.
Sacudir a água do capote:transferência da ação socialpara as autarquia
A transferência de competências do Estado central para as autarquias não
é tema novo e a ação social passará a caber aos municípios a partir de
janeiro de 2023. Esta transferência enquadra-se num processo mais amplo
de erosão dos princípios da segurança social.
𝒜 𝓉𝓇𝒶𝓃𝓈𝒻𝑒𝓇𝑒̂𝓃𝒸𝒾𝒶 𝒹𝑒 𝒸𝑜𝓂𝓅𝑒𝓉𝑒̂𝓃𝒸𝒾𝒶𝓈 𝒹𝑜 ℰ𝓈𝓉𝒶𝒹𝑜 𝒸𝑒𝓃𝓉𝓇𝒶𝓁 𝓅𝒶𝓇𝒶 𝒶𝓈 𝒶𝓊𝓉𝒶𝓇𝓆𝓊𝒾𝒶𝓈 𝓃𝒶̃𝑜 𝑒́ 𝓉𝑒𝓂𝒶 𝓃𝑜𝓋𝑜 𝑒 𝒶 𝒶𝒸̧𝒶̃𝑜 𝓈𝑜𝒸𝒾𝒶𝓁 𝓅𝒶𝓈𝓈𝒶𝓇𝒶́ 𝒶 𝒸𝒶𝒷𝑒𝓇 𝒶𝑜𝓈 𝓂𝓊𝓃𝒾𝒸𝒾́𝓅𝒾𝑜𝓈 𝒶 𝓅𝒶𝓇𝓉𝒾𝓇 𝒹𝑒 𝒿𝒶𝓃𝑒𝒾𝓇𝑜 𝒹𝑒 𝟸𝟶𝟸𝟹. 𝒞𝑜𝓂𝑜 𝑒𝓈𝒸𝓇𝑒𝓋𝑒𝓊 𝑒𝓂 𝓂𝒶𝓇𝒸̧𝑜 𝒶 𝒞𝒶𝓇𝑜𝓁𝒾𝓃𝒶 𝒢𝑜𝓂𝑒𝓈, 𝑜 𝓅𝓇𝑜𝒸𝑒𝓈𝓈𝑜 𝑒𝓂 𝒸𝓊𝓇𝓈𝑜 𝑒́ “𝓊𝓂𝒶 𝓂𝓊𝓃𝒾𝒸𝒾𝓅𝒶𝓁𝒾𝓏𝒶𝒸̧𝒶̃𝑜 (...) 𝓆𝓊𝑒 𝒶𝓂𝑒𝒶𝒸̧𝒶 𝒶𝑔𝓇𝒶𝓋𝒶𝓇 𝒶𝓈 𝒶𝓈𝓈𝒾𝓂𝑒𝓉𝓇𝒾𝒶𝓈 𝓇𝑒𝑔𝒾𝑜𝓃𝒶𝒾𝓈, 𝒶𝑜 𝒸𝑜𝓂𝓅𝓇𝑜𝓂𝑒𝓉𝑒𝓇 𝒶 𝓊𝓃𝒾𝓋𝑒𝓇𝓈𝒶𝓁𝒾𝒹𝒶𝒹𝑒 𝑒 𝒾𝑔𝓊𝒶𝓁𝒹𝒶𝒹𝑒 (...), 𝒶𝑜 𝓂𝑒𝓈𝓂𝑜 𝓉𝑒𝓂𝓅𝑜 𝓆𝓊𝑒 𝓅𝓇𝑜𝓂𝑜𝓋𝑒 𝓊𝓂𝒶 𝓉𝑜𝓉𝒶𝓁 𝒹𝑒𝓈𝓇𝑒𝓈𝓅𝑜𝓃𝓈𝒶𝒷𝒾𝓁𝒾𝓏𝒶𝒸̧𝒶̃𝑜 𝒹𝑜 ℰ𝓈𝓉𝒶𝒹𝑜”.𝟷 ℰ𝓈𝓉𝒶 𝒹𝑒𝓈𝒸𝑒𝓃𝓉𝓇𝒶𝓁𝒾𝓏𝒶𝒸̧𝒶̃𝑜 𝒶𝒷𝒶𝓇𝒸𝒶 𝓉𝒶𝓂𝒷𝑒́𝓂 𝒶́𝓇𝑒𝒶𝓈 𝒸𝑜𝓂𝑜 𝒶 𝑒𝒹𝓊𝒸𝒶𝒸̧𝒶̃𝑜 𝑒 𝒶 𝓈𝒶𝓊́𝒹𝑒, 𝓂𝒶𝓈 𝒶 𝒶𝒸̧𝒶̃𝑜 𝓈𝑜𝒸𝒾𝒶𝓁 𝓉𝑒𝓂 𝒶𝓈 𝓈𝓊𝒶𝓈 𝑒𝓈𝓅𝑒𝒸𝒾𝒻𝒾𝒸𝒾𝒹𝒶𝒹𝑒𝓈 𝑒 𝑒𝓃𝓆𝓊𝒶𝒹𝓇𝒶-𝓈𝑒 𝓃𝓊𝓂 𝓅𝓇𝑜𝒸𝑒𝓈𝓈𝑜 𝓂𝒶𝒾𝓈 𝒶𝓂𝓅𝓁𝑜 𝒹𝑒 𝑒𝓇𝑜𝓈𝒶̃𝑜 𝒹𝑜𝓈 𝓅𝓇𝒾𝓃𝒸𝒾́𝓅𝒾𝑜𝓈 𝒹𝒶 𝓈𝑒𝑔𝓊𝓇𝒶𝓃𝒸̧𝒶 𝓈𝑜𝒸𝒾𝒶𝓁.
𝒜𝑜 𝒸𝑜𝓃𝓉𝓇𝒶́𝓇𝒾𝑜 𝒹𝑜 𝒸𝒶𝓇𝒶́𝓉𝑒𝓇 𝑜𝒸𝓊𝓅𝒶𝒸𝒾𝑜𝓃𝒶𝓁 (𝑒 𝓅𝒶𝓉𝓇𝒾𝒶𝓇𝒸𝒶𝓁) 𝓆𝓊𝑒 𝑜𝓇𝒾𝑒𝓃𝓉𝑜𝓊 𝒶 𝑒𝓈𝒸𝒶𝓈𝓈𝒶 𝓅𝓇𝑜𝓉𝑒𝒸̧𝒶̃𝑜 𝓈𝑜𝒸𝒾𝒶𝓁 𝒹𝑜 ℰ𝓈𝓉𝒶𝒹𝑜 𝒩𝑜𝓋𝑜, 𝒶 ℛ𝑒𝓋𝑜𝓁𝓊𝒸̧𝒶̃𝑜 𝓉𝓇𝑜𝓊𝓍𝑒 𝒸𝑜𝓃𝓈𝒾𝑔𝑜 𝒶 𝓊𝓃𝒾𝓋𝑒𝓇𝓈𝒶𝓁𝒾𝒹𝒶𝒹𝑒 𝒹𝒶 𝓈𝑒𝑔𝓊𝓇𝒶𝓃𝒸̧𝒶 𝓈𝑜𝒸𝒾𝒶𝓁 𝒸𝑜𝓂𝑜 𝓅𝒶𝓇𝓉𝑒 𝒹𝒶 𝒸𝑜𝓃𝓈𝓉𝓇𝓊𝒸̧𝒶̃𝑜 𝒹𝑒 𝓊𝓂𝒶 𝒸𝒾𝒹𝒶𝒹𝒶𝓃𝒾𝒶 𝓋𝑒𝓇𝒹𝒶𝒹𝑒𝒾𝓇𝒶𝓂𝑒𝓃𝓉𝑒 𝒹𝑒𝓂𝑜𝒸𝓇𝒶́𝓉𝒾𝒸𝒶 𝓆𝓊𝑒, 𝓅𝑜𝓇 𝒾𝓈𝓈𝑜, 𝑒́ 𝓉𝒶𝓂𝒷𝑒́𝓂 𝓈𝑜𝒸𝒾𝒶𝓁. 𝒞𝑜𝓃𝓉𝓊𝒹𝑜, 𝒶 𝒸𝑜𝓃𝓈𝓉𝓇𝓊𝒸̧𝒶̃𝑜 𝓉𝒶𝓇𝒹𝒾𝒶 𝒹𝑜 ℰ𝓈𝓉𝒶𝒹𝑜 𝓈𝑜𝒸𝒾𝒶𝓁 𝑒𝓂 𝒫𝑜𝓇𝓉𝓊𝑔𝒶𝓁 𝓃𝒶̃𝑜 𝑒𝓈𝒸𝒶𝓅𝑜𝓊 𝒶𝑜 𝓅𝒶𝓇𝒶𝒹𝒾𝑔𝓂𝒶 𝓃𝑒𝑜𝓁𝒾𝒷𝑒𝓇𝒶𝓁 𝓆𝓊𝑒 𝑜 𝒻𝑜𝒾 𝑒𝓈𝓆𝓊𝒶𝓇𝓉𝑒𝒿𝒶𝓃𝒹𝑜 𝑒 𝒹𝑒𝓉𝓊𝓇𝓅𝒶𝓃𝒹𝑜. 𝒫𝒶𝓇𝓉𝑒 𝒹𝑒𝓈𝓉𝑒 𝑒𝓈𝓆𝓊𝒶𝓇𝓉𝑒𝒿𝒶𝓂𝑒𝓃𝓉𝑜 𝒻𝑜𝒾 𝒶 𝒾𝓃𝓉𝓇𝑜𝒹𝓊𝒸̧𝒶̃𝑜 𝒹𝑒 𝒸𝑜𝓃𝒹𝒾𝒸𝒾𝑜𝓃𝒶𝓁𝒾𝓈𝓂𝑜𝓈 𝓃𝑜 𝒶𝒸𝑒𝓈𝓈𝑜 𝒶̀ 𝓅𝓇𝑜𝓉𝑒𝒸̧𝒶̃𝑜 𝓈𝑜𝒸𝒾𝒶𝓁, 𝒸𝑜𝓂 𝒸𝑜𝓃𝒹𝒾𝒸̧𝑜̃𝑒𝓈 𝒹𝑒 𝓇𝑒𝒸𝓊𝓇𝓈𝑜𝓈 𝓆𝓊𝑒 𝓃𝑒𝑔𝒶𝓂 𝑜 𝒶𝒸𝑒𝓈𝓈𝑜 𝒹𝑒 𝓂𝓊𝒾𝓉𝒶𝓈 𝓅𝑒𝓈𝓈𝑜𝒶𝓈 𝒶 𝓂𝑒𝒹𝒾𝒹𝒶𝓈 𝒸𝑜𝓃𝒸𝓇𝑒𝓉𝒶𝓈 𝑒 𝑜𝓊𝓉𝓇𝒶𝓈 𝒸𝑜𝓃𝒹𝒾𝒸̧𝑜̃𝑒𝓈 𝓅𝒶𝓇𝒶 𝒶 𝓂𝒶𝓃𝓊𝓉𝑒𝓃𝒸̧𝒶̃𝑜 𝒹𝑜 𝒶𝒸𝑒𝓈𝓈𝑜 𝒶 𝑒𝓈𝓈𝒶𝓈 𝓂𝑒𝒹𝒾𝒹𝒶𝓈, 𝑒𝓃𝓉𝓇𝑒 𝒶𝓈 𝓆𝓊𝒶𝒾𝓈 𝑜 ℛ𝑒𝓃𝒹𝒾𝓂𝑒𝓃𝓉𝑜 𝒮𝑜𝒸𝒾𝒶𝓁 𝒹𝑒 ℐ𝓃𝓈𝑒𝓇𝒸̧𝒶̃𝑜.
𝒜𝓆𝓊𝑒𝓁𝑒 𝓆𝓊𝑒 𝑒́ 𝓈𝓊𝓅𝑜𝓈𝓉𝒶𝓂𝑒𝓃𝓉𝑒 𝓊𝓂 𝒹𝒾𝓇𝑒𝒾𝓉𝑜 𝓈𝑜𝒸𝒾𝒶𝓁 𝑒 𝓊𝓃𝒾𝓋𝑒𝓇𝓈𝒶𝓁 – 𝑒 𝓅𝑜𝓇 𝒾𝓈𝓈𝑜 𝓂𝑒𝓈𝓂𝑜 𝒸𝑜𝓂𝑒𝒸̧𝑜𝓊 𝓅𝑜𝓇 𝒸𝒽𝒶𝓂𝒶𝓇-𝓈𝑒 ℛ𝑒𝓃𝒹𝒾𝓂𝑒𝓃𝓉𝑜 ℳ𝒾́𝓃𝒾𝓂𝑜 𝒢𝒶𝓇𝒶𝓃𝓉𝒾𝒹𝑜 – 𝑒́ 𝒸𝑜𝓃𝒹𝒾𝒸𝒾𝑜𝓃𝒶𝒹𝑜 𝓅𝑒𝓁𝑜 𝒸𝓊𝓂𝓅𝓇𝒾𝓂𝑒𝓃𝓉𝑜 𝒹𝑜 𝒸𝑜𝓃𝓉𝓇𝒶𝓉𝑜 𝒹𝑒 𝒾𝓃𝓈𝑒𝓇𝒸̧𝒶̃𝑜 𝓆𝓊𝑒 𝓅𝓇𝑒𝓉𝑒𝓃𝒹𝑒 𝒹𝒶𝓇 𝒸𝑜𝓃𝓉𝒶 𝒹𝑜𝓈 𝓅𝓇𝑜𝒷𝓁𝑒𝓂𝒶𝓈 𝓋𝒾𝓋𝒾𝒹𝑜𝓈 𝓅𝑒𝓁𝑜𝓈 𝒷𝑒𝓃𝑒𝒻𝒾𝒸𝒾𝒶́𝓇𝒾𝑜𝓈 𝑒 𝑒𝓃𝓋𝑜𝓁𝓋𝑒̂-𝓁𝑜𝓈 (𝑒 𝓇𝑒𝓈𝓅𝑜𝓃𝓈𝒶𝒷𝒾𝓁𝒾𝓏𝒶́-𝓁𝑜𝓈) 𝓅𝑒𝓁𝒶 𝓈𝑜𝓁𝓊𝒸̧𝒶̃𝑜 𝒹𝑜𝓈 𝓅𝓇𝑜𝒷𝓁𝑒𝓂𝒶𝓈 𝓆𝓊𝑒 𝑜𝓈 𝒾𝓂𝓅𝑒𝒹𝑒𝓂 𝒹𝑒 𝒾𝓃𝓉𝑒𝑔𝓇𝒶𝓇 𝑜𝓈 𝑒𝓈𝓆𝓊𝑒𝓂𝒶𝓈 𝒹𝑒 𝑜𝓇𝑔𝒶𝓃𝒾𝓏𝒶𝒸̧𝒶̃𝑜 𝑒 𝓅𝓇𝑜𝓉𝑒𝒸̧𝒶̃𝑜 𝓈𝑜𝒸𝒾𝒶𝓁 𝓆𝓊𝑒 𝓅𝑒𝓇𝓂𝒾𝓉𝑒𝓂 𝒶 𝒶𝓊𝓉𝑜𝓃𝑜𝓂𝒾𝒶, 𝓈𝑜𝒷𝓇𝑒𝓉𝓊𝒹𝑜 𝑜 𝓂𝑒𝓇𝒸𝒶𝒹𝑜 𝒹𝑒 𝓉𝓇𝒶𝒷𝒶𝓁𝒽𝑜. ℰ𝓈𝓉𝑒𝓈 𝓅𝓇𝑜𝒷𝓁𝑒𝓂𝒶𝓈 𝒸𝑜𝓃𝒸𝓇𝑒𝓉𝑜𝓈 𝓈𝒶̃𝑜 𝒹𝑒 𝓃𝒶𝓉𝓊𝓇𝑒𝓏𝒶𝓈 𝓂𝓊́𝓁𝓉𝒾𝓅𝓁𝒶𝓈 (𝓈𝒶𝓊́𝒹𝑒, 𝑒𝓈𝓉𝓇𝓊𝓉𝓊𝓇𝒶 𝒻𝒶𝓂𝒾𝓁𝒾𝒶𝓇, 𝑒𝓉𝒸.) 𝑒 𝓋𝒶𝓇𝒾𝒶𝓂 𝑒𝓃𝓉𝓇𝑒 𝒷𝑒𝓃𝑒𝒻𝒾𝒸𝒾𝒶́𝓇𝒾𝑜𝓈. 𝒜 𝒶𝒸̧𝒶̃𝑜 𝓈𝑜𝒸𝒾𝒶𝓁 𝒹𝑒𝓈𝑒𝓂𝓅𝑒𝓃𝒽𝒶, 𝓅𝑜𝓇𝓉𝒶𝓃𝓉𝑜, 𝓊𝓂 𝓅𝒶𝓅𝑒𝓁 𝒸𝓇𝓊𝒸𝒾𝒶𝓁 𝓃𝑜 𝑒𝓈𝓆𝓊𝑒𝓂𝒶 𝒹𝑜 ℛ𝒮ℐ 𝑒 𝑒́ 𝓅𝓇𝑒𝒸𝒾𝓈𝒶𝓂𝑒𝓃𝓉𝑒 𝑒𝓈𝓉𝑒 𝓅𝑒𝓃𝒹𝑜𝓇 𝓆𝓊𝑒 𝓅𝒶𝓈𝓈𝒶𝓇𝒶́ 𝒶 𝓈𝑒𝓇 𝓇𝑒𝓈𝓅𝑜𝓃𝓈𝒶𝒷𝒾𝓁𝒾𝒹𝒶𝒹𝑒 𝒹𝒶𝓈 𝒶𝓊𝓉𝒶𝓇𝓆𝓊𝒾𝒶𝓈. ℒ𝑜𝑔𝒾𝒸𝒶𝓂𝑒𝓃𝓉𝑒, 𝒶 𝒶𝒸̧𝒶̃𝑜 𝓈𝑜𝒸𝒾𝒶𝓁 𝑒́ 𝒿𝒶́ 𝒹𝑒𝓈𝑒𝓃𝓋𝑜𝓁𝓋𝒾𝒹𝒶 𝒶𝑜 𝓃𝒾́𝓋𝑒𝓁 𝓁𝑜𝒸𝒶𝓁, 𝓉𝑒𝓃𝒹𝑜 𝑒𝓂 𝒸𝑜𝓃𝓉𝒶 𝒶 𝓃𝑒𝒸𝑒𝓈𝓈𝒾𝒹𝒶𝒹𝑒 𝒹𝑒 𝓅𝓇𝑜𝓍𝒾𝓂𝒾𝒹𝒶𝒹𝑒 𝒸𝑜𝓂 𝑜𝓈 𝒷𝑒𝓃𝑒𝒻𝒾𝒸𝒾𝒶́𝓇𝒾𝑜𝓈. 𝒩𝑜 𝑒𝓃𝓉𝒶𝓃𝓉𝑜, 𝒶 𝓉𝓇𝒶𝓃𝓈𝒻𝑒𝓇𝑒̂𝓃𝒸𝒾𝒶 𝒹𝒶 𝒶𝒸̧𝒶̃𝑜 𝓈𝑜𝒸𝒾𝒶𝓁 𝓅𝒶𝓇𝒶 𝑜 𝓃𝒾́𝓋𝑒𝓁 𝓂𝓊𝓃𝒾𝒸𝒾𝓅𝒶𝓁 𝓉𝓇𝒶𝓏 𝓅𝑒𝓇𝒾𝑔𝑜𝓈.
ℰ́ 𝒾𝓃𝑒𝑔𝒶́𝓋𝑒𝓁 𝓆𝓊𝑒 𝓊𝓂 𝒹𝑜𝓈 𝓅𝓇𝒾𝓃𝒸𝒾𝓅𝒶𝒾𝓈 𝓅𝓇𝑜𝒷𝓁𝑒𝓂𝒶𝓈 𝒹𝑜 ℛ𝒮ℐ 𝑒́ 𝑜 𝒷𝒶𝒾𝓍𝑜 𝓋𝒶𝓁𝑜𝓇 𝒹𝒶 𝓅𝓇𝑒𝓈𝓉𝒶𝒸̧𝒶̃𝑜. ℰ𝓂 𝓈𝑒𝓉𝑒𝓂𝒷𝓇𝑜, 𝑒𝓈𝓉𝑒 𝑒𝓇𝒶 𝒹𝑒 𝒸𝑒𝓇𝒸𝒶 𝒹𝑒 𝟷𝟸𝟶€ 𝓅𝑜𝓇 𝒷𝑒𝓃𝑒𝒻𝒾𝒸𝒾𝒶́𝓇𝒾𝑜 𝑒 𝒹𝑒 𝟸𝟼𝟶€ 𝓅𝑜𝓇 𝒻𝒶𝓂𝒾́𝓁𝒾𝒶. 𝒩𝑜 𝑒𝓃𝓉𝒶𝓃𝓉𝑜, 𝑒 𝑒𝓈𝓅𝑒𝒸𝒾𝒶𝓁𝓂𝑒𝓃𝓉𝑒 𝓉𝑒𝓃𝒹𝑜 𝑒𝓂 𝒸𝑜𝓃𝓉𝒶 𝑒𝓈𝓉𝑒𝓈 𝓋𝒶𝓁𝑜𝓇𝑒𝓈, 𝒶 𝒶𝒸̧𝒶̃𝑜 𝓈𝑜𝒸𝒾𝒶𝓁 𝓉𝑜𝓇𝓃𝒶-𝓈𝑒 𝑒𝓈𝓈𝑒𝓃𝒸𝒾𝒶𝓁 𝒸𝑜𝓂𝑜 𝒻𝑜𝓇𝓂𝒶 𝒹𝑒 𝓅𝓇𝑜𝓉𝑒𝑔𝑒𝓇 𝑒 𝓅𝓇𝑜𝓂𝑜𝓋𝑒𝓇 𝒶 𝒶𝓊𝓉𝑜𝓃𝑜𝓂𝒾𝒶 𝒹𝑜𝓈 𝒷𝑒𝓃𝑒𝒻𝒾𝒸𝒾𝒶́𝓇𝒾𝑜𝓈, 𝑜 𝓆𝓊𝑒 𝓇𝑒𝓆𝓊𝑒𝓇 𝓇𝑒𝒸𝓊𝓇𝓈𝑜𝓈 𝑒 𝓊𝓂𝒶 𝒶𝓋𝒶𝓁𝒾𝒶𝒸̧𝒶̃𝑜 𝒹𝑜 𝓉𝓇𝒶𝒷𝒶𝓁𝒽𝑜 𝒻𝑒𝒾𝓉𝑜, 𝒹𝑒 𝓂𝒶𝓃𝑒𝒾𝓇𝒶 𝒶 𝓂𝑒𝓁𝒽𝑜𝓇𝒶́-𝓁𝑜 𝒸𝑜𝓃𝓉𝒾𝓃𝓊𝒶𝓂𝑒𝓃𝓉𝑒. 𝒫𝒶𝓇𝒶 𝒶𝓁𝑒́𝓂 𝒹𝑒 𝓇𝑒𝒹𝓊𝒸̧𝑜̃𝑒𝓈 𝓃𝑜 𝓋𝒶𝓁𝑜𝓇 𝒹𝑜 ℛ𝒮ℐ 𝑒 𝒹𝑜 𝒸𝒶𝒹𝒶 𝓋𝑒𝓏 𝓂𝒶𝒾𝓈 𝒹𝒾𝒻𝒾́𝒸𝒾𝓁 𝒶𝒸𝑒𝓈𝓈𝑜 𝒶̀ 𝓂𝑒𝒹𝒾𝒹𝒶, 𝑜𝓈 𝓈𝓊𝒸𝑒𝓈𝓈𝒾𝓋𝑜𝓈 𝑔𝑜𝓋𝑒𝓇𝓃𝑜𝓈 𝓉𝑒̂𝓂-𝓈𝑒 𝓉𝒶𝓂𝒷𝑒́𝓂 𝒹𝑒𝓂𝒾𝓉𝒾𝒹𝑜 𝒹𝒶 𝒶𝒸̧𝒶̃𝑜 𝓈𝑜𝒸𝒾𝒶𝓁. 𝒪𝓇𝒶, 𝓈𝑒 𝓅𝑜𝓇 𝓊𝓂 𝓁𝒶𝒹𝑜 𝒶 𝒸𝑜𝓃𝓉𝓇𝒶𝓉𝓊𝒶𝓁𝒾𝓏𝒶𝒸̧𝒶̃𝑜 𝒹𝒶 𝒶𝒸̧𝒶̃𝑜 𝓈𝑜𝒸𝒾𝒶𝓁 𝒸𝑜𝓂 𝒶𝓈 ℐ𝒫𝒮𝒮 𝒸𝑜𝓃𝓉𝓇𝒶𝓇𝒾𝒶 𝒿𝒶́ 𝑜 𝓅𝓇𝒾𝓃𝒸𝒾́𝓅𝒾𝑜 𝒹𝑒 𝓊𝓂𝒶 𝓈𝑒𝑔𝓊𝓇𝒶𝓃𝒸̧𝒶 𝓈𝑜𝒸𝒾𝒶𝓁 𝓊𝓃𝒾𝒻𝒾𝒸𝒶𝒹𝒶, 𝓅𝓇𝒾𝓋𝒶𝓉𝒾𝓏𝒶𝓃𝒹𝑜 𝒹𝑒 𝒸𝑒𝓇𝓉𝒶 𝒻𝑜𝓇𝓂𝒶 𝑜𝓈 𝓈𝑒𝓇𝓋𝒾𝒸̧𝑜𝓈 𝓈𝑜𝒸𝒾𝒶𝒾𝓈 𝑒 𝒹𝒶𝓃𝒹𝑜 𝑒𝓈𝓅𝒶𝒸̧𝑜 𝒶 𝒶𝓈𝓈𝒾𝓂𝑒𝓉𝓇𝒾𝒶𝓈, 𝓅𝑜𝓇 𝑜𝓊𝓉𝓇𝑜 𝓁𝒶𝒹𝑜 𝑒𝓈𝓉𝒶 𝒻𝓇𝒶𝑔𝓂𝑒𝓃𝓉𝒶𝒸̧𝒶̃𝑜 𝒹𝒶 𝓅𝑜𝓁𝒾́𝓉𝒾𝒸𝒶 𝓈𝑜𝒸𝒾𝒶𝓁 𝒻𝒶𝒸𝒾𝓁𝒾𝓉𝒶 𝒶 𝒾𝓃𝓋𝒾𝓈𝒾𝒷𝒾𝓁𝒾𝓏𝒶𝒸̧𝒶̃𝑜 𝒹𝑜𝓈 𝒷𝑒𝓃𝑒𝒻𝒾𝒸𝒾𝒶́𝓇𝒾𝑜𝓈 𝒹𝒶 𝒶𝒸̧𝒶̃𝑜 𝓈𝑜𝒸𝒾𝒶𝓁, 𝑒𝓂 𝑔𝑒𝓇𝒶𝓁 𝒿𝒶́ 𝑒𝓍𝒸𝓁𝓊𝒾́𝒹𝑜𝓈 𝒹𝑜𝓈 𝑒𝓈𝓆𝓊𝑒𝓂𝒶𝓈 𝒹𝑒 𝓅𝓇𝑜𝓉𝑒𝒸̧𝒶̃𝑜 𝑒𝓂 𝓉𝑜𝓇𝓃𝑜 𝒹𝑜𝓈 𝓆𝓊𝒶𝒾𝓈 𝑒𝓍𝒾𝓈𝓉𝑒 𝓂𝒶𝒾𝑜𝓇 𝓂𝑜𝒷𝒾𝓁𝒾𝓏𝒶𝒸̧𝒶̃𝑜 𝓈𝑜𝒸𝒾𝒶𝓁, 𝓃𝑜𝓂𝑒𝒶𝒹𝒶𝓂𝑒𝓃𝓉𝑒 𝒹𝑜 𝓇𝑒𝑔𝒾𝓂𝑒 𝒸𝑜𝓃𝓉𝓇𝒾𝒷𝓊𝓉𝒾𝓋𝑜. 𝒜 𝓂𝓊𝓃𝒾𝒸𝒾𝓅𝒶𝓁𝒾𝓏𝒶𝒸̧𝒶̃𝑜 𝒹𝒶 𝒶𝒸̧𝒶̃𝑜 𝓈𝑜𝒸𝒾𝒶𝓁 𝒸𝑜𝓃𝓉𝓇𝒾𝒷𝓊𝒾 𝓅𝒶𝓇𝒶 𝑒𝓈𝓉𝒶 𝒹𝓊𝒶𝓁𝒾𝓏𝒶𝒸̧𝒶̃𝑜 𝒹𝒶 𝓅𝓇𝑜𝓉𝑒𝒸̧𝒶̃𝑜 𝓈𝑜𝒸𝒾𝒶𝓁, 𝒸𝑜𝓃𝓈𝓉𝒾𝓉𝓊𝒾𝓃𝒹𝑜 𝓊𝓂𝒶 𝓃𝑜𝓋𝒶 𝒹𝑒𝓂𝑜𝓃𝓈𝓉𝓇𝒶𝒸̧𝒶̃𝑜 𝒹𝒶 𝒹𝑒𝓈𝓇𝑒𝓈𝓅𝑜𝓃𝓈𝒶𝒷𝒾𝓁𝒾𝓏𝒶𝒸̧𝒶̃𝑜 𝒹𝑜 ℰ𝓈𝓉𝒶𝒹𝑜 𝓃𝑒𝓈𝓉𝑒 𝒸𝒶𝓂𝓅𝑜.
𝒫𝒶𝓇𝒶 𝑒𝓈𝓉𝑒 𝓅𝑒𝓇𝒾𝑔𝑜 𝓅𝑜𝓁𝒾́𝓉𝒾𝒸𝑜 𝒸𝑜𝓃𝓉𝓇𝒾𝒷𝓊𝒾 𝒶𝒾𝓃𝒹𝒶 𝒶 𝒾𝓃𝒸𝑒𝓇𝓉𝑒𝓏𝒶 𝓆𝓊𝑒 𝓈𝑒 𝓋𝑒𝓇𝒾𝒻𝒾𝒸𝒶 𝓇𝑒𝓁𝒶𝓉𝒾𝓋𝒶𝓂𝑒𝓃𝓉𝑒 𝒶𝑜𝓈 𝓇𝑒𝒸𝓊𝓇𝓈𝑜𝓈 𝓆𝓊𝑒 𝓈𝑒𝓇𝒶̃𝑜 𝓉𝓇𝒶𝓃𝓈𝒻𝑒𝓇𝒾𝒹𝑜𝓈 𝓅𝒶𝓇𝒶 𝒶𝓈 𝒶𝓊𝓉𝒶𝓇𝓆𝓊𝒾𝒶𝓈 𝓅𝒶𝓇𝒶 𝓁𝑒𝓋𝒶𝓇 𝒶 𝒸𝒶𝒷𝑜 𝑒𝓈𝓉𝒶 𝑒𝓂𝓅𝓇𝑒𝒾𝓉𝒶𝒹𝒶. 𝒪 𝒢𝑜𝓋𝑒𝓇𝓃𝑜 𝓈𝓊𝒷𝓁𝒾𝓃𝒽𝒶 𝓆𝓊𝑒 “𝓈𝒶̃𝑜 𝒿𝒶́” 𝟿𝟶 𝑜𝓈 𝓂𝓊𝓃𝒾𝒸𝒾́𝓅𝒾𝑜𝓈 𝓆𝓊𝑒 𝓋𝑜𝓁𝓊𝓃𝓉𝒶𝓇𝒾𝒶𝓂𝑒𝓃𝓉𝑒 𝒶𝒸𝑒𝒾𝓉𝒶𝓇𝒶𝓂 𝑒𝓈𝓉𝒶 𝓇𝑒𝓈𝓅𝑜𝓃𝓈𝒶𝒷𝒾𝓁𝒾𝒹𝒶𝒹𝑒. 𝒟𝒾𝓇𝒾𝒶 𝒶𝓃𝓉𝑒𝓈 𝓆𝓊𝑒 𝓈𝒶̃𝑜 “𝒶𝓅𝑒𝓃𝒶𝓈” 𝟿𝟶 𝑒 𝓆𝓊𝑒 𝒶 𝓇𝑒𝓈𝒾𝓈𝓉𝑒̂𝓃𝒸𝒾𝒶 𝒶 𝑒𝓈𝓉𝒶 𝒹𝑒𝓈𝒸𝑒𝓃𝓉𝓇𝒶𝓁𝒾𝓏𝒶𝒸̧𝒶̃𝑜 𝓃𝒶̃𝑜 𝑒́ 𝓊𝓂 𝓂𝑒𝓇𝑜 𝒶𝓅𝑜𝓃𝓉𝒶𝓂𝑒𝓃𝓉𝑜. ℰ́ 𝒶 𝓇𝒶𝓏𝒶̃𝑜 𝓅𝑒𝓁𝒶 𝓆𝓊𝒶𝓁 𝑒𝓈𝓉𝒶 𝓉𝑒𝓂 𝓈𝒾𝒹𝑜 𝒸𝑜𝓃𝓈𝓉𝒶𝓃𝓉𝑒𝓂𝑒𝓃𝓉𝑒 𝒶𝒹𝒾𝒶𝒹𝒶 𝑒 𝒹𝒾𝓇𝒾𝒶 𝓆𝓊𝑒 𝓅𝑜𝓇 𝒹𝑜𝒾𝓈 𝓂𝑜𝓉𝒾𝓋𝑜𝓈: 𝑜 𝒻𝒾𝓃𝒶𝓃𝒸𝒾𝒶𝓂𝑒𝓃𝓉𝑜 - 𝓈𝑒𝓃𝒹𝑜 𝓆𝓊𝑒, 𝓅𝑜𝓇 𝑒𝓍𝑒𝓂𝓅𝓁𝑜, 𝒶 𝒞𝒶̂𝓂𝒶𝓇𝒶 𝒹𝑜 𝒫𝑜𝓇𝓉𝑜 𝒶𝒻𝒾𝓇𝓂𝒶 𝓆𝓊𝑒 𝓅𝒶𝓈𝓈𝒶𝓇𝒶́ 𝒶 𝓉𝑒𝓇 𝓇𝑒𝒸𝓊𝓇𝓈𝑜𝓈 𝓅𝒶𝓇𝒶 𝓅𝒶𝑔𝒶𝓇 𝒶𝓅𝑒𝓃𝒶𝓈 𝒶 𝒹𝑒𝓏 𝓉𝑒́𝒸𝓃𝒾𝒸𝑜𝓈 𝓈𝑜𝒸𝒾𝒶𝒾𝓈 𝓅𝒶𝓇𝒶 𝑔𝑒𝓇𝒾𝓇 𝟻 𝓂𝒾𝓁 𝓅𝓇𝑜𝒸𝑒𝓈𝓈𝑜𝓈 ℛ𝒮ℐ𝟸 – 𝓂𝒶𝓈 𝓉𝒶𝓂𝒷𝑒́𝓂 𝒶 𝒻𝒶𝓁𝓉𝒶 𝒹𝑒 𝓋𝑜𝓃𝓉𝒶𝒹𝑒 𝒹𝑜𝓈 𝒶𝓊𝓉𝒶𝓇𝒸𝒶𝓈 𝑒𝓂 𝒶𝓈𝓈𝓊𝓂𝒾𝓇 𝑒𝓈𝓉𝒶 𝓇𝑒𝓈𝓅𝑜𝓃𝓈𝒶𝒷𝒾𝓁𝒾𝒹𝒶𝒹𝑒 𝓅𝑜𝓁𝒾́𝓉𝒾𝒸𝒶. ℛ𝑒𝑔𝓇𝒶 𝑔𝑒𝓇𝒶𝓁, 𝑜𝓈 𝒷𝑒𝓃𝑒𝒻𝒾𝒸𝒾𝒶́𝓇𝒾𝑜𝓈 𝒹𝑒 ℛ𝒮ℐ 𝓈𝒶̃𝑜 𝒶𝓆𝓊𝑒𝓁𝑒𝓈 𝒶 𝓆𝓊𝑒𝓂 𝑜 ℰ𝓈𝓉𝒶𝒹𝑜 𝒿𝒶́ 𝒻𝒶𝓁𝒽𝑜𝓊. ℱ𝒶𝓁𝒽𝑜𝓊 𝓃𝒶 𝒸𝑜𝓃𝓈𝓉𝓇𝓊𝒸̧𝒶̃𝑜 𝒹𝑒 𝓊𝓂 𝓂𝑒𝓇𝒸𝒶𝒹𝑜 𝒹𝑒 𝓉𝓇𝒶𝒷𝒶𝓁𝒽𝑜 𝒸𝒶𝓅𝒶𝓏 𝒹𝑒 𝑔𝒶𝓇𝒶𝓃𝓉𝒾𝓇 𝓋𝒾𝒹𝒶𝓈 𝑒𝓈𝓉𝒶́𝓋𝑒𝒾𝓈 𝑒 𝒹𝑒 𝒷𝑒𝓂-𝑒𝓈𝓉𝒶𝓇, 𝓂𝒶𝓇𝒸𝒶𝒹𝑜 𝓅𝑒𝓁𝒶 𝓅𝓇𝑒𝒸𝒶𝓇𝒾𝑒𝒹𝒶𝒹𝑒 𝑒 𝓆𝓊𝑒 𝑒𝓍𝒸𝓁𝓊𝒾 𝓂𝓊𝒾𝓉𝑜𝓈 𝒹𝑜𝓈 𝒹𝒾𝓇𝑒𝒾𝓉𝑜𝓈 𝒹𝑜 𝓉𝓇𝒶𝒷𝒶𝓁𝒽𝑜, 𝓃𝑜𝓂𝑒𝒶𝒹𝒶𝓂𝑒𝓃𝓉𝑒 𝒹𝑜 𝓈𝓊𝒷𝓈𝒾́𝒹𝒾𝑜 𝒹𝑒 𝒹𝑒𝓈𝑒𝓂𝓅𝓇𝑒𝑔𝑜; 𝒻𝒶𝓁𝒽𝑜𝓊 𝒶𝑜 𝓃𝒶̃𝑜 𝒾𝓂𝓅𝑒𝒹𝒾𝓇 𝓆𝓊𝑒 𝓉𝑒𝓇 𝒻𝒾𝓁𝒽𝑜𝓈 𝒸𝑜𝓃𝓈𝓉𝒾𝓉𝓊𝒶 𝓊𝓂 𝓇𝒾𝓈𝒸𝑜 𝒶𝒸𝓇𝑒𝓈𝒸𝒾𝒹𝑜 𝒹𝑒 𝓅𝑜𝒷𝓇𝑒𝓏𝒶 (𝒶 𝓂𝒶𝒾𝑜𝓇 𝓅𝒶𝓇𝓉𝑒 𝒹𝑜𝓈 𝒷𝑒𝓃𝑒𝒻𝒾𝒸𝒾𝒶́𝓇𝒾𝑜𝓈 𝓈𝒶̃𝑜 𝓂𝑒𝓃𝑜𝓇𝑒𝓈); 𝒻𝒶𝓁𝒽𝑜𝓊 𝒶𝑜 𝓉𝑜𝓇𝓃𝒶𝓇 𝒶 𝒹𝑜𝑒𝓃𝒸̧𝒶 𝒻𝑜𝓃𝓉𝑒 𝒹𝑒 𝓅𝑜𝒷𝓇𝑒𝓏𝒶; 𝒻𝒶𝓁𝒽𝑜𝓊 𝒶𝑜 𝓃𝒶̃𝑜 𝒸𝑜𝓂𝒷𝒶𝓉𝑒𝓇 𝓊𝓂𝒶 𝓅𝑜𝓁𝒾́𝓉𝒾𝒸𝒶 𝓅𝒶𝓉𝓇𝒾𝒶𝓇𝒸𝒶𝓁 𝓆𝓊𝑒 𝒶𝓉𝒾𝓇𝒶 𝒻𝒶𝓂𝒾́𝓁𝒾𝒶𝓈 𝓂𝑜𝓃𝑜𝓅𝒶𝓇𝑒𝓃𝓉𝒶𝒾𝓈 𝓉𝒶𝓂𝒷𝑒́𝓂 𝓅𝒶𝓇𝒶 𝒶 𝓅𝑜𝒷𝓇𝑒𝓏𝒶. 𝒪 ℰ𝓈𝓉𝒶𝒹𝑜 𝒸𝑒𝓃𝓉𝓇𝒶𝓁 𝒻𝒶𝓏 𝒶𝓈𝓈𝒾𝓂 𝒸𝑜𝓂 𝓆𝓊𝑒 𝒶 𝒮𝑒𝑔𝓊𝓇𝒶𝓃𝒸̧𝒶 𝒮𝑜𝒸𝒾𝒶𝓁 𝓈𝒶𝒸𝓊𝒹𝒶 𝒶 𝒶́𝑔𝓊𝒶 𝒹𝑜 𝒸𝒶𝓅𝑜𝓉𝑒, 𝑒𝓂𝓅𝓊𝓇𝓇𝒶𝓃𝒹𝑜 𝓅𝒶𝓇𝒶 𝓉𝑒𝓇𝒸𝑒𝒾𝓇𝑜𝓈 𝒶 𝓇𝑒𝓈𝓅𝑜𝓃𝓈𝒶𝒷𝒾𝓁𝒾𝒹𝒶𝒹𝑒 𝓅𝑜𝓇 𝒶𝓆𝓊𝑒𝓁𝑒𝓈 𝒸𝓊𝒿𝒶𝓈 𝓋𝒾𝒹𝒶𝓈 𝓈𝒶̃𝑜 𝑜 𝑒𝓈𝓅𝑒𝓁𝒽𝑜 𝒹𝑜 𝒻𝓇𝒶𝒸𝒶𝓈𝓈𝑜 𝓅𝑜𝓁𝒾́𝓉𝒾𝒸𝑜 𝑒 𝒻𝒶́-𝓁𝑜-𝒶́, 𝓅𝓇𝑜𝓋𝒶𝓋𝑒𝓁𝓂𝑒𝓃𝓉𝑒, 𝓈𝑜𝒷𝓇𝑒𝒸𝒶𝓇𝓇𝑒𝑔𝒶𝓃𝒹𝑜 𝓆𝓊𝑒𝓂 𝒿𝒶́ 𝓈𝑒 𝑒𝓃𝒸𝑜𝓃𝓉𝓇𝒶 𝓈𝑜𝒷𝓇𝑒𝒸𝒶𝓇𝓇𝑒𝑔𝒶𝒹𝑜 – 𝑜𝓈 𝓉𝑒́𝒸𝓃𝒾𝒸𝑜𝓈 𝓈𝑜𝒸𝒾𝒶𝒾𝓈 – 𝒶̀ 𝒸𝓊𝓈𝓉𝒶, 𝑒𝓂 𝓊́𝓁𝓉𝒾𝓂𝒶 𝒾𝓃𝓈𝓉𝒶̂𝓃𝒸𝒾𝒶, 𝒹𝑜𝓈 𝓅𝓇𝑜́𝓅𝓇𝒾𝑜𝓈 𝒷𝑒𝓃𝑒𝒻𝒾𝒸𝒾𝒶́𝓇𝒾𝑜𝓈 𝒹𝑒 ℛ𝒮ℐ..*Ativista anti-propinas, bolseira de investigação e dirigente do Bloco de Esquerda
.
IN "ESQUERDA" - 25/11/22
.
𝒜 𝓉𝓇𝒶𝓃𝓈𝒻𝑒𝓇𝑒̂𝓃𝒸𝒾𝒶 𝒹𝑒 𝒸𝑜𝓂𝓅𝑒𝓉𝑒̂𝓃𝒸𝒾𝒶𝓈 𝒹𝑜 ℰ𝓈𝓉𝒶𝒹𝑜 𝒸𝑒𝓃𝓉𝓇𝒶𝓁 𝓅𝒶𝓇𝒶 𝒶𝓈 𝒶𝓊𝓉𝒶𝓇𝓆𝓊𝒾𝒶𝓈 𝓃𝒶̃𝑜 𝑒́ 𝓉𝑒𝓂𝒶 𝓃𝑜𝓋𝑜 𝑒 𝒶 𝒶𝒸̧𝒶̃𝑜 𝓈𝑜𝒸𝒾𝒶𝓁 𝓅𝒶𝓈𝓈𝒶𝓇𝒶́ 𝒶 𝒸𝒶𝒷𝑒𝓇 𝒶𝑜𝓈 𝓂𝓊𝓃𝒾𝒸𝒾́𝓅𝒾𝑜𝓈 𝒶 𝓅𝒶𝓇𝓉𝒾𝓇 𝒹𝑒 𝒿𝒶𝓃𝑒𝒾𝓇𝑜 𝒹𝑒 𝟸𝟶𝟸𝟹. 𝒞𝑜𝓂𝑜 𝑒𝓈𝒸𝓇𝑒𝓋𝑒𝓊 𝑒𝓂 𝓂𝒶𝓇𝒸̧𝑜 𝒶 𝒞𝒶𝓇𝑜𝓁𝒾𝓃𝒶 𝒢𝑜𝓂𝑒𝓈, 𝑜 𝓅𝓇𝑜𝒸𝑒𝓈𝓈𝑜 𝑒𝓂 𝒸𝓊𝓇𝓈𝑜 𝑒́ “𝓊𝓂𝒶 𝓂𝓊𝓃𝒾𝒸𝒾𝓅𝒶𝓁𝒾𝓏𝒶𝒸̧𝒶̃𝑜 (...) 𝓆𝓊𝑒 𝒶𝓂𝑒𝒶𝒸̧𝒶 𝒶𝑔𝓇𝒶𝓋𝒶𝓇 𝒶𝓈 𝒶𝓈𝓈𝒾𝓂𝑒𝓉𝓇𝒾𝒶𝓈 𝓇𝑒𝑔𝒾𝑜𝓃𝒶𝒾𝓈, 𝒶𝑜 𝒸𝑜𝓂𝓅𝓇𝑜𝓂𝑒𝓉𝑒𝓇 𝒶 𝓊𝓃𝒾𝓋𝑒𝓇𝓈𝒶𝓁𝒾𝒹𝒶𝒹𝑒 𝑒 𝒾𝑔𝓊𝒶𝓁𝒹𝒶𝒹𝑒 (...), 𝒶𝑜 𝓂𝑒𝓈𝓂𝑜 𝓉𝑒𝓂𝓅𝑜 𝓆𝓊𝑒 𝓅𝓇𝑜𝓂𝑜𝓋𝑒 𝓊𝓂𝒶 𝓉𝑜𝓉𝒶𝓁 𝒹𝑒𝓈𝓇𝑒𝓈𝓅𝑜𝓃𝓈𝒶𝒷𝒾𝓁𝒾𝓏𝒶𝒸̧𝒶̃𝑜 𝒹𝑜 ℰ𝓈𝓉𝒶𝒹𝑜”.𝟷 ℰ𝓈𝓉𝒶 𝒹𝑒𝓈𝒸𝑒𝓃𝓉𝓇𝒶𝓁𝒾𝓏𝒶𝒸̧𝒶̃𝑜 𝒶𝒷𝒶𝓇𝒸𝒶 𝓉𝒶𝓂𝒷𝑒́𝓂 𝒶́𝓇𝑒𝒶𝓈 𝒸𝑜𝓂𝑜 𝒶 𝑒𝒹𝓊𝒸𝒶𝒸̧𝒶̃𝑜 𝑒 𝒶 𝓈𝒶𝓊́𝒹𝑒, 𝓂𝒶𝓈 𝒶 𝒶𝒸̧𝒶̃𝑜 𝓈𝑜𝒸𝒾𝒶𝓁 𝓉𝑒𝓂 𝒶𝓈 𝓈𝓊𝒶𝓈 𝑒𝓈𝓅𝑒𝒸𝒾𝒻𝒾𝒸𝒾𝒹𝒶𝒹𝑒𝓈 𝑒 𝑒𝓃𝓆𝓊𝒶𝒹𝓇𝒶-𝓈𝑒 𝓃𝓊𝓂 𝓅𝓇𝑜𝒸𝑒𝓈𝓈𝑜 𝓂𝒶𝒾𝓈 𝒶𝓂𝓅𝓁𝑜 𝒹𝑒 𝑒𝓇𝑜𝓈𝒶̃𝑜 𝒹𝑜𝓈 𝓅𝓇𝒾𝓃𝒸𝒾́𝓅𝒾𝑜𝓈 𝒹𝒶 𝓈𝑒𝑔𝓊𝓇𝒶𝓃𝒸̧𝒶 𝓈𝑜𝒸𝒾𝒶𝓁.
𝒜𝑜 𝒸𝑜𝓃𝓉𝓇𝒶́𝓇𝒾𝑜 𝒹𝑜 𝒸𝒶𝓇𝒶́𝓉𝑒𝓇 𝑜𝒸𝓊𝓅𝒶𝒸𝒾𝑜𝓃𝒶𝓁 (𝑒 𝓅𝒶𝓉𝓇𝒾𝒶𝓇𝒸𝒶𝓁) 𝓆𝓊𝑒 𝑜𝓇𝒾𝑒𝓃𝓉𝑜𝓊 𝒶 𝑒𝓈𝒸𝒶𝓈𝓈𝒶 𝓅𝓇𝑜𝓉𝑒𝒸̧𝒶̃𝑜 𝓈𝑜𝒸𝒾𝒶𝓁 𝒹𝑜 ℰ𝓈𝓉𝒶𝒹𝑜 𝒩𝑜𝓋𝑜, 𝒶 ℛ𝑒𝓋𝑜𝓁𝓊𝒸̧𝒶̃𝑜 𝓉𝓇𝑜𝓊𝓍𝑒 𝒸𝑜𝓃𝓈𝒾𝑔𝑜 𝒶 𝓊𝓃𝒾𝓋𝑒𝓇𝓈𝒶𝓁𝒾𝒹𝒶𝒹𝑒 𝒹𝒶 𝓈𝑒𝑔𝓊𝓇𝒶𝓃𝒸̧𝒶 𝓈𝑜𝒸𝒾𝒶𝓁 𝒸𝑜𝓂𝑜 𝓅𝒶𝓇𝓉𝑒 𝒹𝒶 𝒸𝑜𝓃𝓈𝓉𝓇𝓊𝒸̧𝒶̃𝑜 𝒹𝑒 𝓊𝓂𝒶 𝒸𝒾𝒹𝒶𝒹𝒶𝓃𝒾𝒶 𝓋𝑒𝓇𝒹𝒶𝒹𝑒𝒾𝓇𝒶𝓂𝑒𝓃𝓉𝑒 𝒹𝑒𝓂𝑜𝒸𝓇𝒶́𝓉𝒾𝒸𝒶 𝓆𝓊𝑒, 𝓅𝑜𝓇 𝒾𝓈𝓈𝑜, 𝑒́ 𝓉𝒶𝓂𝒷𝑒́𝓂 𝓈𝑜𝒸𝒾𝒶𝓁. 𝒞𝑜𝓃𝓉𝓊𝒹𝑜, 𝒶 𝒸𝑜𝓃𝓈𝓉𝓇𝓊𝒸̧𝒶̃𝑜 𝓉𝒶𝓇𝒹𝒾𝒶 𝒹𝑜 ℰ𝓈𝓉𝒶𝒹𝑜 𝓈𝑜𝒸𝒾𝒶𝓁 𝑒𝓂 𝒫𝑜𝓇𝓉𝓊𝑔𝒶𝓁 𝓃𝒶̃𝑜 𝑒𝓈𝒸𝒶𝓅𝑜𝓊 𝒶𝑜 𝓅𝒶𝓇𝒶𝒹𝒾𝑔𝓂𝒶 𝓃𝑒𝑜𝓁𝒾𝒷𝑒𝓇𝒶𝓁 𝓆𝓊𝑒 𝑜 𝒻𝑜𝒾 𝑒𝓈𝓆𝓊𝒶𝓇𝓉𝑒𝒿𝒶𝓃𝒹𝑜 𝑒 𝒹𝑒𝓉𝓊𝓇𝓅𝒶𝓃𝒹𝑜. 𝒫𝒶𝓇𝓉𝑒 𝒹𝑒𝓈𝓉𝑒 𝑒𝓈𝓆𝓊𝒶𝓇𝓉𝑒𝒿𝒶𝓂𝑒𝓃𝓉𝑜 𝒻𝑜𝒾 𝒶 𝒾𝓃𝓉𝓇𝑜𝒹𝓊𝒸̧𝒶̃𝑜 𝒹𝑒 𝒸𝑜𝓃𝒹𝒾𝒸𝒾𝑜𝓃𝒶𝓁𝒾𝓈𝓂𝑜𝓈 𝓃𝑜 𝒶𝒸𝑒𝓈𝓈𝑜 𝒶̀ 𝓅𝓇𝑜𝓉𝑒𝒸̧𝒶̃𝑜 𝓈𝑜𝒸𝒾𝒶𝓁, 𝒸𝑜𝓂 𝒸𝑜𝓃𝒹𝒾𝒸̧𝑜̃𝑒𝓈 𝒹𝑒 𝓇𝑒𝒸𝓊𝓇𝓈𝑜𝓈 𝓆𝓊𝑒 𝓃𝑒𝑔𝒶𝓂 𝑜 𝒶𝒸𝑒𝓈𝓈𝑜 𝒹𝑒 𝓂𝓊𝒾𝓉𝒶𝓈 𝓅𝑒𝓈𝓈𝑜𝒶𝓈 𝒶 𝓂𝑒𝒹𝒾𝒹𝒶𝓈 𝒸𝑜𝓃𝒸𝓇𝑒𝓉𝒶𝓈 𝑒 𝑜𝓊𝓉𝓇𝒶𝓈 𝒸𝑜𝓃𝒹𝒾𝒸̧𝑜̃𝑒𝓈 𝓅𝒶𝓇𝒶 𝒶 𝓂𝒶𝓃𝓊𝓉𝑒𝓃𝒸̧𝒶̃𝑜 𝒹𝑜 𝒶𝒸𝑒𝓈𝓈𝑜 𝒶 𝑒𝓈𝓈𝒶𝓈 𝓂𝑒𝒹𝒾𝒹𝒶𝓈, 𝑒𝓃𝓉𝓇𝑒 𝒶𝓈 𝓆𝓊𝒶𝒾𝓈 𝑜 ℛ𝑒𝓃𝒹𝒾𝓂𝑒𝓃𝓉𝑜 𝒮𝑜𝒸𝒾𝒶𝓁 𝒹𝑒 ℐ𝓃𝓈𝑒𝓇𝒸̧𝒶̃𝑜.
𝒜𝓆𝓊𝑒𝓁𝑒 𝓆𝓊𝑒 𝑒́ 𝓈𝓊𝓅𝑜𝓈𝓉𝒶𝓂𝑒𝓃𝓉𝑒 𝓊𝓂 𝒹𝒾𝓇𝑒𝒾𝓉𝑜 𝓈𝑜𝒸𝒾𝒶𝓁 𝑒 𝓊𝓃𝒾𝓋𝑒𝓇𝓈𝒶𝓁 – 𝑒 𝓅𝑜𝓇 𝒾𝓈𝓈𝑜 𝓂𝑒𝓈𝓂𝑜 𝒸𝑜𝓂𝑒𝒸̧𝑜𝓊 𝓅𝑜𝓇 𝒸𝒽𝒶𝓂𝒶𝓇-𝓈𝑒 ℛ𝑒𝓃𝒹𝒾𝓂𝑒𝓃𝓉𝑜 ℳ𝒾́𝓃𝒾𝓂𝑜 𝒢𝒶𝓇𝒶𝓃𝓉𝒾𝒹𝑜 – 𝑒́ 𝒸𝑜𝓃𝒹𝒾𝒸𝒾𝑜𝓃𝒶𝒹𝑜 𝓅𝑒𝓁𝑜 𝒸𝓊𝓂𝓅𝓇𝒾𝓂𝑒𝓃𝓉𝑜 𝒹𝑜 𝒸𝑜𝓃𝓉𝓇𝒶𝓉𝑜 𝒹𝑒 𝒾𝓃𝓈𝑒𝓇𝒸̧𝒶̃𝑜 𝓆𝓊𝑒 𝓅𝓇𝑒𝓉𝑒𝓃𝒹𝑒 𝒹𝒶𝓇 𝒸𝑜𝓃𝓉𝒶 𝒹𝑜𝓈 𝓅𝓇𝑜𝒷𝓁𝑒𝓂𝒶𝓈 𝓋𝒾𝓋𝒾𝒹𝑜𝓈 𝓅𝑒𝓁𝑜𝓈 𝒷𝑒𝓃𝑒𝒻𝒾𝒸𝒾𝒶́𝓇𝒾𝑜𝓈 𝑒 𝑒𝓃𝓋𝑜𝓁𝓋𝑒̂-𝓁𝑜𝓈 (𝑒 𝓇𝑒𝓈𝓅𝑜𝓃𝓈𝒶𝒷𝒾𝓁𝒾𝓏𝒶́-𝓁𝑜𝓈) 𝓅𝑒𝓁𝒶 𝓈𝑜𝓁𝓊𝒸̧𝒶̃𝑜 𝒹𝑜𝓈 𝓅𝓇𝑜𝒷𝓁𝑒𝓂𝒶𝓈 𝓆𝓊𝑒 𝑜𝓈 𝒾𝓂𝓅𝑒𝒹𝑒𝓂 𝒹𝑒 𝒾𝓃𝓉𝑒𝑔𝓇𝒶𝓇 𝑜𝓈 𝑒𝓈𝓆𝓊𝑒𝓂𝒶𝓈 𝒹𝑒 𝑜𝓇𝑔𝒶𝓃𝒾𝓏𝒶𝒸̧𝒶̃𝑜 𝑒 𝓅𝓇𝑜𝓉𝑒𝒸̧𝒶̃𝑜 𝓈𝑜𝒸𝒾𝒶𝓁 𝓆𝓊𝑒 𝓅𝑒𝓇𝓂𝒾𝓉𝑒𝓂 𝒶 𝒶𝓊𝓉𝑜𝓃𝑜𝓂𝒾𝒶, 𝓈𝑜𝒷𝓇𝑒𝓉𝓊𝒹𝑜 𝑜 𝓂𝑒𝓇𝒸𝒶𝒹𝑜 𝒹𝑒 𝓉𝓇𝒶𝒷𝒶𝓁𝒽𝑜. ℰ𝓈𝓉𝑒𝓈 𝓅𝓇𝑜𝒷𝓁𝑒𝓂𝒶𝓈 𝒸𝑜𝓃𝒸𝓇𝑒𝓉𝑜𝓈 𝓈𝒶̃𝑜 𝒹𝑒 𝓃𝒶𝓉𝓊𝓇𝑒𝓏𝒶𝓈 𝓂𝓊́𝓁𝓉𝒾𝓅𝓁𝒶𝓈 (𝓈𝒶𝓊́𝒹𝑒, 𝑒𝓈𝓉𝓇𝓊𝓉𝓊𝓇𝒶 𝒻𝒶𝓂𝒾𝓁𝒾𝒶𝓇, 𝑒𝓉𝒸.) 𝑒 𝓋𝒶𝓇𝒾𝒶𝓂 𝑒𝓃𝓉𝓇𝑒 𝒷𝑒𝓃𝑒𝒻𝒾𝒸𝒾𝒶́𝓇𝒾𝑜𝓈. 𝒜 𝒶𝒸̧𝒶̃𝑜 𝓈𝑜𝒸𝒾𝒶𝓁 𝒹𝑒𝓈𝑒𝓂𝓅𝑒𝓃𝒽𝒶, 𝓅𝑜𝓇𝓉𝒶𝓃𝓉𝑜, 𝓊𝓂 𝓅𝒶𝓅𝑒𝓁 𝒸𝓇𝓊𝒸𝒾𝒶𝓁 𝓃𝑜 𝑒𝓈𝓆𝓊𝑒𝓂𝒶 𝒹𝑜 ℛ𝒮ℐ 𝑒 𝑒́ 𝓅𝓇𝑒𝒸𝒾𝓈𝒶𝓂𝑒𝓃𝓉𝑒 𝑒𝓈𝓉𝑒 𝓅𝑒𝓃𝒹𝑜𝓇 𝓆𝓊𝑒 𝓅𝒶𝓈𝓈𝒶𝓇𝒶́ 𝒶 𝓈𝑒𝓇 𝓇𝑒𝓈𝓅𝑜𝓃𝓈𝒶𝒷𝒾𝓁𝒾𝒹𝒶𝒹𝑒 𝒹𝒶𝓈 𝒶𝓊𝓉𝒶𝓇𝓆𝓊𝒾𝒶𝓈. ℒ𝑜𝑔𝒾𝒸𝒶𝓂𝑒𝓃𝓉𝑒, 𝒶 𝒶𝒸̧𝒶̃𝑜 𝓈𝑜𝒸𝒾𝒶𝓁 𝑒́ 𝒿𝒶́ 𝒹𝑒𝓈𝑒𝓃𝓋𝑜𝓁𝓋𝒾𝒹𝒶 𝒶𝑜 𝓃𝒾́𝓋𝑒𝓁 𝓁𝑜𝒸𝒶𝓁, 𝓉𝑒𝓃𝒹𝑜 𝑒𝓂 𝒸𝑜𝓃𝓉𝒶 𝒶 𝓃𝑒𝒸𝑒𝓈𝓈𝒾𝒹𝒶𝒹𝑒 𝒹𝑒 𝓅𝓇𝑜𝓍𝒾𝓂𝒾𝒹𝒶𝒹𝑒 𝒸𝑜𝓂 𝑜𝓈 𝒷𝑒𝓃𝑒𝒻𝒾𝒸𝒾𝒶́𝓇𝒾𝑜𝓈. 𝒩𝑜 𝑒𝓃𝓉𝒶𝓃𝓉𝑜, 𝒶 𝓉𝓇𝒶𝓃𝓈𝒻𝑒𝓇𝑒̂𝓃𝒸𝒾𝒶 𝒹𝒶 𝒶𝒸̧𝒶̃𝑜 𝓈𝑜𝒸𝒾𝒶𝓁 𝓅𝒶𝓇𝒶 𝑜 𝓃𝒾́𝓋𝑒𝓁 𝓂𝓊𝓃𝒾𝒸𝒾𝓅𝒶𝓁 𝓉𝓇𝒶𝓏 𝓅𝑒𝓇𝒾𝑔𝑜𝓈.
ℰ́ 𝒾𝓃𝑒𝑔𝒶́𝓋𝑒𝓁 𝓆𝓊𝑒 𝓊𝓂 𝒹𝑜𝓈 𝓅𝓇𝒾𝓃𝒸𝒾𝓅𝒶𝒾𝓈 𝓅𝓇𝑜𝒷𝓁𝑒𝓂𝒶𝓈 𝒹𝑜 ℛ𝒮ℐ 𝑒́ 𝑜 𝒷𝒶𝒾𝓍𝑜 𝓋𝒶𝓁𝑜𝓇 𝒹𝒶 𝓅𝓇𝑒𝓈𝓉𝒶𝒸̧𝒶̃𝑜. ℰ𝓂 𝓈𝑒𝓉𝑒𝓂𝒷𝓇𝑜, 𝑒𝓈𝓉𝑒 𝑒𝓇𝒶 𝒹𝑒 𝒸𝑒𝓇𝒸𝒶 𝒹𝑒 𝟷𝟸𝟶€ 𝓅𝑜𝓇 𝒷𝑒𝓃𝑒𝒻𝒾𝒸𝒾𝒶́𝓇𝒾𝑜 𝑒 𝒹𝑒 𝟸𝟼𝟶€ 𝓅𝑜𝓇 𝒻𝒶𝓂𝒾́𝓁𝒾𝒶. 𝒩𝑜 𝑒𝓃𝓉𝒶𝓃𝓉𝑜, 𝑒 𝑒𝓈𝓅𝑒𝒸𝒾𝒶𝓁𝓂𝑒𝓃𝓉𝑒 𝓉𝑒𝓃𝒹𝑜 𝑒𝓂 𝒸𝑜𝓃𝓉𝒶 𝑒𝓈𝓉𝑒𝓈 𝓋𝒶𝓁𝑜𝓇𝑒𝓈, 𝒶 𝒶𝒸̧𝒶̃𝑜 𝓈𝑜𝒸𝒾𝒶𝓁 𝓉𝑜𝓇𝓃𝒶-𝓈𝑒 𝑒𝓈𝓈𝑒𝓃𝒸𝒾𝒶𝓁 𝒸𝑜𝓂𝑜 𝒻𝑜𝓇𝓂𝒶 𝒹𝑒 𝓅𝓇𝑜𝓉𝑒𝑔𝑒𝓇 𝑒 𝓅𝓇𝑜𝓂𝑜𝓋𝑒𝓇 𝒶 𝒶𝓊𝓉𝑜𝓃𝑜𝓂𝒾𝒶 𝒹𝑜𝓈 𝒷𝑒𝓃𝑒𝒻𝒾𝒸𝒾𝒶́𝓇𝒾𝑜𝓈, 𝑜 𝓆𝓊𝑒 𝓇𝑒𝓆𝓊𝑒𝓇 𝓇𝑒𝒸𝓊𝓇𝓈𝑜𝓈 𝑒 𝓊𝓂𝒶 𝒶𝓋𝒶𝓁𝒾𝒶𝒸̧𝒶̃𝑜 𝒹𝑜 𝓉𝓇𝒶𝒷𝒶𝓁𝒽𝑜 𝒻𝑒𝒾𝓉𝑜, 𝒹𝑒 𝓂𝒶𝓃𝑒𝒾𝓇𝒶 𝒶 𝓂𝑒𝓁𝒽𝑜𝓇𝒶́-𝓁𝑜 𝒸𝑜𝓃𝓉𝒾𝓃𝓊𝒶𝓂𝑒𝓃𝓉𝑒. 𝒫𝒶𝓇𝒶 𝒶𝓁𝑒́𝓂 𝒹𝑒 𝓇𝑒𝒹𝓊𝒸̧𝑜̃𝑒𝓈 𝓃𝑜 𝓋𝒶𝓁𝑜𝓇 𝒹𝑜 ℛ𝒮ℐ 𝑒 𝒹𝑜 𝒸𝒶𝒹𝒶 𝓋𝑒𝓏 𝓂𝒶𝒾𝓈 𝒹𝒾𝒻𝒾́𝒸𝒾𝓁 𝒶𝒸𝑒𝓈𝓈𝑜 𝒶̀ 𝓂𝑒𝒹𝒾𝒹𝒶, 𝑜𝓈 𝓈𝓊𝒸𝑒𝓈𝓈𝒾𝓋𝑜𝓈 𝑔𝑜𝓋𝑒𝓇𝓃𝑜𝓈 𝓉𝑒̂𝓂-𝓈𝑒 𝓉𝒶𝓂𝒷𝑒́𝓂 𝒹𝑒𝓂𝒾𝓉𝒾𝒹𝑜 𝒹𝒶 𝒶𝒸̧𝒶̃𝑜 𝓈𝑜𝒸𝒾𝒶𝓁. 𝒪𝓇𝒶, 𝓈𝑒 𝓅𝑜𝓇 𝓊𝓂 𝓁𝒶𝒹𝑜 𝒶 𝒸𝑜𝓃𝓉𝓇𝒶𝓉𝓊𝒶𝓁𝒾𝓏𝒶𝒸̧𝒶̃𝑜 𝒹𝒶 𝒶𝒸̧𝒶̃𝑜 𝓈𝑜𝒸𝒾𝒶𝓁 𝒸𝑜𝓂 𝒶𝓈 ℐ𝒫𝒮𝒮 𝒸𝑜𝓃𝓉𝓇𝒶𝓇𝒾𝒶 𝒿𝒶́ 𝑜 𝓅𝓇𝒾𝓃𝒸𝒾́𝓅𝒾𝑜 𝒹𝑒 𝓊𝓂𝒶 𝓈𝑒𝑔𝓊𝓇𝒶𝓃𝒸̧𝒶 𝓈𝑜𝒸𝒾𝒶𝓁 𝓊𝓃𝒾𝒻𝒾𝒸𝒶𝒹𝒶, 𝓅𝓇𝒾𝓋𝒶𝓉𝒾𝓏𝒶𝓃𝒹𝑜 𝒹𝑒 𝒸𝑒𝓇𝓉𝒶 𝒻𝑜𝓇𝓂𝒶 𝑜𝓈 𝓈𝑒𝓇𝓋𝒾𝒸̧𝑜𝓈 𝓈𝑜𝒸𝒾𝒶𝒾𝓈 𝑒 𝒹𝒶𝓃𝒹𝑜 𝑒𝓈𝓅𝒶𝒸̧𝑜 𝒶 𝒶𝓈𝓈𝒾𝓂𝑒𝓉𝓇𝒾𝒶𝓈, 𝓅𝑜𝓇 𝑜𝓊𝓉𝓇𝑜 𝓁𝒶𝒹𝑜 𝑒𝓈𝓉𝒶 𝒻𝓇𝒶𝑔𝓂𝑒𝓃𝓉𝒶𝒸̧𝒶̃𝑜 𝒹𝒶 𝓅𝑜𝓁𝒾́𝓉𝒾𝒸𝒶 𝓈𝑜𝒸𝒾𝒶𝓁 𝒻𝒶𝒸𝒾𝓁𝒾𝓉𝒶 𝒶 𝒾𝓃𝓋𝒾𝓈𝒾𝒷𝒾𝓁𝒾𝓏𝒶𝒸̧𝒶̃𝑜 𝒹𝑜𝓈 𝒷𝑒𝓃𝑒𝒻𝒾𝒸𝒾𝒶́𝓇𝒾𝑜𝓈 𝒹𝒶 𝒶𝒸̧𝒶̃𝑜 𝓈𝑜𝒸𝒾𝒶𝓁, 𝑒𝓂 𝑔𝑒𝓇𝒶𝓁 𝒿𝒶́ 𝑒𝓍𝒸𝓁𝓊𝒾́𝒹𝑜𝓈 𝒹𝑜𝓈 𝑒𝓈𝓆𝓊𝑒𝓂𝒶𝓈 𝒹𝑒 𝓅𝓇𝑜𝓉𝑒𝒸̧𝒶̃𝑜 𝑒𝓂 𝓉𝑜𝓇𝓃𝑜 𝒹𝑜𝓈 𝓆𝓊𝒶𝒾𝓈 𝑒𝓍𝒾𝓈𝓉𝑒 𝓂𝒶𝒾𝑜𝓇 𝓂𝑜𝒷𝒾𝓁𝒾𝓏𝒶𝒸̧𝒶̃𝑜 𝓈𝑜𝒸𝒾𝒶𝓁, 𝓃𝑜𝓂𝑒𝒶𝒹𝒶𝓂𝑒𝓃𝓉𝑒 𝒹𝑜 𝓇𝑒𝑔𝒾𝓂𝑒 𝒸𝑜𝓃𝓉𝓇𝒾𝒷𝓊𝓉𝒾𝓋𝑜. 𝒜 𝓂𝓊𝓃𝒾𝒸𝒾𝓅𝒶𝓁𝒾𝓏𝒶𝒸̧𝒶̃𝑜 𝒹𝒶 𝒶𝒸̧𝒶̃𝑜 𝓈𝑜𝒸𝒾𝒶𝓁 𝒸𝑜𝓃𝓉𝓇𝒾𝒷𝓊𝒾 𝓅𝒶𝓇𝒶 𝑒𝓈𝓉𝒶 𝒹𝓊𝒶𝓁𝒾𝓏𝒶𝒸̧𝒶̃𝑜 𝒹𝒶 𝓅𝓇𝑜𝓉𝑒𝒸̧𝒶̃𝑜 𝓈𝑜𝒸𝒾𝒶𝓁, 𝒸𝑜𝓃𝓈𝓉𝒾𝓉𝓊𝒾𝓃𝒹𝑜 𝓊𝓂𝒶 𝓃𝑜𝓋𝒶 𝒹𝑒𝓂𝑜𝓃𝓈𝓉𝓇𝒶𝒸̧𝒶̃𝑜 𝒹𝒶 𝒹𝑒𝓈𝓇𝑒𝓈𝓅𝑜𝓃𝓈𝒶𝒷𝒾𝓁𝒾𝓏𝒶𝒸̧𝒶̃𝑜 𝒹𝑜 ℰ𝓈𝓉𝒶𝒹𝑜 𝓃𝑒𝓈𝓉𝑒 𝒸𝒶𝓂𝓅𝑜.
𝒫𝒶𝓇𝒶 𝑒𝓈𝓉𝑒 𝓅𝑒𝓇𝒾𝑔𝑜 𝓅𝑜𝓁𝒾́𝓉𝒾𝒸𝑜 𝒸𝑜𝓃𝓉𝓇𝒾𝒷𝓊𝒾 𝒶𝒾𝓃𝒹𝒶 𝒶 𝒾𝓃𝒸𝑒𝓇𝓉𝑒𝓏𝒶 𝓆𝓊𝑒 𝓈𝑒 𝓋𝑒𝓇𝒾𝒻𝒾𝒸𝒶 𝓇𝑒𝓁𝒶𝓉𝒾𝓋𝒶𝓂𝑒𝓃𝓉𝑒 𝒶𝑜𝓈 𝓇𝑒𝒸𝓊𝓇𝓈𝑜𝓈 𝓆𝓊𝑒 𝓈𝑒𝓇𝒶̃𝑜 𝓉𝓇𝒶𝓃𝓈𝒻𝑒𝓇𝒾𝒹𝑜𝓈 𝓅𝒶𝓇𝒶 𝒶𝓈 𝒶𝓊𝓉𝒶𝓇𝓆𝓊𝒾𝒶𝓈 𝓅𝒶𝓇𝒶 𝓁𝑒𝓋𝒶𝓇 𝒶 𝒸𝒶𝒷𝑜 𝑒𝓈𝓉𝒶 𝑒𝓂𝓅𝓇𝑒𝒾𝓉𝒶𝒹𝒶. 𝒪 𝒢𝑜𝓋𝑒𝓇𝓃𝑜 𝓈𝓊𝒷𝓁𝒾𝓃𝒽𝒶 𝓆𝓊𝑒 “𝓈𝒶̃𝑜 𝒿𝒶́” 𝟿𝟶 𝑜𝓈 𝓂𝓊𝓃𝒾𝒸𝒾́𝓅𝒾𝑜𝓈 𝓆𝓊𝑒 𝓋𝑜𝓁𝓊𝓃𝓉𝒶𝓇𝒾𝒶𝓂𝑒𝓃𝓉𝑒 𝒶𝒸𝑒𝒾𝓉𝒶𝓇𝒶𝓂 𝑒𝓈𝓉𝒶 𝓇𝑒𝓈𝓅𝑜𝓃𝓈𝒶𝒷𝒾𝓁𝒾𝒹𝒶𝒹𝑒. 𝒟𝒾𝓇𝒾𝒶 𝒶𝓃𝓉𝑒𝓈 𝓆𝓊𝑒 𝓈𝒶̃𝑜 “𝒶𝓅𝑒𝓃𝒶𝓈” 𝟿𝟶 𝑒 𝓆𝓊𝑒 𝒶 𝓇𝑒𝓈𝒾𝓈𝓉𝑒̂𝓃𝒸𝒾𝒶 𝒶 𝑒𝓈𝓉𝒶 𝒹𝑒𝓈𝒸𝑒𝓃𝓉𝓇𝒶𝓁𝒾𝓏𝒶𝒸̧𝒶̃𝑜 𝓃𝒶̃𝑜 𝑒́ 𝓊𝓂 𝓂𝑒𝓇𝑜 𝒶𝓅𝑜𝓃𝓉𝒶𝓂𝑒𝓃𝓉𝑜. ℰ́ 𝒶 𝓇𝒶𝓏𝒶̃𝑜 𝓅𝑒𝓁𝒶 𝓆𝓊𝒶𝓁 𝑒𝓈𝓉𝒶 𝓉𝑒𝓂 𝓈𝒾𝒹𝑜 𝒸𝑜𝓃𝓈𝓉𝒶𝓃𝓉𝑒𝓂𝑒𝓃𝓉𝑒 𝒶𝒹𝒾𝒶𝒹𝒶 𝑒 𝒹𝒾𝓇𝒾𝒶 𝓆𝓊𝑒 𝓅𝑜𝓇 𝒹𝑜𝒾𝓈 𝓂𝑜𝓉𝒾𝓋𝑜𝓈: 𝑜 𝒻𝒾𝓃𝒶𝓃𝒸𝒾𝒶𝓂𝑒𝓃𝓉𝑜 - 𝓈𝑒𝓃𝒹𝑜 𝓆𝓊𝑒, 𝓅𝑜𝓇 𝑒𝓍𝑒𝓂𝓅𝓁𝑜, 𝒶 𝒞𝒶̂𝓂𝒶𝓇𝒶 𝒹𝑜 𝒫𝑜𝓇𝓉𝑜 𝒶𝒻𝒾𝓇𝓂𝒶 𝓆𝓊𝑒 𝓅𝒶𝓈𝓈𝒶𝓇𝒶́ 𝒶 𝓉𝑒𝓇 𝓇𝑒𝒸𝓊𝓇𝓈𝑜𝓈 𝓅𝒶𝓇𝒶 𝓅𝒶𝑔𝒶𝓇 𝒶𝓅𝑒𝓃𝒶𝓈 𝒶 𝒹𝑒𝓏 𝓉𝑒́𝒸𝓃𝒾𝒸𝑜𝓈 𝓈𝑜𝒸𝒾𝒶𝒾𝓈 𝓅𝒶𝓇𝒶 𝑔𝑒𝓇𝒾𝓇 𝟻 𝓂𝒾𝓁 𝓅𝓇𝑜𝒸𝑒𝓈𝓈𝑜𝓈 ℛ𝒮ℐ𝟸 – 𝓂𝒶𝓈 𝓉𝒶𝓂𝒷𝑒́𝓂 𝒶 𝒻𝒶𝓁𝓉𝒶 𝒹𝑒 𝓋𝑜𝓃𝓉𝒶𝒹𝑒 𝒹𝑜𝓈 𝒶𝓊𝓉𝒶𝓇𝒸𝒶𝓈 𝑒𝓂 𝒶𝓈𝓈𝓊𝓂𝒾𝓇 𝑒𝓈𝓉𝒶 𝓇𝑒𝓈𝓅𝑜𝓃𝓈𝒶𝒷𝒾𝓁𝒾𝒹𝒶𝒹𝑒 𝓅𝑜𝓁𝒾́𝓉𝒾𝒸𝒶. ℛ𝑒𝑔𝓇𝒶 𝑔𝑒𝓇𝒶𝓁, 𝑜𝓈 𝒷𝑒𝓃𝑒𝒻𝒾𝒸𝒾𝒶́𝓇𝒾𝑜𝓈 𝒹𝑒 ℛ𝒮ℐ 𝓈𝒶̃𝑜 𝒶𝓆𝓊𝑒𝓁𝑒𝓈 𝒶 𝓆𝓊𝑒𝓂 𝑜 ℰ𝓈𝓉𝒶𝒹𝑜 𝒿𝒶́ 𝒻𝒶𝓁𝒽𝑜𝓊. ℱ𝒶𝓁𝒽𝑜𝓊 𝓃𝒶 𝒸𝑜𝓃𝓈𝓉𝓇𝓊𝒸̧𝒶̃𝑜 𝒹𝑒 𝓊𝓂 𝓂𝑒𝓇𝒸𝒶𝒹𝑜 𝒹𝑒 𝓉𝓇𝒶𝒷𝒶𝓁𝒽𝑜 𝒸𝒶𝓅𝒶𝓏 𝒹𝑒 𝑔𝒶𝓇𝒶𝓃𝓉𝒾𝓇 𝓋𝒾𝒹𝒶𝓈 𝑒𝓈𝓉𝒶́𝓋𝑒𝒾𝓈 𝑒 𝒹𝑒 𝒷𝑒𝓂-𝑒𝓈𝓉𝒶𝓇, 𝓂𝒶𝓇𝒸𝒶𝒹𝑜 𝓅𝑒𝓁𝒶 𝓅𝓇𝑒𝒸𝒶𝓇𝒾𝑒𝒹𝒶𝒹𝑒 𝑒 𝓆𝓊𝑒 𝑒𝓍𝒸𝓁𝓊𝒾 𝓂𝓊𝒾𝓉𝑜𝓈 𝒹𝑜𝓈 𝒹𝒾𝓇𝑒𝒾𝓉𝑜𝓈 𝒹𝑜 𝓉𝓇𝒶𝒷𝒶𝓁𝒽𝑜, 𝓃𝑜𝓂𝑒𝒶𝒹𝒶𝓂𝑒𝓃𝓉𝑒 𝒹𝑜 𝓈𝓊𝒷𝓈𝒾́𝒹𝒾𝑜 𝒹𝑒 𝒹𝑒𝓈𝑒𝓂𝓅𝓇𝑒𝑔𝑜; 𝒻𝒶𝓁𝒽𝑜𝓊 𝒶𝑜 𝓃𝒶̃𝑜 𝒾𝓂𝓅𝑒𝒹𝒾𝓇 𝓆𝓊𝑒 𝓉𝑒𝓇 𝒻𝒾𝓁𝒽𝑜𝓈 𝒸𝑜𝓃𝓈𝓉𝒾𝓉𝓊𝒶 𝓊𝓂 𝓇𝒾𝓈𝒸𝑜 𝒶𝒸𝓇𝑒𝓈𝒸𝒾𝒹𝑜 𝒹𝑒 𝓅𝑜𝒷𝓇𝑒𝓏𝒶 (𝒶 𝓂𝒶𝒾𝑜𝓇 𝓅𝒶𝓇𝓉𝑒 𝒹𝑜𝓈 𝒷𝑒𝓃𝑒𝒻𝒾𝒸𝒾𝒶́𝓇𝒾𝑜𝓈 𝓈𝒶̃𝑜 𝓂𝑒𝓃𝑜𝓇𝑒𝓈); 𝒻𝒶𝓁𝒽𝑜𝓊 𝒶𝑜 𝓉𝑜𝓇𝓃𝒶𝓇 𝒶 𝒹𝑜𝑒𝓃𝒸̧𝒶 𝒻𝑜𝓃𝓉𝑒 𝒹𝑒 𝓅𝑜𝒷𝓇𝑒𝓏𝒶; 𝒻𝒶𝓁𝒽𝑜𝓊 𝒶𝑜 𝓃𝒶̃𝑜 𝒸𝑜𝓂𝒷𝒶𝓉𝑒𝓇 𝓊𝓂𝒶 𝓅𝑜𝓁𝒾́𝓉𝒾𝒸𝒶 𝓅𝒶𝓉𝓇𝒾𝒶𝓇𝒸𝒶𝓁 𝓆𝓊𝑒 𝒶𝓉𝒾𝓇𝒶 𝒻𝒶𝓂𝒾́𝓁𝒾𝒶𝓈 𝓂𝑜𝓃𝑜𝓅𝒶𝓇𝑒𝓃𝓉𝒶𝒾𝓈 𝓉𝒶𝓂𝒷𝑒́𝓂 𝓅𝒶𝓇𝒶 𝒶 𝓅𝑜𝒷𝓇𝑒𝓏𝒶. 𝒪 ℰ𝓈𝓉𝒶𝒹𝑜 𝒸𝑒𝓃𝓉𝓇𝒶𝓁 𝒻𝒶𝓏 𝒶𝓈𝓈𝒾𝓂 𝒸𝑜𝓂 𝓆𝓊𝑒 𝒶 𝒮𝑒𝑔𝓊𝓇𝒶𝓃𝒸̧𝒶 𝒮𝑜𝒸𝒾𝒶𝓁 𝓈𝒶𝒸𝓊𝒹𝒶 𝒶 𝒶́𝑔𝓊𝒶 𝒹𝑜 𝒸𝒶𝓅𝑜𝓉𝑒, 𝑒𝓂𝓅𝓊𝓇𝓇𝒶𝓃𝒹𝑜 𝓅𝒶𝓇𝒶 𝓉𝑒𝓇𝒸𝑒𝒾𝓇𝑜𝓈 𝒶 𝓇𝑒𝓈𝓅𝑜𝓃𝓈𝒶𝒷𝒾𝓁𝒾𝒹𝒶𝒹𝑒 𝓅𝑜𝓇 𝒶𝓆𝓊𝑒𝓁𝑒𝓈 𝒸𝓊𝒿𝒶𝓈 𝓋𝒾𝒹𝒶𝓈 𝓈𝒶̃𝑜 𝑜 𝑒𝓈𝓅𝑒𝓁𝒽𝑜 𝒹𝑜 𝒻𝓇𝒶𝒸𝒶𝓈𝓈𝑜 𝓅𝑜𝓁𝒾́𝓉𝒾𝒸𝑜 𝑒 𝒻𝒶́-𝓁𝑜-𝒶́, 𝓅𝓇𝑜𝓋𝒶𝓋𝑒𝓁𝓂𝑒𝓃𝓉𝑒, 𝓈𝑜𝒷𝓇𝑒𝒸𝒶𝓇𝓇𝑒𝑔𝒶𝓃𝒹𝑜 𝓆𝓊𝑒𝓂 𝒿𝒶́ 𝓈𝑒 𝑒𝓃𝒸𝑜𝓃𝓉𝓇𝒶 𝓈𝑜𝒷𝓇𝑒𝒸𝒶𝓇𝓇𝑒𝑔𝒶𝒹𝑜 – 𝑜𝓈 𝓉𝑒́𝒸𝓃𝒾𝒸𝑜𝓈 𝓈𝑜𝒸𝒾𝒶𝒾𝓈 – 𝒶̀ 𝒸𝓊𝓈𝓉𝒶, 𝑒𝓂 𝓊́𝓁𝓉𝒾𝓂𝒶 𝒾𝓃𝓈𝓉𝒶̂𝓃𝒸𝒾𝒶, 𝒹𝑜𝓈 𝓅𝓇𝑜́𝓅𝓇𝒾𝑜𝓈 𝒷𝑒𝓃𝑒𝒻𝒾𝒸𝒾𝒶́𝓇𝒾𝑜𝓈 𝒹𝑒 ℛ𝒮ℐ.
.
*Ativista anti-propinas, bolseira de investigação e dirigente do Bloco de Esquerda
.IN "ESQUERDA" - 25/11/22 .
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário