ANDREYEV AND PUTIN

 

Not without some embarrassment I REREAD Andreiev's stories fifty years later and my enthusiasm for Russian literature would awaken in me an inexplicable and uncontrollable literary vocation.

 The image that it offers of that Russia has to do with Putin's Russia, super technological, warned with a powerful army but that does not please the global ones because it is not resigned to accepting the approaches of a globe directed by a globalist democratic system.

Andreiev believed in that system of universal brotherhood, read communism, and in his youth he was on the barricades to feel disappointed at the injustices of the new dictators. Lenin and Trotsky would like a universal egalitarian revolution while the Politburo left the people hungry and suffering all kinds of hardships almost worse than in the times of the tsars.

They settled in luxurious palaces with all kinds of luxury while those below lived in pigsties.

Andreiev, if he lived in today's Spain, would face the same spectacle: radical feminists who were previously supermarket cashiers or poor interns and were previously appointed ministers (I knew that egalitarian minister Belarra poor as a tick when she attended the School of Archives to the Marxist talks of Doña Vicenta Cortés), tried to climb the power climb and take off what I wear and today Belarra manages a budget of several billion.

For me, Andreiev is not only a sublime writer paragon of perfection in the novella and the short story, but also a prophet of modern times. He describes. Anticipating the future, his characters in the field of unrepentant helplessness: the psychiatrist who is appointed director of an insane asylum and locked up with the madmen in "The Specters", the private teacher who falls madly in love with his student, to finally enter reason and realize that his love for that ideal Elena was nothing more than a chimera "The Mystery", the official of a ministry who liked black women and ends up marrying a Creole even if she smelled bad and had teeth like the keyboard of a piano.

 In the business where he works, his name is in tongues, everyone crosses over at this passion of his partner for tan-skinned mulatto women "An original man."

 The poor boy who dreams of decorating on Christmas Eve with a gift that he is not allowed to enjoy. He receives a little angel that melts in the warmth of the chimney bell (“The Gift”).

Leonidas performs in each of these booklets a true tour de force of tenderness and originality that fill the reader's eyes with tears or sarcastic laughter.

At this point I wonder what this writer has to do with Putin and I find certain parallels.

Andreiev was extremely popular in revolutionary Russia but fell out of favor with the Politburo under the accusation of being a petty bourgeois and had to go into exile in Finland where he died in poverty. The Russian president, for his part, is one of the most prestigious politicians on the world scene, but he is defamed, misunderstood, and slandered (there is a real fake news war against him) at the cost of the strange war with Ukraine to which he is threatened and globals are challenged for their persistence in keeping original ideas.

 The new order prefers dimwits without substance and is terrified of high-profile politicians, journalists, statesmen and writers trying to think for themselves, hostile to putting their heads out of the Soros yoke.

This is the reason for the unreason. There are too many geniuses in the system ANDREIEV AND PUTIN

 

Not without some embarrassment I REREAD Andreiev's stories fifty years later and my enthusiasm for Russian literature would awaken in me an inexplicable and uncontrollable literary vocation.

 The image that it offers of that Russia has to do with Putin's Russia, super technological, warned with a powerful army but that does not please the global ones because it is not resigned to accepting the approaches of a globe directed by a globalist democratic system.

Andreiev believed in that system of universal brotherhood, read communism, and in his youth he was on the barricades to feel disappointed at the injustices of the new dictators. Lenin and Trotsky would like a universal egalitarian revolution while the Politburo left the people hungry and suffering all kinds of hardships almost worse than in the times of the tsars.

They settled in luxurious palaces with all kinds of luxury while those below lived in pigsties.

Andreiev, if he lived in today's Spain, would face the same spectacle: radical feminists who were previously supermarket cashiers or poor interns and were previously appointed ministers (I knew that egalitarian minister Belarra poor as a tick when she attended the School of Archives to the Marxist talks of doña Vicenta Cortés), tried to climb the power climb and take off