In my mind it has to do with a loss of anonymity coupled with increased regulation of interactions. Democracy is a way to achieve stability amongst free agents that feels good for most involved. However, part of the freedom of democracy comes from taking into account the unpredictability of these agents. As we can reduce the unpredictability, we can increase regulation, but at the same time decrease the incidents by which regulation rubs any one agent wrong. That is, until there is a significant change in the general condition for most involved. At a certain point, it will be easier to modify our behaviors than it will be to modify the regulations built to account for them, and given that there will be few unknowns regarding us agents, modifying our behavior can be done in a way that doesn't feel disruptive. Why modify for a hard truth when you can achieve the same result by serving up a soft lie?
The fascism definition we are using is social control through mythology? If so the Madison avenue already has us.
I think that's always been the way of things, right? Madison avenue might have us, but they've mostly kept themselves to toothpaste and sugar water. I imagine: "Why should we worry people about climate change when they have already expressed to us that they don't want to worry about it? Also, look at what climate change does to our holiday travel numbers. We've only got time for some much news, why spend it giving people something that they don't want?"
This of course is already happening - happened? southern english has a tense "been happening" that is perfect. As soon as the techniques of marketing/market research are applied to everything (and they have been) there is no safe ground to stand on. have you seen http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/persuaders/vie.../ as well as having an awesome section on the Juggalos it talks about the feedbackloops market research produces.