“[T]he enemy of totalitarian Nazism is not in the East. It is not Russian communism. The complete collapse of the belief in the attainability of freedom and equality through Marxist socialism has forced Russia to travel the same road toward a totalitarian, purely negative, noneconomic society of unfreedom and inequality which Germany has been following… During the last few years Russia has therefore been forced to adopt one purely totalitarian and fascist principle after the other; not, it must be emphasized, because of a ‘Stalinist conspiracy,” but because there was no other possibility.”

Source: The Faces of Janus: Marxism and Fascism in the Twentieth Century, (2000), p. 7

1990s
Source: [Can Man Live Without God, 1994, 9780849939433, 12]

Essays, ed. by H.Kurzke, Frankfurt 1986, vol. 2, p. 311

Source: 1930s- 1950s, The End of Economic Man (1939), p. 246

Joint press conference with President George Bush in 2005, Slovakia http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2005/02/20050224-9.html <br class="br">2000 - 2005

Source: One-Dimensional Man (1964), p. 5

Source: The Ideology of Fascism: The Rationale of Totalitarianism, (1969), p. 296

"The Prevention of Literature" (1946)
Context: Totalitarianism, however, does not so much promise an age of faith as an age of schizophrenia. A society becomes totalitarian when its structure becomes flagrantly artificial: that is, when its ruling class has lost its function but succeeds in clinging to power by force or fraud. Such a society, no matter how long it persists, can never afford to become either tolerant or intellectually stable. It can never permit either the truthful recording of facts or the emotional sincerity that literary creation demands. But to be corrupted by totalitarianism one does not have to live in a totalitarian country. The mere prevalence of certain ideas can spread a kind of poison that makes one subject after another impossible for literary purposes. Wherever there is an enforced orthodoxy — or even two orthodoxies, as often happens — good writing stops. This was well illustrated by the Spanish civil war. To many English intellectuals the war was a deeply moving experience, but not an experience about which they could write sincerely. There were only two things that you were allowed to say, and both of them were palpable lies: as a result, the war produced acres of print but almost nothing worth reading.

In Dagbladet (6 October 2004) http://www.dagbladet.no/kultur/2004/10/06/410404.html