Simply induction and deduction for the future

Mankind is at war with the epidemic. Also in the field of media. It seems that the media should have helped people to protect themselves from the crowned virus, who … doesn’t have his own media, it’s just an infection. But war is raging in the media, with some media outlets, the overwhelming majority, being under the control of the former government, serving the infection and voluntarily becoming “crowned viruses.”

Is the propaganda of the “crowned viruses” artificial?

Alexander Amaryan, the author of the theory that the coronavirus was created so that “the United States can clean its nation from the elderly,” and a desirable guest of “Iravunk’s,” republican party “Network Research Institute” – “Noravank,” spreads such news. “Apart from the Indians, the Sikhs who are connected with Igil have penetrated Armenia.” He does not mention that the source and the journalist do not demand it.

Sikhs are a very influential religious community in India. Manmohan Singh was the country’s prime minister from 2004-14. “Igil” is the abbreviation of the Russian phrase “Исламское государство,” “Islamic State.” On March 25 this year, 25 IS militants were killed in an attack on a Sikh temple in Kabul. In April, police arrested the leader of a local terrorist group and 19 jihadists. This is according to the New York Times. But the media I mentioned will not deny their publication in any way, which causes xenophobia against an honorable part of the great Indian people of 25 million.

Amaryan’s interview was republished by “168 blog,” in the title of which “Igil” became “Islamic … Republic”.

The “crowned viruses” are not professional, as the analysis of one example has shown, but there are many. The editors of “168 Blog” and “Hayeli” also broadcast programs, with an obvious bias, on the television stations under the control of the former authorities. I would compare the practice of not showing basic professional honesty and literacy with diarrhea, which is often due to the lack of compliance with the rules of hygiene.

Has the world really changed during the pandemic?

Umberto Eco died in 2016. But modern eminent philosophers give their descriptions of the all-encompassing period of political systems.

Francis Fukuyama, the author of the famous book “The End of History,” recorded the defeat of the United States. “The country had tremendous state potential and impressive success in the fight against the previous epidemiological crises, but the current sharp burden on society and the uninformed leader did not allow the state to function effectively.”

Alain Badiou lamented that “the challenge of the epidemic is to unravel the intrinsic nature of Intelligence, forcing it to return to the sad consequences of its absence: Sovietism, deception, prayer, prophecy and cursing, common in the Middle Ages.”

This is especially noticeable on social media, which during the pandemic manifested itself as “an area of contempt, uncontrollable rumors, the discovery of pre-Flood ‘innovations’ and even the spread of fascist obscurantism.” In this context, the good news is that political forces “have remained essentially national,” and “competition between empires, old (Europe and the United States) and new (China, Japan…), precludes any process leading to a capitalist world state.”

Agamben is concerned that science has become a religion in the modern world that must be blindly believed. Including medicine. “The most common cause of death in our country is cardiovascular disease, and it is known that their number can be reduced if people lead a healthier lifestyle and follow a certain diet.” But no doctor would have thought that this lifestyle and diet, which he advises as a form of therapy, could be the subject of legal regulations, which could be determined by law, as to what one should eat and how one should live in order to commit to making our whole life healthy.”

Defending the right to exist against the “new nature” of anti-infective restrictions with a broad understanding, the respected scientist does not notice that it is not right to compare cardiovascular diseases with the epidemic, because the coronavirus is contagious and the restrictions are aimed not only at saving his own life but also the lives of others.

Slovenian psychoanalyst-philosopher, cultural critic, Hegelian Marxist Slavoj Žižek notices the strengthening of the role of the state, which is in favor of maximum sociality, albeit in a non-Soviet-Brezhnev version.

Russian philosopher Alexander Shchipkov also supports the activation of the role of the state in social issues, which he would call “strengthening democracy, as it will serve the interests of the social majority.” It is another matter, he continues, that Russia’s economic bureaucracy is in no hurry to take social action, turning the country into a wild liberal reserve. Alas, not for the first time, we are hanging on to the foot of a train that goes to the abyss.”

All in all, the analysis of philosophers shows that the ratio of forces of “globalists” and “nationalists” in the world has changed in favor of the latter. In the struggle to close the physical borders of the countries, the preference was given to the state in the struggle of global, transnational structures and state interests.

One of its brightest manifestations in Armenia is more than two dozen social programs, such as the fact that Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, after giving his consent in advance, suddenly refused to go to Moscow to attend the military parade dedicated to the 75th anniversary of the victory in the Great Patriotic War. Political commentators in Armenia explained this using the pro-Azerbaijani statement of Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov on the Artsakh issue in April and the Kremlin’s efforts to increase the price of Russian gas supplied to Armenia within conditions of global deflation.

In this situation, how did the Armenian political forces, which declare themselves military-patriotic, advocate for national security and traditional values? First with their media, then with the aspirations of a change of government, they became “crowned viruses” and sided with the “new globalists” who denied the pandemic.

In the rest of the world, this struggle is supported only by certain governments, the calculated benefit of which is one: the worse for other countries, the better for themselves. (I mentioned the Russian factor in the first parts of the article).

As for what to call people who, considering their state as a coefficient of the world government, at the time of the disaster, rise up against it, I will not say, leaving the conclusions to the reader.

Vahram Martirosyan

The previous part of the article series.

The views expressed in the column are those of the author's and do not necessarily reflect the views of Media.am.