote about a wave - the wave takes over.

What Descartes was about, apparently, was making a better and safer world. If he could just restore God as perfect (again), and use that perfection as a ground on which to secure science, then science could be set to the task of controlling the world to create a better one."
I think that Descartes was about the self-existence, self- affirmation. First of all he was concerned in establishing a new, independent way of being. His interlocutors were God and Demon, and himself. He went through the void, and finally founded a new kind of existence. Nowadays our interlocutors are AI and different machiinic instances, and nobody doubts in his/her "thinking I". The nature of self-establishment has changed dramatically, and as Derrida pointed out there are new, different kinds of Cogito.

I think Reich missed this angle completely, and gave too much importance to psychological failings. The way it goes, the leader makes impossible promises to unify at least a voting bloc, and then has to blame someone - the forces of darkness - the press, the Mexicans, the Marxist liberals, the Jews, the deep state, for the failure to deliver. The mistake is to think that Trump, or Hitler, or even the collective psyche of their supporters are in control in any way. They are riding a wave, and trying to stay on the board. On this view, desire is manufactured by the economy at need, and conflict likewise. — unenlightened

Exactly - they are riding a wave (this wave actually is true desire!) - and under some circumstances this wave, taking all working factors
together in the explosive cumulative effect, can take over all acting subjects. At this moment desire canl become completely fascistic.

Thank you for your points!
"But let me put things more brutally in economic terms, avoiding the mess of both politics and psychology. Mass production required mass consumption, and so we had the worker/consumer with a modicum of power subject to the manipulations of propaganda and advertising. But once we have perfected 3d printing, along with robotics, mass production, and therefore the masses, are surplus to the requirements of capital. Economics dictates the extinction of the working (and middle) class and peasantry." All of these are right, but can we use here a kind of cause and effect chain to explain Tramp's phenomenon? Can you answer the question about Tramp's true motivation by "the extinction of the working class"? According to Deleuze and Gvattari, desire is not "mere psychological epiphenomena.
Desire is both social and individual, it is a basic and resulting factor, working through a complex assemblage. Reich's point is that under certain conditions desire, uniting mass with its leader, can become fascistic and absolutely destructive. So, what kind of desire are we dealing with now?

You are right. So far, I do not see any way out of this stalemate. Yet, we can try to understand what is going on.

"Is you doing those acts a consequence of me “being divisive” or just you being a vandal?"Anyway, in the most general view, all active “subjects”- Tramp, his supporters, his opponents, “fake news” mass media - should share some responsibility for ongoing escalation of the confrontation. No one is calm, objective and rational – that is why the concept of desire may be the best.

The way of Descartes was not safe and comfortable walk through different modi of I. As Derrida pointed out: "The act of Cogito is no longer a question of objective, representative knowledge -
there is a value and a meaning of Cogito, as of existence, which escapes the alternative of a determined madness or a determined reason...I philosophize only in terror, but in the confessed terror
of going mad.The confession is simultaneously, at its present moment, oblivion and unveiling, protection and expose."

As Deleuze and Gvattari wrote, Descartes’s cogito is self-sufficient set of philosophical concepts.

"To start with, the preceding analysis must be confirmed by taking the example of one of the best-known signed philosophical concepts, that of the Cartesian cogito, Descartes's I: a concept of self. This concept has three components- doubting, thinking, and being (although this does not mean that every concept must be triple). The complete statement of the concept qua multiplicity is "I think 'therefore' I am" or, more completely, "Myself who doubts, I think, I am, I am a thinking thing." According to Descartes the cogito is the always-renewed event of thought. The concept condenses at the point I, which passes through all the components and in which I' (doubting), I" (thinking), and I'" (being) coincide. As intensive ordinates the compo- nents are arranged in zones of neighborhood or indiscernibil- ity that produce passages from one to the other and constitute their inseparability. The first zone is between doubting and thinking (myself who doubts, I cannot doubt that I think), and the second is between thinking and being (in order to think it is necessary to be). The components are presented here as verbs, but this is not a rule. It is sufficient that there are variations. In fact, doubt includes moments that are not the species of a genus but the phases of a variation: perceptual, scientific, obsessional doubt (every concept therefore has a phase space, although not in the same way as in science). The same goes for modes of thought-feeling, imagining, having ideas-and also for types of being, thing, or substance-infinite being, finite thinking being, extended being. It is noteworthy that in the last case the concept of self retains only the second phase of being and excludes the rest."

It is not a matter of attacking cogito due to ignorance or desire to voice a superficial opinion, but just a quest about ourselves: can we still apply Descartes way of self-affirmation? According to Deleuze and Gvattari, philosophical concepts are immersed into the plane of immanence. If the plane of Descartes time has changed, all his perfectly designed cogito does not work anymore.

So if there was an act of thinking, isn't it necessary to assume that there was something engaged in this act, or else it wouldn't be an act at all? Why not call this thing "I"? Of course it is impossible to doubt the existence of somebody thinking, and we can even call it “I”. The question is the degree of dependence of this process. How is it determined and conditioned?? “Existence really is an imperfect tense that never becomes a present”

Nevertheless,psychoanalisys practices demonstrate grounding procedures for establishing "I"(In the absence of Descartes' style methods)
I would bring you Felix Guattari with
his theory of machinic unconsciousness. But even without referring to Guattari, in my personal life I've never met anybody thinking independently in cogito's manner. So, who or what is the source and
the reason of "thinking I"? We are no more as terminals in complicated machinic assemblages!

That said, it is not just any synthetic a priori truth; it is rather the I's self-grounding act, its self-creation. Descartes explains the nature of such self-grounding judgments in the Replies: "We cannot doubt them unless we think of them, but we cannot think of them without at the same time believing that they are true..., that is, we can never doubt them." (The Theological Origins of Modernity, Gillespie, (196-197)).
I think that is why many of us again and again coming back to Descartes: we try to find some new ground
where we lost all possible grounds, in our thinking or in its absence. That is what Nietzsche did, even when he tried to dismantle Descartes's cogito.

[

"It is impossible that a thought could will itself into existence. It must already exist in order to will anything. So willing itself into existence would mean that it wills itself before it exists, to bring itself into existence. But this is impossible because it would mean that it exists prior to its own existence. This description of a thought is nothing other than a description of a self-caused thing. That's contradiction because it means that the thing must both exist (as the cause) and not exist (prior to the thing's existence) at the same time."
It would be a paradox if Descartes was completely isolated. However, he supported himself by prevailing contemporary discourse ( with all possible connotations) of his time.

However the association of the "I" with this thought, is not equally affirmed by Descartes, indeed throughout the Meditations Descartes refers to himself as "what am I only a thing that thinks". There is a significant distance between the concepts of :

1) a thing that thinks
2) a thing that experiences thought
3) a thingless experience of thought
4) an 'I' thinking

From my own reading of Descartes I fail to see how anything more than the assertion at 3, a thingless experience of thought has been effectively reasoned by Descartes."

Could you illustrate all 4 concepts by concrete examples? Who developed them? And if not Descartes,
who was first to introduce the concept of the thinking "I'?

We can consider the most prominent figures of psychoanalyses: Freud and Lacan.
Their theories and practices can provide evidence that Nietzsche was right: the thought is determined by anonymous and non-personal factors, such as Unconsciousness of Freud and Real of Lacan

Neitzsche in aphorism 17 (BG&E) Reiterates Descartes own criticism of himself, with the empirically correct observation that 'a thought comes when it wills' and not when this 'I' thing wills it. Therefore if thought simply comes when it wills, and is not generated by the entirely presumptive 'I', we must conclude that thought is independent of the 'I' and return to the fundamental principle that thought exists apriori." Nietzsche was absolutely right, but it is still vague what does it mean that thought comes when it wills and exists priori. It is still opened to so many interpretations. Definitely, Deleuse furthermore develops this idea of Nietzsche when he splits the thinking subject into two mutually dependently acting subjects: the subject of the enunciation and the subject of the statement, the thinking "I", and existing "I". Both kinds of "I' are related through the dominating (in particular philosophical) discourse.

"The cogito comes in different forms. "I think, therefore I am." "This proposition, I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind."
Descartes established the fundumental doubling of the subject into two different, but coexisting
subjects: the subject of the enunciation and the subject of the statement.