TERESA VIOLANTE

 .

A lição que vem da Alemanha

A luta contra crises, sejam elas pandémicas ou de outra índole, tem de ser feita dentro do sistema constitucional, e não fora dele ou à margem. Os alemães aprenderam essa lição, de forma bastante dolorosa, e mantêm-na viva, mesmo nestes tempos difíceis, os mais difíceis que a Europa enfrenta desde a Segunda Guerra Mundial. E nós?

𝓝𝓪𝓼 𝓭𝓮𝓻𝓻𝓪𝓭𝓮𝓲𝓻𝓪𝓼 𝓼𝓮𝓶𝓪𝓷𝓪𝓼 𝓭𝓸 𝓼𝓮𝓾 𝓶𝓪𝓷𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓸, 𝓪 𝓒𝓱𝓪𝓷𝓬𝓮𝓵𝓮𝓻 𝓜𝓮𝓻𝓴𝓮𝓵 𝓪𝓷𝓾𝓷𝓬𝓲𝓸𝓾 𝓷𝓸𝓿𝓪𝓼 𝓶𝓮𝓭𝓲𝓭𝓪𝓼 𝓺𝓾𝓮 𝓲𝓻𝓪̃𝓸 𝓭𝓲𝓯𝓲𝓬𝓾𝓵𝓽𝓪𝓻 𝓶𝓾𝓲𝓽𝓸 𝓪 𝓿𝓲𝓭𝓪 𝓪𝓸𝓼 𝓷𝓪̃𝓸 𝓿𝓪𝓬𝓲𝓷𝓪𝓭𝓸𝓼, 𝓲𝓶𝓹𝓮𝓭𝓲𝓷𝓭𝓸-𝓵𝓱𝓮𝓼 𝓸 𝓪𝓬𝓮𝓼𝓼𝓸 𝓪 𝓻𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓪𝓾𝓻𝓪𝓷𝓽𝓮𝓼, 𝓫𝓪𝓻𝓮𝓼, 𝓮𝓼𝓹𝓪𝓬̧𝓸𝓼 𝓬𝓾𝓵𝓽𝓾𝓻𝓪𝓲𝓼 𝓮 𝓵𝓸𝓳𝓪𝓼 𝓭𝓮 𝓫𝓮𝓷𝓼 𝓷𝓪̃𝓸 𝓮𝓼𝓼𝓮𝓷𝓬𝓲𝓪𝓲𝓼. 𝓐 𝓽𝓸𝓻𝓷𝓪𝓻𝓮𝓶-𝓼𝓮 𝓮𝓯𝓮𝓽𝓲𝓿𝓪𝓼 𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓪𝓼 𝓻𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓬̧𝓸̃𝓮𝓼, 𝓲𝓷𝓽𝓮𝓰𝓻𝓪𝓻𝓪̃𝓸 𝓪 𝓺𝓾𝓲𝓷𝓽𝓪 𝓪𝓵𝓽𝓮𝓻𝓪𝓬̧𝓪̃𝓸 𝓪̀ 𝓛𝓮𝓲 𝓭𝓮 𝓟𝓻𝓸𝓽𝓮𝓬̧𝓪̃𝓸 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓽𝓻𝓪 𝓓𝓸𝓮𝓷𝓬̧𝓪𝓼 𝓘𝓷𝓯𝓮𝓬𝓲𝓸𝓼𝓪𝓼 𝓭𝓮𝓼𝓭𝓮 𝓶𝓪𝓻𝓬̧𝓸 𝓭𝓮 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟎. 𝓔𝓷𝓽𝓻𝓮𝓽𝓪𝓷𝓽𝓸, 𝓸 𝓰𝓸𝓿𝓮𝓻𝓷𝓸 𝓯𝓮𝓭𝓮𝓻𝓪𝓵 𝓰𝓪𝓷𝓱𝓸𝓾 𝓾𝓶 𝓪𝓵𝓲𝓪𝓭𝓸 𝓭𝓮 𝓹𝓮𝓼𝓸 𝓷𝓪 𝓼𝓾𝓪 𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓪𝓽𝓮́𝓰𝓲𝓪 𝓪𝓷𝓽𝓲𝓹𝓪𝓷𝓭𝓮́𝓶𝓲𝓬𝓪. 𝓥𝓪́𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓼 𝓭𝓪𝓼 𝓶𝓮𝓭𝓲𝓭𝓪𝓼 𝓻𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓽𝓲𝓿𝓪𝓼 𝓺𝓾𝓮 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓼𝓽𝓪𝓿𝓪𝓶 𝓭𝓪 𝓺𝓾𝓪𝓻𝓽𝓪 𝓪𝓵𝓽𝓮𝓻𝓪𝓬̧𝓪̃𝓸 𝓪̀ 𝓛𝓮𝓲 𝓭𝓮 𝓟𝓻𝓸𝓽𝓮𝓬̧𝓪̃𝓸 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓽𝓻𝓪 𝓓𝓸𝓮𝓷𝓬̧𝓪𝓼 𝓘𝓷𝓯𝓮𝓬𝓲𝓸𝓼𝓪𝓼, 𝓪𝓹𝓻𝓸𝓿𝓪𝓭𝓪 𝓮𝓶 𝓪𝓫𝓻𝓲𝓵 𝓭𝓮 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟏, 𝓬𝓸𝓶𝓸 𝓪𝓼 𝓻𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓬̧𝓸̃𝓮𝓼 𝓪 𝓻𝓮𝓾𝓷𝓲𝓸̃𝓮𝓼 𝓯𝓪𝓶𝓲𝓵𝓲𝓪𝓻𝓮𝓼, 𝓻𝓮𝓬𝓸𝓵𝓱𝓮𝓻 𝓷𝓸𝓽𝓾𝓻𝓷𝓸 𝓸𝓫𝓻𝓲𝓰𝓪𝓽𝓸́𝓻𝓲𝓸 𝓮 𝓮𝓷𝓬𝓮𝓻𝓻𝓪𝓶𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓸𝓼 𝓭𝓪𝓼 𝓮𝓼𝓬𝓸𝓵𝓪𝓼, 𝓱𝓪𝓿𝓲𝓪𝓶 𝓼𝓲𝓭𝓸 𝓲𝓶𝓹𝓾𝓰𝓷𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓼, 𝓬𝓸𝓶 𝓯𝓾𝓷𝓭𝓪𝓶𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓸 𝓮𝓶 𝓲𝓷𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓼𝓽𝓲𝓽𝓾𝓬𝓲𝓸𝓷𝓪𝓵𝓲𝓭𝓪𝓭𝓮, 𝓳𝓾𝓷𝓽𝓸 𝓭𝓸 𝓣𝓻𝓲𝓫𝓾𝓷𝓪𝓵 𝓒𝓸𝓷𝓼𝓽𝓲𝓽𝓾𝓬𝓲𝓸𝓷𝓪𝓵 𝓕𝓮𝓭𝓮𝓻𝓪𝓵 𝓪𝓵𝓮𝓶𝓪̃𝓸.

𝓝𝓸𝓼 𝓾́𝓵𝓽𝓲𝓶𝓸𝓼 𝓭𝓲𝓪𝓼, 𝓪𝓺𝓾𝓮𝓵𝓮 𝓻𝓮𝓹𝓾𝓽𝓪𝓭𝓸 𝓣𝓻𝓲𝓫𝓾𝓷𝓪𝓵 𝓿𝓮𝓲𝓸 𝓬𝓵𝓪𝓻𝓲𝓯𝓲𝓬𝓪𝓻 𝓪𝓼 𝓭𝓾́𝓿𝓲𝓭𝓪𝓼: 𝓪𝓼 𝓲𝓷𝓽𝓮𝓷𝓼𝓪𝓼 𝓻𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓬̧𝓸̃𝓮𝓼 𝓪̀𝓼 𝓵𝓲𝓫𝓮𝓻𝓭𝓪𝓭𝓮𝓼 𝓲𝓷𝓭𝓲𝓿𝓲𝓭𝓾𝓪𝓲𝓼 𝓪𝓹𝓻𝓸𝓿𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓼 𝓹𝓪𝓻𝓪 𝓬𝓸𝓶𝓫𝓪𝓽𝓮𝓻 𝓪 𝓹𝓪𝓷𝓭𝓮𝓶𝓲𝓪 𝓼𝓪̃𝓸 𝓹𝓻𝓸𝓹𝓸𝓻𝓬𝓲𝓸𝓷𝓪𝓲𝓼 𝓮 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓯𝓸𝓻𝓶𝓮𝓼 𝓪̀ 𝓛𝓮𝓲 𝓕𝓾𝓷𝓭𝓪𝓶𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓪𝓵 𝓪𝓵𝓮𝓶𝓪̃.

𝓔𝓼𝓽𝓪 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓬𝓵𝓾𝓼𝓪̃𝓸 𝓬𝓱𝓮𝓰𝓪 𝓭𝓮𝓹𝓸𝓲𝓼 𝓭𝓮 𝓸 𝓣𝓻𝓲𝓫𝓾𝓷𝓪𝓵 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓼𝓾𝓵𝓽𝓪𝓻 𝓭𝓲𝓿𝓮𝓻𝓼𝓸𝓼 𝓹𝓮𝓻𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓼 𝓶𝓮́𝓭𝓲𝓬𝓸𝓼 𝓮 𝓬𝓲𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓲𝓼𝓽𝓪𝓼 𝓺𝓾𝓮, 𝓮𝓶𝓫𝓸𝓻𝓪 𝓬𝓸𝓶 𝓪𝓵𝓰𝓾𝓶𝓪𝓼 𝓿𝓪𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓬̧𝓸̃𝓮𝓼 𝓿𝓪𝓵𝓸𝓻𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓿𝓪𝓼, 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓿𝓮𝓻𝓰𝓲𝓻𝓪𝓶 𝓷𝓪 𝓸𝓹𝓲𝓷𝓲𝓪̃𝓸 𝓭𝓮 𝓺𝓾𝓮 𝓪𝓼 𝓻𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓬̧𝓸̃𝓮𝓼 𝓪𝓭𝓸𝓽𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓼 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓼𝓽𝓲𝓽𝓾𝓲́𝓪𝓶 𝓸 𝓶𝓮𝓲𝓸 𝓪𝓭𝓮𝓺𝓾𝓪𝓭𝓸 𝓹𝓪𝓻𝓪 𝓬𝓸𝓶𝓫𝓪𝓽𝓮𝓻 𝓪 𝓹𝓻𝓸𝓹𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓬̧𝓪̃𝓸 𝓭𝓸 𝓿𝓲́𝓻𝓾𝓼. 𝓞 𝓣𝓻𝓲𝓫𝓾𝓷𝓪𝓵 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓯𝓲𝓻𝓶𝓸𝓾 𝓽𝓪𝓶𝓫𝓮́𝓶 𝓺𝓾𝓮 𝓪𝓼 𝓶𝓮𝓼𝓶𝓪𝓼 𝓯𝓸𝓻𝓪𝓶 𝓪𝓭𝓸𝓽𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓼 𝓹𝓮𝓵𝓸 𝓸́𝓻𝓰𝓪̃𝓸 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓼𝓽𝓲𝓽𝓾𝓬𝓲𝓸𝓷𝓪𝓵𝓶𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓮 𝓬𝓸𝓶𝓹𝓮𝓽𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓮 (𝓸 𝓹𝓪𝓻𝓵𝓪𝓶𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓸 𝓯𝓮𝓭𝓮𝓻𝓪𝓵), 𝓼𝓮𝓰𝓾𝓲𝓷𝓭𝓸 𝓸 𝓹𝓻𝓸𝓬𝓮𝓼𝓼𝓸 𝓵𝓮𝓰𝓲𝓼𝓵𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓿𝓸 𝓪𝓭𝓮𝓺𝓾𝓪𝓭𝓸.

𝓒𝓸𝓶 𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓪 𝓭𝓮𝓬𝓲𝓼𝓪̃𝓸, 𝓪 𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓪𝓽𝓮́𝓰𝓲𝓪 𝓻𝓸𝓫𝓾𝓼𝓽𝓪 𝓭𝓮 𝓬𝓸𝓶𝓫𝓪𝓽𝓮 𝓪̀ 𝓹𝓪𝓷𝓭𝓮𝓶𝓲𝓪 𝓵𝓲𝓭𝓮𝓻𝓪𝓭𝓪 𝓹𝓮𝓵𝓪 𝓒𝓱𝓪𝓷𝓬𝓮𝓵𝓮𝓻 𝓜𝓮𝓻𝓴𝓮𝓵 𝓮́ 𝓵𝓮𝓰𝓲𝓽𝓲𝓶𝓪𝓭𝓪 𝓪𝓸𝓼 𝓸𝓵𝓱𝓸𝓼 𝓭𝓪 𝓸𝓹𝓲𝓷𝓲𝓪̃𝓸 𝓹𝓾́𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓬𝓪. 𝓔́ 𝓲𝓶𝓹𝓸𝓻𝓽𝓪𝓷𝓽𝓮 𝓷𝓸𝓽𝓪𝓻 𝓺𝓾𝓮 𝓸 𝓣𝓻𝓲𝓫𝓾𝓷𝓪𝓵 𝓒𝓸𝓷𝓼𝓽𝓲𝓽𝓾𝓬𝓲𝓸𝓷𝓪𝓵 𝓕𝓮𝓭𝓮𝓻𝓪𝓵 𝓪𝓵𝓮𝓶𝓪̃𝓸 𝓮́ 𝓪 𝓲𝓷𝓼𝓽𝓲𝓽𝓾𝓲𝓬̧𝓪̃𝓸 𝓹𝓾́𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓬𝓪 𝓺𝓾𝓮 𝓰𝓸𝔃𝓪 𝓭𝓮 𝓶𝓪𝓲𝓸𝓻 𝓹𝓻𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓲́𝓰𝓲𝓸 𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓻𝓮 𝓸𝓼 𝓪𝓵𝓮𝓶𝓪̃𝓮𝓼 𝓮 𝓺𝓾𝓮 𝓪𝓼 𝓼𝓾𝓪𝓼 𝓭𝓮𝓬𝓲𝓼𝓸̃𝓮𝓼 𝓮𝓶 𝓶𝓪𝓽𝓮́𝓻𝓲𝓪 𝓭𝓮 𝓭𝓲𝓻𝓮𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓼 𝓯𝓾𝓷𝓭𝓪𝓶𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓪𝓲𝓼 𝓼𝓪̃𝓸 𝓫𝓪𝓼𝓽𝓪𝓷𝓽𝓮 𝓻𝓮𝓼𝓹𝓮𝓲𝓽𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓼. 𝓐 𝓼𝓾𝓪 𝓬𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓬̧𝓪̃𝓸 𝓼𝓾𝓻𝓰𝓲𝓾 𝓮𝓶 𝓻𝓮𝓪𝓬̧𝓪̃𝓸 𝓪̀𝓼 𝓪𝓽𝓻𝓸𝓬𝓲𝓭𝓪𝓭𝓮𝓼 𝓭𝓸 𝓻𝓮𝓰𝓲𝓶𝓮 𝓝𝓪𝔃𝓲 𝓮 𝓽𝓮𝓿𝓮 𝓾𝓶 𝓹𝓪𝓹𝓮𝓵 𝓫𝓪𝓼𝓽𝓪𝓷𝓽𝓮 𝓻𝓮𝓵𝓮𝓿𝓪𝓷𝓽𝓮 𝓷𝓪 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓼𝓸𝓵𝓲𝓭𝓪𝓬̧𝓪̃𝓸 𝓭𝓪 𝓭𝓮𝓶𝓸𝓬𝓻𝓪𝓬𝓲𝓪 𝓪𝓵𝓮𝓶𝓪̃ 𝓹𝓸́𝓼-𝓰𝓾𝓮𝓻𝓻𝓪 𝓬𝓸𝓶𝓸 𝓾𝓶 𝓻𝓮𝓰𝓲𝓶𝓮 𝓪𝓵𝓲𝓬𝓮𝓻𝓬̧𝓪𝓭𝓸 𝓷𝓸 𝓯𝓲𝓻𝓶𝓮 𝓻𝓮𝓼𝓹𝓮𝓲𝓽𝓸 𝓹𝓮𝓵𝓪𝓼 𝓵𝓲𝓫𝓮𝓻𝓭𝓪𝓭𝓮𝓼 𝓲𝓷𝓭𝓲𝓿𝓲𝓭𝓾𝓪𝓲𝓼.

𝓔𝓼𝓽𝓪 𝓬𝓮𝓻𝓽𝓲𝓯𝓲𝓬𝓪𝓬̧𝓪̃𝓸 𝓭𝓪 𝓹𝓸𝓵𝓲́𝓽𝓲𝓬𝓪 𝓭𝓮 𝓪𝓽𝓪𝓺𝓾𝓮 𝓪̀ 𝓹𝓪𝓷𝓭𝓮𝓶𝓲𝓪 𝓹𝓮𝓵𝓸 𝓶𝓪𝓲𝓼 𝓪𝓵𝓽𝓸 𝓰𝓾𝓪𝓻𝓭𝓲𝓪̃𝓸 𝓭𝓪 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓼𝓽𝓲𝓽𝓾𝓲𝓬̧𝓪̃𝓸 𝓿𝓮𝓶 𝓪𝓼𝓼𝓲𝓶 𝓻𝓮𝓯𝓸𝓻𝓬̧𝓪𝓻 𝓪 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓯𝓲𝓪𝓷𝓬̧𝓪 𝓮 𝓪 𝓹𝓪𝔃 𝓳𝓾𝓻𝓲́𝓭𝓲𝓬𝓪, 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓯𝓮𝓻𝓲𝓷𝓭𝓸 𝓼𝓮𝓰𝓾𝓻𝓪𝓷𝓬̧𝓪 𝓪 𝓾𝓶 𝓹𝓻𝓸𝓬𝓮𝓼𝓼𝓸 𝓬𝓱𝓮𝓲𝓸 𝓭𝓮 𝓲𝓷𝓬𝓮𝓻𝓽𝓮𝔃𝓪𝓼. 𝓜𝓪𝓼 𝓿𝓮𝓶 𝓽𝓪𝓶𝓫𝓮́𝓶 𝓯𝓻𝓪𝓰𝓲𝓵𝓲𝔃𝓪𝓻 𝓪 𝓹𝓸𝓼𝓲𝓬̧𝓪̃𝓸 𝓹𝓸𝓵𝓲́𝓽𝓲𝓬𝓪 𝓺𝓾𝓮 𝓪𝓵𝓰𝓾𝓷𝓼 𝓭𝓸𝓼 𝓶𝓮𝓶𝓫𝓻𝓸𝓼 𝓭𝓪 𝓷𝓸𝓿𝓪 𝓬𝓸𝓵𝓲𝓰𝓪𝓬̧𝓪̃𝓸 𝓼𝓮𝓶𝓪́𝓯𝓸𝓻𝓸 𝓶𝓪𝓷𝓲𝓯𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓪𝓻𝓪𝓶 𝓮𝓶 𝓻𝓮𝓵𝓪𝓬̧𝓪̃𝓸 𝓪̀ 𝓹𝓸𝓵𝓲́𝓽𝓲𝓬𝓪 𝓹𝓪𝓷𝓭𝓮́𝓶𝓲𝓬𝓪 𝓭𝓪 𝓰𝓻𝓪𝓷𝓭𝓮 𝓬𝓸𝓵𝓲𝓰𝓪𝓬̧𝓪̃𝓸 𝓒𝓓𝓤/𝓢𝓟𝓓. 𝓔𝓶 𝓹𝓸𝓾𝓬𝓸𝓼 𝓭𝓲𝓪𝓼, 𝓸𝓼 𝓥𝓮𝓻𝓭𝓮𝓼 𝓮, 𝓼𝓸𝓫𝓻𝓮𝓽𝓾𝓭𝓸, 𝓸𝓼 𝓛𝓲𝓫𝓮𝓻𝓪𝓲𝓼 (𝓕𝓓𝓟), 𝓺𝓾𝓮 𝓽𝓲𝓷𝓱𝓪𝓶 𝓬𝓻𝓲𝓽𝓲𝓬𝓪𝓭𝓸 𝓿𝓸𝓬𝓪𝓵𝓶𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓮 𝓪𝓼 𝓶𝓮𝓭𝓲𝓭𝓪𝓼 𝓻𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓽𝓲𝓿𝓪𝓼 𝓪𝓹𝓻𝓸𝓿𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓼 𝓮𝓶 𝓪𝓫𝓻𝓲𝓵 𝓭𝓮 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟏, 𝓲𝓷𝓬𝓵𝓾𝓲𝓷𝓭𝓸 𝓸 𝓻𝓮𝓬𝓸𝓵𝓱𝓮𝓻 𝓸𝓫𝓻𝓲𝓰𝓪𝓽𝓸́𝓻𝓲𝓸, 𝓿𝓲𝓻𝓪𝓶-𝓼𝓮 𝓯𝓸𝓻𝓬̧𝓪𝓭𝓸𝓼 𝓪 𝓪𝓫𝓪𝓷𝓭𝓸𝓷𝓪𝓻 𝓪𝓵𝓰𝓾𝓶𝓪𝓼 𝓭𝓪𝓼 𝓹𝓸𝓼𝓲𝓬̧𝓸̃𝓮𝓼 𝓺𝓾𝓮 𝓱𝓪𝓿𝓲𝓪𝓶 𝓪𝓭𝓸𝓽𝓪𝓭𝓸 𝓭𝓾𝓻𝓪𝓷𝓽𝓮 𝓪 𝓬𝓪𝓶𝓹𝓪𝓷𝓱𝓪 𝓮𝓵𝓮𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓻𝓪𝓵, 𝓸𝓻𝓲𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓼 𝓹𝓪𝓻𝓪 𝓾𝓶𝓪 𝓵𝓾𝓽𝓪 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓽𝓻𝓪 𝓸 𝓿𝓲́𝓻𝓾𝓼 𝓶𝓪𝓲𝓼 𝓪𝓶𝓲𝓰𝓪 𝓭𝓪𝓼 𝓵𝓲𝓫𝓮𝓻𝓭𝓪𝓭𝓮𝓼 𝓲𝓷𝓭𝓲𝓿𝓲𝓭𝓾𝓪𝓲𝓼.

𝓤𝓶 𝓼𝓲𝓷𝓪𝓵 𝓭𝓪 𝓭𝓲𝓷𝓪̂𝓶𝓲𝓬𝓪 𝓺𝓾𝓮 𝓸 𝓿𝓲́𝓻𝓾𝓼 𝓲𝓶𝓹𝓻𝓲𝓶𝓮 𝓪̀ 𝓵𝓾𝓽𝓪 𝓹𝓸𝓵𝓲́𝓽𝓲𝓬𝓪 𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓪́ 𝓹𝓻𝓮𝓬𝓲𝓼𝓪𝓶𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓮 𝓷𝓸 𝓯𝓪𝓬𝓽𝓸 𝓭𝓮 𝓺𝓾𝓮 𝓒𝓱𝓻𝓲𝓼𝓽𝓲𝓪𝓷 𝓛𝓲𝓷𝓭𝓷𝓮𝓻, 𝓵𝓲́𝓭𝓮𝓻 𝓭𝓸 𝓕𝓓𝓟, 𝓿𝓮𝓶 𝓪𝓰𝓸𝓻𝓪 𝓪𝓭𝓶𝓲𝓽𝓲𝓻 𝓪 𝓹𝓸𝓼𝓼𝓲𝓫𝓲𝓵𝓲𝓭𝓪𝓭𝓮 𝓭𝓮 𝓿𝓪𝓬𝓲𝓷𝓪𝓬̧𝓪̃𝓸 𝓸𝓫𝓻𝓲𝓰𝓪𝓽𝓸́𝓻𝓲𝓪, 𝓾𝓶 𝓽𝓮𝓶𝓪 𝓺𝓾𝓮 𝓲𝓻𝓪́ 𝓼𝓮𝓰𝓾𝓻𝓪𝓶𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓮 𝓬𝓪𝓾𝓼𝓪𝓻 𝓽𝓪𝓶𝓫𝓮́𝓶 𝓭𝓲𝓼𝓼𝓪𝓫𝓸𝓻𝓮𝓼 𝓪𝓸𝓼 𝓥𝓮𝓻𝓭𝓮𝓼 𝓺𝓾𝓮 𝓬𝓸𝓵𝓱𝓮𝓶 𝓪𝓵𝓰𝓾𝓶𝓪 𝓼𝓲𝓶𝓹𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓪 𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓻𝓮 𝓸𝓼 𝓰𝓻𝓾𝓹𝓸𝓼 𝓬𝓸𝓶 𝓶𝓪𝓲𝓸𝓻 𝓱𝓮𝓼𝓲𝓽𝓪𝓬̧𝓪̃𝓸 𝓿𝓪𝓬𝓲𝓷𝓪𝓵, 𝓸𝓼 𝓺𝓾𝓪𝓲𝓼 𝓼𝓮 𝓪𝓬𝓪𝓫𝓪𝓻𝓪̃𝓸 𝓹𝓸𝓻 𝓿𝓮𝓻 𝓭𝓮𝓯𝓲𝓷𝓲𝓽𝓲𝓿𝓪𝓶𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓮 𝓮𝓶𝓹𝓾𝓻𝓻𝓪𝓭𝓸𝓼 𝓹𝓪𝓻𝓪 𝓸𝓼 𝓫𝓻𝓪𝓬̧𝓸𝓼 𝓭𝓪 𝓮𝔁𝓽𝓻𝓮𝓶𝓪-𝓭𝓲𝓻𝓮𝓲𝓽𝓪 (𝓐𝓯𝓓).

𝓐𝓵𝓲𝓪́𝓼, 𝓮𝓶 𝓶𝓮𝓪𝓭𝓸𝓼 𝓭𝓮 𝓷𝓸𝓿𝓮𝓶𝓫𝓻𝓸, 𝓸𝓼 𝓽𝓻𝓮̂𝓼 𝓹𝓪𝓻𝓽𝓲𝓭𝓸𝓼 𝓭𝓪 𝓬𝓸𝓵𝓲𝓰𝓪𝓬̧𝓪̃𝓸 𝓼𝓮𝓶𝓪́𝓯𝓸𝓻𝓸 (𝓢𝓟𝓓, 𝓕𝓓𝓟 𝓮 𝓥𝓮𝓻𝓭𝓮𝓼) 𝓪𝓹𝓻𝓮𝓼𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓪𝓻𝓪𝓶 𝓾𝓶𝓪 𝓹𝓻𝓸𝓹𝓸𝓼𝓽𝓪 𝓭𝓮 𝓪𝓵𝓽𝓮𝓻𝓪𝓬̧𝓪̃𝓸 𝓭𝓪 𝓵𝓮𝓰𝓲𝓼𝓵𝓪𝓬̧𝓪̃𝓸 𝓷𝓸 𝓹𝓪𝓻𝓵𝓪𝓶𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓸 𝓺𝓾𝓮 𝓯𝓸𝓲 𝓭𝓾𝓻𝓪𝓶𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓮 𝓬𝓻𝓲𝓽𝓲𝓬𝓪𝓭𝓪 𝓹𝓮𝓵𝓪 𝓬𝓸𝓶𝓾𝓷𝓲𝓭𝓪𝓭𝓮 𝓶𝓮́𝓭𝓲𝓬𝓪 𝓮 𝓬𝓲𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓲́𝓯𝓲𝓬𝓪 𝓹𝓮𝓵𝓪 𝓼𝓾𝓪 𝓫𝓻𝓪𝓷𝓭𝓾𝓻𝓪, 𝓮 𝓺𝓾𝓮, 𝓪 𝓼𝓮𝓻 𝓪𝓹𝓻𝓸𝓿𝓪𝓭𝓪, 𝓲𝓻𝓲𝓪 𝓲𝓶𝓹𝓮𝓭𝓲𝓻 𝓸 𝓻𝓮𝓬𝓾𝓻𝓼𝓸 𝓪𝓸 𝓻𝓮𝓬𝓸𝓵𝓱𝓮𝓻 𝓸𝓫𝓻𝓲𝓰𝓪𝓽𝓸́𝓻𝓲𝓸, 𝓻𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓬̧𝓸̃𝓮𝓼 𝓭𝓮 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓽𝓪𝓬𝓽𝓸 𝓮 𝓮𝓷𝓬𝓮𝓻𝓻𝓪𝓶𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓸 𝓭𝓮 𝓮𝓼𝓬𝓸𝓵𝓪𝓼. 𝓣𝓾𝓭𝓸 𝓹𝓻𝓸𝓶𝓮𝓼𝓼𝓪𝓼 𝓯𝓮𝓲𝓽𝓪𝓼 𝓭𝓾𝓻𝓪𝓷𝓽𝓮 𝓪 𝓬𝓪𝓶𝓹𝓪𝓷𝓱𝓪 𝓮𝓵𝓮𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓻𝓪𝓵 𝓮 𝓺𝓾𝓮 𝓪𝓬𝓪𝓫𝓪𝓶, 𝓪𝓼𝓼𝓲𝓶, 𝓹𝓸𝓻 𝓼𝓮𝓻 𝓺𝓾𝓮𝓫𝓻𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓼 𝓪𝓷𝓽𝓮𝓼 𝓶𝓮𝓼𝓶𝓸 𝓭𝓮 𝓸 𝓷𝓸𝓿𝓸 𝓰𝓸𝓿𝓮𝓻𝓷𝓸 𝓽𝓸𝓶𝓪𝓻 𝓹𝓸𝓼𝓼𝓮, 𝓶𝓸𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓪𝓷𝓭𝓸 𝓺𝓾𝓮 𝓪 𝓹𝓸𝓵𝓲𝓽𝓲𝔃𝓪𝓬̧𝓪̃𝓸 𝓭𝓪 𝓵𝓾𝓽𝓪 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓽𝓻𝓪 𝓪 𝓹𝓪𝓷𝓭𝓮𝓶𝓲𝓪 𝓮́ 𝓾𝓶𝓪 𝓪𝓻𝓶𝓪 𝓲𝓶𝓹𝓻𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓼𝓲́𝓿𝓮𝓵 𝓺𝓾𝓮 𝓹𝓸𝓭𝓮 𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓸𝓾𝓻𝓪𝓻 𝓷𝓪𝓼 𝓶𝓪̃𝓸𝓼 𝓭𝓮 𝓺𝓾𝓪𝓵𝓺𝓾𝓮𝓻 𝓾𝓶.

𝓔𝓷𝓺𝓾𝓪𝓷𝓽𝓸 𝓸𝓼 𝓪𝓵𝓮𝓶𝓪̃𝓮𝓼 𝓪𝓿𝓪𝓷𝓬̧𝓪𝓶 𝓹𝓪𝓻𝓪 𝓶𝓪𝓲𝓼 𝓾𝓶𝓪 𝓪𝓵𝓽𝓮𝓻𝓪𝓬̧𝓪̃𝓸 𝓪𝓸 𝓼𝓮𝓾 𝓻𝓮𝓰𝓲𝓶𝓮 𝓳𝓾𝓻𝓲́𝓭𝓲𝓬𝓸 𝓭𝓮 𝓵𝓾𝓽𝓪 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓽𝓻𝓪 𝓪 𝓹𝓪𝓷𝓭𝓮𝓶𝓲𝓪 (𝓪 𝓺𝓾𝓲𝓷𝓽𝓪, 𝓭𝓮𝓼𝓭𝓮 𝓶𝓪𝓻𝓬̧𝓸 𝓭𝓮 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟎!), 𝓹𝓸𝓻 𝓬𝓪́, 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓽𝓲𝓷𝓾𝓪𝓶𝓸𝓼 𝓽𝓮𝓲𝓶𝓸𝓼𝓪𝓶𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓮 𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓻𝓻𝓪𝓭𝓸𝓼 𝓪̀ 𝓲𝓭𝓮𝓲𝓪 𝓭𝓮 𝓺𝓾𝓮 𝓾𝓶𝓪 𝓵𝓮𝓰𝓲𝓼𝓵𝓪𝓬̧𝓪̃𝓸 𝓭𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓪 𝓷𝓪𝓽𝓾𝓻𝓮𝔃𝓪 𝓷𝓪̃𝓸 𝓭𝓮𝓿𝓮 𝓼𝓮𝓻 𝓯𝓮𝓲𝓽𝓪 𝓼𝓸𝓫 𝓹𝓻𝓮𝓼𝓼𝓪̃𝓸. 𝓔𝓼𝓽𝓮𝓼 𝓹𝓻𝓾𝓻𝓲𝓭𝓸𝓼 𝓷𝓪̃𝓸 𝓲𝓶𝓹𝓮𝓭𝓮𝓶, 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓽𝓾𝓭𝓸, 𝓪 𝓹𝓮𝓬𝓾𝓵𝓲𝓪𝓻𝓲𝓭𝓪𝓭𝓮 𝓭𝓮 𝓹𝓻𝓸𝓬𝓮𝓼𝓼𝓸𝓼 𝓵𝓮𝓰𝓲𝓼𝓵𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓿𝓸𝓼-𝓻𝓮𝓵𝓪̂𝓶𝓹𝓪𝓰𝓸 𝓬𝓸𝓶𝓸 𝓸 𝓺𝓾𝓮 𝓪𝓾𝓽𝓸𝓻𝓲𝔃𝓸𝓾 𝓸 𝓖𝓸𝓿𝓮𝓻𝓷𝓸 𝓪 𝓭𝓮𝓬𝓻𝓮𝓽𝓪𝓻 𝓪 𝓸𝓫𝓻𝓲𝓰𝓪𝓽𝓸𝓻𝓲𝓮𝓭𝓪𝓭𝓮 𝓭𝓸 𝓾𝓼𝓸 𝓭𝓮 𝓶𝓪́𝓼𝓬𝓪𝓻𝓪 𝓷𝓪 𝓻𝓾𝓪, 𝓺𝓾𝓮 𝓭𝓮𝓾 𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓻𝓪𝓭𝓪 𝓷𝓸 𝓟𝓪𝓻𝓵𝓪𝓶𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓸 𝓷𝓸 𝓭𝓲𝓪 𝟐𝟓 𝓭𝓮 𝓷𝓸𝓿𝓮𝓶𝓫𝓻𝓸 𝓮 𝓯𝓸𝓲 𝓪𝓹𝓻𝓸𝓿𝓪𝓭𝓸 𝓵𝓸𝓰𝓸 𝓷𝓸 𝓭𝓲𝓪 𝓪 𝓼𝓮𝓰𝓾𝓲𝓻…𝓐 𝓵𝓮𝓰𝓲𝓼𝓵𝓪𝓬̧𝓪̃𝓸 𝓭𝓸 𝓟𝓪𝓻𝓵𝓪𝓶𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓸 𝓽𝓮𝓶 𝓾𝓶𝓪 𝓺𝓾𝓪𝓵𝓲𝓭𝓪𝓭𝓮 𝓭𝓮𝓶𝓸𝓬𝓻𝓪́𝓽𝓲𝓬𝓪 𝓼𝓾𝓹𝓮𝓻𝓲𝓸𝓻 𝓭𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓭𝓸 𝓪̀ 𝓼𝓾𝓪 𝓬𝓪𝓹𝓪𝓬𝓲𝓭𝓪𝓭𝓮 𝓭𝓮 𝓹𝓮𝓻𝓶𝓲𝓽𝓲𝓻 𝓾𝓶𝓪 𝓶𝓪𝓲𝓸𝓻 𝓹𝓪𝓻𝓽𝓲𝓬𝓲𝓹𝓪𝓬̧𝓪̃𝓸 𝓹𝓸𝓵𝓲́𝓽𝓲𝓬𝓪 𝓮 𝓭𝓮 𝓸𝓫𝓮𝓭𝓮𝓬𝓮𝓻 𝓪 𝓾𝓶 𝓹𝓻𝓸𝓬𝓮𝓼𝓼𝓸 𝓵𝓮𝓰𝓲𝓼𝓵𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓿𝓸 𝓶𝓪𝓲𝓼 𝓽𝓻𝓪𝓷𝓼𝓹𝓪𝓻𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓮.

𝓒𝓵𝓪𝓻𝓸 𝓺𝓾𝓮 𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓪𝓼 𝓺𝓾𝓪𝓵𝓲𝓭𝓪𝓭𝓮𝓼 𝓼𝓪̃𝓸 𝓭𝓮𝓲𝓽𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓼 𝓹𝓪𝓻𝓪 𝓸 𝓬𝓪𝓲𝔁𝓸𝓽𝓮 𝓭𝓸 𝓵𝓲𝔁𝓸 𝓺𝓾𝓪𝓷𝓭𝓸 𝓼𝓮 𝓵𝓮𝓰𝓲𝓼𝓵𝓪 𝓭𝓮 𝓾𝓶 𝓭𝓲𝓪 𝓹𝓪𝓻𝓪 𝓸 𝓸𝓾𝓽𝓻𝓸, 𝓼𝓮𝓶 𝓭𝓲𝓼𝓬𝓾𝓼𝓼𝓪̃𝓸 𝓪𝓭𝓮𝓺𝓾𝓪𝓭𝓪 𝓷𝓮𝓶 𝓪𝓾𝓭𝓲𝓬̧𝓪̃𝓸 𝓭𝓮 𝓹𝓮𝓻𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓼. 𝓞 𝓺𝓾𝓮, 𝓷𝓪 𝓿𝓮𝓻𝓭𝓪𝓭𝓮, 𝓮́ 𝓸 𝓶𝓮𝓷𝓸𝓻 𝓭𝓸𝓼 𝓹𝓻𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓮𝓶𝓪𝓼 𝓭𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓮 𝓭𝓲𝓹𝓵𝓸𝓶𝓪 𝓺𝓾𝓮, 𝓪𝓹𝓮𝓼𝓪𝓻 𝓭𝓮 𝓭𝓲𝓼𝓯𝓪𝓻𝓬̧𝓪𝓭𝓸 𝓭𝓮 𝓵𝓮𝓲, 𝓶𝓪𝓲𝓼 𝓷𝓪̃𝓸 𝓮́ 𝓭𝓸 𝓺𝓾𝓮 𝓾𝓶𝓪 𝓽𝓻𝓪𝓷𝓼𝓯𝓮𝓻𝓮̂𝓷𝓬𝓲𝓪 𝓹𝓪𝓻𝓪 𝓸 𝓖𝓸𝓿𝓮𝓻𝓷𝓸 𝓭𝓸 𝓹𝓸𝓭𝓮𝓻 𝓭𝓮 𝓭𝓮𝓬𝓻𝓮𝓽𝓪𝓻 𝓸 𝓾𝓼𝓸 𝓸𝓫𝓻𝓲𝓰𝓪𝓽𝓸́𝓻𝓲𝓸 𝓭𝓮 𝓶𝓪́𝓼𝓬𝓪𝓻𝓪 𝓮𝓶 𝓯𝓾𝓷𝓬̧𝓪̃𝓸 𝓭𝓪𝓼 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓭𝓲𝓬̧𝓸̃𝓮𝓼 𝓺𝓾𝓮 𝓿𝓲𝓮𝓻𝓮𝓶 𝓹𝓸𝓻 𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓮 𝓪 𝓼𝓮𝓻 𝓭𝓮𝓯𝓲𝓷𝓲𝓭𝓪𝓼 𝓮𝓶 𝓯𝓪𝓬𝓮 𝓭𝓪 𝓮𝓿𝓸𝓵𝓾𝓬̧𝓪̃𝓸 𝓭𝓪 𝓹𝓪𝓷𝓭𝓮𝓶𝓲𝓪.

𝓠𝓾𝓮 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓭𝓲𝓬̧𝓸̃𝓮𝓼 𝓼𝓪̃𝓸 𝓮𝓼𝓼𝓪𝓼 – 𝓷𝓾́𝓶𝓮𝓻𝓸 𝓭𝓮 𝓲𝓷𝓯𝓮𝓽𝓪𝓭𝓸𝓼 𝓹𝓸𝓻 𝟏𝟎𝟎 𝓶𝓲𝓵 𝓱𝓪𝓫𝓲𝓽𝓪𝓷𝓽𝓮𝓼 𝓪 𝓬𝓪𝓭𝓪 𝓼𝓮𝓽𝓮 𝓭𝓲𝓪𝓼, 𝓽𝓪𝔁𝓪 𝓭𝓮 𝓱𝓸𝓼𝓹𝓲𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓲𝔃𝓪𝓬̧𝓪̃𝓸 𝓭𝓮 𝓲𝓷𝓯𝓮𝓽𝓪𝓭𝓸𝓼 𝓹𝓸𝓻 𝓒𝓸𝓿𝓲𝓭-𝟏𝟗? – 𝓮́ 𝓪𝓵𝓰𝓸 𝓺𝓾𝓮 𝓸 𝓟𝓪𝓻𝓵𝓪𝓶𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓸 𝓼𝓮 𝓪𝓫𝓼𝓽𝓮́𝓶 𝓭𝓮 𝓭𝓮𝓯𝓲𝓷𝓲𝓻 𝓹𝓸𝓻𝓺𝓾𝓮, 𝓮𝓷𝓯𝓲𝓶, 𝓷𝓸́𝓼 𝓬𝓪́ 𝓷𝓪̃𝓸 𝓵𝓮𝓰𝓲𝓼𝓵𝓪𝓶𝓸𝓼 𝓼𝓸𝓫 𝓹𝓻𝓮𝓼𝓼𝓪̃𝓸 𝓬𝓸𝓶𝓸 𝓮𝓼𝓼𝓮𝓼 𝓹𝓪𝓲́𝓼𝓮𝓼 𝓶𝓮𝓷𝓸𝓼 𝓼𝓸𝓯𝓲𝓼𝓽𝓲𝓬𝓪𝓭𝓸𝓼 𝓬𝓸𝓶𝓸 𝓪 𝓐𝓵𝓮𝓶𝓪𝓷𝓱𝓪 𝓸𝓾 𝓪𝓽𝓮́ 𝓪 𝓕𝓻𝓪𝓷𝓬̧𝓪, 𝓺𝓾𝓮 𝓪𝓹𝓻𝓸𝓿𝓸𝓾 𝓸 𝓼𝓮𝓾 “𝓮́𝓽𝓪𝓽 𝓭’𝓾𝓻𝓰𝓮𝓷𝓬𝓮 𝓼𝓪𝓷𝓲𝓽𝓪𝓲𝓻𝓮” 𝓮𝓶 𝓶𝓪𝓻𝓬̧𝓸 𝓭𝓮 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟎.

𝓜𝓪𝓼, 𝓪𝓯𝓲𝓷𝓪𝓵, 𝓺𝓾𝓮 𝓹𝓻𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓮𝓶𝓪 𝓽𝓮𝓶 𝓾𝓶𝓪 𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓪𝓽𝓮́𝓰𝓲𝓪 𝓭𝓮 𝓵𝓾𝓽𝓪 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓽𝓻𝓪 𝓪 𝓹𝓪𝓷𝓭𝓮𝓶𝓲𝓪 𝓺𝓾𝓮 𝓪𝓼𝓼𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓪 𝓷𝓪 𝓼𝓲𝓼𝓽𝓮𝓶𝓪́𝓽𝓲𝓬𝓪 𝓭𝓮𝓰𝓻𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓬̧𝓪̃𝓸 𝓭𝓪 𝓯𝓾𝓷𝓬̧𝓪̃𝓸 𝓬𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓻𝓪𝓵 𝓺𝓾𝓮 𝓸 𝓟𝓪𝓻𝓵𝓪𝓶𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓸 𝓭𝓮𝓿𝓮 𝓽𝓮𝓻 𝓷𝓸 𝓼𝓲𝓼𝓽𝓮𝓶𝓪 𝓹𝓸𝓵𝓲́𝓽𝓲𝓬𝓸, 𝓮𝓷𝓺𝓾𝓪𝓷𝓽𝓸 𝓵𝓮𝓰𝓲𝓼𝓵𝓪𝓭𝓸𝓻 𝓹𝓻𝓲𝓶𝓸𝓻𝓭𝓲𝓪𝓵 𝓮𝓶 𝓶𝓪𝓽𝓮́𝓻𝓲𝓪 𝓭𝓮 𝓭𝓲𝓻𝓮𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓼, 𝓵𝓲𝓫𝓮𝓻𝓭𝓪𝓭𝓮𝓼 𝓮 𝓰𝓪𝓻𝓪𝓷𝓽𝓲𝓪𝓼? 𝓐 𝓟𝓻𝓸𝓿𝓮𝓭𝓸𝓻𝓪 𝓭𝓮 𝓙𝓾𝓼𝓽𝓲𝓬̧𝓪 𝓮𝓵𝓪𝓫𝓸𝓻𝓸𝓾 𝓾𝓶𝓪 𝓻𝓮𝓯𝓵𝓮𝔁𝓪̃𝓸 𝓹𝓻𝓸𝓯𝓾𝓷𝓭𝓪 𝓮 𝓻𝓲𝓰𝓸𝓻𝓸𝓼𝓪 𝓼𝓸𝓫𝓻𝓮 𝓸 𝓔𝓼𝓽𝓪𝓭𝓸 𝓭𝓮 𝓭𝓲𝓻𝓮𝓲𝓽𝓸 𝓮𝓶 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓽𝓮𝔁𝓽𝓸 𝓭𝓮 𝓹𝓪𝓷𝓭𝓮𝓶𝓲𝓪 𝓸𝓷𝓭𝓮 𝓪𝓵𝓮𝓻𝓽𝓸𝓾, 𝓭𝓮 𝓶𝓸𝓭𝓸 𝓹𝓻𝓮𝓸𝓬𝓾𝓹𝓪𝓷𝓽𝓮, 𝓹𝓪𝓻𝓪 𝓪 𝓪𝓾𝓼𝓮̂𝓷𝓬𝓲𝓪 𝓭𝓸 𝓟𝓪𝓻𝓵𝓪𝓶𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓸 𝓮𝓶 𝓽𝓸𝓭𝓸 𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓮 𝓹𝓻𝓸𝓬𝓮𝓼𝓼𝓸, 𝓮 𝓹𝓪𝓻𝓪 𝓸𝓼 “𝓯𝓾𝓷𝓭𝓪𝓭𝓲́𝓼𝓼𝓲𝓶𝓸𝓼 𝓻𝓮𝓬𝓮𝓲𝓸𝓼” 𝓭𝓮 𝓺𝓾𝓮 𝓪𝓼 𝓶𝓮𝓭𝓲𝓭𝓪𝓼 𝓶𝓪𝓲𝓼 𝓰𝓻𝓪𝓿𝓸𝓼𝓪𝓼 𝓷𝓪̃𝓸 𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓲𝓿𝓮𝓼𝓼𝓮𝓶 𝓱𝓪𝓫𝓲𝓵𝓲𝓽𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓼 𝓹𝓮𝓵𝓪 𝓵𝓮𝓰𝓲𝓼𝓵𝓪𝓬̧𝓪̃𝓸 𝓮𝔁𝓲𝓼𝓽𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓮.

𝓞 𝓸𝓵𝓱𝓸 𝓬𝓵𝓲́𝓷𝓲𝓬𝓸 𝓭𝓸 𝓟𝓻𝓮𝓼𝓲𝓭𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓮 𝓭𝓪 𝓡𝓮𝓹𝓾́𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓬𝓪, 𝓺𝓾𝓮 𝓯𝓸𝓲 𝓽𝓪̃𝓸 𝓵𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓸 𝓪 𝓲𝓭𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓲𝓯𝓲𝓬𝓪𝓻 𝓲𝓷𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓰𝓻𝓾𝓮̂𝓷𝓬𝓲𝓪𝓼 𝓷𝓸 𝓭𝓲𝓹𝓵𝓸𝓶𝓪 𝓭𝓪 𝓮𝓾𝓽𝓪𝓷𝓪́𝓼𝓲𝓪, 𝓹𝓪𝓻𝓮𝓬𝓮𝓾 𝓲𝓷𝓬𝓪𝓹𝓪𝔃, 𝓪𝓽𝓮́ 𝓪𝓰𝓸𝓻𝓪, 𝓭𝓮 𝓲𝓭𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓲𝓯𝓲𝓬𝓪𝓻 𝓪𝓼 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓼𝓽𝓪𝓷𝓽𝓮𝓼 𝓿𝓲𝓸𝓵𝓪𝓬̧𝓸̃𝓮𝓼 𝓪𝓸 𝓹𝓻𝓲𝓷𝓬𝓲́𝓹𝓲𝓸 𝓭𝓪 𝓼𝓮𝓹𝓪𝓻𝓪𝓬̧𝓪̃𝓸 𝓭𝓮 𝓹𝓸𝓭𝓮𝓻𝓮𝓼 𝓺𝓾𝓮 𝓸 𝓖𝓸𝓿𝓮𝓻𝓷𝓸 𝓹𝓻𝓸𝓶𝓸𝓿𝓮, 𝓮 𝓺𝓾𝓮 𝓸 𝓟𝓪𝓻𝓵𝓪𝓶𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓸 𝓷𝓪̃𝓸 𝓼𝓮 𝓬𝓸𝓲́𝓫𝓮 𝓭𝓮 𝓹𝓮𝓻𝓶𝓲𝓽𝓲𝓻 𝓮, 𝓪𝓽𝓮́, 𝓯𝓸𝓶𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓪𝓻, 𝓷𝓾𝓶𝓪 𝓪𝓾𝓽𝓸𝓶𝓮𝓷𝓸𝓻𝓲𝔃𝓪𝓬̧𝓪̃𝓸 𝓺𝓾𝓮 𝓪𝓼𝓼𝓾𝓼𝓽𝓪 𝓹𝓮𝓵𝓸 𝓺𝓾𝓮 𝓼𝓲𝓶𝓫𝓸𝓵𝓲𝓬𝓪𝓶𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓮 𝓻𝓮𝓹𝓻𝓮𝓼𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓪, 𝓷𝓸𝓼 𝓽𝓮𝓶𝓹𝓸𝓼 𝓺𝓾𝓮 𝓬𝓸𝓻𝓻𝓮𝓶, 𝓸 𝓭𝓮𝓬𝓵𝓲́𝓷𝓲𝓸 𝓭𝓪𝓼 𝓲𝓷𝓼𝓽𝓲𝓽𝓾𝓲𝓬̧𝓸̃𝓮𝓼 𝓻𝓮𝓹𝓻𝓮𝓼𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓿𝓪𝓼 𝓭𝓮𝓶𝓸𝓬𝓻𝓪́𝓽𝓲𝓬𝓪𝓼.

𝓐𝓵𝓲𝓪́𝓼, 𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓮 𝓬𝓱𝓮𝓺𝓾𝓮 𝓮𝓶 𝓫𝓻𝓪𝓷𝓬𝓸 𝓹𝓪𝓼𝓼𝓪𝓭𝓸 𝓪𝓸 𝓖𝓸𝓿𝓮𝓻𝓷𝓸 𝓶𝓪𝓼𝓬𝓪𝓻𝓪𝓭𝓸 𝓭𝓮 𝓵𝓮𝓲 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓱𝓮𝓬𝓮𝓾 𝓻𝓪́𝓹𝓲𝓭𝓪 𝓮 𝓹𝓪𝓬𝓲́𝓯𝓲𝓬𝓪 𝓹𝓻𝓸𝓶𝓾𝓵𝓰𝓪𝓬̧𝓪̃𝓸 𝓹𝓻𝓮𝓼𝓲𝓭𝓮𝓷𝓬𝓲𝓪𝓵 𝓪𝓹𝓮𝓼𝓪𝓻 𝓭𝓪 𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓭𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓮 𝓲𝓷𝓭𝓮𝓽𝓮𝓻𝓶𝓲𝓷𝓪𝓫𝓲𝓵𝓲𝓭𝓪𝓭𝓮 𝓺𝓾𝓮 𝓪𝓯𝓮𝓽𝓪 𝓸 𝓭𝓲𝓹𝓵𝓸𝓶𝓪. 𝓠𝓾𝓪𝓷𝓽𝓸 𝓪𝓸𝓼 𝓹𝓪𝓻𝓽𝓲𝓭𝓸𝓼 𝓬𝓸𝓶 𝓻𝓮𝓹𝓻𝓮𝓼𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓪𝓬̧𝓪̃𝓸 𝓹𝓪𝓻𝓵𝓪𝓶𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓪𝓻, 𝓹𝓻𝓮𝓿𝓪𝓵𝓮𝓬𝓮 𝓪 𝓲𝓭𝓮𝓲𝓪 𝓺𝓾𝓪𝓼𝓮 𝓲𝓷𝓯𝓪𝓷𝓽𝓲𝓵 𝓭𝓮 𝓺𝓾𝓮 𝓸 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓼𝓮𝓷𝓼𝓸 𝓹𝓸𝓵𝓲́𝓽𝓲𝓬𝓸 𝓮𝓶 𝓽𝓸𝓻𝓷𝓸 𝓭𝓪 𝓼𝓾𝓫𝓼𝓽𝓪̂𝓷𝓬𝓲𝓪 𝓭𝓪𝓼 𝓶𝓮𝓭𝓲𝓭𝓪𝓼 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓼𝓸𝓶𝓮 𝓺𝓾𝓪𝓵𝓺𝓾𝓮𝓻 𝓹𝓸𝓼𝓼𝓲𝓫𝓲𝓵𝓲𝓭𝓪𝓭𝓮 𝓭𝓮 𝓺𝓾𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷𝓪𝓶𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓸 𝓵𝓮𝓰𝓲́𝓽𝓲𝓶𝓸 𝓺𝓾𝓪𝓷𝓽𝓸 𝓪𝓸 𝓶𝓸𝓭𝓸 𝓬𝓸𝓶𝓸 𝓪𝓼 𝓶𝓮𝓼𝓶𝓪𝓼 𝓼𝓪̃𝓸 𝓪𝓭𝓸𝓽𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓼.

𝓞 𝓺𝓾𝓮 𝓼𝓮 𝓹𝓮𝓻𝓭𝓮 𝓮𝓶 𝓽𝓸𝓭𝓸 𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓮 𝓹𝓻𝓸𝓬𝓮𝓼𝓼𝓸? 𝓐 𝓯𝓸𝓻𝓬̧𝓪 𝓷𝓸𝓻𝓶𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓿𝓪 𝓭𝓪 𝓒𝓸𝓷𝓼𝓽𝓲𝓽𝓾𝓲𝓬̧𝓪̃𝓸 𝓭𝓪 𝓡𝓮𝓹𝓾́𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓬𝓪, 𝓲𝓷𝓭𝓲𝓼𝓬𝓾𝓽𝓲𝓿𝓮𝓵𝓶𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓮: 𝓼𝓮 𝓪𝓼 𝓻𝓮𝓰𝓻𝓪𝓼 𝓭𝓮 𝓬𝓸𝓶𝓹𝓮𝓽𝓮̂𝓷𝓬𝓲𝓪 𝓼𝓪̃𝓸 𝓭𝓮𝓼𝓿𝓪𝓵𝓸𝓻𝓲𝔃𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓼 𝓷𝓾𝓶𝓪 𝓼𝓲𝓽𝓾𝓪𝓬̧𝓪̃𝓸 𝓭𝓮 𝓬𝓻𝓲𝓼𝓮, 𝓮𝓶 𝓷𝓸𝓶𝓮 𝓭𝓸 𝓫𝓮𝓶 𝓶𝓪𝓲𝓸𝓻 𝓺𝓾𝓮 𝓮́ 𝓪 𝓵𝓾𝓽𝓪 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓽𝓻𝓪 𝓪 𝓹𝓪𝓷𝓭𝓮𝓶𝓲𝓪, 𝓮́ 𝓽𝓸𝓭𝓸 𝓸 𝓪𝓬𝓮𝓻𝓿𝓸 𝓭𝓪 𝓭𝓮𝓶𝓸𝓬𝓻𝓪𝓬𝓲𝓪 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓼𝓽𝓲𝓽𝓾𝓬𝓲𝓸𝓷𝓪𝓵 𝓺𝓾𝓮 𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓪́ 𝓮𝓶 𝓬𝓪𝓾𝓼𝓪. 𝓐 𝓵𝓾𝓽𝓪 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓽𝓻𝓪 𝓬𝓻𝓲𝓼𝓮𝓼, 𝓼𝓮𝓳𝓪𝓶 𝓮𝓵𝓪𝓼 𝓹𝓪𝓷𝓭𝓮́𝓶𝓲𝓬𝓪𝓼 𝓸𝓾 𝓭𝓮 𝓸𝓾𝓽𝓻𝓪 𝓲́𝓷𝓭𝓸𝓵𝓮, 𝓽𝓮𝓶 𝓭𝓮 𝓼𝓮𝓻 𝓯𝓮𝓲𝓽𝓪 𝓭𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓻𝓸 𝓭𝓸 𝓼𝓲𝓼𝓽𝓮𝓶𝓪 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓼𝓽𝓲𝓽𝓾𝓬𝓲𝓸𝓷𝓪𝓵, 𝓮 𝓷𝓪̃𝓸 𝓯𝓸𝓻𝓪 𝓭𝓮𝓵𝓮 𝓸𝓾 𝓪̀ 𝓶𝓪𝓻𝓰𝓮𝓶. 𝓞𝓼 𝓪𝓵𝓮𝓶𝓪̃𝓮𝓼 𝓪𝓹𝓻𝓮𝓷𝓭𝓮𝓻𝓪𝓶 𝓮𝓼𝓼𝓪 𝓵𝓲𝓬̧𝓪̃𝓸, 𝓭𝓮 𝓯𝓸𝓻𝓶𝓪 𝓫𝓪𝓼𝓽𝓪𝓷𝓽𝓮 𝓭𝓸𝓵𝓸𝓻𝓸𝓼𝓪, 𝓮 𝓶𝓪𝓷𝓽𝓮̂𝓶-𝓷𝓪 𝓿𝓲𝓿𝓪, 𝓶𝓮𝓼𝓶𝓸 𝓷𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓮𝓼 𝓽𝓮𝓶𝓹𝓸𝓼 𝓭𝓲𝓯𝓲́𝓬𝓮𝓲𝓼, 𝓸𝓼 𝓶𝓪𝓲𝓼 𝓭𝓲𝓯𝓲́𝓬𝓮𝓲𝓼 𝓺𝓾𝓮 𝓪 𝓔𝓾𝓻𝓸𝓹𝓪 𝓮𝓷𝓯𝓻𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓪 𝓭𝓮𝓼𝓭𝓮 𝓪 𝓢𝓮𝓰𝓾𝓷𝓭𝓪 𝓖𝓾𝓮𝓻𝓻𝓪 𝓜𝓾𝓷𝓭𝓲𝓪𝓵. 𝓔 𝓷𝓸́𝓼?

* Investigadora da Universidade Friedrich-Alexander de Erlangen-Nürnberg

IN "EXPRESSO" - 06/10/21

.