Chapter One precedes with some debunking of simplifications / disclaimers about what its not saying / very careful rhetoric which I cannot replicate.
We are not concerned here with the ultimate
consequence of rule by terror—namely, that nobody, not even the executors, can ever be free of fear; in our context we are dealing merely with the arbitrariness by which victims are chosen, and for this it is decisive that they
are objectively innocent, that they are chosen regardless of what they may
or may not have done.
At first glance this may look like a belated confirmation of the old scapegoat theory, and it is true that the victim of modern terror does show all the characteristics of the scapegoat: he is objectively and absolutely innocent because nothing he did or omitted to do matters or has any connection
with his fate. There is, therefore, a temptation to return to an explanation which automatically discharges the victim of responsibility: it seems quite adequate
to a reality in which nothing strikes us more forcefully than the utter innocence of the individual caught in the horror machine and his utter inability to change his fate. Terror, however, is only in the last instance of its development a mere form of government. In order to establish a totalitarian regime, terror must be presented as an instrument for carrying out a specific ideology;
and that ideology must have won the adherence of many, and even a majority,
before terror can be stabilized.
Terror, in our contemporary fashion, is merely, or simply, meme-ified. Either you are or are not in conformance with this statement (supported by an image).
The up-votes indicate conformance. A meme becomes objectified reality because it is a popular sentiment. You must accept it because it is a popular notion.
The ideological notion of Zizek is that truth is a relative concept—merely popular. Popular means, people accept this confusion, not because it is correct, but because it is engaging. It 'hits home'. It is identifiable.
If truthful statements actually carried value, there would be no need to amplify them through popular sentiment. People would simply know what they were. Like, don't punch someone for no reason. Imagine a meme which said, don't punch someone for no reason, and had an image of someone punching someone with a circle over it and a backlash over it. No one would up-vote it.
What is required is an ideology. The meme is always a fallacious notion. It must carry someone from commonly accepted values to an ideological conclusion quickly.
This is the contemporary mode of totalitarian execution. You no longer have to murder someone through the flesh, you simply marginalize them through non-compliance.
And those up-votes can be simply amplified through bots. You aren't even able to know if they're actually popular. You just assume they are. And so you conform.