David Uclés, mimic victim

So let’s face it, what I’m saying goes parallel to the Olympic contempt for the dictionary (apparently we don’t know what it is aspillera or what it means blander), which critics chose to classify as “new magical realism”.

por su parte Alberto Olmoswhich is more austere, is called vivisection, which the author practiced: When you write, it’s not yours.

In his tortured communication, Uclés is glad for what he presumes to be “victory and redress”.

By victory we refer to the cancellation of the eleventh edition of the Letters in Seville.

It consisted of one jornada organized Arturo Pérez-Reverte talk about the civil war under the title 1936: Is the War We’re All Losing?

All types of people, including intellectuals, were invited there Andrés Trapiello y Manuel Alvarez Tardiohasta people from farandula como Alejandro Amenábar y Felix Bolaños.

Only Vox y support information has been reported Gabriel Ruffianthis last quiz because without it tool who usually bring a lot to the congress.

You were also invited to your team and even confirmed your help.

However, suddenly the decision was made scandalous because the participation Iván Espinosa de los Monteros y de Jose Maria Aznar.

It was he who announced his retreat to avoid the “fading of Francoism and fascism” and was the shooter of the campaign organized by Podemos and its media, in which he was incorporated. Luis García Montero.

In the end, before the possibility of suffering violent acts, it was decided to cancel the event.

That’s the case A peninsula of empty houses It is a book about the Civil War, about which Uclés seems to know little. a few days ago Pedro Corral (you know) politely mention some of your affirmations.

For example, Uclés says it Adhan “he saved the Augustine monjes of his schools in El Escorial from the very beginning of the conflict”, and Corral reminds her that only one of them was saved; the remaining six and five were merged into the Paracuellos until Azaña moved the dedo.

It is therefore tempting to consider the possibility that the truly troubling presence for the writer was not Aznar sino Trapiello, and that the real reason for avoiding the act haya sido no quedar as ignorant.

He said one of the guests was Manuel Alvarez Tardioque, junto s Fernando del Ríowrote a seminal book: Cross fire. Spring 1936.

The book shows that the Second Republic, often idealized by the left, had a hard anti-democratic stance: the belief that it should be excluded from the right.

This convention was so well established that the entry into government of the derechas party, which won the elections in 1933, justified the Socialist Party to organize a revolution in 1934.

This free expression of intolerance, which denies the democratic legitimacy of a political opponent and which we believe to be outdated, began to emerge (spurred on by Pedro Sánchez) and now we have materialized it in Uclés.

But in this communication, it is not only a moral victory, but also a “correction”.

what do you mean When his book was stripped legless

He did it with great fanfare and pyrotechnics, because Uclés was sometimes not a great writer, but he managed to create a successful character: his own. Therefore, he always appears to be attached with a scarf and with tight trousers with a cord Requiem for a Spanish Farmer it will be specially brought to him and prepared for melting by some Frenchman.

It also seems small to a person, true Agamemnon of the extinct Thebes Tio Vivo (yes it is used e.g boomers if you agree, and if you don’t, think muñeco Macario de Jose Luis Moreno).

Now this Spanish campesino is decrying being “defenestered” by Pérez-Revert, even though he was very epically asked if he was being arrogant. Alatriste.

Uclés, a writer imitated by the literary world (and all this shows us the descacharrado that is this channel of prescription), presents himself as a victim and undergoes a moral podium from which he celebrates that one of the energumen of his tribe is obliged, under penalty of violence, to cancel the debate.

At this level, the combination of victimism and moral standing should raise all our alarms, because we have empirically proven (specifically after the emergence of Podemos) that those who moralize the most and who fight for the bait are the most morally strong.

Now a recent study of a teacher Ekin Okay (if you call it that) we confirm that the greatest lovers of practicing virtuous victimism are those who show traces of Machiavellianism and narcissism in their personality.

If the real person is to be this!