.
A noite em que as TV
cortaram o presidente
Nunca tinha acontecido, nem nos EUA nem provavelmente noutra democracia: três canais, emulando o Twitter, interromperam transmissão enquanto Trump falava. Ante a impotência, lentidão ou perversão das instituições base do sistema democrático, empresas privadas lideram a defesa da democracia. Que ano, 2020.
"𝙵𝚊𝚕𝚜𝚎𝚕𝚢 𝚜𝚑𝚘𝚞𝚝𝚒𝚗𝚐 𝚏𝚒𝚛𝚎 𝚒𝚗 𝚊 𝚝𝚑𝚎𝚊𝚝𝚛𝚎 𝚊𝚗𝚍 𝚌𝚊𝚞𝚜𝚒𝚗𝚐 𝚊 𝚙𝚊𝚗𝚒𝚌." 𝙰 𝚏𝚛𝚊𝚜𝚎, 𝚚𝚞𝚎 𝚜𝚒𝚐𝚗𝚒𝚏𝚒𝚌𝚊 "𝚌𝚊𝚞𝚜𝚊𝚛 𝚙𝚊̂𝚗𝚒𝚌𝚘 𝚊𝚘 𝚐𝚛𝚒𝚝𝚊𝚛 𝚏𝚘𝚐𝚘, 𝚜𝚎𝚖 𝚑𝚊𝚟𝚎𝚛 𝚏𝚘𝚐𝚘, 𝚗𝚞𝚖 𝚝𝚎𝚊𝚝𝚛𝚘 𝚌𝚑𝚎𝚒𝚘", 𝚎́ 𝚍𝚎 𝚞𝚖 𝚓𝚞𝚒𝚣 𝚍𝚘 𝚂𝚞𝚙𝚛𝚎𝚖𝚘 𝚃𝚛𝚒𝚋𝚞𝚗𝚊𝚕 𝚍𝚘𝚜 𝙴𝚄𝙰. 𝙳𝚒𝚣 𝚛𝚎𝚜𝚙𝚎𝚒𝚝𝚘 𝚊 𝚞𝚖 𝚌𝚊𝚜𝚘 𝚊𝚙𝚛𝚎𝚌𝚒𝚊𝚍𝚘 𝚎𝚖 𝟷𝟿𝟷𝟿, 𝚜𝚘𝚋𝚛𝚎 𝚕𝚒𝚋𝚎𝚛𝚍𝚊𝚍𝚎 𝚍𝚎 𝚎𝚡𝚙𝚛𝚎𝚜𝚜𝚊̃𝚘/𝚏𝚛𝚎𝚎 𝚜𝚙𝚎𝚎𝚌𝚑, 𝚎 𝚚𝚞𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚣𝚎𝚛 𝚘 𝚘́𝚋𝚟𝚒𝚘: 𝚗𝚎𝚖 𝚝𝚘𝚍𝚘 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚛𝚜𝚘 𝚎𝚜𝚝𝚊́ 𝚙𝚛𝚘𝚝𝚎𝚐𝚒𝚍𝚘 𝚙𝚎𝚕𝚘 𝚌𝚑𝚊𝚙𝚎́𝚞 𝚍𝚎 𝚌𝚑𝚞𝚟𝚊 𝚍𝚎𝚜𝚜𝚎 𝚍𝚒𝚛𝚎𝚒𝚝𝚘 𝚌𝚘𝚗𝚜𝚝𝚒𝚝𝚞𝚌𝚒𝚘𝚗𝚊𝚕; 𝚊𝚚𝚞𝚎𝚕𝚎 𝚚𝚞𝚎 𝚎́ 𝚜𝚒𝚖𝚞𝚕𝚝𝚊𝚗𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚎𝚗𝚝𝚎 𝚙𝚎𝚛𝚒𝚐𝚘𝚜𝚘 𝚎 𝚖𝚎𝚗𝚝𝚒𝚛𝚘𝚜𝚘 𝚗𝚊̃𝚘 𝚖𝚎𝚛𝚎𝚌𝚎 𝚝𝚊𝚕 𝚙𝚛𝚘𝚝𝚎𝚌̧𝚊̃𝚘. 𝙴𝚜𝚝𝚊 𝚍𝚎𝚌𝚒𝚜𝚊̃𝚘 𝚍𝚎 𝟷𝟿𝟷𝟿 𝚟𝚒𝚛𝚒𝚊 𝚊 𝚜𝚎𝚛 𝚛𝚎𝚟𝚒𝚜𝚝𝚊 𝚎 𝚜𝚞𝚊𝚟𝚒𝚣𝚊𝚍𝚊 𝚎𝚖 𝟷𝟿𝟼𝟿 - 𝚘 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚛𝚜𝚘 "𝚋𝚊𝚗𝚒𝚍𝚘" 𝚙𝚊𝚜𝚜𝚘𝚞 𝚊 𝚜𝚎𝚛 𝚊𝚙𝚎𝚗𝚊𝚜 𝚊𝚚𝚞𝚎𝚕𝚎 𝚚𝚞𝚎 𝚜𝚎𝚗𝚍𝚘 𝚜𝚒𝚖𝚞𝚕𝚝𝚊𝚗𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚎𝚗𝚝𝚎 𝚖𝚎𝚗𝚝𝚒𝚛𝚘𝚜𝚘 𝚎 𝚙𝚎𝚛𝚒𝚐𝚘𝚜𝚘 𝚝𝚎𝚗𝚑𝚊 𝚌𝚘𝚖𝚘 𝚘𝚋𝚓𝚎𝚝𝚒𝚟𝚘 𝚎 𝚐𝚛𝚊𝚗𝚍𝚎 𝚙𝚛𝚘𝚋𝚊𝚋𝚒𝚕𝚒𝚍𝚊𝚍𝚎 𝚒𝚗𝚌𝚒𝚝𝚊𝚛 𝚊𝚌̧𝚘̃𝚎𝚜 𝚒𝚕𝚎𝚐𝚊𝚒𝚜, 𝚌𝚘𝚖𝚘 𝚝𝚞𝚖𝚞𝚕𝚝𝚘𝚜 𝚎 𝚖𝚘𝚝𝚒𝚗𝚜, 𝚘𝚞 𝚜𝚎𝚓𝚊, 𝚗𝚊̃𝚘 𝚜𝚎 𝚕𝚒𝚖𝚒𝚝𝚎 𝚊 𝚌𝚘𝚗𝚏𝚒𝚐𝚞𝚛𝚊𝚛 𝚞𝚖 𝚙𝚎𝚛𝚒𝚐𝚘 𝚊𝚋𝚜𝚝𝚛𝚊𝚝𝚘 𝚖𝚊𝚜 𝚘 𝚛𝚎𝚙𝚛𝚎𝚜𝚎𝚗𝚝𝚎 𝚎𝚖 𝚌𝚘𝚗𝚌𝚛𝚎𝚝𝚘 (𝚞𝚖𝚊 𝚍𝚒𝚏𝚎𝚛𝚎𝚗𝚌𝚒𝚊𝚌̧𝚊̃𝚘 𝚌𝚘𝚖𝚙𝚕𝚒𝚌𝚊𝚍𝚊, 𝚍𝚒𝚐𝚊-𝚜𝚎, 𝚖𝚊𝚜 𝚚𝚞𝚎 𝚊𝚜𝚜𝚎𝚗𝚝𝚊 𝚗𝚊 𝚌𝚘𝚗𝚟𝚒𝚌𝚌̧𝚊̃𝚘 𝚜𝚘𝚋𝚛𝚎 𝚊𝚜 𝚒𝚗𝚝𝚎𝚗𝚌̧𝚘̃𝚎𝚜 𝚍𝚘 𝚎𝚖𝚒𝚜𝚜𝚘𝚛).
𝚂𝚎𝚗𝚍𝚘 𝚎𝚜𝚝𝚊 𝚊 𝚓𝚞𝚛𝚒𝚜𝚙𝚛𝚞𝚍𝚎̂𝚗𝚌𝚒𝚊 𝚗𝚘𝚜 𝙴𝚄𝙰, 𝚘𝚗𝚍𝚎 𝚘𝚜 𝚝𝚛𝚒𝚋𝚞𝚗𝚊𝚒𝚜, 𝚊𝚘 𝚌𝚘𝚗𝚝𝚛𝚊́𝚛𝚒𝚘 𝚍𝚘 𝚚𝚞𝚎 𝚜𝚎 𝚙𝚊𝚜𝚜𝚊 𝚎𝚖 𝙿𝚘𝚛𝚝𝚞𝚐𝚊𝚕, 𝚜𝚎𝚐𝚞𝚎𝚖 𝚘𝚜 𝚙𝚛𝚎𝚌𝚎𝚍𝚎𝚗𝚝𝚎𝚜, 𝚎́ 𝚝𝚊𝚖𝚋𝚎́𝚖 𝚊 𝚛𝚎𝚏𝚎𝚛𝚎̂𝚗𝚌𝚒𝚊 𝚎́𝚝𝚒𝚌𝚊 𝚙𝚊𝚛𝚊 𝚚𝚞𝚎𝚖 𝚝𝚎𝚖 𝚘 𝚙𝚘𝚍𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚎 𝚍𝚎𝚌𝚒𝚍𝚒𝚛 𝚜𝚘𝚋𝚛𝚎 𝚜𝚎 𝚎𝚜𝚝𝚎 𝚘𝚞 𝚊𝚚𝚞𝚎𝚕𝚎 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚛𝚜𝚘 𝚍𝚎𝚟𝚎 𝚘𝚞 𝚗𝚊̃𝚘 𝚜𝚎𝚛 𝚊𝚍𝚖𝚒𝚝𝚒𝚍𝚘/𝚍𝚒𝚏𝚞𝚗𝚍𝚒𝚍𝚘. 𝙾𝚞 𝚜𝚎𝚓𝚊, 𝚎𝚍𝚒𝚝𝚘𝚛𝚎𝚜 𝚍𝚎 𝚖𝚎𝚍𝚒𝚊 𝚎, 𝚛𝚎𝚌𝚎𝚗𝚝𝚎𝚖𝚎𝚗𝚝𝚎, 𝚐𝚎𝚜𝚝𝚘𝚛𝚎𝚜 𝚍𝚎 𝚛𝚎𝚍𝚎𝚜 𝚜𝚘𝚌𝚒𝚊𝚒𝚜, 𝚗𝚊𝚜 𝚚𝚞𝚊𝚒𝚜 𝚘𝚜 𝚖𝚎𝚌𝚊𝚗𝚒𝚜𝚖𝚘𝚜 𝚍𝚎 𝚏𝚒𝚕𝚝𝚛𝚊𝚐𝚎𝚖 𝚎 𝚎𝚍𝚒𝚌̧𝚊̃𝚘 𝚝𝚎̂𝚖 𝚟𝚒𝚗𝚍𝚘 𝚊 𝚜𝚎𝚛 𝚙𝚛𝚘𝚐𝚛𝚎𝚜𝚜𝚒𝚟𝚊𝚖𝚎𝚗𝚝𝚎 𝚍𝚎𝚜𝚎𝚗𝚟𝚘𝚕𝚟𝚒𝚍𝚘𝚜, 𝚎𝚖 𝚛𝚎𝚜𝚞𝚕𝚝𝚊𝚍𝚘 𝚍𝚎 𝚍𝚎𝚌𝚒𝚜𝚘̃𝚎𝚜 𝚍𝚎 𝚝𝚛𝚒𝚋𝚞𝚗𝚊𝚒𝚜 𝚎 𝚎𝚡𝚒𝚐𝚎̂𝚗𝚌𝚒𝚊𝚜 𝚍𝚎 𝚐𝚘𝚟𝚎𝚛𝚗𝚘𝚜 𝚎 𝚕𝚎𝚐𝚒𝚜𝚕𝚊𝚍𝚘𝚛𝚎𝚜 𝚖𝚊𝚜 𝚝𝚊𝚖𝚋𝚎́𝚖 𝚍𝚊 𝚞𝚝𝚒𝚕𝚒𝚣𝚊𝚌̧𝚊̃𝚘 𝚍𝚎𝚜𝚝𝚎𝚜 𝚖𝚎𝚒𝚘𝚜 𝚙𝚊𝚛𝚊 𝚍𝚒𝚏𝚞𝚗𝚍𝚒𝚛 𝚌𝚛𝚒𝚖𝚎𝚜 𝚎𝚖 𝚍𝚒𝚛𝚎𝚝𝚘 𝚘𝚞 𝚒𝚖𝚊𝚐𝚎𝚗𝚜 𝚍𝚎 𝚌𝚛𝚒𝚖𝚎𝚜 (𝚊𝚒𝚗𝚍𝚊 𝚗𝚘 𝚖𝚎̂𝚜 𝚙𝚊𝚜𝚜𝚊𝚍𝚘 𝚘 𝚊𝚜𝚜𝚊𝚜𝚜𝚒𝚗𝚘 𝚍𝚘 𝚙𝚛𝚘𝚏𝚎𝚜𝚜𝚘𝚛 𝚏𝚛𝚊𝚗𝚌𝚎̂𝚜 𝚂𝚊𝚖𝚞𝚎𝚕 𝙿𝚊𝚝𝚢 𝚏𝚎𝚣 𝚞𝚖 𝚝𝚞𝚒́𝚝𝚎 𝚌𝚘𝚖 𝚊 𝚒𝚖𝚊𝚐𝚎𝚖 𝚍𝚊 𝚌𝚊𝚋𝚎𝚌̧𝚊 𝚍𝚊 𝚜𝚞𝚊 𝚟𝚒́𝚝𝚒𝚖𝚊, 𝚚𝚞𝚊𝚜𝚎 𝚍𝚎 𝚒𝚖𝚎𝚍𝚒𝚊𝚝𝚘 𝚛𝚎𝚝𝚒𝚛𝚊𝚍𝚘).
𝙾 𝚚𝚞𝚎 𝚗𝚞𝚗𝚌𝚊 𝚝𝚒𝚗𝚑𝚊 𝚊𝚌𝚘𝚗𝚝𝚎𝚌𝚒𝚍𝚘, 𝚊𝚝𝚎́ 𝚎𝚜𝚝𝚎 𝚊𝚗𝚘, 𝚎𝚛𝚊 𝚚𝚞𝚎 𝚊 𝚎𝚍𝚒𝚌̧𝚊̃𝚘 𝚎 𝚏𝚒𝚕𝚝𝚛𝚊𝚐𝚎𝚖 𝚍𝚎𝚜𝚎𝚗𝚟𝚘𝚕𝚟𝚒𝚍𝚊𝚜 𝚙𝚎𝚕𝚊𝚜 𝚛𝚎𝚍𝚎𝚜 𝚜𝚘𝚌𝚒𝚊𝚒𝚜 𝚜𝚎 𝚊𝚙𝚕𝚒𝚌𝚊𝚜𝚜𝚎𝚖 𝚊 𝚞𝚖 𝚙𝚛𝚎𝚜𝚒𝚍𝚎𝚗𝚝𝚎 𝚍𝚊𝚚𝚞𝚎𝚕𝚊 𝚚𝚞𝚎 𝚌𝚘𝚗𝚝𝚒𝚗𝚞𝚊 𝚊 𝚟𝚎𝚛-𝚜𝚎 𝚌𝚘𝚖𝚘 𝚊 𝚗𝚊𝚌̧𝚊̃𝚘 𝚖𝚊𝚒𝚜 𝚙𝚘𝚍𝚎𝚛𝚘𝚜𝚊 𝚍𝚘 𝚖𝚞𝚗𝚍𝚘. 𝙿𝚘𝚛𝚎́𝚖 𝚎𝚖 𝚖𝚊𝚒𝚘, 𝚙𝚎𝚕𝚊 𝚙𝚛𝚒𝚖𝚎𝚒𝚛𝚊 𝚟𝚎𝚣 𝚗𝚊 𝚜𝚞𝚊 𝚑𝚒𝚜𝚝𝚘́𝚛𝚒𝚊, 𝚘 𝚃𝚠𝚒𝚝𝚝𝚎𝚛 𝚊𝚜𝚜𝚒𝚗𝚊𝚕𝚘𝚞 𝚌𝚘𝚖𝚘 𝚖𝚒𝚜𝚕𝚎𝚊𝚍𝚒𝚗𝚐/𝚎𝚗𝚐𝚊𝚗𝚊𝚍𝚘𝚛 𝚞𝚖 𝚝𝚞𝚒́𝚝𝚎 𝚍𝚘 𝚙𝚛𝚎𝚜𝚒𝚍𝚎𝚗𝚝𝚎 𝚍𝚘𝚜 𝙴𝚄𝙰 𝚚𝚞𝚎 𝚊𝚜𝚜𝚘𝚌𝚒𝚊𝚟𝚊 𝚘 𝚟𝚘𝚝𝚘 𝚙𝚘𝚛 𝚌𝚘𝚛𝚛𝚎𝚜𝚙𝚘𝚗𝚍𝚎̂𝚗𝚌𝚒𝚊 𝚊 𝚏𝚛𝚊𝚞𝚍𝚎, 𝚊𝚙𝚎𝚗𝚜𝚊𝚗𝚍𝚘-𝚕𝚑𝚎 𝚕𝚒𝚐𝚊𝚌̧𝚘̃𝚎𝚜 𝚙𝚊𝚛𝚊 𝚒𝚗𝚏𝚘𝚛𝚖𝚊𝚌̧𝚊̃𝚘 𝚏𝚒𝚍𝚎𝚍𝚒𝚐𝚗𝚊 (𝚞𝚖 𝚊𝚛𝚝𝚒𝚐𝚘 𝚍𝚊 𝙲𝙽𝙽 𝚍𝚎𝚜𝚖𝚎𝚗𝚝𝚒𝚗𝚍𝚘 𝚘 𝚙𝚛𝚎𝚜𝚒𝚍𝚎𝚗𝚝𝚎 𝚎 𝚞𝚖 𝚏𝚊𝚌𝚝-𝚌𝚑𝚎𝚌𝚔 𝚍𝚘 𝚙𝚛𝚘́𝚙𝚛𝚒𝚘 𝚃𝚠𝚒𝚝𝚝𝚎𝚛). 𝙳𝚘𝚒𝚜 𝚍𝚒𝚊𝚜 𝚍𝚎𝚙𝚘𝚒𝚜, 𝚟𝚘𝚕𝚝𝚘𝚞 𝚊 𝚖𝚊𝚛𝚌𝚊𝚛, 𝚍𝚎𝚜𝚝𝚊 𝚟𝚎𝚣 𝚌𝚘𝚖𝚘 "𝚐𝚕𝚘𝚛𝚒𝚏𝚒𝚌𝚊𝚌̧𝚊̃𝚘 𝚎 𝚒𝚗𝚌𝚒𝚝𝚊𝚌̧𝚊̃𝚘 𝚍𝚎 𝚟𝚒𝚘𝚕𝚎̂𝚗𝚌𝚒𝚊", 𝚞𝚖 𝚝𝚞𝚒́𝚝𝚎 𝚍𝚘 𝚙𝚛𝚎𝚜𝚒𝚍𝚎𝚗𝚝𝚎 𝚎𝚖 𝚚𝚞𝚎 𝚎𝚜𝚝𝚎 𝚍𝚒𝚣𝚒𝚊, 𝚊 𝚙𝚛𝚘𝚙𝚘́𝚜𝚒𝚝𝚘 𝚍𝚘𝚜 𝚙𝚛𝚘𝚝𝚎𝚜𝚝𝚘𝚜 𝚎𝚖 𝙼𝚒𝚗𝚗𝚎𝚊𝚙𝚘𝚕𝚒𝚜 𝚗𝚊 𝚜𝚎𝚚𝚞𝚎̂𝚗𝚌𝚒𝚊 𝚍𝚊 𝚖𝚘𝚛𝚝𝚎 𝚍𝚎 𝙶𝚎𝚘𝚛𝚐𝚎 𝙵𝚕𝚘𝚢𝚍, "𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚕𝚘𝚘𝚝𝚒𝚗𝚐 𝚜𝚝𝚊𝚛𝚝𝚜, 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚜𝚑𝚘𝚘𝚝𝚒𝚗𝚐 𝚜𝚝𝚊𝚛𝚝𝚜/𝚘𝚜 𝚜𝚊𝚚𝚞𝚎𝚜 𝚌𝚘𝚖𝚎𝚌̧𝚊𝚖, 𝚌𝚘𝚖𝚎𝚌̧𝚊 𝚘 𝚝𝚒𝚛𝚘𝚝𝚎𝚒𝚘" (𝚌𝚒𝚝𝚊𝚌̧𝚊̃𝚘 𝚍𝚊 𝚊𝚖𝚎𝚊𝚌̧𝚊 𝚙𝚛𝚘𝚏𝚎𝚛𝚒𝚍𝚊 𝚎𝚖 𝟷𝟿𝟼𝟽 𝚙𝚎𝚕𝚘 𝚌𝚑𝚎𝚏𝚎 𝚍𝚎 𝚙𝚘𝚕𝚒́𝚌𝚒𝚊 𝚍𝚎 𝙼𝚒𝚊𝚖𝚒 𝚎𝚖 𝚛𝚎𝚕𝚊𝚌̧𝚊̃𝚘 𝚊 𝚙𝚛𝚘𝚝𝚎𝚜𝚝𝚘𝚜 𝚍𝚊 𝚌𝚘𝚖𝚞𝚗𝚒𝚍𝚊𝚍𝚎 𝚗𝚎𝚐𝚛𝚊 𝚌𝚘𝚗𝚝𝚛𝚊 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚛𝚒𝚖𝚒𝚗𝚊𝚌̧𝚊̃𝚘 𝚎 𝚟𝚒𝚘𝚕𝚎̂𝚗𝚌𝚒𝚊 𝚙𝚘𝚕𝚒𝚌𝚒𝚊𝚕 𝚛𝚊𝚌𝚒𝚜𝚝𝚊).
𝙴𝚜𝚝𝚊 𝚍𝚎𝚌𝚒𝚜𝚊̃𝚘 𝚍𝚘 𝚃𝚠𝚒𝚝𝚝𝚎𝚛 𝚏𝚘𝚒 𝚗𝚊𝚝𝚞𝚛𝚊𝚕𝚖𝚎𝚗𝚝𝚎 𝚖𝚞𝚒𝚝𝚘 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚝𝚒𝚍𝚊, 𝚊𝚝𝚎́ 𝚙𝚘𝚛𝚚𝚞𝚎 𝚝𝚎𝚖 𝚒𝚖𝚙𝚕𝚒𝚌𝚊𝚌̧𝚘̃𝚎𝚜 𝚕𝚎𝚐𝚊𝚒𝚜 𝚚𝚞𝚊𝚗𝚝𝚘 𝚊𝚘 𝚎𝚜𝚝𝚊𝚝𝚞𝚝𝚘 𝚍𝚊𝚜 𝚛𝚎𝚍𝚎𝚜 𝚜𝚘𝚌𝚒𝚊𝚒𝚜 (𝚚𝚞𝚎 𝚗𝚊 𝚕𝚎𝚒 𝚊𝚖𝚎𝚛𝚒𝚌𝚊𝚗𝚊 𝚜𝚊̃𝚘 "𝚙𝚞𝚋𝚕𝚒𝚌𝚊𝚍𝚘𝚛𝚊𝚜" 𝚎 𝚗𝚊̃𝚘 "𝚎𝚍𝚒𝚝𝚘𝚛𝚊𝚜"). 𝚄𝚖 𝚍𝚘𝚜 𝚙𝚛𝚒𝚗𝚌𝚒𝚙𝚊𝚒𝚜 𝚊𝚛𝚐𝚞𝚖𝚎𝚗𝚝𝚘𝚜 𝚌𝚘𝚗𝚝𝚛𝚊 𝚊 𝚙𝚘𝚜𝚒𝚌̧𝚊̃𝚘 𝚍𝚊 𝚛𝚎𝚍𝚎 𝚍𝚒𝚛𝚒𝚐𝚒𝚍𝚊 𝚙𝚘𝚛 𝙹𝚊𝚌𝚔 𝙳𝚘𝚛𝚜𝚎𝚢 𝚎́ 𝚚𝚞𝚎 𝚞𝚖𝚊 𝚎𝚖𝚙𝚛𝚎𝚜𝚊 𝚙𝚛𝚒𝚟𝚊𝚍𝚊 𝚗𝚊̃𝚘 𝚙𝚘𝚍𝚎 𝚘𝚞 𝚗𝚊̃𝚘 𝚍𝚎𝚟𝚎 "𝚌𝚊𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚘𝚐𝚊𝚛" 𝚜𝚞𝚋𝚓𝚎𝚝𝚒𝚟𝚊𝚖𝚎𝚗𝚝𝚎 𝚝𝚞𝚒́𝚝𝚎𝚜 𝚍𝚎 𝚙𝚘𝚕𝚒́𝚝𝚒𝚌𝚘𝚜 𝚎 𝚐𝚘𝚟𝚎𝚛𝚗𝚊𝚗𝚝𝚎𝚜 𝚎𝚕𝚎𝚒𝚝𝚘𝚜 𝚙𝚘𝚛𝚚𝚞𝚎 𝚒𝚜𝚜𝚘 𝚎́ "𝚒𝚗𝚝𝚎𝚛𝚟𝚒𝚛 𝚗𝚘 𝚓𝚘𝚐𝚘 𝚙𝚘𝚕𝚒́𝚝𝚒𝚌𝚘". 𝙼𝚊𝚜 𝚘 𝚃𝚠𝚒𝚝𝚝𝚎𝚛 𝚌𝚘𝚗𝚝𝚒𝚗𝚞𝚘𝚞 𝚊 𝚖𝚊𝚛𝚌𝚊𝚛 𝚎 𝚌𝚘𝚖𝚎𝚗𝚝𝚊𝚛 𝚝𝚞𝚒́𝚝𝚎𝚜 𝚍𝚘 𝚙𝚛𝚎𝚜𝚒𝚍𝚎𝚗𝚝𝚎 𝚊𝚖𝚎𝚛𝚒𝚌𝚊𝚗𝚘 - 𝚊𝚒𝚗𝚍𝚊 𝚗𝚎𝚜𝚝𝚊 𝚜𝚎𝚡𝚝𝚊-𝚏𝚎𝚒𝚛𝚊 𝚘 𝙽𝚎𝚠 𝚈𝚘𝚛𝚔 𝚃𝚒𝚖𝚎𝚜 𝚖𝚘𝚜𝚝𝚛𝚊𝚟𝚊 𝚍𝚎𝚣, 𝚏𝚎𝚒𝚝𝚘𝚜 𝚓𝚊́ 𝚊𝚙𝚘́𝚜 𝚊𝚜 𝚎𝚕𝚎𝚒𝚌̧𝚘̃𝚎𝚜, 𝚖𝚊𝚛𝚌𝚊𝚍𝚘𝚜 𝚌𝚘𝚖𝚘 "𝚖𝚒𝚜𝚕𝚎𝚊𝚍𝚒𝚗𝚐" 𝚎 𝚌𝚘𝚖 𝚒𝚗𝚏𝚘𝚛𝚖𝚊𝚌̧𝚊̃𝚘 𝚊𝚙𝚎𝚗𝚜𝚊.
𝙴𝚜𝚝𝚊 𝚍𝚎𝚌𝚒𝚜𝚊̃𝚘 𝚍𝚊 𝚛𝚎𝚍𝚎 𝚜𝚘𝚌𝚒𝚊𝚕 𝚗𝚊̃𝚘 𝚎́ 𝚎𝚟𝚒𝚍𝚎𝚗𝚝𝚎𝚖𝚎𝚗𝚝𝚎 𝚎𝚜𝚝𝚛𝚊𝚗𝚑𝚊 𝚊̀𝚚𝚞𝚒𝚕𝚘 𝚚𝚞𝚎 𝚊𝚌𝚘𝚗𝚝𝚎𝚌𝚎𝚞 𝚗𝚎𝚜𝚝𝚊 𝚚𝚞𝚒𝚗𝚝𝚊-𝚏𝚎𝚒𝚛𝚊, 𝚚𝚞𝚊𝚗𝚍𝚘 𝚘 𝚙𝚛𝚎𝚜𝚒𝚍𝚎𝚗𝚝𝚎 𝚏𝚊𝚕𝚘𝚞 𝚙𝚎𝚛𝚊𝚗𝚝𝚎 𝚘𝚜 𝚓𝚘𝚛𝚗𝚊𝚕𝚒𝚜𝚝𝚊𝚜 𝚗𝚊 𝙲𝚊𝚜𝚊 𝙱𝚛𝚊𝚗𝚌𝚊 𝚎 𝚝𝚛𝚎̂𝚜 𝚌𝚊𝚗𝚊𝚒𝚜 - 𝚊 𝙰𝙱𝙲, 𝚊 𝙽𝙱𝙲 𝚎 𝚊 𝙼𝚂𝙽𝙱𝙲 - 𝚙𝚊𝚛𝚊𝚛𝚊𝚖 𝚊 𝚝𝚛𝚊𝚗𝚜𝚖𝚒𝚜𝚜𝚊̃𝚘 𝚎𝚖 𝚍𝚒𝚛𝚎𝚝𝚘, 𝚙𝚊𝚜𝚜𝚊𝚗𝚍𝚘 𝚊 𝚎𝚖𝚒𝚜𝚜𝚊̃𝚘 𝚙𝚊𝚛𝚊 𝚘𝚜 𝚎𝚜𝚝𝚞́𝚍𝚒𝚘𝚜, 𝚌𝚘𝚖 𝚘𝚜 𝚙𝚒𝚟𝚘̂𝚜 𝚊 𝚚𝚞𝚊𝚕𝚒𝚏𝚒𝚌𝚊𝚛 𝚌𝚘𝚖𝚘 "𝚊𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚊𝚌̧𝚘̃𝚎𝚜 𝚏𝚊𝚕𝚜𝚊𝚜 𝚎 𝚒𝚗𝚏𝚞𝚗𝚍𝚊𝚍𝚊𝚜" 𝚘 𝚚𝚞𝚎 𝚃𝚛𝚞𝚖𝚙 𝚊𝚏𝚒𝚛𝚖𝚊𝚟𝚊 𝚜𝚘𝚋𝚛𝚎 𝚘 𝚙𝚛𝚘𝚌𝚎𝚜𝚜𝚘 𝚎𝚕𝚎𝚒𝚝𝚘𝚛𝚊𝚕 𝚎 𝚜𝚎𝚞 𝚛𝚎𝚜𝚞𝚕𝚝𝚊𝚍𝚘. "𝙸𝚜𝚝𝚘 𝚗𝚊̃𝚘 𝚎́ 𝚜𝚎𝚛 𝚙𝚊𝚛𝚝𝚒𝚜𝚊𝚗, 𝚎́ 𝚍𝚒𝚣𝚎𝚛 𝚘𝚜 𝚏𝚊𝚌𝚝𝚘𝚜", 𝚌𝚎𝚛𝚝𝚒𝚏𝚒𝚌𝚘𝚞 𝚊 𝚓𝚘𝚛𝚗𝚊𝚕𝚒𝚜𝚝𝚊 𝚍𝚊 𝙰𝙱𝙲, 𝚜𝚎𝚌𝚞𝚗𝚍𝚊𝚍𝚊 𝚙𝚎𝚕𝚘 𝚙𝚒𝚟𝚘̂ 𝚍𝚊 𝙼𝚂𝙽𝙱𝙲: "𝙰𝚚𝚞𝚒 𝚎𝚜𝚝𝚊𝚖𝚘𝚜 𝚗𝚊 𝚜𝚒𝚝𝚞𝚊𝚌̧𝚊̃𝚘 𝚋𝚒𝚣𝚊𝚛𝚛𝚊 𝚍𝚎 𝚗𝚊̃𝚘 𝚊𝚙𝚎𝚗𝚊𝚜 𝚒𝚗𝚝𝚎𝚛𝚛𝚘𝚖𝚙𝚎𝚛 𝚘 𝚙𝚛𝚎𝚜𝚒𝚍𝚎𝚗𝚝𝚎 𝚍𝚘𝚜 𝙴𝚄𝙰 𝚖𝚊𝚜 𝚍𝚎 𝚌𝚘𝚛𝚛𝚒𝚐𝚒𝚛 𝚘 𝚚𝚞𝚎 𝚎𝚜𝚝𝚊́ 𝚊 𝚍𝚒𝚣𝚎𝚛."
𝙴́ 𝚞𝚖 𝚊𝚌𝚘𝚗𝚝𝚎𝚌𝚒𝚖𝚎𝚗𝚝𝚘 𝚑𝚒𝚜𝚝𝚘́𝚛𝚒𝚌𝚘, 𝚎 𝚌𝚘𝚖𝚘 𝚜𝚎𝚛𝚒𝚊 𝚍𝚎 𝚎𝚜𝚙𝚎𝚛𝚊𝚛 𝚎𝚜𝚝𝚊 𝚊𝚌̧𝚊̃𝚘 𝚍𝚘𝚜 𝚝𝚛𝚎̂𝚜 𝚌𝚊𝚗𝚊𝚒𝚜 (𝚘𝚞𝚝𝚛𝚘𝚜, 𝚌𝚘𝚖𝚘 𝚊 𝙲𝙽𝙽 𝚎 𝚊 𝙵𝚘𝚡, 𝚙𝚊𝚜𝚜𝚊𝚛𝚊𝚖 𝚘 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚛𝚜𝚘 𝚝𝚘𝚍𝚘) 𝚎𝚜𝚝𝚊́ 𝚊 𝚜𝚎𝚛 𝚖𝚞𝚒𝚝𝚘 𝚍𝚎𝚋𝚊𝚝𝚒𝚍𝚊: 𝚏𝚊𝚣 𝚜𝚎𝚗𝚝𝚒𝚍𝚘 "𝚌𝚘𝚛𝚝𝚊𝚛" 𝚊 𝚙𝚊𝚕𝚊𝚟𝚛𝚊 𝚊 𝚞𝚖 𝚙𝚛𝚎𝚜𝚒𝚍𝚎𝚗𝚝𝚎, 𝚖𝚎𝚜𝚖𝚘 𝚜𝚎 𝚎𝚕𝚎 𝚎𝚜𝚝𝚒𝚟𝚎𝚛 𝚊 𝚍𝚒𝚣𝚎𝚛 𝚖𝚎𝚗𝚝𝚒𝚛𝚊𝚜? 𝙽𝚊̃𝚘 𝚎́ 𝚞𝚖𝚊 𝚘𝚋𝚛𝚒𝚐𝚊𝚌̧𝚊̃𝚘 𝚍𝚘 𝚓𝚘𝚛𝚗𝚊𝚕𝚒𝚜𝚖𝚘 𝚊𝚜𝚜𝚎𝚐𝚞𝚛𝚊𝚛 𝚚𝚞𝚎 𝚞𝚖 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚛𝚜𝚘 𝚍𝚘 𝚖𝚊𝚒𝚜 𝚊𝚕𝚝𝚘 𝚛𝚎𝚙𝚛𝚎𝚜𝚎𝚗𝚝𝚊𝚗𝚝𝚎 𝚍𝚊 𝚗𝚊𝚌̧𝚊̃𝚘, 𝚙𝚘𝚛 𝚖𝚊𝚒𝚜 𝚏𝚊𝚕𝚜𝚒𝚏𝚒𝚌𝚊𝚍𝚘𝚛 𝚎 𝚍𝚊𝚗𝚘𝚜𝚘, 𝚜𝚎𝚓𝚊 𝚜𝚎𝚐𝚞𝚒𝚍𝚘 𝚙𝚎𝚕𝚘𝚜 𝚌𝚒𝚍𝚊𝚍𝚊̃𝚘𝚜? 𝚀𝚞𝚎 𝚊𝚌𝚘𝚗𝚝𝚎𝚌𝚎𝚛𝚒𝚊 𝚜𝚎 𝚝𝚘𝚍𝚊𝚜 𝚊𝚜 𝚃𝚅 𝚎 𝚛𝚊́𝚍𝚒𝚘𝚜 𝚝𝚒𝚟𝚎𝚜𝚜𝚎𝚖 𝚙𝚊𝚛𝚊𝚍𝚘 𝚊 𝚝𝚛𝚊𝚗𝚜𝚖𝚒𝚜𝚜𝚊̃𝚘? 𝙾𝚜 𝚊𝚖𝚎𝚛𝚒𝚌𝚊𝚗𝚘𝚜 (𝚎 𝚘 𝚛𝚎𝚜𝚝𝚘 𝚍𝚘 𝚖𝚞𝚗𝚍𝚘) 𝚏𝚒𝚌𝚊𝚛𝚒𝚊𝚖 𝚜𝚎𝚖 𝚜𝚊𝚋𝚎𝚛 𝚘 𝚚𝚞𝚎 𝚃𝚛𝚞𝚖𝚙 𝚎𝚜𝚝𝚊𝚟𝚊 𝚊 𝚍𝚒𝚣𝚎𝚛?
𝙽𝚊𝚝𝚞𝚛𝚊𝚕𝚖𝚎𝚗𝚝𝚎, 𝚘 𝚙𝚛𝚎𝚜𝚒𝚍𝚎𝚗𝚝𝚎 𝚍𝚘𝚜 𝙴𝚄𝙰 𝚝𝚎𝚛𝚊́ 𝚜𝚎𝚖𝚙𝚛𝚎 𝚏𝚘𝚛𝚖𝚊 𝚍𝚎 𝚏𝚊𝚕𝚊𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚛𝚎𝚝𝚊𝚖𝚎𝚗𝚝𝚎 𝚊𝚘𝚜 𝚌𝚒𝚍𝚊𝚍𝚊̃𝚘𝚜 (𝚖𝚎𝚜𝚖𝚘 𝚙𝚊𝚛𝚝𝚒𝚗𝚍𝚘 𝚍𝚘 𝚙𝚛𝚒𝚗𝚌𝚒́𝚙𝚒𝚘 𝚍𝚎 𝚚𝚞𝚎 𝚝𝚘𝚍𝚘𝚜 𝚘𝚜 𝚖𝚎𝚍𝚒𝚊 𝚘 𝚋𝚘𝚒𝚌𝚘𝚝𝚊𝚟𝚊𝚖, 𝚙𝚘𝚍𝚒𝚊 𝚜𝚎𝚖𝚙𝚛𝚎 𝚝𝚛𝚊𝚗𝚜𝚖𝚒𝚝𝚒𝚛 𝚙𝚎𝚕𝚊 𝚒𝚗𝚝𝚎𝚛𝚗𝚎𝚝). 𝙿𝚘𝚛𝚎́𝚖, 𝚊 𝚊𝚌̧𝚊̃𝚘 𝚍𝚊𝚜 𝚝𝚛𝚎̂𝚜 𝚃𝚅 𝚗𝚊̃𝚘 𝚙𝚘𝚍𝚎 𝚜𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚝𝚒𝚍𝚊 𝚎𝚖 𝚊𝚋𝚜𝚝𝚛𝚊𝚝𝚘; 𝚎́ 𝚗𝚎𝚌𝚎𝚜𝚜𝚊́𝚛𝚒𝚘 𝚜𝚊𝚋𝚎𝚛 𝚘 𝚚𝚞𝚎 𝚃𝚛𝚞𝚖𝚙 𝚎𝚜𝚝𝚊𝚟𝚊 𝚊 𝚏𝚊𝚣𝚎𝚛, 𝚘𝚞 𝚜𝚎𝚓𝚊, 𝚊 𝚍𝚒𝚣𝚎𝚛 (𝚘 𝚚𝚞𝚎 𝚎́ 𝚞𝚖 𝚒𝚗𝚝𝚎𝚛𝚎𝚜𝚜𝚊𝚗𝚝𝚎 𝚙𝚊𝚛𝚊𝚍𝚘𝚡𝚘, 𝚓𝚊́ 𝚚𝚞𝚎 𝚒𝚜𝚜𝚘 𝚜𝚘́ 𝚎́ 𝚙𝚘𝚜𝚜𝚒́𝚟𝚎𝚕 𝚙𝚘𝚛𝚚𝚞𝚎 𝚑𝚘𝚞𝚟𝚎 𝚌𝚊𝚗𝚊𝚒𝚜 𝚚𝚞𝚎 𝚌𝚘𝚗𝚝𝚒𝚗𝚞𝚊𝚛𝚊𝚖 𝚊 𝚝𝚛𝚊𝚗𝚜𝚖𝚒𝚝𝚒𝚛). 𝙴 𝚘 𝚚𝚞𝚎 𝚟𝚒𝚖𝚘𝚜 𝚏𝚘𝚒 𝚊𝚕𝚐𝚞𝚎́𝚖 𝚊 𝚊𝚜𝚜𝚞𝚖𝚒𝚛-𝚜𝚎 𝚌𝚘𝚖𝚘 𝚟𝚎𝚗𝚌𝚎𝚍𝚘𝚛 𝚚𝚞𝚊𝚗𝚍𝚘 𝚘𝚜 𝚟𝚘𝚝𝚘𝚜 𝚊𝚒𝚗𝚍𝚊 𝚎𝚜𝚝𝚊̃𝚘 𝚊 𝚜𝚎𝚛 𝚌𝚘𝚗𝚝𝚊𝚍𝚘𝚜; 𝚊 𝚊𝚏𝚒𝚛𝚖𝚊𝚛 𝚚𝚞𝚎 𝚐𝚊𝚗𝚑𝚘𝚞 "𝚏𝚊𝚌𝚒𝚕𝚖𝚎𝚗𝚝𝚎 𝚜𝚎 𝚜𝚘́ 𝚌𝚘𝚗𝚝𝚊𝚛𝚎𝚖 𝚟𝚘𝚝𝚘𝚜 𝚕𝚎𝚐𝚊𝚒𝚜"; 𝚊 𝚊𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚊𝚛 𝚘𝚜 𝚕𝚘𝚌𝚊𝚒𝚜 𝚍𝚎 𝚌𝚘𝚗𝚝𝚊𝚐𝚎𝚖 𝚗𝚘𝚜 𝚎𝚜𝚝𝚊𝚍𝚘𝚜 𝚘𝚗𝚍𝚎 𝚎𝚜𝚝𝚊́ 𝚊 𝚙𝚎𝚛𝚍𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚎 𝚗𝚊̃𝚘 𝚍𝚎𝚒𝚡𝚊𝚛𝚎𝚖 "𝚘𝚋𝚜𝚎𝚛𝚟𝚊𝚍𝚘𝚛𝚎𝚜" 𝚍𝚘 𝚜𝚎𝚞 𝚕𝚊𝚍𝚘 𝚊𝚜𝚜𝚒𝚜𝚝𝚒𝚛, 𝚊𝚝𝚎́ 𝚍𝚎 "𝚝𝚊𝚙𝚊𝚛𝚎𝚖 𝚊𝚜 𝚓𝚊𝚗𝚎𝚕𝚊𝚜 𝚌𝚘𝚖 𝚌𝚊𝚛𝚝𝚊̃𝚘" 𝚙𝚊𝚛𝚊 "𝚗𝚒𝚗𝚐𝚞𝚎́𝚖 𝚙𝚘𝚍𝚎𝚛 𝚟𝚎𝚛 𝚘 𝚚𝚞𝚎 𝚜𝚎 𝚙𝚊𝚜𝚜𝚊". 𝚅𝚒𝚖𝚘𝚜 𝚊𝚕𝚐𝚞𝚎́𝚖 𝚊, 𝚜𝚎𝚖 𝚚𝚞𝚊𝚕𝚚𝚞𝚎𝚛 𝚙𝚛𝚘𝚟𝚊, 𝚒𝚖𝚙𝚞𝚝𝚊𝚛 𝚏𝚛𝚊𝚞𝚍𝚎 𝚊𝚘 𝚊𝚍𝚟𝚎𝚛𝚜𝚊́𝚛𝚒𝚘; 𝚊 𝚍𝚒𝚣𝚎𝚛 𝚚𝚞𝚎 𝚎𝚜𝚝𝚊̃𝚘 𝚊 "𝚍𝚞𝚙𝚕𝚒𝚌𝚊𝚛 𝚋𝚘𝚕𝚎𝚝𝚒𝚗𝚜 𝚍𝚎 𝚟𝚘𝚝𝚘" 𝚎 𝚊 𝚍𝚎𝚒𝚝𝚊𝚛 𝚏𝚘𝚛𝚊 𝚘𝚜 𝚚𝚞𝚎 𝚗𝚊̃𝚘 𝚒𝚗𝚝𝚎𝚛𝚎𝚜𝚜𝚊𝚖 (𝚘𝚞 𝚜𝚎𝚓𝚊, 𝚘𝚜 𝚙𝚛𝚘́-𝚃𝚛𝚞𝚖𝚙), 𝚌𝚑𝚎𝚐𝚊𝚗𝚍𝚘 𝚊𝚝𝚎́ 𝚊 𝚐𝚊𝚛𝚊𝚗𝚝𝚒𝚛 𝚚𝚞𝚎 𝚊𝚜 𝚙𝚎𝚜𝚜𝚘𝚊𝚜 𝚜𝚎 𝚒𝚛𝚛𝚒𝚝𝚊𝚖 𝚙𝚘𝚛 𝚒𝚜𝚜𝚘 𝚎𝚜𝚝𝚊𝚛 𝚊 𝚊𝚌𝚘𝚗𝚝𝚎𝚌𝚎𝚛 "𝚎 𝚏𝚒𝚌𝚊𝚖 𝚟𝚒𝚘𝚕𝚎𝚗𝚝𝚊𝚜" - 𝚘𝚞 𝚜𝚎𝚓𝚊, 𝚓𝚞𝚜𝚝𝚒𝚏𝚒𝚌𝚊𝚗𝚍𝚘 𝚎 𝚟𝚊𝚕𝚒𝚍𝚊𝚗𝚍𝚘 𝚊 𝚟𝚒𝚘𝚕𝚎̂𝚗𝚌𝚒𝚊.
𝙸𝚜𝚝𝚘 𝚗𝚞𝚖 𝚙𝚊𝚒́𝚜 - 𝚘 𝚌𝚘𝚗𝚝𝚎𝚡𝚝𝚘 𝚒𝚗𝚝𝚎𝚛𝚎𝚜𝚜𝚊, 𝚗𝚊̃𝚘 𝚜𝚎 𝚝𝚛𝚊𝚝𝚊 𝚍𝚊 𝚂𝚞𝚎́𝚌𝚒𝚊 𝚘𝚞 𝚍𝚘 𝚊𝚒𝚗𝚍𝚊 𝚖𝚊𝚒𝚜 𝚙𝚊𝚌𝚒́𝚏𝚒𝚌𝚘 𝙿𝚘𝚛𝚝𝚞𝚐𝚊𝚕 - 𝚘𝚗𝚍𝚎 𝚑𝚊́ 𝚞𝚖 𝚜𝚎𝚛𝚒𝚒́𝚜𝚜𝚒𝚖𝚘 𝚙𝚛𝚘𝚋𝚕𝚎𝚖𝚊 𝚍𝚎 𝚟𝚒𝚘𝚕𝚎̂𝚗𝚌𝚒𝚊 𝚌𝚘𝚖 𝚊𝚛𝚖𝚊𝚜 𝚍𝚎 𝚏𝚘𝚐𝚘; 𝚗𝚘 𝚚𝚞𝚊𝚕 𝚖𝚒𝚕𝚒́𝚌𝚒𝚊𝚜 𝚏𝚘𝚛𝚝𝚎𝚖𝚎𝚗𝚝𝚎 𝚊𝚛𝚖𝚊𝚍𝚊𝚜 𝚙𝚊𝚝𝚛𝚞𝚕𝚑𝚊𝚖 𝚛𝚞𝚊𝚜 𝚎 𝚊𝚝𝚎́ 𝚓𝚊́ 𝚒𝚗𝚟𝚊𝚍𝚒𝚛𝚊𝚖 𝚜𝚎𝚍𝚎𝚜 𝚍𝚎 𝚐𝚘𝚟𝚎𝚛𝚗𝚘 (𝚎 𝚙𝚕𝚊𝚗𝚎𝚊𝚛𝚊𝚖 𝚜𝚎𝚚𝚞𝚎𝚜𝚝𝚛𝚊𝚛 𝚞𝚖𝚊 𝚐𝚘𝚟𝚎𝚛𝚗𝚊𝚍𝚘𝚛𝚊 𝚚𝚞𝚎 𝚃𝚛𝚞𝚖𝚙 𝚊𝚝𝚊𝚌𝚘𝚞). 𝙸𝚜𝚝𝚘 𝚍𝚎𝚙𝚘𝚒𝚜 𝚍𝚎 𝚟𝚎𝚛𝚖𝚘𝚜, 𝚗𝚊𝚜 𝚞́𝚕𝚝𝚒𝚖𝚊𝚜 𝚜𝚎𝚖𝚊𝚗𝚊𝚜, 𝚞𝚖 𝚍𝚘𝚜 𝚏𝚒𝚕𝚑𝚘𝚜 𝚍𝚘 𝚙𝚛𝚎𝚜𝚒𝚍𝚎𝚗𝚝𝚎 𝚊 𝚊𝚙𝚎𝚕𝚊𝚛 𝚊𝚘𝚜 𝚊𝚙𝚘𝚒𝚊𝚗𝚝𝚎𝚜 𝚙𝚊𝚛𝚊 𝚚𝚞𝚎 𝚜𝚎 𝚊𝚕𝚒𝚜𝚝𝚎𝚖 𝚗𝚘 "𝚎𝚡𝚎́𝚛𝚌𝚒𝚝𝚘 𝚍𝚎 𝚃𝚛𝚞𝚖𝚙" 𝚍𝚎 𝚖𝚘𝚍𝚘 𝚊 𝚒𝚖𝚙𝚎𝚍𝚒𝚛 𝚚𝚞𝚎 𝚕𝚑𝚎 𝚛𝚘𝚞𝚋𝚎𝚖 𝚊 𝚎𝚕𝚎𝚒𝚌̧𝚊̃𝚘, 𝚎 𝚘 𝚙𝚛𝚘́𝚙𝚛𝚒𝚘 𝚊 𝚛𝚎𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚊𝚛, 𝚚𝚞𝚊𝚗𝚍𝚘 𝚚𝚞𝚎𝚜𝚝𝚒𝚘𝚗𝚊𝚍𝚘, 𝚍𝚒𝚣𝚎𝚛 𝚜𝚎 𝚊𝚌𝚎𝚒𝚝𝚊𝚛𝚊́ 𝚊 𝚍𝚎𝚛𝚛𝚘𝚝𝚊 𝚎 𝚊𝚜𝚜𝚎𝚐𝚞𝚛𝚊𝚛𝚊́ 𝚞𝚖𝚊 𝚝𝚛𝚊𝚗𝚜𝚒𝚌̧𝚊̃𝚘 𝚙𝚊𝚌𝚒́𝚏𝚒𝚌𝚊. 𝚄𝚖 𝚙𝚊𝚒́𝚜 𝚘𝚗𝚍𝚎 𝚗𝚎𝚜𝚝𝚊 𝚜𝚎𝚖𝚊𝚗𝚊 𝚂𝚝𝚎𝚟𝚎 𝙱𝚊𝚗𝚗𝚘𝚗, 𝚚𝚞𝚎 𝚏𝚘𝚒 𝚎𝚜𝚝𝚛𝚊𝚝𝚎𝚐𝚊 𝚍𝚊 𝚌𝚊𝚖𝚙𝚊𝚗𝚑𝚊 𝚍𝚎 𝚃𝚛𝚞𝚖𝚙 𝚎 𝚜𝚎𝚞 𝚌𝚘𝚗𝚜𝚎𝚕𝚑𝚎𝚒𝚛𝚘 𝚙𝚘𝚕𝚒́𝚝𝚒𝚌𝚘 𝚗𝚊 𝙲𝚊𝚜𝚊 𝙱𝚛𝚊𝚗𝚌𝚊, 𝚊𝚏𝚒𝚛𝚖𝚘𝚞 𝚗𝚞𝚖 𝚙𝚛𝚘𝚐𝚛𝚊𝚖𝚊 𝚍𝚎 𝚛𝚊́𝚍𝚒𝚘 𝚚𝚞𝚎 𝚘 𝚒𝚖𝚞𝚗𝚘𝚕𝚘𝚐𝚒𝚜𝚝𝚊 𝙰𝚗𝚝𝚑𝚘𝚗𝚢 𝙵𝚊𝚞𝚌𝚒 𝚍𝚎𝚟𝚒𝚊 𝚜𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚎𝚌𝚊𝚙𝚒𝚝𝚊𝚍𝚘 𝚎 𝚊 𝚜𝚞𝚊 𝚌𝚊𝚋𝚎𝚌̧𝚊 𝚎𝚜𝚙𝚎𝚝𝚊𝚍𝚊 𝚗𝚊 𝚌𝚎𝚛𝚌𝚊 𝚍𝚊 𝙲𝚊𝚜𝚊 𝙱𝚛𝚊𝚗𝚌𝚊, 𝚌𝚘𝚖𝚘 "𝚊𝚟𝚒𝚜𝚘", 𝚙𝚊𝚜𝚜𝚊𝚗𝚍𝚘 𝚍𝚎𝚙𝚘𝚒𝚜 𝚊 𝚕𝚎𝚖𝚋𝚛𝚊𝚛 𝚚𝚞𝚎 𝚊 𝚁𝚎𝚟𝚘𝚕𝚞𝚌̧𝚊̃𝚘 𝙰𝚖𝚎𝚛𝚒𝚌𝚊𝚗𝚊 𝚏𝚘𝚒 "𝚞𝚖𝚊 𝚐𝚞𝚎𝚛𝚛𝚊 𝚌𝚒𝚟𝚒𝚕" (𝚘 𝚚𝚞𝚎 𝚕𝚎𝚟𝚘𝚞 𝚘 𝚃𝚠𝚒𝚝𝚝𝚎𝚛 𝚊 𝚜𝚞𝚙𝚛𝚒𝚖𝚒𝚛-𝚕𝚑𝚎 𝚊 𝚌𝚘𝚗𝚝𝚊).
𝚂𝚊̃𝚘 𝚎𝚜𝚝𝚊𝚜 𝚊𝚜 𝚌𝚒𝚛𝚌𝚞𝚗𝚜𝚝𝚊̂𝚗𝚌𝚒𝚊𝚜, 𝚎́ 𝚎𝚜𝚝𝚎 𝚘 𝚙𝚊𝚒́𝚜 𝚎𝚖 𝚚𝚞𝚎 𝚃𝚛𝚞𝚖𝚙 𝚊𝚝𝚊𝚌𝚊 𝚘𝚜 𝚏𝚞𝚗𝚍𝚊𝚖𝚎𝚗𝚝𝚘𝚜 𝚍𝚊 𝚍𝚎𝚖𝚘𝚌𝚛𝚊𝚌𝚒𝚊, 𝚊 𝚙𝚊𝚣 𝚜𝚘𝚌𝚒𝚊𝚕 𝚎 𝚊 𝚙𝚛𝚘́𝚙𝚛𝚒𝚊 𝚞𝚗𝚒𝚊̃𝚘 𝚊𝚘 𝚍𝚎𝚜𝚌𝚛𝚎𝚍𝚒𝚋𝚒𝚕𝚒𝚣𝚊𝚛 𝚘𝚜 𝚟𝚘𝚝𝚘𝚜 𝚚𝚞𝚎 𝚗𝚊̃𝚘 𝚘 𝚏𝚊𝚟𝚘𝚛𝚎𝚌𝚎𝚖, 𝚘𝚜 𝚎𝚜𝚝𝚊𝚍𝚘𝚜 𝚎 𝚌𝚒𝚍𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚜 𝚚𝚞𝚎 𝚗𝚊̃𝚘 𝚟𝚘𝚝𝚊𝚛𝚊𝚖 𝚗𝚎𝚕𝚎, 𝚘 𝚜𝚎𝚞 𝚘𝚙𝚘𝚜𝚒𝚝𝚘𝚛 𝚎 𝚘 𝚙𝚊𝚛𝚝𝚒𝚍𝚘 𝚍𝚎𝚖𝚘𝚌𝚛𝚊𝚝𝚊, 𝚗𝚘𝚖𝚎𝚊𝚗𝚍𝚘-𝚘𝚜 𝚌𝚘𝚖𝚘 𝚏𝚛𝚊𝚞𝚍𝚞𝚕𝚎𝚗𝚝𝚘𝚜, 𝚌𝚘𝚖𝚘 𝚛𝚎𝚜𝚙𝚘𝚗𝚜𝚊́𝚟𝚎𝚒𝚜 𝚙𝚘𝚛 𝚕𝚑𝚎 𝚛𝚘𝚞𝚋𝚊𝚛 𝚊 𝚎𝚕𝚎𝚒𝚌̧𝚊̃𝚘, 𝚌𝚘𝚖𝚘 𝚒𝚗𝚒𝚖𝚒𝚐𝚘𝚜. 𝙸𝚜𝚜𝚘 𝚎́ 𝚘𝚞 𝚗𝚊̃𝚘 𝚐𝚛𝚒𝚝𝚊𝚛 𝚏𝚘𝚐𝚘 𝚗𝚞𝚖 𝚝𝚎𝚊𝚝𝚛𝚘 𝚌𝚑𝚎𝚒𝚘? 𝙷𝚊́ 𝚘𝚞 𝚗𝚊̃𝚘 𝚐𝚛𝚊𝚗𝚍𝚎 𝚙𝚛𝚘𝚋𝚊𝚋𝚒𝚕𝚒𝚍𝚊𝚍𝚎 𝚍𝚎 𝚚𝚞𝚎 𝚎𝚜𝚝𝚎 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚛𝚜𝚘 𝚍𝚎𝚜𝚎𝚗𝚌𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚒𝚎 𝚟𝚒𝚘𝚕𝚎̂𝚗𝚌𝚒𝚊? 𝙴 𝚙𝚊𝚛𝚎𝚌𝚎 𝚘𝚞 𝚗𝚊̃𝚘 𝚜𝚎𝚛 𝚎𝚜𝚜𝚎 𝚘 𝚜𝚎𝚞 𝚘𝚋𝚓𝚎𝚝𝚒𝚟𝚘, 𝚘 𝚍𝚎 𝚊𝚙𝚎𝚕𝚊𝚛 𝚊̀ 𝚋𝚊𝚜𝚎 𝚙𝚊𝚛𝚊 𝚚𝚞𝚎 𝚊𝚓𝚊, 𝚊𝚘𝚜 𝚝𝚛𝚞𝚖𝚙𝚒𝚜𝚝𝚊𝚜 𝚙𝚊𝚛𝚊 𝚚𝚞𝚎 𝚜𝚎 𝚎𝚛𝚐𝚊𝚖?
𝙿𝚎𝚛𝚊𝚗𝚝𝚎 𝚒𝚜𝚜𝚘 𝚎 𝚘 𝚏𝚊𝚌𝚝𝚘 𝚍𝚎 𝚗𝚎𝚗𝚑𝚞𝚖𝚊 𝚒𝚗𝚜𝚝𝚒𝚝𝚞𝚒𝚌̧𝚊̃𝚘 𝚍𝚊 𝚍𝚎𝚖𝚘𝚌𝚛𝚊𝚌𝚒𝚊 𝚙𝚘𝚍𝚎𝚛 𝚎𝚖 𝚝𝚎𝚖𝚙𝚘 𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚕 𝚘𝚋𝚜𝚝𝚊𝚛 𝚊 𝚎𝚜𝚝𝚎 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚛𝚜𝚘 𝚌𝚛𝚒𝚖𝚒𝚗𝚘𝚜𝚘 - 𝚘𝚜 𝚝𝚛𝚒𝚋𝚞𝚗𝚊𝚒𝚜 𝚎𝚜𝚝𝚊̃𝚘 𝚊 𝚛𝚎𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚊𝚛 𝚊𝚜 𝚊𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚊𝚌̧𝚘̃𝚎𝚜 𝚍𝚎 𝚏𝚛𝚊𝚞𝚍𝚎 𝚖𝚊𝚜 𝚗𝚊̃𝚘 𝚙𝚘𝚍𝚎𝚖 𝚒𝚖𝚙𝚎𝚍𝚒𝚛 𝚘 𝚙𝚛𝚎𝚜𝚒𝚍𝚎𝚗𝚝𝚎 𝚍𝚎 𝚊𝚜 𝚟𝚘𝚌𝚊𝚕𝚒𝚣𝚊𝚛 𝚎 𝚍𝚎 𝚌𝚛𝚒𝚊𝚛 𝚘 𝚙𝚎𝚛𝚒𝚐𝚘 𝚍𝚊 𝚐𝚞𝚎𝚛𝚛𝚊 𝚌𝚒𝚟𝚒𝚕 -, 𝚚𝚞𝚎 𝚛𝚎𝚜𝚝𝚊? 𝚀𝚞𝚎𝚖 𝚙𝚘𝚍𝚎 𝚊𝚐𝚒𝚛? 𝚀𝚞𝚎𝚖 𝚙𝚘𝚍𝚎 𝚊𝚝𝚛𝚊𝚟𝚎𝚜𝚜𝚊𝚛-𝚜𝚎 𝚙𝚎𝚕𝚊 𝚟𝚎𝚛𝚍𝚊𝚍𝚎 𝚍𝚘𝚜 𝚏𝚊𝚌𝚝𝚘𝚜 𝚎 𝚙𝚎𝚕𝚊 𝚒𝚗𝚝𝚎𝚐𝚛𝚒𝚍𝚊𝚍𝚎 𝚍𝚊 𝚍𝚎𝚖𝚘𝚌𝚛𝚊𝚌𝚒𝚊? 𝚀𝚞𝚎𝚖 𝚙𝚘𝚍𝚎 𝚝𝚎𝚗𝚝𝚊𝚛 𝚜𝚞𝚜𝚝𝚎𝚛 𝚊 𝚒𝚗𝚏𝚎𝚌̧𝚊̃𝚘? 𝙰 𝚛𝚎𝚜𝚙𝚘𝚜𝚝𝚊 𝚎́ 𝚜𝚒𝚖𝚙𝚕𝚎𝚜 - 𝚚𝚞𝚎𝚖 𝚝𝚒𝚟𝚎𝚛 𝚊 𝚙𝚘𝚜𝚜𝚒𝚋𝚒𝚕𝚒𝚍𝚊𝚍𝚎 𝚍𝚎 𝚘 𝚏𝚊𝚣𝚎𝚛. 𝙴 𝚚𝚞𝚎𝚖 𝚝𝚎𝚖 𝚎𝚜𝚜𝚊 𝚙𝚘𝚜𝚜𝚒𝚋𝚒𝚕𝚒𝚍𝚊𝚍𝚎 𝚝𝚎𝚖 𝚎𝚜𝚜𝚎 𝚍𝚎𝚟𝚎𝚛.
𝚂𝚎 𝚊 𝚕𝚎𝚒 𝚗𝚊̃𝚘 𝚙𝚎𝚛𝚖𝚒𝚝𝚎 𝚚𝚞𝚎 𝚊𝚜 𝚊𝚞𝚝𝚘𝚛𝚒𝚍𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚜 𝚊𝚓𝚊𝚖 𝚌𝚘𝚖 𝚊 𝚛𝚊𝚙𝚒𝚍𝚎𝚣 𝚗𝚎𝚌𝚎𝚜𝚜𝚊́𝚛𝚒𝚊 𝚙𝚊𝚛𝚊 𝚒𝚖𝚙𝚎𝚍𝚒𝚛 𝚘 𝚙𝚛𝚎𝚜𝚒𝚍𝚎𝚗𝚝𝚎 𝚍𝚘𝚜 𝙴𝚄𝙰 𝚍𝚎 𝚖𝚎𝚛𝚐𝚞𝚕𝚑𝚊𝚛 𝚘 𝚙𝚊𝚒́𝚜 𝚗𝚘 𝚌𝚊𝚘𝚜, 𝚜𝚎 𝚗𝚊𝚍𝚊 𝚎𝚜𝚝𝚊́ 𝚙𝚛𝚎𝚟𝚒𝚜𝚝𝚘 𝚙𝚊𝚛𝚊 𝚞𝚖 𝚌𝚊𝚜𝚘 𝚌𝚘𝚖𝚘 𝚎𝚜𝚝𝚎, 𝚜𝚎 𝚊𝚜 𝚒𝚗𝚜𝚝𝚒𝚝𝚞𝚒𝚌̧𝚘̃𝚎𝚜 𝚍𝚎𝚖𝚘𝚌𝚛𝚊́𝚝𝚒𝚌𝚊𝚜 𝚗𝚊̃𝚘 𝚙𝚘𝚍𝚎𝚖 𝚘𝚞 𝚗𝚊̃𝚘 𝚚𝚞𝚎𝚛𝚎𝚖 (𝚟𝚒𝚍𝚎 𝚘 𝚂𝚎𝚗𝚊𝚍𝚘 𝚎 𝚘 𝚙𝚊𝚛𝚝𝚒𝚍𝚘 𝚛𝚎𝚙𝚞𝚋𝚕𝚒𝚌𝚊𝚗𝚘) 𝚒𝚗𝚝𝚎𝚛𝚟𝚒𝚛 𝚘𝚞 𝚜𝚊̃𝚘, 𝚌𝚘𝚖𝚘 𝚘 𝚎́ 𝚊 𝚙𝚛𝚎𝚜𝚒𝚍𝚎̂𝚗𝚌𝚒𝚊, 𝚊 𝚙𝚛𝚘́𝚙𝚛𝚒𝚊 𝚏𝚘𝚗𝚝𝚎 𝚍𝚊 𝚙𝚎𝚛𝚟𝚎𝚛𝚜𝚊̃𝚘 𝚎 𝚍𝚊 𝚝𝚛𝚊𝚒𝚌̧𝚊̃𝚘, 𝚚𝚞𝚎 𝚑𝚊𝚓𝚊 𝚚𝚞𝚎𝚖 𝚝𝚎𝚗𝚝𝚎, 𝚚𝚞𝚎𝚖 𝚜𝚎 𝚊𝚝𝚛𝚊𝚟𝚎𝚜𝚜𝚎. 𝙾𝚗𝚍𝚎 𝚊𝚜 𝚒𝚗𝚜𝚝𝚒𝚝𝚞𝚒𝚌̧𝚘̃𝚎𝚜 𝚙𝚞́𝚋𝚕𝚒𝚌𝚊𝚜 𝚏𝚊𝚕𝚑𝚊𝚖, 𝚚𝚞𝚎 𝚗𝚘𝚜 𝚟𝚊𝚕𝚑𝚊𝚖 𝚊𝚜 𝚙𝚛𝚒𝚟𝚊𝚍𝚊𝚜, 𝚎𝚖𝚙𝚛𝚎𝚜𝚊𝚜 𝚘𝚞 𝚗𝚊̃𝚘. 𝚂𝚎𝚓𝚊𝚖 𝚎𝚕𝚊𝚜 𝚘 𝚃𝚠𝚒𝚝𝚝𝚎𝚛 𝚘𝚞 𝚌𝚊𝚗𝚊𝚒𝚜 𝚍𝚎 𝚃𝚅. 𝙴́ 𝚞𝚖𝚊 𝚋𝚘𝚗𝚒𝚝𝚊 𝚑𝚘𝚖𝚎𝚗𝚊𝚐𝚎𝚖 𝚊𝚘 𝚕𝚒𝚋𝚎𝚛𝚊𝚕𝚒𝚜𝚖𝚘, 𝚎𝚜𝚙𝚎́𝚌𝚒𝚎 𝚍𝚎 𝚛𝚎𝚍𝚎𝚗𝚌̧𝚊̃𝚘 𝚍𝚘 𝚌𝚊𝚙𝚒𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚒𝚜𝚖𝚘, 𝚟𝚎̂-𝚕𝚘 𝚊𝚜𝚜𝚒𝚖 𝚗𝚊 𝚟𝚊𝚗𝚐𝚞𝚊𝚛𝚍𝚊 𝚍𝚊 𝚕𝚞𝚝𝚊 𝚌𝚘𝚗𝚝𝚛𝚊 𝚊 𝚊𝚞𝚝𝚘𝚌𝚛𝚊𝚌𝚒𝚊 𝚎 𝚊 𝚎𝚡𝚝𝚛𝚎𝚖𝚊-𝚍𝚒𝚛𝚎𝚒𝚝𝚊 - 𝚌𝚘𝚗𝚝𝚛𝚊 𝚘 𝚖𝚊𝚕.
IN "DIÁRIO DE NOTÍCIAS" - 07/11/20
.
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário