During the now-famous April 22 meeting, the leader of the people’s movement, Nikol Pashinyan, told then Prime Minister Serzh Sargsyan, “You do not understand the situation in the Republic. The situation is not as you knew it to be 15-20 days ago; the situation in the Republic of Armenia has changed. You don’t have the power in the Republic of Armenia that you’ve been told you have.”
Nikol Pashinyan was not making a revelation, he simply registered the extremely deep distortion between reality and the imaginary that had formulated in the perception of the ruling authorities for years. It is probable, that the reports that ended up on Sargsyan’s desk regarding the existing mood of the people and possible political developments did not represent the actual situation but drew the desirable picture for the “boss.”
Those inside or standing beside the authorities – politicians, parliament members, analysts, experts, media representatives, heads of media outlets and opinion makers – had created an alternate reality and had convincingly persuaded the highest authorities of this, and were trying to convince the citizens of Armenia to also believe in that false picture.
Moreover, they were convinced that they were the bearers of profound, sacral knowledge – not accessible to the common, ordinary citizen – and this monopoly allowed them to not only analyze the situation more deeply and accurately but also dictate and rule over the others.
The architects of this illusory yet wishful picture were functioning within a field of thought
that goes back thousands of years. Traditionally, rule, which was also sacred, was intended for the chosen ones who had a monopoly on information. In ancient times, pagan priests had inexhaustible power and influence because they mastered the skills of communication with the gods and were the bearers of the information that came through this communication. All major religions applied this principle of the monopoly of absolute truth to control the masses.Then the rule was passed on to the bourgeoisie, who controlled the secrets of technology and this distinctive knowledge allowed them to not only conquer colonies, dominate industries, economies but also rule over political life. In the 20th century, information became sacral knowledge, whoever controlled the media could be the first to possess often hidden and rare information and assume power over the minds and consciousness of citizens.
Up until April 23, the authorities in Armenia were convinced that they possessed this kind of sacral knowledge. When Republican Party deputies or their analysts talked about the dangers and dark conspiracies surrounding the Eurasian Partnership Foundation, George Soros, Saakashvili, Navalny, USA, Russia, they were referencing the concept of that hidden knowledge, something they knew and the majority did not.
But all of a sudden it became clear that diving deep into “conspiracy theories” while pointing to the involvement of America, Soros, the Freemasons, the perverted West, the authorities did not see that which is simple and true; people were already extremely tired of an incapable, ineffective, corrupt, arrogant authority able to reproduce itself even in conditions of multiple failures; an authority that from its ivory tower is unable or unwilling to recognize simple realities that are taking the country towards self-destruction. This was going to explode at one point or another and that moment came in the spring of 2018. The Armenian revolution illustrated that there is no room for sacred knowledge when some processes are extremely transparent. In this digital era, in conditions of the widespread use of social media, when a revolution is broadcast LIVE, veiled truths, ”sacred knowledge” become secondary.
I certainly do not mean to sound naive and disregard the plausibility of external interference, I cannot exclude that there might have been interference to some extent in as far as every big development carries the influence of several factors and is the result of many causes. But in my opinion, the important thing is that which we witnessed; the wrath of a very patient nation and a leader able to channel it. This is where the methodological principle of Occam’s Razor, asking that we not multiply entities beyond necessity comes into play. To put it simply, we can say that if there is a straightforward, logical explanation to something, the best thing to do is to accept it.
Leave A Comment