.
Populismo escondido
com a cauda de fora?
O populismo é um conceito de significados múltiplos e contraditórios e a sua única consistência é a forma de atribuição: esclarece mais sobre quem designa do que sobre o seu objeto.
𝖭𝗎𝗆 𝗋𝖺𝗋𝗈 𝖺𝗋𝗋𝗈𝗎𝖻𝗈 𝖽𝗈𝗎𝗍𝗋𝗂𝗇𝖺́𝗋𝗂𝗈, 𝗈 𝗉𝗋𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗂𝗋𝗈-𝗆𝗂𝗇𝗂𝗌𝗍𝗋𝗈 𝖺𝖼𝗎𝗌𝗈𝗎 𝗁𝖺́ 𝗎𝗇𝗌 𝖽𝗂𝖺𝗌 𝗎𝗆 𝗌𝖾𝗎 𝖺𝗅𝗂𝖺𝖽𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝗌𝖾𝗋 “𝗉𝗈𝗉𝗎𝗅𝗂𝗌𝗍𝖺”. 𝖮 𝖼𝗋𝗂𝗆𝖾 𝖾𝗋𝖺 𝗍𝖾𝗋-𝗌𝖾 𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗂𝗑𝖺𝖽𝗈 𝖽𝗈 “𝗉𝖺̂𝗇𝗍𝖺𝗇𝗈”. 𝖥𝗈𝗂 𝖺𝖽𝗆𝗈𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺𝖽𝗈, 𝖺 𝗉𝖺𝗅𝖺𝗏𝗋𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗏𝗈𝖼𝖺𝗋𝗂𝖺 𝖾𝗌𝗉𝗂́𝗋𝗂𝗍𝗈𝗌 𝗆𝖺𝗅𝗂𝗀𝗇𝗈𝗌. 𝖠 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝗍𝗂𝗋 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝗌𝖺 𝖽𝖾𝗂𝗑𝖺, 𝗈 𝖦𝗈𝗏𝖾𝗋𝗇𝗈 𝗋𝖾𝗉𝖾𝗍𝗂𝗎 𝗈 𝗋𝖾𝖿𝗋𝖺̃𝗈, 𝗍𝗎𝖽𝗈 𝗇𝖺 𝗈𝗉𝗈𝗌𝗂𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖾́ “𝗉𝗈𝗉𝗎𝗅𝗂𝗌𝗍𝖺”. 𝖭𝖺̃𝗈 𝗀𝗈𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗆 𝖽𝗈 𝖿𝖺𝗏𝗈𝗋 𝖺̀ 𝖻𝖺𝗇𝖼𝖺 𝗇𝗈𝗌 𝖢𝖾𝗋𝗍𝗂𝖿𝗂𝖼𝖺𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝖠𝖿𝗈𝗋𝗋𝗈? 𝖯𝗈𝗉𝗎𝗅𝗂𝗌𝗆𝗈. 𝖰𝗎𝖾𝗋𝗂𝖺𝗆 𝗌𝖺𝖻𝖾𝗋 𝖼𝗈𝗆 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖻𝖺𝗌𝖾 𝗅𝖾𝗀𝖺𝗅 𝖾́ 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗈 𝖲𝖨𝖲 𝗂𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗋𝗏𝖾𝗂𝗈? 𝖯𝗈𝗉𝗎𝗅𝗂𝗌𝗆𝗈. 𝖤 𝖽𝖺 𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗇𝗌𝖿𝖾𝗋𝖾̂𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺 𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝗍𝗈𝗌 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝗈 𝗉𝗋𝗂𝗏𝖺𝖽𝗈? 𝖯𝗈𝗉𝗎𝗅𝗂𝗌𝗂́𝗌𝗌𝗂𝗆𝗈. 𝖠𝗌𝗌𝗂𝗆 𝗌𝖾𝗇𝖽𝗈, 𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗇𝖽𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝗋𝗈𝗆𝗉𝖺𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝗇𝗈 𝖺𝗋𝗌𝖾𝗇𝖺𝗅 𝖺𝖽𝗃𝖾𝗍𝗂𝗏𝖺𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝖽𝗈 𝖦𝗈𝗏𝖾𝗋𝗇𝗈, 𝖺 𝗉𝖺𝗅𝖺𝗏𝗋𝖺 𝗆𝖾𝗋𝖾𝖼𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗌𝗂𝖽𝖾𝗋𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈. 𝖠 𝗆𝗂𝗇𝗁𝖺 𝖾́ 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺: 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗈 𝖿𝗈𝗂 𝗎𝗌𝖺𝖽𝖺, 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝗌𝗂𝗀𝗇𝗂𝖿𝗂𝖼𝖺 𝗇𝖺𝖽𝖺; 𝗈𝗇𝖽𝖾 𝖺𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖾𝖼𝖾 𝗋𝖾𝖼𝗅𝖺𝗆𝖺𝗇𝖽𝗈 𝖺𝗅𝗀𝗎𝗆 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗎́𝖽𝗈, 𝖾́ 𝖿𝗋𝖾𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝗍𝖺̃𝗈 𝖺𝗆𝖻𝗂́𝗀𝗎𝖺 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝖿𝗎𝗇𝖽𝖾 𝖾𝗆 𝗏𝖾𝗓 𝖽𝖾 𝖾𝗌𝖼𝗅𝖺𝗋𝖾𝖼𝖾𝗋; 𝖾 𝗈 𝗎́𝗇𝗂𝖼𝗈 𝗉𝗈𝗉𝗎𝗅𝗂𝗌𝗆𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖺 𝖤𝗎𝗋𝗈𝗉𝖺 𝗋𝖾𝖺𝗅𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝗏𝗂𝗏𝖾𝗎 𝖿𝗈𝗋𝖺𝗆 𝗈𝗌 𝖿𝖺𝗌𝖼𝗂𝗌𝗆𝗈𝗌.
𝖠 𝗓𝗈𝗈𝗅𝗈𝗀𝗂𝖺 𝗉𝗈𝗉𝗎𝗅𝗂𝗌𝗍𝖺
𝖲𝖾 𝗈 𝗉𝗈𝗉𝗎𝗅𝗂𝗌𝗆𝗈 𝖾́ 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝗂𝗆𝖺𝗀𝖾𝗆, 𝗆𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝖽𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗎𝗆 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝖼𝖾𝗂𝗍𝗈, 𝗈 𝖺𝗍𝖺𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖺𝗈 𝗉𝗈𝗉𝗎𝗅𝗂𝗌𝗆𝗈 𝖾́ 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝗌𝗂́𝗇𝖽𝗋𝗈𝗆𝖾 𝖾 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝖽𝗈𝗎𝗍𝗋𝗂𝗇𝖺. 𝖣𝖾 𝖿𝖺𝖼𝗍𝗈, 𝗈 𝗍𝖾𝗋𝗆𝗈 𝗍𝖾𝗆 𝗌𝗂𝖽𝗈 𝗎𝗌𝖺𝖽𝗈 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝖼𝗅𝖺𝗌𝗌𝗂𝖿𝗂𝖼𝖺𝗋 𝗆𝗈𝗏𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈𝗌 𝗁𝗂𝗌𝗍𝗈𝗋𝗂𝖼𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝖽𝗂𝗏𝖾𝗋𝗀𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗌, 𝗆𝖺𝗌 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗌𝖾𝗋𝗂𝖺𝗆 𝖺𝗇𝗂𝗆𝖺𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝗉𝗈𝗋 𝗎𝗆 𝗁𝗎𝗆𝗈𝗋 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗎𝗆, 𝖺 𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗍𝗎𝖽𝖾 𝗅𝗂𝗍𝗂𝗀𝖺𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝖾 𝗆𝖾𝗌𝗌𝗂𝖺̂𝗇𝗂𝖼𝖺: 𝗆𝖺𝗅𝗀𝗋𝖺𝖽𝗈 𝖺𝗌 𝗌𝗎𝖺𝗌 𝖽𝗂𝖿𝖾𝗋𝖾𝗇𝖼̧𝖺𝗌, 𝗌𝖾𝗋𝗂𝖺𝗆 𝗉𝗈𝗉𝗎𝗅𝗂𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗌 𝗈 𝗉𝖾𝗋𝗈𝗇𝗂𝗌𝗆𝗈 𝖾 𝗈 𝖼𝖺𝗌𝗍𝗋𝗂𝗌𝗆𝗈, 𝗇𝗈 𝗌𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗂𝖽𝗈 𝖾𝗆 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖺𝗆𝖻𝗈𝗌 𝗎𝗌𝖺𝗋𝗂𝖺𝗆 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝗋𝖾𝗅𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝗂𝗋𝖾𝗍𝖺 𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗋𝖾 𝗈 𝗅𝗂́𝖽𝖾𝗋 𝖾 𝗈 𝗉𝗈𝗏𝗈, 𝗆𝖺𝗌 𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝖿𝗎𝗌𝖺̃𝗈 𝖺𝗀𝗋𝖺𝗏𝖺-𝗌𝖾, 𝗉𝗈𝗂𝗌 𝗌𝖾 𝗈 𝗆𝖾𝗌𝗆𝗈 𝗍𝖾𝗋𝗆𝗈 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝗂𝗀𝗇𝖺 𝖫𝖾 𝖯𝖾𝗇 𝖾 𝖦𝖺𝗇𝖽𝗁𝗂, 𝖭𝖺𝗌𝗌𝖾𝗋 𝖾 𝖲𝖺𝗆𝗈𝗋𝖺, 𝖠𝗍𝖺𝗍𝗎̈𝗋𝗄 𝖾 𝖡𝖾𝗋𝗅𝗎𝗌𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗂, 𝖢𝗁𝖺́𝗏𝖾𝗓 𝖾 𝖡𝗈𝗅𝗂́𝗏𝖺𝗋, 𝖯𝖾𝗉𝖾 𝖬𝗎𝗃𝗂𝖼𝖺 𝖾 𝖮𝗋𝖻𝖺́𝗇, 𝖳𝗋𝗎𝗆𝗉 𝖾 𝖲𝖺𝗇𝖽𝖾𝗋𝗌, 𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖺̃𝗈 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝗌𝖾𝗋𝗏𝖾 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝗇𝖺𝖽𝖺. 𝖭𝗈 𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖺𝗇𝗍𝗈, 𝗍𝖾𝗆 𝗌𝗂𝖽𝗈 𝖺𝗉𝗅𝗂𝖼𝖺𝖽𝗈 𝖺𝗈 𝖯𝖱𝖨 𝗆𝖾𝗑𝗂𝖼𝖺𝗇𝗈 𝖾 𝖺𝗈 𝖡𝖺’𝗁𝖺𝗍 𝗇𝗈 𝖬𝖾́𝖽𝗂𝗈 𝖮𝗋𝗂𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾, 𝖺𝗈 𝖢𝗂𝗇𝖼𝗈 𝖤𝗌𝗍𝗋𝖾𝗅𝖺𝗌 𝖾 𝖺𝗈 𝖲𝗂𝗇𝗇 𝖥𝖾́𝗂𝗇, 𝖺𝗈 𝖮𝖼𝖼𝗎𝗉𝗒 𝖶𝖺𝗅𝗅 𝖲𝗍𝗋𝖾𝖾𝗍 𝗈𝗎 𝗈 𝖳𝖾𝖺 𝖯𝖺𝗋𝗍𝗒. 𝖭𝖾𝗇𝗁𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗌 𝗅𝗂𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗀𝖾𝗇𝗌 𝗍𝖾𝗆 𝖼𝗈𝖾𝗋𝖾̂𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺. 𝖭𝗎𝗇𝗌 𝖼𝖺𝗌𝗈𝗌 𝗌𝖺̃𝗈 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝗍𝗂𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝖻𝖺𝗌𝖾 𝗉𝗈𝗉𝗎𝗅𝖺𝗋, 𝗆𝗈𝖻𝗂𝗅𝗂𝗓𝖺𝖽𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝗋𝖺 𝖺𝗌 𝖾𝗅𝗂𝗍𝖾𝗌, 𝗇𝗈𝗎𝗍𝗋𝗈𝗌 𝗌𝖺̃𝗈 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝗍𝗂𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝗂𝗇𝖼𝗋𝗎𝗌𝗍𝖺𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝗇𝗈 𝖺𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖾𝗅𝗁𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝖤𝗌𝗍𝖺𝖽𝗈; 𝗇𝗎𝗇𝗌 𝖼𝖺𝗌𝗈𝗌 𝗌𝖺̃𝗈 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝗍𝖾𝗌𝗍𝗈𝗌 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝗋𝖺 𝖺 𝗈𝗋𝖽𝖾𝗆 𝗌𝗈𝖼𝗂𝖺𝗅, 𝗇𝗈𝗎𝗍𝗋𝗈𝗌 𝖻𝗎𝗌𝖼𝖺𝗆 𝗈 𝗋𝖾𝗀𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗌𝗈 𝖺𝗈 𝗉𝖺𝗌𝗌𝖺𝖽𝗈; 𝗇𝗎𝗇𝗌 𝖼𝖺𝗌𝗈𝗌 𝖽𝗂𝗌𝗉𝗎𝗍𝖺𝗆 𝖺 𝗋𝖾𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗌𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖾𝗅𝖾𝗂𝗍𝗈𝗋𝖺𝗅, 𝗇𝗈𝗎𝗍𝗋𝗈𝗌 𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗋𝖾𝗆 𝖽𝗂𝗌𝗉𝖾𝗇𝗌𝖺𝗋 𝖺𝗌 𝗎𝗋𝗇𝖺𝗌.
𝗈𝗋 𝗈𝗎𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗌 𝗉𝖺𝗅𝖺𝗏𝗋𝖺𝗌, 𝖺 𝗆𝖾𝖽𝗂𝗋 𝗉𝖾𝗅𝗈 𝗌𝖾𝗎 𝖼𝖺𝗍𝖺́𝗅𝗈𝗀𝗈, 𝗈 𝗉𝗈𝗉𝗎𝗅𝗂𝗌𝗆𝗈 𝖾́ 𝗎𝗆 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝖼𝖾𝗂𝗍𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝗌𝗂𝗀𝗇𝗂𝖿𝗂𝖼𝖺𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝗆𝗎́𝗅𝗍𝗂𝗉𝗅𝗈𝗌 𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝗋𝖺𝖽𝗂𝗍𝗈́𝗋𝗂𝗈𝗌 𝖾 𝖺 𝗌𝗎𝖺 𝗎́𝗇𝗂𝖼𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗌𝗂𝗌𝗍𝖾̂𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺 𝖾́ 𝖺 𝖿𝗈𝗋𝗆𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝖺𝗍𝗋𝗂𝖻𝗎𝗂𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈: 𝖾́ 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝗂𝗀𝗇𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖺𝖽𝗏𝖾𝗋𝗌𝖺𝗋𝗂𝖺𝗅 𝗊𝗎𝖾, 𝗉𝗈𝗋𝗍𝖺𝗇𝗍𝗈, 𝖾𝗌𝖼𝗅𝖺𝗋𝖾𝖼𝖾 𝗆𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝗌𝗈𝖻𝗋𝖾 𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗆 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝗂𝗀𝗇𝖺 𝖽𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗌𝗈𝖻𝗋𝖾 𝗈 𝗌𝖾𝗎 𝗈𝖻𝗃𝖾𝗍𝗈. 𝖭𝗈 𝗆𝗎𝗇𝖽𝗈 𝖽𝗈 𝗎𝗌𝗈 𝗂𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗇𝗌𝗂𝗏𝗈 𝖽𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗎𝗇𝗂𝖼𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈, 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺 𝖺𝖼𝗎𝗌𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖾́ 𝗎𝗌𝖺𝖽𝖺 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝗉𝗋𝖾𝖾𝗇𝖼𝗁𝖾𝗋 𝗈 𝗏𝖺́𝖼𝗎𝗈 𝖽𝖺 𝗉𝗈𝗅𝗂́𝗍𝗂𝖼𝖺. 𝖠𝗌𝗌𝗂𝗆, 𝖾́ 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗍𝖾́𝗀𝗂𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝗇𝖾𝗏𝗈𝖾𝗂𝗋𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗌𝗈𝖿𝗋𝖾 𝖽𝖾 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝖽𝗎𝗉𝗅𝖺 𝖺𝗆𝖻𝗂𝗀𝗎𝗂𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾. 𝖠 𝗉𝗋𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗂𝗋𝖺 𝖾́ 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗈𝗌 𝖽𝗂𝗌𝖼𝗎𝗋𝗌𝗈𝗌 𝗉𝗈𝗉𝗎𝗅𝗂𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗌, 𝗈𝗎 𝗈𝗌 𝖺𝗇𝗍𝗂𝗉𝗈𝗉𝗎𝗅𝗂𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗌, 𝗇𝖾𝗆 𝗌𝖾𝗆𝗉𝗋𝖾 𝗌𝖾 𝗋𝖾𝖿𝖾𝗋𝖾𝗆 𝖺𝗈 𝗆𝖾𝗌𝗆𝗈 𝗉𝗈𝗏𝗈. 𝖠 𝗌𝖾𝗀𝗎𝗇𝖽𝖺 𝖺𝗆𝖻𝗂𝗀𝗎𝗂𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾 𝖾́ 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗈𝗌 𝖽𝗂𝗌𝖼𝗎𝗋𝗌𝗈𝗌 𝗉𝗈𝗉𝗎𝗅𝗂𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗌 𝖺̀ 𝖾𝗌𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗋𝖽𝖺, 𝗌𝖾 𝗈 𝗍𝖾𝗋𝗆𝗈 𝖿𝗈𝗋 𝗎𝗍𝗂𝗅𝗂𝗓𝖺́𝗏𝖾𝗅, 𝗌𝖾 𝗋𝖾𝖿𝖾𝗋𝖾𝗆 𝖺̀ 𝖺𝗇𝗍𝗂𝗇𝗈𝗆𝗂𝖺 𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗋𝖾 𝖺𝗌 𝗆𝖺𝗌𝗌𝖺𝗌 𝖾 𝖺 𝗈𝗅𝗂𝗀𝖺𝗋𝗊𝗎𝗂𝖺, 𝖺𝗈 𝗉𝖺𝗌𝗌𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗈𝗌 𝗉𝗈𝗉𝗎𝗅𝗂𝗌𝗆𝗈𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝖽𝗂𝗋𝖾𝗂𝗍𝖺 𝗌𝖾 𝗋𝖾𝖿𝖾𝗋𝖾𝗆 𝖺 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗍𝖾𝗇𝗌𝖺 𝗍𝗋𝗂́𝖺𝖽𝖾 𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗋𝖾 𝖺𝗌 𝗆𝖺𝗌𝗌𝖺𝗌, 𝖺 𝖾𝗅𝗂𝗍𝖾 𝖾 𝖺 𝖼𝗅𝖺𝗌𝗌𝖾 𝗆𝖾́𝖽𝗂𝖺, 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗌𝖾𝗋𝗂𝖺 𝖺 𝗌𝖾𝖽𝖾 𝖽𝖺 𝗂𝖽𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗂𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾 𝗇𝖺𝖼𝗂𝗈𝗇𝖺𝗅. 𝖣𝖾𝗌𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝖺𝖽𝖺𝗌 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗌 𝖿𝗈𝗋𝗆𝖺𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝗂𝗀𝗇𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝗉𝗈𝗅𝖾𝗆𝗂𝗓𝖺𝗇𝗍𝖾, 𝗈 𝗉𝗈𝗉𝗎𝗅𝗂𝗌𝗆𝗈 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝖾𝗑𝗂𝗌𝗍𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗈 𝖼𝖺𝗍𝖾𝗀𝗈𝗋𝗂𝖺 𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗇𝗌𝗏𝖾𝗋𝗌𝖺𝗅 𝖺𝗈 𝗅𝗈𝗇𝗀𝗈 𝖽𝖺 𝗁𝗂𝗌𝗍𝗈́𝗋𝗂𝖺 𝖾 𝗈𝗌 𝗎́𝗇𝗂𝖼𝗈𝗌 𝗋𝖾𝗀𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗌 𝗉𝗈𝗉𝗎𝗅𝗂𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗌 𝗍𝗋𝗂𝗎𝗇𝖿𝖺𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗌 𝗇𝖺 𝖤𝗎𝗋𝗈𝗉𝖺, 𝗈𝗌 𝖿𝖺𝗌𝖼𝗂𝗌𝗆𝗈𝗌, 𝗆𝖾𝗌𝗆𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗌𝖾𝗃𝖺𝗆 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝖿𝖺𝗇𝗍𝖺𝗌𝗆𝖺𝗀𝗈𝗋𝗂𝖺 𝗉𝗈𝗅𝗂́𝗍𝗂𝖼𝖺 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗇𝗈𝗌 𝖺𝗆𝖾𝖺𝖼̧𝖺, 𝖾𝗑𝗂𝗌𝗍𝗂𝗋𝖺𝗆 𝖾𝗆 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝖽𝗂𝖼̧𝗈̃𝖾𝗌 𝖾𝗌𝗉𝖾𝖼𝗂́𝖿𝗂𝖼𝖺𝗌 𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗆 𝖽𝗂𝗌𝖼𝗎𝗋𝗌𝗈𝗌 𝖽𝗂𝗌𝗍𝗂𝗇𝗍𝗈𝗌 𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝗌𝖾𝗎𝗌 𝗅𝗈𝗇𝗀𝗂́𝗇𝗊𝗎𝗈𝗌 𝗁𝖾𝗋𝖽𝖾𝗂𝗋𝗈𝗌 (𝗉𝗈𝗋 𝖾𝗑𝖾𝗆𝗉𝗅𝗈, 𝖾𝗋𝖺𝗆 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗓𝖺𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗌 𝖾 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝗇𝖾𝗈𝗅𝗂𝖻𝖾𝗋𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗈 𝖺 𝖾𝗑𝗍𝗋𝖾𝗆𝖺-𝖽𝗂𝗋𝖾𝗂𝗍𝖺 𝖺𝗍𝗎𝖺𝗅). 𝖬𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝖺𝗂𝗇𝖽𝖺, 𝗌𝖾 𝖿𝗈𝗌𝗌𝖾 𝖺 𝗁𝗈𝗌𝗍𝗂𝗅𝗂𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾 𝖺̀ 𝖽𝖾𝗆𝗈𝖼𝗋𝖺𝖼𝗂𝖺 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖽𝖾𝖿𝗂𝗇𝗂𝗌𝗌𝖾 𝗈 𝗉𝗈𝗉𝗎𝗅𝗂𝗌𝗆𝗈, 𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖺̃𝗈 𝗇𝗈 𝗆𝖾𝗅𝗁𝗈𝗋 𝗉𝖺𝗇𝗈 𝖼𝖺𝗂 𝖺 𝗇𝗈́𝖽𝗈𝖺: 𝗎𝗆 𝖻𝖺𝗇𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗂𝗋𝗈 𝗏𝖾𝗍𝖾𝗋𝖺𝗇𝗈, 𝖧𝖺𝗇𝗌 𝖳𝗂𝖾𝗍𝗆𝖾𝗒𝖾𝗋, 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖽𝗂𝗋𝗂𝗀𝗂𝗎 𝗈 𝖡𝗎𝗇𝖽𝖾𝗌𝖻𝖺𝗇𝗄, 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝖾𝗌𝖼𝗈𝗇𝖽𝖾𝗎 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗉𝗋𝖾𝖿𝖾𝗋𝗂𝖺 “𝗈 𝗉𝗅𝖾𝖻𝗂𝗌𝖼𝗂𝗍𝗈 𝗉𝖾𝗋𝗆𝖺𝗇𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝗆𝖾𝗋𝖼𝖺𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝗀𝗅𝗈𝖻𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝖺𝗈 𝗉𝗅𝖾𝖻𝗂𝗌𝖼𝗂𝗍𝗈 𝖽𝖺𝗌 𝗎𝗋𝗇𝖺𝗌”. 𝖠 𝗀𝖾𝗇𝖾𝗋𝖺𝗅𝗂𝗓𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝗈 𝗍𝖾𝗋𝗆𝗈 “𝗉𝗈𝗉𝗎𝗅𝗂𝗌𝗍𝖺” 𝖾́ 𝗁𝗂𝗌𝗍𝗈𝗋𝗂𝖼𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝗏𝖺𝗓𝗂𝖺 𝖾 𝗍𝖾𝗇𝖽𝖾 𝖺 𝗌𝖾𝗋 𝗉𝗈𝗅𝗂𝗍𝗂𝖼𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝖺𝗃𝗎𝗌𝗍𝖺𝖽𝖺.
𝖠𝗌 𝗈𝗉𝗈𝗌𝗂𝖼̧𝗈̃𝖾𝗌 𝗌𝖺̃𝗈 𝗉𝗈𝗉𝗎𝗅𝗂𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗌?
𝖠𝗉𝖾𝗌𝖺𝗋 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖾𝗌 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺𝖽𝗈𝗑𝗈𝗌, 𝗍𝖾𝗋𝖺́ 𝗋𝖺𝗓𝖺̃𝗈 𝗈 𝗉𝗋𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗂𝗋𝗈-𝗆𝗂𝗇𝗂𝗌𝗍𝗋𝗈 𝖺𝗈 𝖼𝗋𝗂𝗍𝗂𝖼𝖺𝗋 𝗈𝗌 𝗌𝖾𝗎𝗌 𝖼𝗋𝗂́𝗍𝗂𝖼𝗈𝗌 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗈 “𝗉𝗈𝗉𝗎𝗅𝗂𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗌”? 𝖠̀ 𝖽𝗂𝗋𝖾𝗂𝗍𝖺, 𝗁𝖺́ 𝗉𝗈𝗉𝗎𝗅𝗂𝗌𝗆𝗈𝗌: 𝖵𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗎𝗋𝖺 𝖿𝖺𝗓-𝗌𝖾 𝖺𝖼𝗅𝖺𝗆𝖺𝗋 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗈 𝗈 𝗋𝖾𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗌𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖺𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝖽𝖾 𝖣𝖾𝗎𝗌 𝗇𝖺 𝗉𝗈𝗅𝗂́𝗍𝗂𝖼𝖺 𝖾 𝗆𝗈𝖻𝗂𝗅𝗂𝗓𝖺 𝗈 𝖺𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖾𝗅𝗁𝗈 𝖽𝖺 𝖽𝖾𝗏𝗈𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝗉𝖾𝗅𝗈 𝖼𝗁𝖾𝖿𝖾, 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝗍𝗋𝗈𝖼̧𝖺𝗋 𝖺𝗌 𝗈𝗎𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗌 𝖿𝗈𝗋𝗆𝖺𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝗋𝖾𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗌𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈. 𝖤́ 𝗈 𝗉𝗈𝗉𝗎𝗅𝗂𝗌𝗆𝗈 𝗉𝗎𝗋𝗈. 𝖬𝖺𝗌 𝗇𝖺 𝖾𝗌𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗋𝖽𝖺 𝗋𝖺𝗋𝗈𝗌 𝗌𝖾𝗋𝖺̃𝗈 𝗈𝗌 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗌𝖾 𝖺𝖿𝗂𝗋𝗆𝖺𝗆 𝗉𝗈𝗉𝗎𝗅𝗂𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗌. 𝖠 𝗋𝖺𝗓𝖺̃𝗈 𝗉𝗈𝖽𝖾𝗋𝖺́ 𝗌𝖾𝗋, 𝗌𝖾𝗀𝗎𝗇𝖽𝗈 𝖼𝗋𝖾𝗂𝗈, 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖾́ 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝗆𝗈𝖻𝗂𝗅𝗂𝗓𝖺𝖽𝗈𝗋𝖺 𝖺 𝗂𝖽𝖾𝗂𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖺 𝗉𝗈𝗅𝗂́𝗍𝗂𝖼𝖺 𝗌𝖾 𝗋𝖾𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗌𝗍𝗂𝗍𝗎𝗂𝗋𝖺́ 𝗉𝗈𝗋 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗍𝖾́𝗀𝗂𝖺 𝖽𝗂𝗌𝖼𝗎𝗋𝗌𝗂𝗏𝖺 𝗌𝖾𝗆 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗍𝖾́𝗀𝗂𝖺 𝗉𝗈𝗅𝗂́𝗍𝗂𝖼𝖺, 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗈 𝗌𝖾 𝖻𝖺𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗌𝗌𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗏𝗈𝖼𝖺𝗋 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝗅𝖺𝗍𝖾̂𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺, 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝗂𝖽𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗂𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾 𝖺̀ 𝖾𝗌𝗉𝖾𝗋𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝗌𝖾𝗋 𝗋𝖾𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗁𝖾𝖼𝗂𝖽𝖺.
𝖢𝗁𝖺𝗇𝗍𝖺𝗅 𝖬𝗈𝗎𝖿𝖿𝖾, 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝖽𝖺𝗌 𝗆𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺𝖼𝖺𝖽𝖺𝗌 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝗆𝗈𝗍𝗈𝗋𝖺𝗌 𝖽𝖺 𝗂𝖽𝖾𝗂𝖺, 𝖾𝗏𝗈𝖼𝖺 𝗈𝗎𝗍𝗋𝗈 𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝗌𝖾𝗎𝗌 𝖼𝗋𝗂𝖺𝖽𝗈𝗋𝖾𝗌 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗎𝗆𝗂𝗋 𝖺 𝗂𝖽𝖾𝗂𝖺: “𝖯𝗋𝗈𝗉𝗈𝗇𝗁𝗈 𝗌𝖾𝗀𝗎𝗂𝗋 𝖤𝗋𝗇𝖾𝗌𝗍𝗈 𝖫𝖺𝖼𝗅𝖺𝗎, 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖽𝖾𝖿𝗂𝗇𝖾 𝗈 𝗉𝗈𝗉𝗎𝗅𝗂𝗌𝗆𝗈 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗈 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝖿𝗈𝗋𝗆𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗌𝗍𝗋𝗎𝗂𝗋 𝗈 𝗉𝗈𝗅𝗂́𝗍𝗂𝖼𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗌𝗂𝗌𝗍𝖾 𝖾𝗆 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺𝖻𝖾𝗅𝖾𝖼𝖾𝗋 𝖺 𝖿𝗋𝗈𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗂𝗋𝖺 𝗉𝗈𝗅𝗂́𝗍𝗂𝖼𝖺 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖽𝗂𝗏𝗂𝖽𝖾 𝖺 𝗌𝗈𝖼𝗂𝖾𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾 𝖾𝗆 𝖽𝗈𝗂𝗌 𝖼𝖺𝗆𝗉𝗈𝗌, 𝖺𝗉𝖾𝗅𝖺𝗇𝖽𝗈 𝖺̀ 𝗆𝗈𝖻𝗂𝗅𝗂𝗓𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝗈𝗌 ‘𝖽𝖾 𝖻𝖺𝗂𝗑𝗈’ 𝖿𝗋𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝖺𝗈𝗌 ‘𝖽𝖾 𝖼𝗂𝗆𝖺’.” 𝖤́ 𝗌𝗂𝗆𝗉𝗅𝖾𝗌, 𝗌𝗈́ 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖾́ 𝗌𝗂𝗆𝗉𝗅𝖾𝗌 𝖽𝖾𝗆𝖺𝗂𝗌. 𝖭𝖾𝗇𝗁𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝗉𝗈𝗅𝗂́𝗍𝗂𝖼𝖺 𝗌𝖾 𝗉𝗈𝖽𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗌𝗍𝗋𝗎𝗂𝗋 𝗇𝖺 𝖻𝖺𝗌𝖾 𝖽𝖾 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝗂𝖽𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗂𝖿𝗂𝖼𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝗆𝖺́𝗀𝗂𝖼𝖺, 𝗆𝗎𝗂𝗍𝗈 𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗈𝗌 𝗌𝖾 𝖿𝗈𝗋 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝗆𝖾𝗌𝗌𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝗏𝖾𝗇𝖼𝖾𝗋 𝗎𝗆 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝖿𝗅𝗂𝗍𝗈 𝗌𝖾𝗆 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝖿𝗅𝗂𝗍𝗈. 𝖡𝖺𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗋𝗂𝖺 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝖼𝗈𝖻𝗋𝗂𝗋𝗆𝗈𝗌 𝗊𝗎𝖾 “𝗌𝗈𝗆𝗈𝗌 𝟫𝟫%” 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖺𝗌 𝗆𝗎𝗋𝖺𝗅𝗁𝖺𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝖩𝖾𝗋𝗂𝖼𝗈́ 𝖼𝖺𝗂𝖺𝗆? 𝖨𝗇𝖿𝖾𝗅𝗂𝗓𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾, 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝗌𝗈𝗆𝗈𝗌 𝟫𝟫% 𝗇𝖾𝗆 𝖺 𝗌𝗈𝖼𝗂𝖾𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾 𝖾́ 𝖾𝗌𝗌𝖺 𝗌𝗂𝗆𝗉𝗅𝖾𝗌 𝖽𝗂𝖼𝗈𝗍𝗈𝗆𝗂𝖺 𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗋𝖾 𝖼𝗂𝗆𝖺 𝖾 𝖻𝖺𝗂𝗑𝗈, 𝖺 𝗁𝖾𝗀𝖾𝗆𝗈𝗇𝗂𝖺 𝖾́ 𝗆𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗉𝗅𝖾𝗑𝖺.
𝖠𝗌𝗌𝗂𝗆 𝗌𝖾𝗇𝖽𝗈, 𝗈 𝗉𝗋𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗂𝗋𝗈-𝗆𝗂𝗇𝗂𝗌𝗍𝗋𝗈 𝖿𝖺𝗅𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝗊𝗎𝖺𝗌𝖾 𝗇𝗂𝗇𝗀𝗎𝖾́𝗆 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝖺𝖼𝗎𝗌𝖺𝗋 𝗍𝗈𝖽𝖺 𝖺 𝗀𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾. 𝖤, 𝖺𝗈 𝗆𝖾𝗌𝗆𝗈 𝗍𝖾𝗆𝗉𝗈, 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺𝖽𝗈𝗑𝗈 𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝗍𝖾𝗆𝗉𝗈𝗌, 𝖾́ 𝗈 𝖯𝖲 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗁𝗈𝗃𝖾 𝗆𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝗌𝖾 𝖾𝗆𝗉𝖾𝗇𝗁𝖺 𝖾𝗆 𝖻𝗅𝗈𝗊𝗎𝖾𝖺𝗋 𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗂𝗌𝗌𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝗂𝗇𝗊𝗎𝖾́𝗋𝗂𝗍𝗈. 𝖭𝖺̃𝗈 𝗌𝖾𝗋𝖺́ 𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖺̃𝗈 𝖾𝗌𝗌𝖺 𝖽𝖾𝗀𝗋𝖺𝖽𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝖿𝗈𝗋𝗆𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝗉𝗈𝗉𝗎𝗅𝗂𝗌𝗆𝗈?
𝖠 𝗓𝗈𝗈𝗅𝗈𝗀𝗂𝖺 𝗉𝗈𝗉𝗎𝗅𝗂𝗌𝗍𝖺
𝖲𝖾 𝗈 𝗉𝗈𝗉𝗎𝗅𝗂𝗌𝗆𝗈 𝖾́ 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝗂𝗆𝖺𝗀𝖾𝗆, 𝗆𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝖽𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗎𝗆 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝖼𝖾𝗂𝗍𝗈, 𝗈 𝖺𝗍𝖺𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖺𝗈 𝗉𝗈𝗉𝗎𝗅𝗂𝗌𝗆𝗈 𝖾́ 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝗌𝗂́𝗇𝖽𝗋𝗈𝗆𝖾 𝖾 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝖽𝗈𝗎𝗍𝗋𝗂𝗇𝖺. 𝖣𝖾 𝖿𝖺𝖼𝗍𝗈, 𝗈 𝗍𝖾𝗋𝗆𝗈 𝗍𝖾𝗆 𝗌𝗂𝖽𝗈 𝗎𝗌𝖺𝖽𝗈 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝖼𝗅𝖺𝗌𝗌𝗂𝖿𝗂𝖼𝖺𝗋 𝗆𝗈𝗏𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈𝗌 𝗁𝗂𝗌𝗍𝗈𝗋𝗂𝖼𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝖽𝗂𝗏𝖾𝗋𝗀𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗌, 𝗆𝖺𝗌 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗌𝖾𝗋𝗂𝖺𝗆 𝖺𝗇𝗂𝗆𝖺𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝗉𝗈𝗋 𝗎𝗆 𝗁𝗎𝗆𝗈𝗋 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗎𝗆, 𝖺 𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗍𝗎𝖽𝖾 𝗅𝗂𝗍𝗂𝗀𝖺𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝖾 𝗆𝖾𝗌𝗌𝗂𝖺̂𝗇𝗂𝖼𝖺: 𝗆𝖺𝗅𝗀𝗋𝖺𝖽𝗈 𝖺𝗌 𝗌𝗎𝖺𝗌 𝖽𝗂𝖿𝖾𝗋𝖾𝗇𝖼̧𝖺𝗌, 𝗌𝖾𝗋𝗂𝖺𝗆 𝗉𝗈𝗉𝗎𝗅𝗂𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗌 𝗈 𝗉𝖾𝗋𝗈𝗇𝗂𝗌𝗆𝗈 𝖾 𝗈 𝖼𝖺𝗌𝗍𝗋𝗂𝗌𝗆𝗈, 𝗇𝗈 𝗌𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗂𝖽𝗈 𝖾𝗆 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖺𝗆𝖻𝗈𝗌 𝗎𝗌𝖺𝗋𝗂𝖺𝗆 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝗋𝖾𝗅𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝗂𝗋𝖾𝗍𝖺 𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗋𝖾 𝗈 𝗅𝗂́𝖽𝖾𝗋 𝖾 𝗈 𝗉𝗈𝗏𝗈, 𝗆𝖺𝗌 𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝖿𝗎𝗌𝖺̃𝗈 𝖺𝗀𝗋𝖺𝗏𝖺-𝗌𝖾, 𝗉𝗈𝗂𝗌 𝗌𝖾 𝗈 𝗆𝖾𝗌𝗆𝗈 𝗍𝖾𝗋𝗆𝗈 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝗂𝗀𝗇𝖺 𝖫𝖾 𝖯𝖾𝗇 𝖾 𝖦𝖺𝗇𝖽𝗁𝗂, 𝖭𝖺𝗌𝗌𝖾𝗋 𝖾 𝖲𝖺𝗆𝗈𝗋𝖺, 𝖠𝗍𝖺𝗍𝗎̈𝗋𝗄 𝖾 𝖡𝖾𝗋𝗅𝗎𝗌𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗂, 𝖢𝗁𝖺́𝗏𝖾𝗓 𝖾 𝖡𝗈𝗅𝗂́𝗏𝖺𝗋, 𝖯𝖾𝗉𝖾 𝖬𝗎𝗃𝗂𝖼𝖺 𝖾 𝖮𝗋𝖻𝖺́𝗇, 𝖳𝗋𝗎𝗆𝗉 𝖾 𝖲𝖺𝗇𝖽𝖾𝗋𝗌, 𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖺̃𝗈 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝗌𝖾𝗋𝗏𝖾 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝗇𝖺𝖽𝖺. 𝖭𝗈 𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖺𝗇𝗍𝗈, 𝗍𝖾𝗆 𝗌𝗂𝖽𝗈 𝖺𝗉𝗅𝗂𝖼𝖺𝖽𝗈 𝖺𝗈 𝖯𝖱𝖨 𝗆𝖾𝗑𝗂𝖼𝖺𝗇𝗈 𝖾 𝖺𝗈 𝖡𝖺’𝗁𝖺𝗍 𝗇𝗈 𝖬𝖾́𝖽𝗂𝗈 𝖮𝗋𝗂𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾, 𝖺𝗈 𝖢𝗂𝗇𝖼𝗈 𝖤𝗌𝗍𝗋𝖾𝗅𝖺𝗌 𝖾 𝖺𝗈 𝖲𝗂𝗇𝗇 𝖥𝖾́𝗂𝗇, 𝖺𝗈 𝖮𝖼𝖼𝗎𝗉𝗒 𝖶𝖺𝗅𝗅 𝖲𝗍𝗋𝖾𝖾𝗍 𝗈𝗎 𝗈 𝖳𝖾𝖺 𝖯𝖺𝗋𝗍𝗒. 𝖭𝖾𝗇𝗁𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗌 𝗅𝗂𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗀𝖾𝗇𝗌 𝗍𝖾𝗆 𝖼𝗈𝖾𝗋𝖾̂𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺. 𝖭𝗎𝗇𝗌 𝖼𝖺𝗌𝗈𝗌 𝗌𝖺̃𝗈 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝗍𝗂𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝖻𝖺𝗌𝖾 𝗉𝗈𝗉𝗎𝗅𝖺𝗋, 𝗆𝗈𝖻𝗂𝗅𝗂𝗓𝖺𝖽𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝗋𝖺 𝖺𝗌 𝖾𝗅𝗂𝗍𝖾𝗌, 𝗇𝗈𝗎𝗍𝗋𝗈𝗌 𝗌𝖺̃𝗈 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝗍𝗂𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝗂𝗇𝖼𝗋𝗎𝗌𝗍𝖺𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝗇𝗈 𝖺𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖾𝗅𝗁𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝖤𝗌𝗍𝖺𝖽𝗈; 𝗇𝗎𝗇𝗌 𝖼𝖺𝗌𝗈𝗌 𝗌𝖺̃𝗈 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝗍𝖾𝗌𝗍𝗈𝗌 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝗋𝖺 𝖺 𝗈𝗋𝖽𝖾𝗆 𝗌𝗈𝖼𝗂𝖺𝗅, 𝗇𝗈𝗎𝗍𝗋𝗈𝗌 𝖻𝗎𝗌𝖼𝖺𝗆 𝗈 𝗋𝖾𝗀𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗌𝗈 𝖺𝗈 𝗉𝖺𝗌𝗌𝖺𝖽𝗈; 𝗇𝗎𝗇𝗌 𝖼𝖺𝗌𝗈𝗌 𝖽𝗂𝗌𝗉𝗎𝗍𝖺𝗆 𝖺 𝗋𝖾𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗌𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖾𝗅𝖾𝗂𝗍𝗈𝗋𝖺𝗅, 𝗇𝗈𝗎𝗍𝗋𝗈𝗌 𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗋𝖾𝗆 𝖽𝗂𝗌𝗉𝖾𝗇𝗌𝖺𝗋 𝖺𝗌 𝗎𝗋𝗇𝖺𝗌.
𝗈𝗋 𝗈𝗎𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗌 𝗉𝖺𝗅𝖺𝗏𝗋𝖺𝗌, 𝖺 𝗆𝖾𝖽𝗂𝗋 𝗉𝖾𝗅𝗈 𝗌𝖾𝗎 𝖼𝖺𝗍𝖺́𝗅𝗈𝗀𝗈, 𝗈 𝗉𝗈𝗉𝗎𝗅𝗂𝗌𝗆𝗈 𝖾́ 𝗎𝗆 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝖼𝖾𝗂𝗍𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝗌𝗂𝗀𝗇𝗂𝖿𝗂𝖼𝖺𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝗆𝗎́𝗅𝗍𝗂𝗉𝗅𝗈𝗌 𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝗋𝖺𝖽𝗂𝗍𝗈́𝗋𝗂𝗈𝗌 𝖾 𝖺 𝗌𝗎𝖺 𝗎́𝗇𝗂𝖼𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗌𝗂𝗌𝗍𝖾̂𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺 𝖾́ 𝖺 𝖿𝗈𝗋𝗆𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝖺𝗍𝗋𝗂𝖻𝗎𝗂𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈: 𝖾́ 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝗂𝗀𝗇𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖺𝖽𝗏𝖾𝗋𝗌𝖺𝗋𝗂𝖺𝗅 𝗊𝗎𝖾, 𝗉𝗈𝗋𝗍𝖺𝗇𝗍𝗈, 𝖾𝗌𝖼𝗅𝖺𝗋𝖾𝖼𝖾 𝗆𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝗌𝗈𝖻𝗋𝖾 𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗆 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝗂𝗀𝗇𝖺 𝖽𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗌𝗈𝖻𝗋𝖾 𝗈 𝗌𝖾𝗎 𝗈𝖻𝗃𝖾𝗍𝗈. 𝖭𝗈 𝗆𝗎𝗇𝖽𝗈 𝖽𝗈 𝗎𝗌𝗈 𝗂𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗇𝗌𝗂𝗏𝗈 𝖽𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗎𝗇𝗂𝖼𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈, 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺 𝖺𝖼𝗎𝗌𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖾́ 𝗎𝗌𝖺𝖽𝖺 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝗉𝗋𝖾𝖾𝗇𝖼𝗁𝖾𝗋 𝗈 𝗏𝖺́𝖼𝗎𝗈 𝖽𝖺 𝗉𝗈𝗅𝗂́𝗍𝗂𝖼𝖺. 𝖠𝗌𝗌𝗂𝗆, 𝖾́ 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗍𝖾́𝗀𝗂𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝗇𝖾𝗏𝗈𝖾𝗂𝗋𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗌𝗈𝖿𝗋𝖾 𝖽𝖾 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝖽𝗎𝗉𝗅𝖺 𝖺𝗆𝖻𝗂𝗀𝗎𝗂𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾. 𝖠 𝗉𝗋𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗂𝗋𝖺 𝖾́ 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗈𝗌 𝖽𝗂𝗌𝖼𝗎𝗋𝗌𝗈𝗌 𝗉𝗈𝗉𝗎𝗅𝗂𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗌, 𝗈𝗎 𝗈𝗌 𝖺𝗇𝗍𝗂𝗉𝗈𝗉𝗎𝗅𝗂𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗌, 𝗇𝖾𝗆 𝗌𝖾𝗆𝗉𝗋𝖾 𝗌𝖾 𝗋𝖾𝖿𝖾𝗋𝖾𝗆 𝖺𝗈 𝗆𝖾𝗌𝗆𝗈 𝗉𝗈𝗏𝗈. 𝖠 𝗌𝖾𝗀𝗎𝗇𝖽𝖺 𝖺𝗆𝖻𝗂𝗀𝗎𝗂𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾 𝖾́ 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗈𝗌 𝖽𝗂𝗌𝖼𝗎𝗋𝗌𝗈𝗌 𝗉𝗈𝗉𝗎𝗅𝗂𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗌 𝖺̀ 𝖾𝗌𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗋𝖽𝖺, 𝗌𝖾 𝗈 𝗍𝖾𝗋𝗆𝗈 𝖿𝗈𝗋 𝗎𝗍𝗂𝗅𝗂𝗓𝖺́𝗏𝖾𝗅, 𝗌𝖾 𝗋𝖾𝖿𝖾𝗋𝖾𝗆 𝖺̀ 𝖺𝗇𝗍𝗂𝗇𝗈𝗆𝗂𝖺 𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗋𝖾 𝖺𝗌 𝗆𝖺𝗌𝗌𝖺𝗌 𝖾 𝖺 𝗈𝗅𝗂𝗀𝖺𝗋𝗊𝗎𝗂𝖺, 𝖺𝗈 𝗉𝖺𝗌𝗌𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗈𝗌 𝗉𝗈𝗉𝗎𝗅𝗂𝗌𝗆𝗈𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝖽𝗂𝗋𝖾𝗂𝗍𝖺 𝗌𝖾 𝗋𝖾𝖿𝖾𝗋𝖾𝗆 𝖺 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗍𝖾𝗇𝗌𝖺 𝗍𝗋𝗂́𝖺𝖽𝖾 𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗋𝖾 𝖺𝗌 𝗆𝖺𝗌𝗌𝖺𝗌, 𝖺 𝖾𝗅𝗂𝗍𝖾 𝖾 𝖺 𝖼𝗅𝖺𝗌𝗌𝖾 𝗆𝖾́𝖽𝗂𝖺, 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗌𝖾𝗋𝗂𝖺 𝖺 𝗌𝖾𝖽𝖾 𝖽𝖺 𝗂𝖽𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗂𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾 𝗇𝖺𝖼𝗂𝗈𝗇𝖺𝗅. 𝖣𝖾𝗌𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝖺𝖽𝖺𝗌 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗌 𝖿𝗈𝗋𝗆𝖺𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝗂𝗀𝗇𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝗉𝗈𝗅𝖾𝗆𝗂𝗓𝖺𝗇𝗍𝖾, 𝗈 𝗉𝗈𝗉𝗎𝗅𝗂𝗌𝗆𝗈 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝖾𝗑𝗂𝗌𝗍𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗈 𝖼𝖺𝗍𝖾𝗀𝗈𝗋𝗂𝖺 𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗇𝗌𝗏𝖾𝗋𝗌𝖺𝗅 𝖺𝗈 𝗅𝗈𝗇𝗀𝗈 𝖽𝖺 𝗁𝗂𝗌𝗍𝗈́𝗋𝗂𝖺 𝖾 𝗈𝗌 𝗎́𝗇𝗂𝖼𝗈𝗌 𝗋𝖾𝗀𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗌 𝗉𝗈𝗉𝗎𝗅𝗂𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗌 𝗍𝗋𝗂𝗎𝗇𝖿𝖺𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗌 𝗇𝖺 𝖤𝗎𝗋𝗈𝗉𝖺, 𝗈𝗌 𝖿𝖺𝗌𝖼𝗂𝗌𝗆𝗈𝗌, 𝗆𝖾𝗌𝗆𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗌𝖾𝗃𝖺𝗆 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝖿𝖺𝗇𝗍𝖺𝗌𝗆𝖺𝗀𝗈𝗋𝗂𝖺 𝗉𝗈𝗅𝗂́𝗍𝗂𝖼𝖺 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗇𝗈𝗌 𝖺𝗆𝖾𝖺𝖼̧𝖺, 𝖾𝗑𝗂𝗌𝗍𝗂𝗋𝖺𝗆 𝖾𝗆 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝖽𝗂𝖼̧𝗈̃𝖾𝗌 𝖾𝗌𝗉𝖾𝖼𝗂́𝖿𝗂𝖼𝖺𝗌 𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗆 𝖽𝗂𝗌𝖼𝗎𝗋𝗌𝗈𝗌 𝖽𝗂𝗌𝗍𝗂𝗇𝗍𝗈𝗌 𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝗌𝖾𝗎𝗌 𝗅𝗈𝗇𝗀𝗂́𝗇𝗊𝗎𝗈𝗌 𝗁𝖾𝗋𝖽𝖾𝗂𝗋𝗈𝗌 (𝗉𝗈𝗋 𝖾𝗑𝖾𝗆𝗉𝗅𝗈, 𝖾𝗋𝖺𝗆 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗓𝖺𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗌 𝖾 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝗇𝖾𝗈𝗅𝗂𝖻𝖾𝗋𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗈 𝖺 𝖾𝗑𝗍𝗋𝖾𝗆𝖺-𝖽𝗂𝗋𝖾𝗂𝗍𝖺 𝖺𝗍𝗎𝖺𝗅). 𝖬𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝖺𝗂𝗇𝖽𝖺, 𝗌𝖾 𝖿𝗈𝗌𝗌𝖾 𝖺 𝗁𝗈𝗌𝗍𝗂𝗅𝗂𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾 𝖺̀ 𝖽𝖾𝗆𝗈𝖼𝗋𝖺𝖼𝗂𝖺 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖽𝖾𝖿𝗂𝗇𝗂𝗌𝗌𝖾 𝗈 𝗉𝗈𝗉𝗎𝗅𝗂𝗌𝗆𝗈, 𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖺̃𝗈 𝗇𝗈 𝗆𝖾𝗅𝗁𝗈𝗋 𝗉𝖺𝗇𝗈 𝖼𝖺𝗂 𝖺 𝗇𝗈́𝖽𝗈𝖺: 𝗎𝗆 𝖻𝖺𝗇𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗂𝗋𝗈 𝗏𝖾𝗍𝖾𝗋𝖺𝗇𝗈, 𝖧𝖺𝗇𝗌 𝖳𝗂𝖾𝗍𝗆𝖾𝗒𝖾𝗋, 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖽𝗂𝗋𝗂𝗀𝗂𝗎 𝗈 𝖡𝗎𝗇𝖽𝖾𝗌𝖻𝖺𝗇𝗄, 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝖾𝗌𝖼𝗈𝗇𝖽𝖾𝗎 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗉𝗋𝖾𝖿𝖾𝗋𝗂𝖺 “𝗈 𝗉𝗅𝖾𝖻𝗂𝗌𝖼𝗂𝗍𝗈 𝗉𝖾𝗋𝗆𝖺𝗇𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝗆𝖾𝗋𝖼𝖺𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝗀𝗅𝗈𝖻𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝖺𝗈 𝗉𝗅𝖾𝖻𝗂𝗌𝖼𝗂𝗍𝗈 𝖽𝖺𝗌 𝗎𝗋𝗇𝖺𝗌”. 𝖠 𝗀𝖾𝗇𝖾𝗋𝖺𝗅𝗂𝗓𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝗈 𝗍𝖾𝗋𝗆𝗈 “𝗉𝗈𝗉𝗎𝗅𝗂𝗌𝗍𝖺” 𝖾́ 𝗁𝗂𝗌𝗍𝗈𝗋𝗂𝖼𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝗏𝖺𝗓𝗂𝖺 𝖾 𝗍𝖾𝗇𝖽𝖾 𝖺 𝗌𝖾𝗋 𝗉𝗈𝗅𝗂𝗍𝗂𝖼𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝖺𝗃𝗎𝗌𝗍𝖺𝖽𝖺.
𝖠𝗌 𝗈𝗉𝗈𝗌𝗂𝖼̧𝗈̃𝖾𝗌 𝗌𝖺̃𝗈 𝗉𝗈𝗉𝗎𝗅𝗂𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗌?
𝖠𝗉𝖾𝗌𝖺𝗋 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖾𝗌 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺𝖽𝗈𝗑𝗈𝗌, 𝗍𝖾𝗋𝖺́ 𝗋𝖺𝗓𝖺̃𝗈 𝗈 𝗉𝗋𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗂𝗋𝗈-𝗆𝗂𝗇𝗂𝗌𝗍𝗋𝗈 𝖺𝗈 𝖼𝗋𝗂𝗍𝗂𝖼𝖺𝗋 𝗈𝗌 𝗌𝖾𝗎𝗌 𝖼𝗋𝗂́𝗍𝗂𝖼𝗈𝗌 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗈 “𝗉𝗈𝗉𝗎𝗅𝗂𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗌”? 𝖠̀ 𝖽𝗂𝗋𝖾𝗂𝗍𝖺, 𝗁𝖺́ 𝗉𝗈𝗉𝗎𝗅𝗂𝗌𝗆𝗈𝗌: 𝖵𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗎𝗋𝖺 𝖿𝖺𝗓-𝗌𝖾 𝖺𝖼𝗅𝖺𝗆𝖺𝗋 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗈 𝗈 𝗋𝖾𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗌𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖺𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝖽𝖾 𝖣𝖾𝗎𝗌 𝗇𝖺 𝗉𝗈𝗅𝗂́𝗍𝗂𝖼𝖺 𝖾 𝗆𝗈𝖻𝗂𝗅𝗂𝗓𝖺 𝗈 𝖺𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖾𝗅𝗁𝗈 𝖽𝖺 𝖽𝖾𝗏𝗈𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝗉𝖾𝗅𝗈 𝖼𝗁𝖾𝖿𝖾, 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝗍𝗋𝗈𝖼̧𝖺𝗋 𝖺𝗌 𝗈𝗎𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗌 𝖿𝗈𝗋𝗆𝖺𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝗋𝖾𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗌𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈. 𝖤́ 𝗈 𝗉𝗈𝗉𝗎𝗅𝗂𝗌𝗆𝗈 𝗉𝗎𝗋𝗈. 𝖬𝖺𝗌 𝗇𝖺 𝖾𝗌𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗋𝖽𝖺 𝗋𝖺𝗋𝗈𝗌 𝗌𝖾𝗋𝖺̃𝗈 𝗈𝗌 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗌𝖾 𝖺𝖿𝗂𝗋𝗆𝖺𝗆 𝗉𝗈𝗉𝗎𝗅𝗂𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗌. 𝖠 𝗋𝖺𝗓𝖺̃𝗈 𝗉𝗈𝖽𝖾𝗋𝖺́ 𝗌𝖾𝗋, 𝗌𝖾𝗀𝗎𝗇𝖽𝗈 𝖼𝗋𝖾𝗂𝗈, 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖾́ 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝗆𝗈𝖻𝗂𝗅𝗂𝗓𝖺𝖽𝗈𝗋𝖺 𝖺 𝗂𝖽𝖾𝗂𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖺 𝗉𝗈𝗅𝗂́𝗍𝗂𝖼𝖺 𝗌𝖾 𝗋𝖾𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗌𝗍𝗂𝗍𝗎𝗂𝗋𝖺́ 𝗉𝗈𝗋 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗍𝖾́𝗀𝗂𝖺 𝖽𝗂𝗌𝖼𝗎𝗋𝗌𝗂𝗏𝖺 𝗌𝖾𝗆 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗍𝖾́𝗀𝗂𝖺 𝗉𝗈𝗅𝗂́𝗍𝗂𝖼𝖺, 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗈 𝗌𝖾 𝖻𝖺𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗌𝗌𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗏𝗈𝖼𝖺𝗋 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝗅𝖺𝗍𝖾̂𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺, 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝗂𝖽𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗂𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾 𝖺̀ 𝖾𝗌𝗉𝖾𝗋𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝗌𝖾𝗋 𝗋𝖾𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗁𝖾𝖼𝗂𝖽𝖺.
𝖢𝗁𝖺𝗇𝗍𝖺𝗅 𝖬𝗈𝗎𝖿𝖿𝖾, 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝖽𝖺𝗌 𝗆𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺𝖼𝖺𝖽𝖺𝗌 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝗆𝗈𝗍𝗈𝗋𝖺𝗌 𝖽𝖺 𝗂𝖽𝖾𝗂𝖺, 𝖾𝗏𝗈𝖼𝖺 𝗈𝗎𝗍𝗋𝗈 𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝗌𝖾𝗎𝗌 𝖼𝗋𝗂𝖺𝖽𝗈𝗋𝖾𝗌 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗎𝗆𝗂𝗋 𝖺 𝗂𝖽𝖾𝗂𝖺: “𝖯𝗋𝗈𝗉𝗈𝗇𝗁𝗈 𝗌𝖾𝗀𝗎𝗂𝗋 𝖤𝗋𝗇𝖾𝗌𝗍𝗈 𝖫𝖺𝖼𝗅𝖺𝗎, 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖽𝖾𝖿𝗂𝗇𝖾 𝗈 𝗉𝗈𝗉𝗎𝗅𝗂𝗌𝗆𝗈 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗈 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝖿𝗈𝗋𝗆𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗌𝗍𝗋𝗎𝗂𝗋 𝗈 𝗉𝗈𝗅𝗂́𝗍𝗂𝖼𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗌𝗂𝗌𝗍𝖾 𝖾𝗆 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺𝖻𝖾𝗅𝖾𝖼𝖾𝗋 𝖺 𝖿𝗋𝗈𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗂𝗋𝖺 𝗉𝗈𝗅𝗂́𝗍𝗂𝖼𝖺 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖽𝗂𝗏𝗂𝖽𝖾 𝖺 𝗌𝗈𝖼𝗂𝖾𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾 𝖾𝗆 𝖽𝗈𝗂𝗌 𝖼𝖺𝗆𝗉𝗈𝗌, 𝖺𝗉𝖾𝗅𝖺𝗇𝖽𝗈 𝖺̀ 𝗆𝗈𝖻𝗂𝗅𝗂𝗓𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝗈𝗌 ‘𝖽𝖾 𝖻𝖺𝗂𝗑𝗈’ 𝖿𝗋𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝖺𝗈𝗌 ‘𝖽𝖾 𝖼𝗂𝗆𝖺’.” 𝖤́ 𝗌𝗂𝗆𝗉𝗅𝖾𝗌, 𝗌𝗈́ 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖾́ 𝗌𝗂𝗆𝗉𝗅𝖾𝗌 𝖽𝖾𝗆𝖺𝗂𝗌. 𝖭𝖾𝗇𝗁𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝗉𝗈𝗅𝗂́𝗍𝗂𝖼𝖺 𝗌𝖾 𝗉𝗈𝖽𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗌𝗍𝗋𝗎𝗂𝗋 𝗇𝖺 𝖻𝖺𝗌𝖾 𝖽𝖾 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝗂𝖽𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗂𝖿𝗂𝖼𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝗆𝖺́𝗀𝗂𝖼𝖺, 𝗆𝗎𝗂𝗍𝗈 𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗈𝗌 𝗌𝖾 𝖿𝗈𝗋 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝗆𝖾𝗌𝗌𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝗏𝖾𝗇𝖼𝖾𝗋 𝗎𝗆 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝖿𝗅𝗂𝗍𝗈 𝗌𝖾𝗆 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝖿𝗅𝗂𝗍𝗈. 𝖡𝖺𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗋𝗂𝖺 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝖼𝗈𝖻𝗋𝗂𝗋𝗆𝗈𝗌 𝗊𝗎𝖾 “𝗌𝗈𝗆𝗈𝗌 𝟫𝟫%” 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖺𝗌 𝗆𝗎𝗋𝖺𝗅𝗁𝖺𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝖩𝖾𝗋𝗂𝖼𝗈́ 𝖼𝖺𝗂𝖺𝗆? 𝖨𝗇𝖿𝖾𝗅𝗂𝗓𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾, 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝗌𝗈𝗆𝗈𝗌 𝟫𝟫% 𝗇𝖾𝗆 𝖺 𝗌𝗈𝖼𝗂𝖾𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾 𝖾́ 𝖾𝗌𝗌𝖺 𝗌𝗂𝗆𝗉𝗅𝖾𝗌 𝖽𝗂𝖼𝗈𝗍𝗈𝗆𝗂𝖺 𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗋𝖾 𝖼𝗂𝗆𝖺 𝖾 𝖻𝖺𝗂𝗑𝗈, 𝖺 𝗁𝖾𝗀𝖾𝗆𝗈𝗇𝗂𝖺 𝖾́ 𝗆𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗉𝗅𝖾𝗑𝖺.
𝖠𝗌𝗌𝗂𝗆 𝗌𝖾𝗇𝖽𝗈, 𝗈 𝗉𝗋𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗂𝗋𝗈-𝗆𝗂𝗇𝗂𝗌𝗍𝗋𝗈 𝖿𝖺𝗅𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝗊𝗎𝖺𝗌𝖾 𝗇𝗂𝗇𝗀𝗎𝖾́𝗆 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝖺𝖼𝗎𝗌𝖺𝗋 𝗍𝗈𝖽𝖺 𝖺 𝗀𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾. 𝖤, 𝖺𝗈 𝗆𝖾𝗌𝗆𝗈 𝗍𝖾𝗆𝗉𝗈, 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺𝖽𝗈𝗑𝗈 𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝗍𝖾𝗆𝗉𝗈𝗌, 𝖾́ 𝗈 𝖯𝖲 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗁𝗈𝗃𝖾 𝗆𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝗌𝖾 𝖾𝗆𝗉𝖾𝗇𝗁𝖺 𝖾𝗆 𝖻𝗅𝗈𝗊𝗎𝖾𝖺𝗋 𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗂𝗌𝗌𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝗂𝗇𝗊𝗎𝖾́𝗋𝗂𝗍𝗈. 𝖭𝖺̃𝗈 𝗌𝖾𝗋𝖺́ 𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖺̃𝗈 𝖾𝗌𝗌𝖺 𝖽𝖾𝗀𝗋𝖺𝖽𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝖿𝗈𝗋𝗆𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝗉𝗈𝗉𝗎𝗅𝗂𝗌𝗆𝗈?
* Professor universitário. Ativista do Bloco de Esquerda
IN "EXPRESSO" - 09/06/23 .
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário