How do you figure? I weakly dispute that totalitarianism is accelerating (there are some worrying trends at various stages of development in the US, UK, Canada, and Australia, but accelerating is a strong word - we may just be more aware of power abuses because of the internet), but I strongly dispute that, if true, "terrorism" is the cause. There has always been terrorism. There will always be terrorism. Terrorism is merely the enemy du jour. The idea that terrorism represents a new and uniquely dangerous threat is pure propaganda. Indeed, when you look at some the shit that went down in the latter half of the 20th century, we are living in a comparatively terrorist-free time. Possibly governing politicians are more afraid of terrorism after 9/11 (not because of its lethality as such but because of the unpredictable political aftershocks), but equally (more likely?) they may be consciously aware of its utility at pushing through power grabs. Either way, it's not right to call it a cause.

Have a look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States

It's rather interesting how much longer the 2000s section is - rather misleadingly, as each entry is 2-3 lines of text while the earlier entries are generally a single line. Also, there's a lot of fluff in the 2000s entries. Search for where the word "bomb" appears and you'll see what I mean. I wonder if this is the result of terrorism hype, or one of those instances of subtle Wiki bias we've all been hearing about?