I'm always extremely sceptical when it comes to defining historical phenomenons in the forms of listicles, especially ones that are so very very broad (e.g. nationalism as described in the linked list, as well as sexism and the protection of corporate power are pretty universal phenomenons even in democracies throughout the 20th century). A further problem with that list is that Lawrence Britt is neither a scholar nor a Dr. but rather a retired businessman who wrote an alternative history novel about America becoming fascist called June, 2004.

Also, there are several different way fascism can be defined, from a strict historical approach to a poli-sci approach to a Marxist to a variety of other approaches. When you ask about the rise of fascism historically, the answer at least concerning what is generally considered historical fascism (Mussolini's Italy, Nazi Germany, and a variety of other similar regimes in the 1920s and 30s in Europe), one of the most important factor present and also aiding its rise as a political and ideological movement is that fascism was able to successfully position itself as a viable alternative to both the democratic and communist/socialist system of how states and societies could be organized.

Imbued with a strong anti-internationalist and in turn extremely nationalist agenda and approach to things, historical fascism posited that it was able to solve the then contemporary problems, which revolved around class struggle, economic despair, and territory neither through a democratic approach of ensuring representation of a diverse field of opinions nor through the socialist approach of redistribution of wealth and international cooperation. Rather, its proclaimed solution was to silence dissent and focus people on their assumed allegiance to the their blood, people and nation. In this vision of racial and/or national homogeneity, the solution to contemporary problems they tauted was the elimination of political and racial/national enemies, ranging from Marxists to Jews combined with an agenda of national expansion, whether in the form of colonial holdings or border revisionism following the post-WWI Paris suburb treaties order.

Historical fascism was extremely successful in portraying the ruling democratic order as weak and invoking the horrors of socialism so fresh in people's minds after the Bolshevik revolution of 1917 and several attempts at revolutions in countries like Germany, Hungary and elsewhere. It is imperative to not forget that in its historical context, fascism as an ideology and political movement was not yet tainted by the events it inflicted on the world such as the Holocaust. Rather through their ideological tenant of what Umberto Eco has described as the "cult of action for action’s sake", they were able to portray themselves as the strong hand needed to do what needed to be done and what "weak" liberal democracy had been unwilling and / or unable to do, especially in regards to perceive racial and political enemies such as communists. The cult of action for action's sake, Eco summarizes as the following:

Action being beautiful in itself, it must be taken before, or without, reflection. Thinking is a form of emasculation. Therefore culture is suspect insofar as it is identified with critical attitudes. Distrust of the intellectual world has always been a symptom of Ur-Fascism, from Hermann Goering’s fondness for a phrase from a Hanns Johst play (“When I hear the word ‘culture’ I reach for my gun”) to the frequent use of such expressions as “degenerate intellectuals,” “eggheads,” “effete snobs,” and “universities are nests of reds.” The official Fascist intellectuals were mainly engaged in attacking modern culture and the liberal intelligentsia for having betrayed traditional values.

This also contains a further element of historical fascism that was pivotal: While both Italian as well as German Nazi fascism spoke a language of revolution and thus of modernity, their ideological framework harped on themes of anti-modernity. From the city as a youth-corrupting cesspool to the values found in war and motherhood, the modern world established by the French Revolution and all that accompanied it, from the industrial development to the universal rights of man was rejected as antithetic to national character and fascist ideology. The cult of blood and soil, of the farmer and the craftsman, of motherhood and virginal virtue were an essential part of fascist ideology and rhetoric.

About most of these things, as well as about their intentions of doing away the "old order" (meaning liberal democracy), these parties and movements were rather open about. They espoused revolutionary rhetoric and the new times approaching and were rather clear about what these were to look like.

Fantastic reply, thank you very much (both for the question and the answer)