These days, in Armenia, everything inhales and exhales Kim Kardashian.

The international press follows her every movement. And since the media links her visit to Armenia with the 100th anniversary of the Genocide, Kim Kardashian is a virtual hero who has single handedly publicized not only Armenia but the issue of the Armenian Genocide and the demands of the Armenian people in an unprecedented scope, just due to who she is – Kim Kardashian.

What is occurring regarding her trip to Armenia can only be described as a revolution of thought and perception.

She has completely changed the conceptions of morality. She has removed it from the mold of traditinalism and conservatism, and has forced us to think as to which is more moral – to take refuge in the norms of morality and a system of values and to continue to record real defeats and engage in the self-deceptive myth of moral victories, or to use the capital obtained at the expense of conduct and lifestyle unbecoming our mentality in the service of national objectives and to gain benefits by doing so.

Exploiting her image and name forces us to understand that when faced with the specter of global immorality, struggling to sacrifice the fact and truth of the Genocide by the use of double standards in the name of political machinations and interests, it is meaningless to retain the spotless moral image as a shield; it’s a principle that essentially isn’t appreciated by anyone.

If, prior to Kim’s visit, even the theoretical possibility of linking her name to the international recognition of the Genocide was everywhere considered unacceptable, now, the dominant approach is that if this American TV star permits herself to be used in such fashion, then why not?

What’s important, regardless of the nature of her circle of fans and followers, is to bring the message home and to focus the attention of the world on Armenia and the demand to garner international recognition of the Genocide. As to what we should call exploiting the name of another to pursue one’s own interests perhaps doesn’t need comment. What’s essential is that the process, in itself, ceases to be considered immoral. This is a case when the objective justifies all possible means. On this point, a society wide consensus and understanding seems to have been formed.

Nevertheless, seeing the furor that Kim has engendered in Yerevan one can unequivocally say that it is good that she came to Armenia not on April 24, but now. Otherwise it would have been impossible to connect the Genocide and issue of demands with her name and character.

Despite the fact that the international media presents her Armenia visit in the context of the 100th anniversary, at least it is stressed that Kim has come to discover and experience her roots; in essence a quest of self-identity. During this period surrounding April 24, this factor wouldn’t have played a role and the question still remains what would have emerged as the bigger media story -  the participation of delegations scores of countries in commemorative events here in Yerevan, or the presence of Kim Kardashian?

To equate that “brand” with the Genocide could have had irreversible repercussions. This is because despite the purely informational level of the issues mass publicization, which Kim is doing just by her presence, after a certain limit it leads to its simplification, generalization and patternization.

The other phenomenon of this revolution of perceptions is the transformation of Kim Kardashian’s character itself. Before stepping onto Armenian soil, she was perceived of as a woman of “loose” morals in the Armenian public eye. A woman, given her entire nature, lie and conduct, didn’t fit within the entrenched mold of an Armenian woman in our society. However, during her time here in Armenia, she has easily transformed from a porno star, as described by many, into a heroic woman concerned with national affairs and one exhibiting a will to struggle.

Even such details, which at first glance have no connection to one another, prove such a process. Kim was first photographed against the backdrop of the Mayr Hayastan (Mother Armenia) statue, and her sister made some posts about the spirit of struggle of Armenian women. And in the official communiqué released by the government regarding her meeting with Prime Minister Hovik Abrahamyan the stress is placed on the expectations of Kim to struggle in the name of national issues. Perhaps this was done to convince Kim of her heroism, to encourage her and with the aim to motivate her to cooperate with Armenian organizations.

But this transformation, for many, especially for young women and girls, will turn Kim Kardashian into an object to be copied. If the heroic character of the Armenian woman was traditionally embodied mostly, or more correctly exclusively, by historical figures which have no present life (as for example Queen Parantzem or Sos Mayrik), now there is a more tangible, accessible, and acceptable model. We are referring to a person, who solely by her external appearance, extreme diligence, energy and will power, has constructed a life from nothing and reached the heights of recognition. This is a person who, apparently without creating any spiritual value, has nevertheless been transformed into a symbol that carries within it all the splendor and suffering of a contemporary pop-art.  These are factors that make Kim Kardashian so enticing for others to copy.

This is the consequence or price that perhaps is demanded when we exploit the name and authority of Kim Kardashian. This consequence cannot be overlooked by the clever experts perhaps now taking bets on her “brand”.

The other side of this revolution however, which isn’t apparent, is the manipulative effect of the Kim Kardashian factor. This is a consequence that is very delicately overlooked in the general euphoric situation. Kim’s visit to Armenia left everyone and everything in a shadow. Today, there is no more important topic there where Kim went, what she ate, whom she ate with, when and how much, what she posted on the social websites and what the international press is writing about her. In this general zombified and topsy-turvy situation, no one observes, let alone debates, the tragic socio-economic reality in Armenia where there are no positive indicators left.

The intensified situation along the border has been forgotten, along with the possibility of war breaking out or the revelations of studies conducted between 2011-2013 of the gas supply sector resulting in another $250 million in the foreign debt of Armenia and the increased energy dependece of the country on Russia.

Most importantly, no one is any longer interested as to the conditions and substantiations by which Jirayr Sefilyan and Garegin Chukaszyan (leaders of the “100 Anniversary Without the Regime”) were first detained and then arrested, and how it occurred that these two events - Kim’s visit and these arrests – dovetailed. Was it purely by accident?

When viewing this Kim Kardashian movie ends (which has been well staged), and the euphoria gives way to sober thought, Arul 24th commemorative vents’ will enter their final stage.

After this Jirayr Sefilyan and his friends might be released. And while this might be the best outcome of the given situation, the legal aspects of their arrests will remain unanswered.

In the end, the manipulative effect of Kim Kardashian during this week will have killed two birds with one stone – the first for external consumption and the second, domestically.

The only positive revolutionary outcome of all this is that society has seen, and perhaps learnt, how  the process of manipulating information flows, via sleight of hand, has taken place before their eyes.