INÊS MELO SAMPAIO

 .

O QUE CUSTA SERMOS LÚCIDOS?

Não é complicado:

    não é não e a violação

    deve ser um crime público

É esta contínua inação, esta tolerância obscena para com a cultura da violação que verdadeiramente revitimiza as e os sobreviventes de crimes sexuais. Imagine-se o que sentirão as pessoas que vivem com este trauma ao ver que, continuamente, as deixamos sozinhas a lidar com ele? (E depressinha, que seis meses passam a voar!) Que preferimos perpetuar a cultura da vergonha e do silêncio? Que achamos que o que lhes aconteceu é um problema exclusivamente delas e não nosso também? É absolutamente insuportável que Portugal ainda seja este país em pleno século XXI! A Convenção de Istambul, mas sobretudo as e os sobreviventes, exigem mais. As mulheres do nosso país merecem mais.

𝖢𝗈𝗇𝗏𝖾𝗇𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝖨𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗆𝖻𝗎𝗅 𝖾́ 𝗈 𝗇𝗈𝗆𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗎𝗆𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝖺𝗍𝗋𝗂𝖻𝗎𝗂́𝖽𝗈 𝖺̀ 𝖢𝗈𝗇𝗏𝖾𝗇𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝗈 𝖢𝗈𝗇𝗌𝖾𝗅𝗁𝗈 𝖽𝖺 𝖤𝗎𝗋𝗈𝗉𝖺 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝖺 𝖯𝗋𝖾𝗏𝖾𝗇𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖾 𝗈 𝖢𝗈𝗆𝖻𝖺𝗍𝖾 𝖺̀ 𝖵𝗂𝗈𝗅𝖾̂𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝗋𝖺 𝖺𝗌 𝖬𝗎𝗅𝗁𝖾𝗋𝖾𝗌 𝖾 𝖺 𝖵𝗂𝗈𝗅𝖾̂𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺 𝖣𝗈𝗆𝖾́𝗌𝗍𝗂𝖼𝖺, 𝗉𝗈𝗋 𝗍𝖾𝗋 𝗌𝗂𝖽𝗈 𝗇𝖾𝗀𝗈𝖼𝗂𝖺𝖽𝖺 𝖾 𝖺𝗌𝗌𝗂𝗇𝖺𝖽𝖺 𝗇𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺 𝖼𝗂𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾. 𝖯𝗈𝗋𝗍𝗎𝗀𝖺𝗅 𝗋𝖺𝗍𝗂𝖿𝗂𝖼𝗈𝗎-𝖺 𝖾𝗆 𝟤𝟢𝟣𝟥 𝖾 𝖾𝗅𝖺 𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗋𝗈𝗎 𝖾𝗆 𝗏𝗂𝗀𝗈𝗋 𝖾𝗆 𝟤𝟢𝟣𝟦.

𝖬𝖺𝗌 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝗌𝖾 𝗃𝗎𝗅𝗀𝗎𝖾 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗈 𝖿𝖺𝖼𝗍𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝗍𝖾𝗋𝗆𝗈𝗌 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺𝖽𝗈 𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗋𝖾 𝗈𝗌 𝗉𝗋𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗂𝗋𝗈𝗌 𝖤𝗌𝗍𝖺𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝖺 𝖺𝖽𝖾𝗋𝗂𝗋 𝖺 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖾 𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗍𝖺𝖽𝗈 𝗂𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗋𝗇𝖺𝖼𝗂𝗈𝗇𝖺𝗅 𝗌𝗂𝗀𝗇𝗂𝖿𝗂𝖼𝖺 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖺 𝗇𝗈𝗌𝗌𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝖽𝗎𝗍𝖺 𝖾𝗆 𝗆𝖺𝗍𝖾́𝗋𝗂𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗏𝖾𝗇𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝖻𝖺𝗍𝖾 𝖺̀ 𝗏𝗂𝗈𝗅𝖾̂𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝗋𝖺 𝖺𝗌 𝗆𝗎𝗅𝗁𝖾𝗋𝖾𝗌, 𝗇𝖺𝗌 𝗌𝗎𝖺𝗌 𝗆𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝗏𝖺𝗋𝗂𝖺𝖽𝖺𝗌 𝖿𝗈𝗋𝗆𝖺𝗌, 𝗌𝖾𝗃𝖺 𝖾𝗑𝖾𝗆𝗉𝗅𝖺𝗋, 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗇𝖽𝗈 𝖺𝗅𝗂𝖺́𝗌 𝖻𝖾𝗆 𝗅𝗈𝗇𝗀𝖾 𝖽𝗂𝗌𝗌𝗈. 𝖡𝖺𝗌𝗍𝖺 𝗅𝖾𝗆𝖻𝗋𝖺𝗋 𝗊𝗎𝖾, 𝗌𝗈́ 𝖾𝗆 𝟤𝟢𝟤𝟤, 𝗆𝗈𝗋𝗋𝖾𝗋𝖺𝗆 𝖾𝗆 𝖯𝗈𝗋𝗍𝗎𝗀𝖺𝗅, 𝖾𝗆 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗑𝗍𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝗏𝗂𝗈𝗅𝖾̂𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺 𝖽𝗈𝗆𝖾́𝗌𝗍𝗂𝖼𝖺, 𝟤𝟦 𝗆𝗎𝗅𝗁𝖾𝗋𝖾𝗌 𝖾 𝖽𝗎𝖺𝗌 𝖼𝗋𝗂𝖺𝗇𝖼̧𝖺𝗌.

𝖬𝖺𝗌 𝗈 𝗍𝖾𝗆𝖺 𝗌𝗈𝖻𝗋𝖾 𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖺𝗅 𝗁𝗈𝗃𝖾 𝗆𝖾 𝖽𝖾𝖻𝗋𝗎𝖼̧𝗈 𝗇𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖾 𝖣𝗂𝖺 𝖨𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗋𝗇𝖺𝖼𝗂𝗈𝗇𝖺𝗅 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝖺 𝖤𝗅𝗂𝗆𝗂𝗇𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖺 𝖵𝗂𝗈𝗅𝖾̂𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝗋𝖺 𝖺𝗌 𝖬𝗎𝗅𝗁𝖾𝗋𝖾𝗌 𝖾́ 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝗈𝗎𝗍𝗋𝖺 𝖿𝗈𝗋𝗆𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝗏𝗂𝗈𝗅𝖾̂𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺 𝗌𝖾𝗑𝗂𝗌𝗍𝖺 𝖾 𝗉𝖺𝗍𝗋𝗂𝖺𝗋𝖼𝖺𝗅: 𝖺 𝗏𝗂𝗈𝗅𝖾̂𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺 𝗌𝖾𝗑𝗎𝖺𝗅. 𝖢𝗈𝗆 𝖾𝗑𝖼𝖾𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝗈 𝗁𝗈𝗆𝗂𝖼𝗂́𝖽𝗂𝗈, 𝖺 𝗏𝗂𝗈𝗅𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖾́ 𝗍𝖺𝗅𝗏𝖾𝗓 𝖺 𝗆𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝗀𝗋𝖺𝗏𝖾 𝖾𝗑𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗌𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖺 𝗏𝗂𝗈𝗅𝖾̂𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝗋𝖺 𝖺𝗌 𝗆𝗎𝗅𝗁𝖾𝗋𝖾𝗌 – 𝖺𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗅𝖺 𝖾𝗆 𝗊𝗎𝖾, 𝖽𝖾 𝖿𝗈𝗋𝗆𝖺 𝗆𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝗀𝗋𝗂𝗍𝖺𝗇𝗍𝖾, 𝗈 𝗇𝗈𝗌𝗌𝗈 𝖼𝗈𝗋𝗉𝗈 𝖾́ 𝖼𝗈𝗂𝗌𝗂𝖿𝗂𝖼𝖺𝖽𝗈 𝖾 𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗍𝖺𝖽𝗈 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗈 𝗌𝗂𝗆𝗉𝗅𝖾𝗌 𝗏𝖾𝗂́𝖼𝗎𝗅𝗈 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝖺 𝗌𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗌𝖿𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝖾𝗃𝗈𝗌 𝗌𝖾𝗑𝗎𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝖾 𝖽𝖺 𝗏𝗈𝗇𝗍𝖺𝖽𝖾 𝖽𝖾 𝗉𝗈𝖽𝖾𝗋 𝖽𝖾 𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗆 𝗇𝗈𝗌 𝗏𝖾̂ 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗈 𝗂𝗇𝖿𝗋𝖺-𝗁𝗎𝗆𝖺𝗇𝖺𝗌. 𝖵𝖺𝗅𝖾 𝖺 𝗉𝖾𝗇𝖺 𝗋𝖾𝖼𝗈𝗋𝖽𝖺𝗋 𝗊𝗎𝖾, 𝗇𝖺 𝖤𝗎𝗋𝗈𝗉𝖺, 𝖺 𝖾𝗌𝗆𝖺𝗀𝖺𝖽𝗈𝗋𝖺 𝗆𝖺𝗂𝗈𝗋𝗂𝖺 𝖽𝖺𝗌 𝗏𝗂́𝗍𝗂𝗆𝖺𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝗏𝗂𝗈𝗅𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝗌𝖺̃𝗈 𝗆𝗎𝗅𝗁𝖾𝗋𝖾𝗌. 𝖤 𝗂𝗌𝗍𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗋𝖾 𝗈𝗌 𝖼𝖺𝗌𝗈𝗌 𝖽𝖾𝗇𝗎𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺𝖽𝗈𝗌, 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗌𝖾 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝗂𝗆𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗋𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗉𝗈𝗇𝖽𝖾𝗋𝖾𝗆 𝖺 𝖺𝗉𝖾𝗇𝖺𝗌 𝟣𝟢% 𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝖼𝗋𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝗏𝗂𝗈𝗅𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖾𝖿𝖾𝗍𝗂𝗏𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝗈𝖼𝗈𝗋𝗋𝗂𝖽𝗈𝗌.

𝖭𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖺̀ 𝗍𝗂𝗉𝗂𝖿𝗂𝖼𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝖼𝗋𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗌 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝗋𝖺 𝖺 𝗅𝗂𝖻𝖾𝗋𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾 𝗌𝖾𝗑𝗎𝖺𝗅 𝖽𝗂𝗓 𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗉𝖾𝗂𝗍𝗈, 𝖯𝗈𝗋𝗍𝗎𝗀𝖺𝗅 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺́ 𝖾𝗆 𝗌𝗂𝗍𝗎𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝗂𝗇𝖼𝗎𝗆𝗉𝗋𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝖽𝖺 𝖢𝗈𝗇𝗏𝖾𝗇𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝖨𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗆𝖻𝗎𝗅 𝗁𝖺́ 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝖽𝖾́𝖼𝖺𝖽𝖺 – 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝖽𝖾 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺 𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗋𝗈𝗎 𝖾𝗆 𝗏𝗂𝗀𝗈𝗋, 𝖾𝗆 𝟤𝟢𝟣𝟦 – 𝗊𝗎𝖺𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝖺 𝖽𝗈𝗂𝗌 𝖺𝗌𝗉𝖾𝖼𝗍𝗈𝗌: 𝖺𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗅𝖾 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖽𝖾𝗏𝖾 𝗌𝖾𝗋 𝗈 𝖾𝗅𝖾𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝖼𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗅 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖾 𝗍𝗂𝗉𝗈 𝗉𝖾𝗇𝖺𝗅 (𝖺 𝖿𝖺𝗅𝗍𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗌𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈) 𝖾 𝖺 𝗇𝖺𝗍𝗎𝗋𝖾𝗓𝖺 𝗃𝗎𝗋𝗂́𝖽𝗂𝖼𝖺 (𝗉𝗎́𝖻𝗅𝗂𝖼𝖺) 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖾𝗌 𝖼𝗋𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗌. 𝖵𝖺𝗆𝗈𝗌 𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖺̃𝗈 𝗉𝗈𝗋 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝗍𝖾𝗌.

𝖥𝖺𝗅𝗍𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗌𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈

𝖱𝖾𝗅𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗏𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝖺𝗈 𝗉𝗋𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗂𝗋𝗈 𝖺𝗌𝗉𝖾𝖼𝗍𝗈, 𝗈 𝖺𝗋𝗍𝗂𝗀𝗈 𝟥𝟨.º 𝖽𝖺 𝖢𝗈𝗇𝗏𝖾𝗇𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝖨𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗆𝖻𝗎𝗅 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝗂𝗉𝗎𝗅𝖺 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗈𝗌 𝖼𝗋𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗌 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝗋𝖺 𝖺 𝗅𝗂𝖻𝖾𝗋𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾 𝗌𝖾𝗑𝗎𝖺𝗅 𝗍𝗂𝗉𝗂𝖿𝗂𝖼𝖺𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝗇𝖺𝗌 𝗈𝗋𝖽𝖾𝗇𝗌 𝗃𝗎𝗋𝗂́𝖽𝗂𝖼𝖺𝗌 𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝖤𝗌𝗍𝖺𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗍𝖺𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗌 𝖽𝖾𝗏𝖾𝗆 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗋 𝖼𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗋𝖺𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝗇𝖺 𝖿𝖺𝗅𝗍𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗌𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝖽𝖺 𝗏𝗂́𝗍𝗂𝗆𝖺.

𝖨𝗌𝗍𝗈 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖾𝖼𝖾 𝖾𝗏𝗂𝖽𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝖺̀ 𝗉𝗋𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗂𝗋𝖺 𝗏𝗂𝗌𝗍𝖺, 𝗆𝖺𝗌 𝗇𝖺 𝗏𝖾𝗋𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝖾́ 𝗍𝖺𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝖺𝗌𝗌𝗂𝗆. 𝖠𝗂𝗇𝖽𝖺 𝗁𝗈𝗃𝖾, 𝖺 𝗂𝗆𝖺𝗀𝖾𝗆 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖼𝗎𝗅𝗍𝗎𝗋𝖺𝗅𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝖺𝗌𝗌𝗈𝖼𝗂𝖺𝗆𝗈𝗌 𝖺 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝗏𝗂𝗈𝗅𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖾́ 𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝗎𝗆 𝖺𝗍𝖺𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗇𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝗏𝗂𝖾𝗅𝖺 𝖾𝗌𝖼𝗎𝗋𝖺 𝖾𝗆 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖺 𝗏𝗂́𝗍𝗂𝗆𝖺 𝖾́ 𝗈𝖻𝗋𝗂𝗀𝖺𝖽𝖺, 𝗉𝗈𝗋 𝗆𝖾𝗂𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝗏𝗂𝗈𝗅𝖾̂𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺, 𝖺 𝗍𝖾𝗋 𝗋𝖾𝗅𝖺𝖼̧𝗈̃𝖾𝗌 𝗌𝖾𝗑𝗎𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝖾𝗃𝖺𝖽𝖺𝗌 𝖼𝗈𝗆 𝗎𝗆 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗁𝖾𝖼𝗂𝖽𝗈. 𝖠 𝗏𝗂́𝗍𝗂𝗆𝖺 𝗅𝗎𝗍𝖺 𝖻𝗋𝖺𝗏𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝗋𝖺 𝗈 𝗌𝖾𝗎 𝖺𝗀𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗌𝗈𝗋, 𝗆𝖺𝗌 𝖾́ 𝗏𝖾𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖽𝖺 𝗉𝖾𝗅𝗈 𝗉𝗈𝖽𝖾𝗋𝗂𝗈 𝖿𝗂́𝗌𝗂𝖼𝗈 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖾, 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖺𝖼𝖺𝖻𝖺 𝗉𝗈𝗋 𝖽𝗈𝗆𝗂𝗇𝖺́-𝗅𝖺 𝖾 𝗏𝗂𝗈𝗅𝖺́-𝗅𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗆 𝖻𝗋𝗎𝗍𝖺𝗅𝗂𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾.

𝖠 𝗋𝖾𝖺𝗅𝗂𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾 𝖾́, 𝗇𝗈 𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖺𝗇𝗍𝗈, 𝖺𝗌 𝗆𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝖽𝖺𝗌 𝗏𝖾𝗓𝖾𝗌 𝗆𝗎𝗂𝗍𝗈 𝖽𝗂𝗌𝗍𝗂𝗇𝗍𝖺 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺 𝗂𝗆𝖺𝗀𝖾𝗆 𝗁𝗈𝗅𝗅𝗒𝗐𝗈𝗈𝖽𝖾𝗌𝖼𝖺: 𝖺 𝖾𝗌𝗆𝖺𝗀𝖺𝖽𝗈𝗋𝖺 𝗆𝖺𝗂𝗈𝗋𝗂𝖺 𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝖺𝗀𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗌𝗈𝗋𝖾𝗌 𝖿𝖺𝗓 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝗍𝖾 𝖽𝖺𝗌 𝗋𝖾𝗅𝖺𝖼̧𝗈̃𝖾𝗌 𝖿𝖺𝗆𝗂𝗅𝗂𝖺𝗋𝖾𝗌 𝗈𝗎 𝖽𝖾 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝗑𝗂𝗆𝗂𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾 𝖽𝖺𝗌 𝗏𝗂́𝗍𝗂𝗆𝖺𝗌, 𝗌𝖾𝗇𝖽𝗈 𝖺𝗉𝖾𝗇𝖺𝗌 𝟫% 𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝖺𝗀𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗌𝗈𝗋𝖾𝗌 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗁𝖾𝖼𝗂𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝖽𝖺 𝗏𝗂́𝗍𝗂𝗆𝖺. 𝖠𝖼𝗋𝖾𝗌𝖼𝖾 𝗊𝗎𝖾, 𝗊𝗎𝖺𝗇𝖽𝗈 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝖾́ 𝖾𝗑𝖾𝗋𝖼𝗂𝖽𝖺 𝗏𝗂𝗈𝗅𝖾̂𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺 𝖿𝗂́𝗌𝗂𝖼𝖺 𝗉𝖾𝗅𝗈𝗌 𝖺𝗀𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗌𝗈𝗋𝖾𝗌 – “𝖺𝗉𝖾𝗇𝖺𝗌” 𝗆𝖺𝗇𝗂𝗉𝗎𝗅𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝗉𝗌𝗂𝖼𝗈𝗅𝗈́𝗀𝗂𝖼𝖺 𝗈𝗎 𝖺 𝖺𝗆𝖾𝖺𝖼̧𝖺 𝗆𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝗈𝗎 𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗈𝗌 𝗏𝖾𝗅𝖺𝖽𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝗏𝗂𝗈𝗅𝖾̂𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺 𝖿𝗂́𝗌𝗂𝖼𝖺 –, 𝖺 𝗏𝗂́𝗍𝗂𝗆𝖺 𝖽𝖾𝗆𝗈𝗋𝖺 𝗆𝗎𝗂𝗍𝖺𝗌 𝗏𝖾𝗓𝖾𝗌 𝗏𝖺́𝗋𝗂𝗈𝗌 𝖺𝗇𝗈𝗌 𝖺 𝗌𝖾𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗋 𝗍𝗈𝗆𝖺𝗋 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗌𝖼𝗂𝖾̂𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖿𝗈𝗂 𝗏𝗂𝗈𝗅𝖺𝖽𝖺.

𝖤𝗑𝗂𝗌𝗍𝖾 𝗍𝖺𝗆𝖻𝖾́𝗆, 𝗇𝖺 𝗉𝗌𝗂𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗅𝖾𝗍𝗂𝗏𝖺, 𝗎𝗆 𝖺𝗋𝗊𝗎𝖾́𝗍𝗂𝗉𝗈 𝖽𝖺 𝗏𝗂́𝗍𝗂𝗆𝖺 𝗂𝖽𝖾𝖺𝗅: 𝖺𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗅𝖺 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗅𝗎𝗍𝗈𝗎 𝖺𝗍𝖾́ 𝖺𝗈 𝗅𝗂𝗆𝗂𝗍𝖾 𝖽𝖺𝗌 𝗌𝗎𝖺𝗌 𝖿𝗈𝗋𝖼̧𝖺𝗌 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝖽𝖾𝖿𝖾𝗇𝖽𝖾𝗋 𝖺 𝗌𝗎𝖺 𝗁𝗈𝗇𝗋𝖺 𝖾 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖽𝖾𝗉𝗈𝗂𝗌 𝖼𝗁𝗈𝗋𝖺 𝗆𝗎𝗂𝗍𝗈 𝖺𝗈 𝗋𝖾𝗅𝖾𝗆𝖻𝗋𝖺𝗋 𝖺𝗊𝗎𝗂𝗅𝗈 𝗉𝗈𝗋 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗉𝖺𝗌𝗌𝗈𝗎. 𝖠 𝗋𝖾𝖺𝗅𝗂𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾 𝖾́, 𝗆𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝗏𝖾𝗓, 𝗆𝗎𝗂𝗍𝗈 𝖽𝗂𝗌𝗍𝗂𝗇𝗍𝖺 𝖽𝗂𝗌𝗍𝗈: 𝖺 𝗆𝖺𝗂𝗈𝗋𝗂𝖺 𝖽𝖺𝗌 𝗏𝗂́𝗍𝗂𝗆𝖺𝗌 𝗋𝖾𝗅𝖺𝗍𝖺 𝗍𝖾𝗋 𝗋𝖾𝖺𝗀𝗂𝖽𝗈 𝖼𝗈𝗆 𝗉𝖺𝗌𝗌𝗂𝗏𝗂𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾 𝖽𝗎𝗋𝖺𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝗈 𝖺𝗍𝖺𝗊𝗎𝖾, 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝖾𝗏𝗂𝗍𝖺𝗋 𝗆𝖺𝗂𝗈𝗋 𝗏𝗂𝗈𝗅𝖾̂𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺, 𝖾 𝗆𝗎𝗂𝗍𝖺𝗌 𝖿𝖺𝗅𝖺𝗆 𝗆𝖾𝗌𝗆𝗈 𝖾𝗆 𝖽𝗂𝗌𝗌𝗈𝖼𝗂𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈, 𝗋𝖾𝖼𝗈𝗋𝖽𝖺𝗇𝖽𝗈 𝖺 𝗌𝗎𝖺 𝗏𝗂𝗈𝗅𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗈 𝗎𝗆 𝗆𝗈𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝖾𝗆 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗌𝖾 𝗌𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗂𝗋𝖺𝗆 𝖿𝗈𝗋𝖺 𝖽𝗈 𝗉𝗋𝗈́𝗉𝗋𝗂𝗈 𝖼𝗈𝗋𝗉𝗈, 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗈𝖻𝗌𝖾𝗋𝗏𝖺𝗇𝖽𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝖿𝗈𝗋𝖺 𝖺𝗊𝗎𝗂𝗅𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗅𝗁𝖾 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗏𝖺 𝖺 𝖺𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝖾𝖼𝖾𝗋. 𝖠𝗌 𝖾𝗆𝗈𝖼̧𝗈̃𝖾𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝗏𝗂́𝗍𝗂𝗆𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝗏𝗂𝗈𝗅𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝗌𝖺̃𝗈 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗉𝗅𝖾𝗑𝖺𝗌 𝖾 𝖽𝗂𝖿𝗂́𝖼𝖾𝗂𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝖼𝖾𝗌𝗌𝖺𝗋, 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝗁𝖺𝗏𝖾𝗇𝖽𝗈 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝖿𝗈𝗋𝗆𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗋𝗋𝖾𝗍𝖺 𝗈𝗎 𝗌𝖾𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗋 𝗍𝗂́𝗉𝗂𝖼𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺 𝗌𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗉𝗈𝗋𝗍𝖺𝗋 𝖽𝗎𝗋𝖺𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝗈𝗎 𝖺𝗉𝗈́𝗌 𝗈 𝖼𝗋𝗂𝗆𝖾. 𝖭𝖾𝗆 𝗌𝖾𝗆𝗉𝗋𝖾 𝗍𝖾𝗆𝗈𝗌 𝗏𝗂́𝗍𝗂𝗆𝖺𝗌 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖼𝗁𝗈𝗋𝖺𝗆 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗏𝗎𝗅𝗌𝗂𝗏𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾: 𝗆𝗎𝗂𝗍𝖺𝗌 𝗌𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗆 𝗏𝖾𝗋𝗀𝗈𝗇𝗁𝖺 𝗈𝗎 𝗆𝖾𝗌𝗆𝗈 𝗇𝗈𝗃𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝗌𝗂 𝗉𝗋𝗈́𝗉𝗋𝗂𝖺𝗌, 𝗌𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗂𝗇𝖽𝗈-𝗌𝖾 𝖽𝖾 𝖺𝗅𝗀𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝖿𝗈𝗋𝗆𝖺 𝖼𝗎𝗅𝗉𝖺𝖽𝖺𝗌 𝖽𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗅𝗁𝖾𝗌 𝖺𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝖾𝖼𝖾𝗎.

𝖮𝗋𝖺, 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗌 𝗂𝖽𝖾𝗂𝖺𝗌 𝖿𝖾𝗂𝗍𝖺𝗌 𝗌𝗈𝖻𝗋𝖾 𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖾́ 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝗏𝗂𝗈𝗅𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖾 𝗌𝗈𝖻𝗋𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗈 𝗌𝖾 𝖽𝖾𝗏𝖾𝗆 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗉𝗈𝗋𝗍𝖺𝗋 𝖺𝗌 𝗏𝗂́𝗍𝗂𝗆𝖺𝗌 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖾 𝖼𝗋𝗂𝗆𝖾 𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗃𝗎𝖽𝗂𝖼𝖺𝗆 𝗀𝗋𝖺𝗏𝖾𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗌 𝗎́𝗅𝗍𝗂𝗆𝖺𝗌, 𝗋𝖾𝗏𝗂𝗍𝗂𝗆𝗂𝗓𝖺𝗇𝖽𝗈-𝖺𝗌, 𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗉𝗋𝗈𝗆𝖾𝗍𝖾𝗆 𝖺𝗍𝖾́ 𝖺 𝗉𝗋𝗈́𝗉𝗋𝗂𝖺 𝗂𝗇𝗏𝖾𝗌𝗍𝗂𝗀𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖼𝗋𝗂𝗆𝗂𝗇𝖺𝗅, 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖾́ 𝗆𝗎𝗂𝗍𝖺𝗌 𝗏𝖾𝗓𝖾𝗌 𝗂𝗇𝗊𝗎𝗂𝗇𝖺𝖽𝖺 𝗉𝗈𝗋 𝗂𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗋𝗏𝖾𝗇𝗂𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗌 𝗉𝗈𝗎𝖼𝗈 𝗌𝖾𝗇𝗌𝗂𝖻𝗂𝗅𝗂𝗓𝖺𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝖺 𝗋𝖾𝖺𝗅𝗂𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾 𝖽𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖾́ 𝗎𝗆 𝖼𝗋𝗂𝗆𝖾 𝗌𝖾𝗑𝗎𝖺𝗅 𝖾 𝖽𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗈 𝗋𝖾𝖺𝗀𝖾 𝗈𝗎 𝗌𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗉𝗈𝗋𝗍𝖺 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝗏𝗂́𝗍𝗂𝗆𝖺.

𝖠 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖾 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝗉𝗈́𝗌𝗂𝗍𝗈, 𝗏𝖺𝗅𝖾 𝗆𝗎𝗂𝗍𝗈 𝖺 𝗉𝖾𝗇𝖺 𝗏𝖾𝗋 𝗈 𝗉𝗋𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗂𝗋𝗈 𝖾 𝗌𝖾𝗀𝗎𝗇𝖽𝗈 𝖾𝗉𝗂𝗌𝗈́𝖽𝗂𝗈𝗌 𝖽𝖺 𝗌𝖾́𝗋𝗂𝖾 𝖴𝗇𝖻𝖾𝗅𝗂𝖾𝗏𝖺𝖻𝗅𝖾, 𝖽𝖺 𝖭𝖾𝗍𝖿𝗅𝗂𝗑: 𝗇𝗈 𝗉𝗋𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗂𝗋𝗈, 𝗏𝖾𝗆𝗈𝗌 𝖽𝗈𝗂𝗌 𝗁𝗈𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗌 𝖾𝗆𝖻𝖾𝖻𝗂𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝗍𝗈𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝗈𝗌 𝗉𝗋𝖾𝖼𝗈𝗇𝖼𝖾𝗂𝗍𝗈𝗌 𝗌𝗈𝖻𝗋𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗈 𝖽𝖾𝗏𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗉𝗈𝗋𝗍𝖺𝗋-𝗌𝖾 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝗏𝗂́𝗍𝗂𝗆𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝗏𝗂𝗈𝗅𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖾 𝗊𝗎𝖾, 𝖼𝗈𝗆 𝖺 𝗌𝗎𝖺 𝖿𝖺𝗅𝗍𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝖾𝗆𝗉𝖺𝗍𝗂𝖺 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗆 𝖾𝗅𝖺, 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗉𝗋𝗈𝗆𝖾𝗍𝖾𝗆 𝖽𝖾 𝖿𝗈𝗋𝗆𝖺 𝗊𝗎𝖺𝗌𝖾 𝗂𝗋𝗋𝖾𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺́𝗏𝖾𝗅 𝖺 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝖼𝗈𝖻𝖾𝗋𝗍𝖺 𝖽𝖺 𝗏𝖾𝗋𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾 (𝗈 𝖿𝗂𝗆 𝗎́𝗅𝗍𝗂𝗆𝗈 𝖽𝗈 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝖼𝖾𝗌𝗌𝗈 𝗉𝖾𝗇𝖺𝗅); 𝗇𝗈 𝗌𝖾𝗀𝗎𝗇𝖽𝗈, 𝖺𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗉𝖺𝗇𝗁𝖺𝗆𝗈𝗌 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝗆𝗎𝗅𝗁𝖾𝗋 𝗊𝗎𝖾, 𝗍𝖾𝗇𝖽𝗈 𝗋𝖾𝖼𝖾𝖻𝗂𝖽𝗈 𝖿𝗈𝗋𝗆𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖾𝗌𝗉𝖾𝖼𝗂́𝖿𝗂𝖼𝖺 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝗅𝗂𝖽𝖺𝗋 𝖼𝗈𝗆 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖾 𝗍𝗂𝗉𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝖼𝗋𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗌, 𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗉𝖾𝗂𝗍𝖺 𝗈 𝗍𝖾𝗆𝗉𝗈 𝖾 𝖺 𝗂𝗇𝗍𝗂𝗆𝗂𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾 𝖽𝖺 𝗏𝗂́𝗍𝗂𝗆𝖺, 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝖺 𝖿𝖺𝗓 𝗋𝖾𝗉𝖾𝗍𝗂𝗋-𝗌𝖾 𝗏𝖾𝗓𝖾𝗌 𝗌𝖾𝗆 𝖿𝗂𝗆 𝖾, 𝗌𝗈𝖻𝗋𝖾𝗍𝗎𝖽𝗈, 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝗍𝖾𝗆 𝗂𝖽𝖾𝗂𝖺𝗌 𝖿𝖾𝗂𝗍𝖺𝗌 𝗌𝗈𝖻𝗋𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗈 𝖾𝗅𝖺 𝖽𝖾𝗏𝖾𝗋𝗂𝖺 𝗋𝖾𝖺𝗀𝗂𝗋 𝗈𝗎 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗉𝗈𝗋𝗍𝖺𝗋-𝗌𝖾, 𝗈𝗎𝗏𝗂𝗇𝖽𝗈 𝖾𝗆𝗉𝖺𝗍𝗂𝖼𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝖺𝗊𝗎𝗂𝗅𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗅𝗁𝖾 𝖾́ 𝗋𝖾𝗅𝖺𝗍𝖺𝖽𝗈 𝖾 𝖺𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗉𝖺𝗇𝗁𝖺𝗇𝖽𝗈-𝖺 𝗇𝗈 𝗌𝖾𝗎 𝗉𝗋𝗈́𝗉𝗋𝗂𝗈 𝗉𝖾𝗋𝖼𝗎𝗋𝗌𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝗍𝗈𝗆𝖺𝖽𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗌𝖼𝗂𝖾̂𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺 𝖽𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗅𝗁𝖾 𝖺𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝖾𝖼𝖾𝗎.

𝖢𝗈𝗆𝗈 𝗏𝗂𝗆𝗈𝗌 𝗇𝗈 𝖼𝖺𝗌𝗈 𝖽𝗈 𝖼𝖺𝗌𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗋𝖾 𝗉𝖾𝗌𝗌𝗈𝖺𝗌 𝖽𝗈 𝗆𝖾𝗌𝗆𝗈 𝗌𝖾𝗑𝗈, 𝖺 𝗅𝖾𝗂 𝗉𝗈𝖽𝖾 (𝖾 𝖽𝖾𝗏𝖾) 𝗌𝖾𝗋 𝗉𝖾𝖽𝖺𝗀𝗈́𝗀𝗂𝖼𝖺 𝖾, 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗇𝖽𝗈 𝗎𝗆 𝗉𝖺𝗌𝗌𝗈 𝖺̀ 𝖿𝗋𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺, 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝖽𝗎𝗓𝗂𝗋 𝖺 𝗌𝗈𝖼𝗂𝖾𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾 𝖺 𝗋𝖾𝗉𝖾𝗇𝗌𝖺𝗋 𝖺𝗌 𝗌𝗎𝖺𝗌 𝗂𝖽𝖾𝗂𝖺𝗌 𝖿𝖾𝗂𝗍𝖺𝗌, 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝗆𝗈𝗏𝖾𝗇𝖽𝗈 𝖺𝗌𝗌𝗂𝗆 𝗈 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝗀𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗌𝗈 𝖼𝗈𝗅𝖾𝗍𝗂𝗏𝗈 𝗇𝗈 𝗌𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗂𝖽𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝗌𝖾𝗋𝗆𝗈𝗌 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗎𝗇𝗂𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾 𝗃𝗎𝗋𝗂́𝖽𝗂𝖼𝖺 𝗆𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝗃𝗎𝗌𝗍𝖺 𝖾 𝗆𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝗁𝗎𝗆𝖺𝗇𝖺. 𝖢𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗋 𝗈𝗌 𝖼𝗋𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗌 𝗌𝖾𝗑𝗎𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝗇𝖺 𝗌𝗂𝗆𝗉𝗅𝖾𝗌 𝖿𝖺𝗅𝗍𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗌𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝗍𝖾𝗋𝗂𝖺, 𝖺𝗌𝗌𝗂𝗆, 𝖾𝖿𝖾𝗂𝗍𝗈𝗌 𝗆𝗎𝗂𝗍𝗈𝗌 𝖻𝖾𝗇𝖾́𝖿𝗂𝖼𝗈𝗌 𝖾𝗆 𝗍𝖾𝗋𝗆𝗈𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝖽𝗂𝗆𝗂𝗇𝗎𝗂𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝗈 𝗌𝗈𝖿𝗋𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝖾 𝗏𝗂𝗍𝗂𝗆𝗂𝗓𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝗌𝖾𝖼𝗎𝗇𝖽𝖺́𝗋𝗂𝖺 𝖽𝖺𝗌 𝗏𝗂́𝗍𝗂𝗆𝖺𝗌, 𝖺𝗈 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗌𝖼𝗂𝖾𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺𝗅𝗂𝗓𝖺𝗋 𝖺 𝗌𝗈𝖼𝗂𝖾𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗉𝗅𝖾𝗑𝗂𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾 𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝖼𝗋𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗌 𝗌𝖾𝗑𝗎𝖺𝗂𝗌.

𝖭𝖺̃𝗈 𝗈𝖻𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺 𝗈𝖻𝗋𝗂𝗀𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖼𝗅𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝖺 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗈 𝖤𝗌𝗍𝖺𝖽𝗈 𝗉𝗈𝗋𝗍𝗎𝗀𝗎𝖾̂𝗌 𝗌𝖾 𝗈𝖻𝗋𝗂𝗀𝗈𝗎, 𝗉𝗈𝗋 𝗏𝗂𝖺 𝖽𝖺 𝗋𝖺𝗍𝗂𝖿𝗂𝖼𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖺 𝖢𝗈𝗇𝗏𝖾𝗇𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝖨𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗆𝖻𝗎𝗅, 𝖽𝖾 𝖿𝖺𝗓𝖾𝗋 𝖽𝖺 𝖿𝖺𝗅𝗍𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗌𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝖺 𝗉𝖾𝖽𝗋𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝗍𝗈𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝖼𝗋𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗌 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝗋𝖺 𝖺 𝗅𝗂𝖻𝖾𝗋𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾 𝗌𝖾𝗑𝗎𝖺𝗅, 𝗈 𝖼𝗋𝗂𝗆𝖾 𝖽𝖾 𝗏𝗂𝗈𝗅𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝗂𝗇𝗎𝖺, 𝗇𝗈 𝖢𝗈́𝖽𝗂𝗀𝗈 𝖯𝖾𝗇𝖺𝗅 𝗉𝗈𝗋𝗍𝗎𝗀𝗎𝖾̂𝗌 (𝖺𝗋𝗍𝗂𝗀𝗈 𝟣𝟨𝟦.º), 𝖺 𝖽𝖾𝗉𝖾𝗇𝖽𝖾𝗋 𝖽𝖺 𝖾𝗑𝗂𝗌𝗍𝖾̂𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝗏𝗂𝗈𝗅𝖾̂𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺, 𝖺𝗆𝖾𝖺𝖼̧𝖺 𝗀𝗋𝖺𝗏𝖾 𝗈𝗎 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗌𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗇𝗀𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝖽𝖺 𝗏𝗂́𝗍𝗂𝗆𝖺. 𝖤́ 𝖾𝗏𝗂𝖽𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖺 𝗏𝗂𝗈𝗅𝖾̂𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝖾́ 𝗇𝖾𝗆 𝗉𝗈𝖽𝖾 𝗌𝖾𝗋 𝗂𝗋𝗋𝖾𝗅𝖾𝗏𝖺𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝗇𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗑𝗍𝗈, 𝖽𝖾𝗏𝖾𝗇𝖽𝗈 𝗌𝖾𝗋 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝖼𝗂𝗋𝖼𝗎𝗇𝗌𝗍𝖺̂𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺 𝖺𝗀𝗋𝖺𝗏𝖺𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝖽𝖺 𝗏𝗂𝗈𝗅𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖾 𝖽𝖾𝗆𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝖼𝗋𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗌 𝗌𝖾𝗑𝗎𝖺𝗂𝗌, 𝗆𝖺𝗌 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖾𝗏𝖾 – 𝗇𝖾𝗆 𝗉𝗈𝖽𝖾, 𝖽𝗂𝗓 𝖺 𝖢𝗈𝗇𝗏𝖾𝗇𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝖨𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗆𝖻𝗎𝗅 – 𝗌𝖾𝗋 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝖽𝗂𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝗌𝗂𝗇𝖾 𝗊𝗎𝖺 𝗇𝗈𝗇 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖾𝗃𝖺𝗆𝗈𝗌 𝗉𝖾𝗋𝖺𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝖽𝗎𝗍𝖺 𝗉𝗎𝗇𝗂́𝗏𝖾𝗅 𝗉𝖾𝗇𝖺𝗅𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾.

𝖠𝗅𝖾́𝗆 𝖽𝖾 𝗉𝖾𝗋𝗉𝖾𝗍𝗎𝖺𝗋 𝗂𝖽𝖾𝗂𝖺𝗌 𝖾𝗋𝗋𝖺𝖽𝖺𝗌 𝗌𝗈𝖻𝗋𝖾 𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖾́ 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝗏𝗂𝗈𝗅𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈, 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝖼𝗈𝗇𝖿𝗈𝗋𝗆𝗂𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗆 𝖺 𝖢𝗈𝗇𝗏𝖾𝗇𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝖨𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗆𝖻𝗎𝗅 𝗍𝖾𝗆 𝖺𝗂𝗇𝖽𝖺 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗌𝖾𝗊𝗎𝖾̂𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺 𝗉𝗋𝖺́𝗍𝗂𝖼𝖺 𝗆𝗎𝗂𝗍𝗈 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝖼𝗋𝖾𝗍𝖺 𝖾 𝗂𝗇𝗎𝗅𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗉𝖺𝗌𝗌𝖺́𝗏𝖾𝗅: 𝖽𝖾𝗂𝗑𝖺𝗋 𝖽𝖾 𝖿𝗈𝗋𝖺 𝖽𝗈 𝗅𝖾𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝖼𝗋𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗌 𝗌𝖾𝗑𝗎𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝗍𝗂𝗉𝗂𝖿𝗂𝖼𝖺𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝖽𝗎𝗍𝖺𝗌 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗌𝗍𝗂𝗍𝗎𝖾𝗆 𝗎𝗆 𝗀𝗋𝖺𝗏𝖾 𝖺𝗍𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖺𝖽𝗈 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝗋𝖺 𝖺 𝗅𝗂𝖻𝖾𝗋𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾 𝗌𝖾𝗑𝗎𝖺𝗅 𝖽𝖺𝗌 𝗏𝗂́𝗍𝗂𝗆𝖺𝗌.

𝖤́ 𝗈 𝖼𝖺𝗌𝗈 𝖽𝗈 𝗌𝗍𝖾𝖺𝗅𝗍𝗁𝗂𝗇𝗀, 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗌𝗂𝗌𝗍𝖾 𝗇𝖺 𝗋𝖾𝗆𝗈𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗌𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗂𝖽𝖺 𝖽𝗈 𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗌𝖾𝗋𝗏𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗏𝗈 𝖽𝗎𝗋𝖺𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝗈 𝖺𝗍𝗈 𝗌𝖾𝗑𝗎𝖺𝗅. 𝖤𝗌𝗍𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝖽𝗎𝗍𝖺 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝗌𝖾 𝖾𝗇𝗊𝗎𝖺𝖽𝗋𝖺 𝖾𝗆 𝗇𝖾𝗇𝗁𝗎𝗆 𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝖼𝗋𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗌 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝗋𝖺 𝖺 𝗅𝗂𝖻𝖾𝗋𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾 𝗌𝖾𝗑𝗎𝖺𝗅 𝗍𝗂𝗉𝗂𝖿𝗂𝖼𝖺𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝗇𝖺 𝗅𝖾𝗂 𝗉𝗈𝗋𝗍𝗎𝗀𝗎𝖾𝗌𝖺, 𝗉𝗈𝗋𝗊𝗎𝖺𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝖾𝗑𝗂𝗌𝗍𝖾 𝗇𝗈 𝗌𝗍𝖾𝖺𝗅𝗍𝗁𝗂𝗇𝗀 𝗊𝗎𝖺𝗅𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗋 𝗏𝗂𝗈𝗅𝖾̂𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺, 𝖺𝗆𝖾𝖺𝖼̧𝖺 𝗀𝗋𝖺𝗏𝖾 𝗇𝖾𝗆 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗌𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗇𝗀𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝖽𝖺 𝗏𝗂́𝗍𝗂𝗆𝖺, 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗊𝗎𝗂𝗌 𝖺𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗅𝖺 𝗋𝖾𝗅𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝗌𝖾𝗑𝗎𝖺𝗅. 𝖲𝗂𝗆𝗉𝗅𝖾𝗌𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾, 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝖽𝗂𝖼𝗂𝗈𝗇𝗈𝗎 𝗈 𝗌𝖾𝗎 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗌𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝖺̀ 𝗎𝗍𝗂𝗅𝗂𝗓𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝗎𝗆 𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗌𝖾𝗋𝗏𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗏𝗈. 𝖱𝖾𝗍𝗂𝗋𝖺́-𝗅𝗈 𝗌𝗂𝗀𝗇𝗂𝖿𝗂𝖼𝖺, 𝗉𝗈𝗂𝗌, 𝖺𝗀𝗂𝗋 𝗌𝖾𝗆 𝗈 𝗌𝖾𝗎 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗌𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈, 𝗉𝖾𝗅𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾, 𝖺̀ 𝗅𝗎𝗓 𝖽𝖺 𝖢𝗈𝗇𝗏𝖾𝗇𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝖨𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗆𝖻𝗎𝗅, 𝗍𝖾𝗆 𝖽𝖾 𝗌𝖾𝗋 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝖽𝗎𝗍𝖺 𝗉𝖾𝗇𝖺𝗅𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝗉𝗎𝗇𝗂́𝗏𝖾𝗅. 𝖢𝗈𝗇𝗍𝗎𝖽𝗈, 𝗈 𝗉𝗋𝗂𝗇𝖼𝗂́𝗉𝗂𝗈 𝖽𝖺 𝗅𝖾𝗀𝖺𝗅𝗂𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾 𝖽𝖾𝗍𝖾𝗋𝗆𝗂𝗇𝖺 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗇𝗎𝗅𝗅𝖺 𝗉𝗈𝖾𝗇𝖺 𝗌𝗂𝗇𝖾 𝗅𝖾𝗀𝖾 – 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝗁𝖺́ 𝗉𝖾𝗇𝖺 𝗌𝖾𝗆 𝗅𝖾𝗂 –, 𝗉𝖾𝗅𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾, 𝗇𝗈 𝗈𝗋𝖽𝖾𝗇𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝗃𝗎𝗋𝗂́𝖽𝗂𝖼𝗈 𝗉𝗈𝗋𝗍𝗎𝗀𝗎𝖾̂𝗌, 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝖾́ 𝗉𝗈𝗌𝗌𝗂́𝗏𝖾𝗅 𝗉𝗎𝗇𝗂𝗋 𝗍𝖺𝗅 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝖽𝗎𝗍𝖺. 𝖧𝖺́ 𝗎𝗆 𝗏𝖺𝗓𝗂𝗈 𝗅𝖾𝗀𝖺𝗅 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖽𝖾𝗂𝗑𝖺 𝖺𝗌 𝗏𝗂́𝗍𝗂𝗆𝖺𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝗌𝗍𝖾𝖺𝗅𝗍𝗁𝗂𝗇𝗀 𝗍𝗈𝗍𝖺𝗅𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝗉𝗋𝗈𝗍𝖾𝗀𝗂𝖽𝖺𝗌.

𝖠 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖾 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝗉𝗈́𝗌𝗂𝗍𝗈, 𝖳𝖾𝗋𝖾𝗌𝖺 𝖯𝗂𝗓𝖺𝗋𝗋𝗈 𝖡𝖾𝗅𝖾𝗓𝖺 𝖽𝖾𝗂𝗑𝖺 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝗂𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗋𝗋𝗈𝗀𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝗆𝗎𝗂𝗍𝗈 𝗉𝖾𝗋𝗍𝗂𝗇𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾: 𝗌𝖾 𝗈 𝖼𝗋𝗂𝗆𝖾 𝖽𝖾 𝗏𝗂𝗈𝗅𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝖽𝗈𝗆𝗂𝖼𝗂́𝗅𝗂𝗈 𝗈𝗎 𝗉𝖾𝗋𝗍𝗎𝗋𝖻𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖺 𝗏𝗂𝖽𝖺 𝗉𝗋𝗂𝗏𝖺𝖽𝖺 (𝖺𝗋𝗍𝗂𝗀𝗈 𝟣𝟫𝟢.º 𝖽𝗈 𝖢𝗈́𝖽𝗂𝗀𝗈 𝖯𝖾𝗇𝖺𝗅) 𝖺𝗉𝖾𝗇𝖺𝗌 𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗌𝗎𝗉𝗈̃𝖾 𝖺 𝖿𝖺𝗅𝗍𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗌𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝖽𝖺 𝗏𝗂́𝗍𝗂𝗆𝖺 (𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝖺 𝗏𝗂𝗈𝗅𝖾̂𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺, 𝖺 𝖺𝗆𝖾𝖺𝖼̧𝖺 𝗈𝗎 𝗈 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗌𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗇𝗀𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈), 𝖽𝖾𝗏𝖾𝗆𝗈𝗌 𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖺̃𝗈 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝖼𝗅𝗎𝗂𝗋 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗋 𝗌𝖾𝗆 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗌𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝗇𝖺 𝖼𝖺𝗌𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝖺𝗅𝗀𝗎𝖾́𝗆 𝖾́ 𝗆𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝗀𝗋𝖺𝗏𝖾 𝖽𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗋 𝗌𝖾𝗆 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗌𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝗇𝗈 𝗌𝖾𝗎 𝖼𝗈𝗋𝗉𝗈? 𝖠 𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗉𝗈𝗌𝗍𝖺 𝗇𝖾𝗀𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗏𝖺 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖾𝖼𝖾 𝗈́𝖻𝗏𝗂𝖺, 𝗆𝖺𝗌 𝗈 𝖿𝖺𝖼𝗍𝗈 𝖾́ 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗈 𝗅𝖾𝗀𝗂𝗌𝗅𝖺𝖽𝗈𝗋 𝗉𝖾𝗇𝖺𝗅 𝗉𝗈𝗋𝗍𝗎𝗀𝗎𝖾̂𝗌 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝗂𝗇𝗎𝖺 𝗌𝖾𝗆 𝖼𝗈𝗋𝗋𝗂𝗀𝗂𝗋 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺 𝗀𝗋𝖺𝗏𝖾 𝗂𝗇𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗀𝗋𝗎𝖾̂𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺 𝗏𝖺𝗅𝗈𝗋𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗏𝖺 𝖽𝖺 𝗇𝗈𝗌𝗌𝖺 𝗅𝖾𝗂 𝗉𝖾𝗇𝖺𝗅, 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝗆𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝖾𝗆 𝖼𝗅𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝗏𝗂𝗈𝗅𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖺 𝖢𝗈𝗇𝗏𝖾𝗇𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝖨𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗆𝖻𝗎𝗅.

𝖱𝖾𝖼𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾, 𝖺𝗌 𝖽𝖾𝗇𝗎́𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝗂𝗇𝗎́𝗆𝖾𝗋𝗈𝗌 𝖼𝖺𝗌𝗈𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝗌𝗍𝖾𝖺𝗅𝗍𝗁𝗂𝗇𝗀 𝗇𝗈 𝗎𝗇𝗂𝗏𝖾𝗋𝗌𝗈 𝖽𝗈 𝗃𝖺𝗓𝗓 𝗉𝗈𝗋𝗍𝗎𝗀𝗎𝖾̂𝗌 𝗀𝖾𝗋𝖺𝗋𝖺𝗆 𝖿𝗂𝗇𝖺𝗅𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝗆𝗈𝗏𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖺𝖼̧𝗈̃𝖾𝗌 𝗇𝖺 𝗌𝗈𝖼𝗂𝖾𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾 𝖼𝗂𝗏𝗂𝗅 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝖺𝗅𝗍𝖾𝗋𝖺𝗋 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖾 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺𝖽𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗂𝗌𝖺𝗌, 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗇𝖽𝗈 𝖺𝖻𝖾𝗋𝗍𝖺 𝖺 𝖺𝗌𝗌𝗂𝗇𝖺𝗍𝗎𝗋𝖺𝗌 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝗉𝖾𝗍𝗂𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗏𝗂𝗌𝖺 𝖼𝗋𝗂𝗆𝗂𝗇𝖺𝗅𝗂𝗓𝖺𝗋 𝗈 𝗌𝗍𝖾𝖺𝗅𝗍𝗁𝗂𝗇𝗀. 𝖮 𝖯𝖠𝖭 𝖺𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗌𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈𝗎 𝗍𝖺𝗆𝖻𝖾́𝗆 𝗎𝗆 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝗃𝖾𝗍𝗈-𝗅𝖾𝗂 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝖼𝗋𝗂𝗆𝗂𝗇𝖺𝗅𝗂𝗓𝖺𝗋 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝖽𝗎𝗍𝖺. 𝖤𝗉𝗉𝗎𝗋 𝗌𝗂 𝗆𝗎𝗈𝗏𝖾…

𝖠 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖾 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝗉𝗈́𝗌𝗂𝗍𝗈, 𝗂𝗆𝗉𝗈𝗋𝗍𝖺 𝗋𝖾𝖺𝗅𝖼̧𝖺𝗋 𝗊𝗎𝖾, 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗋𝗂𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝖺𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗋𝖾𝖼𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝖽𝖾𝖿𝖾𝗇𝖽𝖾𝗎 𝖫𝖾𝗈𝗇𝗈𝗋 𝖢𝖺𝗅𝖽𝖾𝗂𝗋𝖺 , 𝗈 𝗌𝗍𝖾𝖺𝗅𝗍𝗁𝗂𝗇𝗀 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝖾́ 𝖾𝗇𝗊𝗎𝖺𝖽𝗋𝖺́𝗏𝖾𝗅 𝗇𝗈 𝖼𝗋𝗂𝗆𝖾 𝖽𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝗌𝖾𝗑𝗎𝖺𝗅 (𝖺𝗋𝗍𝗂𝗀𝗈 𝟣𝟨𝟥.º 𝖽𝗈 𝖢𝗈́𝖽𝗂𝗀𝗈 𝖯𝖾𝗇𝖺𝗅), 𝗉𝗈𝗋𝗊𝗎𝖺𝗇𝗍𝗈, 𝗍𝖺𝗅 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗈 𝗇𝗈 𝖼𝖺𝗌𝗈 𝖽𝖺 𝗏𝗂𝗈𝗅𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈, 𝖾𝗌𝖻𝖺𝗋𝗋𝖺𝗆𝗈𝗌 𝗍𝖺𝗆𝖻𝖾́𝗆 𝖺𝗂́ 𝖼𝗈𝗆 𝗈 𝗈𝖻𝗌𝗍𝖺́𝖼𝗎𝗅𝗈 𝗅𝗂𝗍𝖾𝗋𝖺𝗅 𝗂𝗇𝗎𝗅𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗉𝖺𝗌𝗌𝖺́𝗏𝖾𝗅 𝖽𝖺 𝗇𝖾𝖼𝖾𝗌𝗌𝗂𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾 𝖽𝖾 𝖾𝗑𝗂𝗌𝗍𝖾̂𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺 𝖽𝖾 “𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗌𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗇𝗀𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈”. 𝖯𝗈𝗋 𝗆𝗎𝗂𝗍𝖺 𝗏𝗈𝗇𝗍𝖺𝖽𝖾 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗍𝖾𝗇𝗁𝖺𝗆𝗈𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝗉𝗎𝗇𝗂𝗋 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖾 𝗀𝗋𝖺𝗏𝖾 𝖺𝗍𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖺𝖽𝗈 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝗋𝖺 𝖺 𝗅𝗂𝖻𝖾𝗋𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾 𝗌𝖾𝗑𝗎𝖺𝗅, 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝗏𝖺𝗅𝖾 𝗍𝗎𝖽𝗈 𝗇𝗎𝗆 𝖤𝗌𝗍𝖺𝖽𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝖣𝗂𝗋𝖾𝗂𝗍𝗈. 𝖤 𝗈 𝗌𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗂𝖽𝗈 𝗇𝗈𝗋𝗆𝖺𝗅 𝖽𝖺𝗌 𝗉𝖺𝗅𝖺𝗏𝗋𝖺𝗌 𝖾́ 𝗆𝖾𝗌𝗆𝗈 𝖺 𝖾𝗑𝗍𝖾𝗇𝗌𝖺̃𝗈 𝗆𝖺́𝗑𝗂𝗆𝖺 𝗉𝗈𝗌𝗌𝗂́𝗏𝖾𝗅 𝖽𝖺 𝗂𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗋𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗍𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖾𝗆 𝖽𝗂𝗋𝖾𝗂𝗍𝗈 𝗉𝖾𝗇𝖺𝗅, 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝖺𝖽𝗆𝗂𝗍𝖾 𝗂𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗋𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗍𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖾𝗑𝗍𝖾𝗇𝗌𝗂𝗏𝖺, 𝗆𝖾𝗌𝗆𝗈 𝗌𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝖿𝗈𝗋𝗆𝖾 𝖺 𝗇𝗈𝗋𝗆𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝖽𝗂𝗋𝖾𝗂𝗍𝗈 𝗂𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗋𝗇𝖺𝖼𝗂𝗈𝗇𝖺𝗅, 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗈 𝖾́ 𝗈 𝖼𝖺𝗌𝗈 𝖽𝗈 𝖺𝗋𝗍𝗂𝗀𝗈 𝟥𝟨.º 𝖽𝖺 𝖢𝗈𝗇𝗏𝖾𝗇𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝖨𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗆𝖻𝗎𝗅. 𝖮𝗋𝖺, 𝗈 𝖽𝗂𝖼𝗂𝗈𝗇𝖺́𝗋𝗂𝗈 𝖽𝗂𝗓-𝗇𝗈𝗌 𝗊𝗎𝖾 “𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗌𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗇𝗀𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈” 𝖼𝗈𝗋𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗉𝗈𝗇𝖽𝖾 𝖺 “𝗏𝗂𝗈𝗅𝖾̂𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗍𝗂𝗋𝖺 𝗅𝗂𝖻𝖾𝗋𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾 𝖽𝖾 𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈; 𝖺𝖼𝖺𝗇𝗁𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈, 𝖾𝗆𝖻𝖺𝗋𝖺𝖼̧𝗈; 𝗎𝗌𝗈 𝖽𝖺 𝗏𝗂𝗈𝗅𝖾̂𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺 𝖿𝗂́𝗌𝗂𝖼𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝗋𝖺 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝗈𝗎𝗍𝗋𝖺 𝗉𝖾𝗌𝗌𝗈𝖺; 𝖼𝗈𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈”. 𝖤𝗌𝗍𝖺́ 𝖻𝗈𝗆 𝖽𝖾 𝗏𝖾𝗋 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗇𝖺𝖽𝖺 𝖽𝗂𝗌𝗍𝗈 𝖾𝗑𝗂𝗌𝗍𝖾 𝗇𝗈 𝗌𝗍𝖾𝖺𝗅𝗍𝗁𝗂𝗇𝗀: 𝖺 𝗏𝗂́𝗍𝗂𝗆𝖺 𝗊𝗎𝗂𝗌, 𝗍𝖺𝗅𝗏𝖾𝗓 𝖺𝗍𝖾́ 𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗎𝗌𝗂𝖺𝗌𝗍𝗂𝖼𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾, 𝖺𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗅𝖺 𝗋𝖾𝗅𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝗌𝖾𝗑𝗎𝖺𝗅. 𝖲𝗎𝖻𝗈𝗋𝖽𝗂𝗇𝗈𝗎 𝗈 𝗌𝖾𝗎 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗌𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝖺̀ 𝗎𝗍𝗂𝗅𝗂𝗓𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝗎𝗆 𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗌𝖾𝗋𝗏𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗏𝗈 𝖾 𝖾𝗌𝗌𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝖽𝗂𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖿𝗈𝗂 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗉𝖾𝗂𝗍𝖺𝖽𝖺 𝗉𝖾𝗅𝗈 𝖺𝗀𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗌𝗈𝗋, 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗈 𝗋𝖾𝗍𝗂𝗋𝗈𝗎 𝗌𝖾𝗆 𝗈 𝗌𝖾𝗎 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗌𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈, 𝗆𝖺𝗌 𝗌𝖾𝗆 𝖾𝗑𝖾𝗋𝖼𝖾𝗋 𝗌𝗈𝖻𝗋𝖾 𝖾𝗅𝖺 𝗊𝗎𝖺𝗅𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗋 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗌𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗇𝗀𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈. 𝖤́, 𝗉𝗈𝗂𝗌, 𝗇𝖺 𝖺𝗎𝗌𝖾̂𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗌𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗍𝗎𝖽𝗈 𝗌𝖾 𝗃𝗈𝗀𝖺. 𝖠 𝗅𝖾𝗂 𝗉𝖾𝗇𝖺𝗅 𝗉𝗈𝗋𝗍𝗎𝗀𝗎𝖾𝗌𝖺 𝗍𝖾𝗆, 𝗌𝗂𝗆, 𝖽𝖾 𝗌𝖾𝗋 𝗋𝖾𝗏𝗂𝗌𝗍𝖺.

𝖨𝗆𝗉𝗈𝗋𝗍𝖺 𝗍𝖺𝗆𝖻𝖾́𝗆 𝗍𝖾𝗋 𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗌𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝗊𝗎𝖾, 𝖾𝗆 𝖯𝗈𝗋𝗍𝗎𝗀𝖺𝗅, 𝖺𝗍𝖾́ 𝟣𝟫𝟪𝟤 (𝖽𝖺𝗍𝖺 𝖽𝗈 𝗉𝗋𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗂𝗋𝗈 𝖢𝗈́𝖽𝗂𝗀𝗈 𝖯𝖾𝗇𝖺𝗅 𝗌𝖺𝗂́𝖽𝗈 𝖽𝗈 𝗉𝗈́𝗌-𝗋𝖾𝗏𝗈𝗅𝗎𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈), 𝖺 𝗏𝗂𝗈𝗅𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗋𝖾 𝖼𝗈̂𝗇𝗃𝗎𝗀𝖾𝗌 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝖾𝗋𝖺 𝖼𝗋𝗂𝗆𝖾: 𝖺𝗌𝗌𝗂𝗇𝖺𝗋 𝗎𝗆 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗍𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝖼𝖺𝗌𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝖼𝗈𝗆 𝖺𝗅𝗀𝗎𝖾́𝗆 𝖾𝗋𝖺, 𝖺𝗌𝗌𝗂𝗆, 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝖾𝗌𝗉𝖾́𝖼𝗂𝖾 𝖽𝖾 𝗍𝖾𝗋𝗆𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝖺𝗎𝗍𝗈𝗋𝗂𝗓𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝗉𝖾𝗋𝗆𝖺𝗇𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝖺𝗏𝖺𝗇𝖼̧𝗈𝗌 𝗌𝖾𝗑𝗎𝖺𝗂𝗌. 𝖭𝗈 𝖿𝗎𝗇𝖽𝗈, 𝖾𝗋𝖺 𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝖼𝗋𝖾𝗍𝗂𝗓𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖾𝗆 𝗅𝖾𝗍𝗋𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝗅𝖾𝗂 𝖽𝖺 𝗂𝖽𝖾𝗂𝖺 𝗋𝖾𝗍𝗋𝗈́𝗀𝗋𝖺𝖽𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖺 𝖻𝗈𝖺 𝖾𝗌𝗉𝗈𝗌𝖺 𝗍𝖾𝗆 𝖽𝖾 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗋 𝗌𝖾𝗆𝗉𝗋𝖾 𝖽𝗂𝗌𝗉𝗈𝗇𝗂́𝗏𝖾𝗅 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝗌𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗌𝖿𝖺𝗓𝖾𝗋 𝗌𝖾𝗑𝗎𝖺𝗅𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝗈 𝗌𝖾𝗎 𝗆𝖺𝗋𝗂𝖽𝗈.

𝖮 𝖼𝖺𝗆𝗂𝗇𝗁𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖿𝗂𝗓𝖾𝗆𝗈𝗌 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝖽𝖾 𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖺̃𝗈 𝗇𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖾 𝖼𝖺𝗆𝗉𝗈 𝖾́ 𝗂𝗆𝗉𝗈𝗋𝗍𝖺𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝖾 𝗆𝖾𝗋𝗂𝗍𝗈́𝗋𝗂𝗈, 𝗆𝖺𝗌 𝖺𝗍𝖺𝗏𝗂𝗌𝗆𝗈𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝗌𝖾́𝖼𝗎𝗅𝗈𝗌 𝗉𝖺𝗀𝖺𝗆-𝗌𝖾. 𝖤 𝖺𝗌 𝗆𝗎𝗅𝗁𝖾𝗋𝖾𝗌 𝖽𝗈 𝗇𝗈𝗌𝗌𝗈 𝗉𝖺𝗂́𝗌 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝗂𝗇𝗎𝖺𝗆 𝖺 𝗉𝖺𝗀𝖺𝗋 𝖾𝗌𝗌𝖾 𝗉𝗋𝖾𝖼̧𝗈, 𝗎𝗆 𝗉𝗋𝖾𝖼̧𝗈 𝖽𝖾𝗆𝖺𝗌𝗂𝖺𝖽𝗈 𝖺𝗅𝗍𝗈. 𝖮 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝖼𝖾𝗂𝗍𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗌𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝖺𝗂𝗇𝖽𝖺 𝖾́ 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗂𝗌𝖺 𝗆𝗎𝗂𝗍𝗈 𝗇𝖾𝖻𝗎𝗅𝗈𝗌𝖺 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝖽𝖾𝗆𝖺𝗌𝗂𝖺𝖽𝖺𝗌 𝗉𝖾𝗌𝗌𝗈𝖺𝗌. 𝖠 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖾 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝗉𝗈́𝗌𝗂𝗍𝗈, 𝗏𝖺𝗅𝖾 𝗌𝖾𝗆𝗉𝗋𝖾 𝖺 𝗉𝖾𝗇𝖺 𝗋𝖾𝖼𝗈𝗋𝖽𝖺𝗋 𝖺 𝖻𝗋𝗂𝗅𝗁𝖺𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝖺𝗇𝖺𝗅𝗈𝗀𝗂𝖺 𝖽𝗈 𝖼𝗁𝖺́.

𝖭𝖺𝗍𝗎𝗋𝖾𝗓𝖺 𝗃𝗎𝗋𝗂́𝖽𝗂𝖼𝖺 𝖽𝗈 𝖼𝗋𝗂𝗆𝖾

𝖯𝖺𝗌𝗌𝖾𝗆𝗈𝗌 𝖺𝗀𝗈𝗋𝖺 𝖺𝗈 𝗌𝖾𝗀𝗎𝗇𝖽𝗈 𝗉𝗈𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝗋𝖾𝗅𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗏𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝖺𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖺𝗅 𝖯𝗈𝗋𝗍𝗎𝗀𝖺𝗅 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺́ 𝖾𝗆 𝖼𝗅𝖺𝗋𝗈 𝗂𝗇𝖼𝗎𝗆𝗉𝗋𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝖽𝖺 𝖢𝗈𝗇𝗏𝖾𝗇𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝖨𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗆𝖻𝗎𝗅: 𝖺 𝗇𝖺𝗍𝗎𝗋𝖾𝗓𝖺 𝗃𝗎𝗋𝗂́𝖽𝗂𝖼𝖺 𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝖼𝗋𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗌 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝗋𝖺 𝖺 𝗅𝗂𝖻𝖾𝗋𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾 𝗌𝖾𝗑𝗎𝖺𝗅. 𝖠𝗍𝗎𝖺𝗅𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾, 𝖺 𝗏𝗂𝗈𝗅𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖾́, 𝖾𝗆 𝖯𝗈𝗋𝗍𝗎𝗀𝖺𝗅, 𝗎𝗆 𝖼𝗋𝗂𝗆𝖾 𝗌𝖾𝗆𝗂𝗉𝗎́𝖻𝗅𝗂𝖼𝗈, 𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗌𝗂𝗀𝗇𝗂𝖿𝗂𝖼𝖺 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖺 𝗌𝗎𝖺 𝗂𝗇𝗏𝖾𝗌𝗍𝗂𝗀𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖾 𝗃𝗎𝗅𝗀𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖾𝗉𝖾𝗇𝖽𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗌 𝖽𝖺 𝖺𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗌𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗂𝗑𝖺 𝗉𝗈𝗋 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝗍𝖾 𝖽𝖺 𝗏𝗂́𝗍𝗂𝗆𝖺, 𝗇𝗈 𝗉𝗋𝖺𝗓𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝗌𝖾𝗂𝗌 𝗆𝖾𝗌𝖾𝗌.

𝖭𝗈 𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖺𝗇𝗍𝗈, 𝗈 𝖺𝗋𝗍𝗂𝗀𝗈 𝟧𝟧.º, 𝗇.º 𝟣, 𝖽𝖺 𝖢𝗈𝗇𝗏𝖾𝗇𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝖨𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗆𝖻𝗎𝗅 𝖽𝗂𝗌𝗉𝗈̃𝖾 𝗈 𝗌𝖾𝗀𝗎𝗂𝗇𝗍𝖾: “𝖠𝗌 𝖯𝖺𝗋𝗍𝖾𝗌 𝖺𝗌𝗌𝖾𝗀𝗎𝗋𝖺𝗋𝖺̃𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖺𝗌 𝗂𝗇𝗏𝖾𝗌𝗍𝗂𝗀𝖺𝖼̧𝗈̃𝖾𝗌 𝗈𝗎 𝗈 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝖼𝖾𝗌𝗌𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝖽𝖺𝗌 𝗂𝗇𝖿𝗋𝖺𝖼̧𝗈̃𝖾𝗌 (…) 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖾𝗉𝖾𝗇𝖽𝖺𝗆 𝗂𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗂𝗋𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝖽𝖾 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝖽𝖾𝗇𝗎́𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺 𝗈𝗎 𝖽𝖾 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗂𝗑𝖺 𝖽𝖺 𝗏𝗂́𝗍𝗂𝗆𝖺 (…) 𝖾 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗈 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝖼𝖾𝗌𝗌𝗈 𝗉𝗈𝗌𝗌𝖺 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝗌𝗌𝖾𝗀𝗎𝗂𝗋 𝗆𝖾𝗌𝗆𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖺 𝗏𝗂́𝗍𝗂𝗆𝖺 𝗋𝖾𝗍𝗂𝗋𝖾 𝖺 𝗌𝗎𝖺 𝖽𝖾𝖼𝗅𝖺𝗋𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝗈𝗎 𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗂𝗑𝖺”.

𝖯𝗈𝗋𝗍𝗎𝗀𝖺𝗅 𝗍𝖾𝗆-𝗌𝖾 𝗋𝖾𝖿𝗎𝗀𝗂𝖺𝖽𝗈 𝗇𝗈 𝖺𝖽𝗏𝖾́𝗋𝖻𝗂𝗈 «𝗂𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗂𝗋𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾» 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝖽𝖾𝖿𝖾𝗇𝖽𝖾𝗋 𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝖿𝗈𝗋𝗆𝗂𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾 𝖽𝖺 𝗅𝖾𝗂 𝗉𝗈𝗋𝗍𝗎𝗀𝗎𝖾𝗌𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗆 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖾 𝗉𝗋𝖾𝖼𝖾𝗂𝗍𝗈. 𝖣𝖾 𝖿𝖺𝖼𝗍𝗈, 𝖾𝗆 𝟤𝟢𝟣𝟫, 𝖺 𝗋𝖾𝖽𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝗈 𝖺𝗋𝗍𝗂𝗀𝗈 𝟣𝟩𝟪.º 𝖽𝗈 𝖢𝗈́𝖽𝗂𝗀𝗈 𝖯𝖾𝗇𝖺𝗅 𝖿𝗈𝗂 𝖺𝗅𝗍𝖾𝗋𝖺𝖽𝖺, 𝖽𝖾 𝖿𝗈𝗋𝗆𝖺 𝖺 𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗏𝖾𝗋 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗈 𝖬𝗂𝗇𝗂𝗌𝗍𝖾́𝗋𝗂𝗈 𝖯𝗎́𝖻𝗅𝗂𝖼𝗈 𝗉𝗈𝗌𝗌𝖺 𝖽𝖺𝗋 𝗂𝗇𝗂́𝖼𝗂𝗈 𝖺𝗈 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝖼𝖾𝖽𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝗉𝖾𝗇𝖺𝗅 “𝗌𝖾𝗆𝗉𝗋𝖾 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗈 𝗂𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗌𝖾 𝖽𝖺 𝗏𝗂́𝗍𝗂𝗆𝖺 𝗈 𝖺𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗌𝖾𝗅𝗁𝖾”. 𝖲𝗂𝗀𝗇𝗂𝖿𝗂𝖼𝖺 𝗂𝗌𝗍𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗈 𝖼𝗋𝗂𝗆𝖾 𝖽𝖾 𝗏𝗂𝗈𝗅𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝗉𝗈𝖽𝖾 𝗌𝖾𝗋 𝗂𝗇𝗏𝖾𝗌𝗍𝗂𝗀𝖺𝖽𝗈 𝖾 𝗉𝗎𝗇𝗂𝖽𝗈 𝖾𝗆 𝖯𝗈𝗋𝗍𝗎𝗀𝖺𝗅 𝗌𝖾 𝖺 𝗏𝗂́𝗍𝗂𝗆𝖺 𝖺𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗌𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖺𝗋 𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗂𝗑𝖺, 𝗈𝗎 𝗌𝖾 𝗈 𝖬𝗂𝗇𝗂𝗌𝗍𝖾́𝗋𝗂𝗈 𝖯𝗎́𝖻𝗅𝗂𝖼𝗈 𝖺𝗌𝗌𝗂𝗆 𝗈 𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗇𝖽𝖾𝗋… 𝖮 𝗉𝖺𝗍𝖾𝗋𝗇𝖺𝗅𝗂𝗌𝗆𝗈 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺 𝗌𝗈𝗅𝗎𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝗅𝖾𝗀𝖺𝗅, 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖽𝖺́ 𝖺𝗈 𝖬𝗂𝗇𝗂𝗌𝗍𝖾́𝗋𝗂𝗈 𝖯𝗎́𝖻𝗅𝗂𝖼𝗈 𝗈 𝗉𝗈𝖽𝖾𝗋 𝖽𝗂𝗌𝖼𝗋𝗂𝖼𝗂𝗈𝗇𝖺́𝗋𝗂𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝖽𝖾𝖼𝗂𝖽𝗂𝗋 𝗌𝖾 𝖾́ 𝗈𝗎 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝗈 𝗂𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗌𝖾 𝖽𝖺 𝗏𝗂́𝗍𝗂𝗆𝖺 𝗉𝖾𝗋𝗌𝖾𝗀𝗎𝗂𝗋 𝗉𝖾𝗇𝖺𝗅𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗆 𝖺 𝗏𝗂𝗈𝗅𝗈𝗎, 𝖾́ 𝖾𝗏𝗂𝖽𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾. 𝖮 𝗉𝖺𝗍𝗋𝗂𝖺𝗋𝖼𝖺𝖽𝗈 𝗌𝗎𝗋𝗀𝖾 𝖺𝗊𝗎𝗂 𝗆𝖺𝗍𝖾𝗋𝗂𝖺𝗅𝗂𝗓𝖺𝖽𝗈 𝗇𝗎𝗆 𝖤𝗌𝗍𝖺𝖽𝗈 𝗉𝖺𝗂𝗓𝗂𝗇𝗁𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖽𝖾𝖼𝗂𝖽𝖾 𝗉𝖾𝗅𝖺 𝗍𝗈𝗅𝗂𝗇𝗁𝖺 𝖽𝖺 𝗏𝗂́𝗍𝗂𝗆𝖺 𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖾́ 𝗆𝖾𝗅𝗁𝗈𝗋 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝖾𝗅𝖺.

𝖤𝗌𝗍𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗌𝗆𝖾́𝗍𝗂𝖼𝖺 𝗅𝖾𝗀𝗂𝗌𝗅𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗏𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝟤𝟢𝟣𝟫 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝖺𝗅𝗍𝖾𝗋𝖺, 𝗇𝗈 𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖺𝗇𝗍𝗈, 𝗈 𝖿𝖺𝖼𝗍𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗆𝗈𝗌 𝖾𝗆 𝖼𝗅𝖺𝗋𝗂́𝗌𝗌𝗂𝗆𝖺 𝗏𝗂𝗈𝗅𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖺 𝗌𝖾𝗀𝗎𝗇𝖽𝖺 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝗍𝖾 𝖽𝗈 𝖼𝗂𝗍𝖺𝖽𝗈 𝖺𝗋𝗍𝗂𝗀𝗈 𝟧𝟧.º, 𝗇.º 𝟣, 𝖽𝖺 𝖢𝗈𝗇𝗏𝖾𝗇𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝖨𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗆𝖻𝗎𝗅 – “𝖠𝗌 𝖯𝖺𝗋𝗍𝖾𝗌 𝖺𝗌𝗌𝖾𝗀𝗎𝗋𝖺𝗋𝖺̃𝗈 (…) 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗈 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝖼𝖾𝗌𝗌𝗈 𝗉𝗈𝗌𝗌𝖺 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝗌𝗌𝖾𝗀𝗎𝗂𝗋 𝗆𝖾𝗌𝗆𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖺 𝗏𝗂́𝗍𝗂𝗆𝖺 𝗋𝖾𝗍𝗂𝗋𝖾 𝖺 𝗌𝗎𝖺 𝖽𝖾𝖼𝗅𝖺𝗋𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝗈𝗎 𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗂𝗑𝖺” –, 𝗏𝗂𝗌𝗍𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗈 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝖼𝖾𝖽𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝗉𝖾𝗇𝖺𝗅 𝗍𝖾𝗋𝗆𝗂𝗇𝖺 𝗌𝖾 𝖺 𝗏𝗂́𝗍𝗂𝗆𝖺 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝗂𝗌𝗍𝗂𝗋 𝖽𝗈 𝗆𝖾𝗌𝗆𝗈. 𝖤́ 𝖽𝖺 𝗇𝖺𝗍𝗎𝗋𝖾𝗓𝖺 𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝖼𝗋𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗌 𝗌𝖾𝗆𝗂𝗉𝗎́𝖻𝗅𝗂𝖼𝗈𝗌 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖺𝗌𝗌𝗂𝗆 𝗌𝖾𝗃𝖺: 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗉𝖾𝗍𝖾 𝖺̀ 𝗏𝗂́𝗍𝗂𝗆𝖺 𝖺𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗌𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖺𝗋 𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗂𝗑𝖺, 𝗉𝗈𝖽𝖾𝗇𝖽𝗈 𝖽𝖾𝗅𝖺 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝗂𝗌𝗍𝗂𝗋 𝗌𝖾 𝖺𝗌𝗌𝗂𝗆 𝗈 𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗇𝖽𝖾𝗋. 𝖣𝖾̂-𝗌𝖾 𝖺𝗌 𝗏𝗈𝗅𝗍𝖺𝗌 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗌𝖾 𝖽𝖾𝗋 𝖾𝗆 𝗍𝗈𝗋𝗇𝗈 𝖽𝗈 𝖺𝖽𝗏𝖾́𝗋𝖻𝗂𝗈 𝗂𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗂𝗋𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝖼𝗎𝗋𝖺𝗋 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝗈𝗋𝗇𝖺𝗋 𝖺 𝖢𝗈𝗇𝗏𝖾𝗇𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝖨𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗆𝖻𝗎𝗅, 𝖺 𝗏𝖾𝗋𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾 𝗂𝗇𝗌𝗈𝖿𝗂𝗌𝗆𝖺́𝗏𝖾𝗅 𝖾́ 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖯𝗈𝗋𝗍𝗎𝗀𝖺𝗅 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺́ 𝖾𝗆 𝖼𝗅𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝗏𝗂𝗈𝗅𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝗈 𝖺𝗋𝗍𝗂𝗀𝗈 𝟧𝟧.º, 𝗇.º 𝟣, 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖾 𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗍𝖺𝖽𝗈 𝗂𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗋𝗇𝖺𝖼𝗂𝗈𝗇𝖺𝗅, 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝗏𝖾𝗓 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗈 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝖼𝖾𝖽𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝗉𝖾𝗇𝖺𝗅 𝗉𝗈𝗋 𝗏𝗂𝗈𝗅𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝗍𝖾𝗋𝗆𝗂𝗇𝖺 𝗌𝖾 𝖺 𝗏𝗂́𝗍𝗂𝗆𝖺 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝗂𝗌𝗍𝗂𝗋 𝖽𝗈 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝖼𝖾𝗌𝗌𝗈.

𝖳𝖾𝗆-𝗌𝖾 𝖺𝗋𝗀𝗎𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖺𝖽𝗈, 𝗊𝗎𝖺𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝖺 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖾 𝗉𝗈𝗇𝗍𝗈, 𝖼𝗈𝗆 𝖺 𝗂𝖽𝖾𝗂𝖺 𝖽𝖺 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝗍𝖾𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖺 𝖺𝗎𝗍𝗈𝗇𝗈𝗆𝗂𝖺 𝖾 𝖽𝖺 𝗂𝗇𝗍𝗂𝗆𝗂𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾 𝖽𝖺 𝗏𝗂𝖽𝖺 𝗉𝗋𝗂𝗏𝖺𝖽𝖺 𝖽𝖺 𝗏𝗂́𝗍𝗂𝗆𝖺, 𝖽𝗂𝗓𝖾𝗇𝖽𝗈-𝗌𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝖽𝖾𝗌𝖼𝖾𝗇𝖽𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝗌𝖾 𝖽𝖾𝗏𝖾 𝗈𝖻𝗋𝗂𝗀𝖺𝗋 𝖺𝗅𝗀𝗎𝖾́𝗆 𝖺 𝗋𝖾𝗏𝗂𝗏𝖾𝗋 𝗎𝗆 𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝗋𝖺 𝖺 𝗌𝗎𝖺 𝗏𝗈𝗇𝗍𝖺𝖽𝖾.

𝖠 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺 𝖺𝗋𝗀𝗎𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈, 𝖿𝖺𝗅𝗌𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝖿𝖾𝗆𝗂𝗇𝗂𝗌𝗍𝖺, 𝗁𝖺́ 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗉𝗈𝗇𝖽𝖾𝗋, 𝖺𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝗆𝖺𝗂𝗌, 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖼𝗎𝗆𝗉𝗋𝗂𝗋 𝗈𝗎 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝖺 𝖢𝗈𝗇𝗏𝖾𝗇𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝖨𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗆𝖻𝗎𝗅 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺́ 𝗇𝗈 𝖺𝗋𝖻𝗂́𝗍𝗋𝗂𝗈 𝖽𝗈 𝗅𝖾𝗀𝗂𝗌𝗅𝖺𝖽𝗈𝗋 𝗉𝗈𝗋𝗍𝗎𝗀𝗎𝖾̂𝗌. 𝖵𝖺𝗅𝖾 𝖺𝗊𝗎𝗂 𝗈 𝗉𝗋𝗂𝗇𝖼𝗂́𝗉𝗂𝗈 𝗉𝖺𝖼𝗍𝖺 𝗌𝗎𝗇𝗍 𝗌𝖾𝗋𝗏𝖺𝗇𝖽𝖺 – 𝗈𝗌 𝖺𝖼𝗈𝗋𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝗌𝖺̃𝗈 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝖼𝗎𝗆𝗉𝗋𝗂𝗋 –: 𝗌𝖾 𝗈 𝖤𝗌𝗍𝖺𝖽𝗈 𝗉𝗈𝗋𝗍𝗎𝗀𝗎𝖾̂𝗌 𝗋𝖺𝗍𝗂𝖿𝗂𝖼𝗈𝗎 𝖽𝖾 𝖻𝗈𝖺 𝖿𝖾́ 𝖺 𝖢𝗈𝗇𝗏𝖾𝗇𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝖨𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗆𝖻𝗎𝗅 𝖾 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝖿𝗈𝗋𝗆𝗎𝗅𝗈𝗎 𝗊𝗎𝖺𝗅𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗋 𝗋𝖾𝗌𝖾𝗋𝗏𝖺 𝖺̀𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗅𝖾 𝗉𝗋𝖾𝖼𝖾𝗂𝗍𝗈, 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝗅𝗁𝖾 𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺 𝗈𝗎𝗍𝗋𝖺 𝗁𝗂𝗉𝗈́𝗍𝖾𝗌𝖾 𝗌𝖾𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝖼𝗎𝗆𝗉𝗋𝗂-𝗅𝗈, 𝗉𝗈𝗋 𝗆𝗎𝗂𝗍𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖽𝖾𝗅𝖾 𝗉𝗈𝗌𝗌𝖺 𝖽𝗂𝗌𝖼𝗈𝗋𝖽𝖺𝗋.

𝖬𝖺𝗌, 𝗆𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝗂𝗆𝗉𝗈𝗋𝗍𝖺𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝖽𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖾 𝖺𝗋𝗀𝗎𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝗍𝖺𝗅𝗏𝖾𝗓 𝗎𝗆 𝗉𝗈𝗎𝖼𝗈 𝗅𝖾𝗀𝖺𝗅𝗂𝗌𝗍𝖺, 𝗂𝗆𝗉𝗈𝗋𝗍𝖺 𝗌𝖺𝗅𝗂𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖺𝗋 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖺 𝗌𝗈𝗅𝗎𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝗅𝖾𝗀𝖺𝗅 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗁𝗈𝗃𝖾 𝗍𝖾𝗆𝗈𝗌 𝗇𝖺𝖽𝖺 𝗍𝖾𝗆 𝖽𝖾 𝖿𝖾𝗆𝗂𝗇𝗂𝗌𝗍𝖺. 𝖲𝗈𝖻 𝖺 𝖿𝖺𝗅𝗌𝖺 𝖼𝖺𝗉𝖺 𝖽𝖺 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝗍𝖾𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖺 𝖺𝗎𝗍𝗈𝗇𝗈𝗆𝗂𝖺 𝖾 𝖽𝖺 𝗂𝗇𝗍𝗂𝗆𝗂𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾 𝖽𝖺 𝗏𝗂𝖽𝖺 𝗉𝗋𝗂𝗏𝖺𝖽𝖺 𝖽𝖺 𝗏𝗂́𝗍𝗂𝗆𝖺, 𝗈 𝖺𝗋𝗀𝗎𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝖽𝖺 𝗋𝖾𝗏𝗂𝗍𝗂𝗆𝗂𝗓𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝗉𝗈𝗋 𝗏𝗂𝖺 𝖽𝗈 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝖼𝖾𝗌𝗌𝗈 𝗉𝖾𝗇𝖺𝗅 𝖾́ 𝗉𝗈𝗎𝖼𝗈 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗏𝗂𝗇𝖼𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾, 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗇𝖽𝗈 𝗂𝗇𝗊𝗎𝗂𝗇𝖺𝖽𝗈 𝗉𝗈𝗋 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝗉𝖾𝗍𝗂𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝗉𝗋𝗂𝗇𝖼𝗂́𝗉𝗂𝗈. 𝖠𝗈 𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗍𝖾𝗇𝖽𝖾𝗋 𝗉𝗈𝗎𝗉𝖺𝗋 𝖺 𝗏𝗂́𝗍𝗂𝗆𝖺 𝖽𝖺 𝗏𝖾𝗋𝗀𝗈𝗇𝗁𝖺 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺 𝗉𝗈𝗌𝗌𝖺 𝗌𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗂𝗋 𝗉𝗈𝗋 𝗏𝗂𝗋 𝖺 𝗌𝖺𝖻𝖾𝗋-𝗌𝖾 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖿𝗈𝗂 𝗏𝗂𝗈𝗅𝖺𝖽𝖺, 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗆𝗈𝗌 𝗇𝗈 𝖿𝗎𝗇𝖽𝗈 𝖺 𝗎𝗌𝖺𝗋 𝖺 𝖽𝗂𝗌𝖼𝗋𝗂𝗆𝗂𝗇𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝗆𝗂𝗅𝖾𝗇𝖺𝗋 𝖽𝖾 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖺𝗌 𝗆𝗎𝗅𝗁𝖾𝗋𝖾𝗌 𝗌𝖺̃𝗈 𝗏𝗂́𝗍𝗂𝗆𝖺𝗌 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝗉𝖾𝗋𝗉𝖾𝗍𝗎𝖺𝗋 𝖾𝗌𝗌𝖺 𝗆𝖾𝗌𝗆𝖺 𝖽𝗂𝗌𝖼𝗋𝗂𝗆𝗂𝗇𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈, 𝗆𝖺𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗇𝖽𝗈 𝗌𝗈𝖻𝗋𝖾 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖾 𝖼𝗋𝗂𝗆𝖾 𝗎𝗆 𝗆𝖺𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝗏𝖾𝗋𝗀𝗈𝗇𝗁𝖺 𝖾 𝖽𝖾 𝗌𝗂𝗅𝖾̂𝗇𝖼𝗂𝗈. 𝖮𝗋𝖺, 𝖺 𝗅𝖾𝗂 𝗉𝖾𝗇𝖺𝗅 𝖽𝖾𝗏𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝗋𝗂𝖻𝗎𝗂𝗋 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗅𝗈𝖼𝖺𝗋 𝖺 𝗏𝖾𝗋𝗀𝗈𝗇𝗁𝖺 𝗈𝗇𝖽𝖾 𝖾𝗅𝖺 𝖾𝖿𝖾𝗍𝗂𝗏𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝗉𝖾𝗋𝗍𝖾𝗇𝖼𝖾: 𝗇𝖺 𝖾𝗌𝖿𝖾𝗋𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗆 𝗏𝗂𝗈𝗅𝗈𝗎 𝖾 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗆 𝖿𝗈𝗂 𝗏𝗂𝗈𝗅𝖺𝖽𝗈.

𝖢𝗈𝗆𝗈 𝗍𝖺̃𝗈 𝖻𝖾𝗆 𝖽𝗂𝗌𝗌𝖾 𝖦𝗂𝗌𝖾̀𝗅𝖾 𝖯𝖾́𝗅𝗂𝖼𝗈𝗍, “𝖨𝗅 𝖿𝖺𝗎𝗍 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗅𝖺 𝗁𝗈𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝖼𝗁𝖺𝗇𝗀𝖾 𝖽𝖾 𝖼𝖺𝗆𝗉! – “𝖤́ 𝗉𝗋𝖾𝖼𝗂𝗌𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖺 𝗏𝖾𝗋𝗀𝗈𝗇𝗁𝖺 𝗆𝗎𝖽𝖾 𝖽𝖾 𝗅𝖺𝖽𝗈!”.

𝖳𝗈𝗋𝗇𝖺𝗋 𝖺 𝗏𝗂𝗈𝗅𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝗎𝗆 𝖼𝗋𝗂𝗆𝖾 𝗉𝗎́𝖻𝗅𝗂𝖼𝗈 𝗌𝗂𝗀𝗇𝗂𝖿𝗂𝖼𝖺 𝗉𝗋𝖾𝖼𝗂𝗌𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝗅𝗂𝖻𝖾𝗋𝗍𝖺𝗋 𝖺𝗌 𝗏𝗂́𝗍𝗂𝗆𝖺𝗌 𝖽𝗈 𝗈́𝗇𝗎𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝖺𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗌𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖺𝗋𝖾𝗆 𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗂𝗑𝖺 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗌𝖾 𝖿𝖺𝖼̧𝖺 𝗃𝗎𝗌𝗍𝗂𝖼̧𝖺, 𝗋𝖾𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗁𝖾𝖼𝖾𝗇𝖽𝗈-𝗌𝖾 𝖺𝗌𝗌𝗂𝗆 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗈 𝖻𝖾𝗆 𝗃𝗎𝗋𝗂́𝖽𝗂𝖼𝗈 𝖾𝗆 𝖼𝖺𝗎𝗌𝖺 – 𝖺 𝗅𝗂𝖻𝖾𝗋𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾 𝗌𝖾𝗑𝗎𝖺𝗅 – 𝖾́ 𝖽𝖾 𝗍𝖺𝗅 𝖿𝗈𝗋𝗆𝖺 𝗉𝗋𝖾𝖼𝗂𝗈𝗌𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗈 𝖼𝗋𝗂𝗆𝖾 𝖽𝖾 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖿𝗈𝗋𝖺𝗆 𝗏𝗂́𝗍𝗂𝗆𝖺𝗌 𝖺𝗀𝗋𝗂𝖽𝖾 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝖺𝗉𝖾𝗇𝖺𝗌 𝖺𝗌 𝗉𝗋𝗈́𝗉𝗋𝗂𝖺𝗌, 𝗆𝖺𝗌 𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗎𝗇𝗂𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗈 𝗎𝗆 𝗍𝗈𝖽𝗈. 𝖣𝖾 𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗍𝗈, 𝖺 𝗂𝗇𝗏𝖾𝗌𝗍𝗂𝗀𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖾 𝗃𝗎𝗅𝗀𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝖼𝗋𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗌 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝗋𝖺 𝖺 𝗅𝗂𝖻𝖾𝗋𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾 𝗌𝖾𝗑𝗎𝖺𝗅 𝗈𝗎 𝖽𝖾 𝗏𝗂𝗈𝗅𝖾̂𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺 𝖽𝗈𝗆𝖾́𝗌𝗍𝗂𝖼𝖺 𝗍𝖾̂𝗆 𝗌𝖾𝗆𝗉𝗋𝖾 𝗇𝖺𝗍𝗎𝗋𝖾𝗓𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝖿𝗂𝖽𝖾𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺𝗅, 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝗌𝖾 𝗏𝗂𝗌𝗅𝗎𝗆𝖻𝗋𝖺𝗇𝖽𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖺𝗅𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗋 𝗋𝖺𝗓𝖺̃𝗈 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝗌𝖾𝗃𝖺 𝗍𝖺𝗆𝖻𝖾́𝗆 𝖺𝗌𝗌𝗂𝗆 𝗋𝖾𝗅𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗏𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝖺𝗈 𝖼𝗋𝗂𝗆𝖾 𝖽𝖾 𝗏𝗂𝗈𝗅𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝗉𝖾𝗌𝗌𝗈𝖺 𝖺𝖽𝗎𝗅𝗍𝖺. 𝖭𝖺̃𝗈 𝖾́ 𝗉𝗈𝗋 𝗌𝖾 𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗍𝖺𝗋 𝖽𝖾 𝗎𝗆 𝖼𝗋𝗂𝗆𝖾 𝗉𝗎́𝖻𝗅𝗂𝖼𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗈𝗌 𝖽𝖾𝗍𝖺𝗅𝗁𝖾𝗌 𝖽𝖺 𝗏𝗂𝗈𝗅𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝗌𝗈𝖿𝗋𝗂𝖽𝖺 𝗌𝖾𝗋𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝗂𝗌𝖼𝗎𝗍𝗂𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝗇𝖺 𝗉𝗋𝖺𝖼̧𝖺 𝗉𝗎́𝖻𝗅𝗂𝖼𝖺.

𝖥𝖺𝗅𝖺𝗋 𝗇𝗈 𝗋𝗂𝗌𝖼𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝗋𝖾𝗏𝗂𝗍𝗂𝗆𝗂𝗓𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝗉𝗈𝗋 𝗏𝗂𝖺 𝖽𝗈 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝖼𝖾𝗌𝗌𝗈 𝗉𝖾𝗇𝖺𝗅 𝖾́ 𝗍𝖺𝗆𝖻𝖾́𝗆, 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗈 𝖻𝖾𝗆 𝗅𝖾𝗆𝖻𝗋𝖺 𝖢𝗅𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝖲𝗈𝗍𝗍𝗈𝗆𝖺𝗒𝗈𝗋, 𝖾𝗌𝖼𝖺𝗆𝗈𝗍𝖾𝖺𝗋 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗈 𝖤𝗌𝗍𝖺𝖽𝗈 𝗍𝖾𝗆 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗆 𝖺𝗌 𝗏𝗂́𝗍𝗂𝗆𝖺𝗌 𝗈𝖻𝗋𝗂𝗀𝖺𝖼̧𝗈̃𝖾𝗌 𝗆𝗎𝗂𝗍𝗈 𝖼𝗅𝖺𝗋𝖺𝗌: 𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗋-𝗅𝗁𝖾𝗌 𝖺𝗉𝗈𝗂𝗈 𝗉𝗌𝗂𝖼𝗈𝗅𝗈́𝗀𝗂𝖼𝗈 𝖾 𝗅𝖾𝗀𝖺𝗅; 𝖿𝗈𝗋𝗆𝖺𝗋 𝗉𝗈𝗅𝗂𝖼𝗂𝖺𝗂𝗌, 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝖼𝗎𝗋𝖺𝖽𝗈𝗋𝖾𝗌, 𝗃𝗎𝗂́𝗓𝖾𝗌 𝖾 𝖺𝖽𝗏𝗈𝗀𝖺𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝖼𝖺𝗉𝖺𝗓𝖾𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝗅𝗂𝖽𝖺𝗋 𝖼𝗈𝗋𝗋𝖾𝗍𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗆 𝗈𝗌 𝖼𝗋𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗌 𝗌𝖾𝗑𝗎𝖺𝗂𝗌; 𝖺𝖿𝖺𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗋 𝗈 𝖺𝗀𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗌𝗈𝗋 𝖽𝖺 𝗏𝗂́𝗍𝗂𝗆𝖺. 𝖥𝗎𝗀𝗂𝗋 𝖺 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗌 𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗉𝗈𝗇𝗌𝖺𝖻𝗂𝗅𝗂𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾𝗌, 𝖾𝗌𝖼𝗎𝖽𝖺𝗇𝖽𝗈-𝗇𝗈𝗌 𝗇𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝗌𝗎𝗉𝗈𝗌𝗍𝖺 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝗍𝖾𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖺 𝗏𝗂́𝗍𝗂𝗆𝖺, 𝖾́ 𝗉𝗈𝗋 𝗂𝗌𝗌𝗈 𝗁𝗂𝗉𝗈́𝖼𝗋𝗂𝗍𝖺 𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝖻𝖺𝗋𝖽𝖾.

𝖭𝖺 𝗏𝖾𝗋𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾, 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝗍𝖾𝗀𝖾𝗋𝖾𝗆𝗈𝗌 𝖺𝗌 𝗏𝗂́𝗍𝗂𝗆𝖺𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝗏𝗂𝗈𝗅𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝗇𝗈 𝖽𝗂𝖺 𝖾𝗆 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗇𝗌𝗆𝗂𝗍𝗂𝗋𝗆𝗈𝗌 𝖺𝗈𝗌 𝖺𝗀𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗌𝗈𝗋𝖾𝗌 𝖺 𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗌𝖺𝗀𝖾𝗆 𝖼𝗅𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝗍𝗈𝗅𝖾𝗋𝖺𝗆𝗈𝗌 𝖺 𝗏𝗂𝗈𝗅𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖾 𝗅𝗁𝖾 𝖿𝖺𝗓𝖾𝗆𝗈𝗌 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝗀𝗎𝖾𝗋𝗋𝖺 𝗌𝖾𝗆 𝗊𝗎𝖺𝗋𝗍𝖾𝗅 – 𝖾́ 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖾 𝗈 𝗌𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗂𝖽𝗈 𝗎́𝗅𝗍𝗂𝗆𝗈 𝖽𝖺 𝗇𝖺𝗍𝗎𝗋𝖾𝗓𝖺 𝗉𝗎́𝖻𝗅𝗂𝖼𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝗎𝗆 𝖼𝗋𝗂𝗆𝖾. 𝖳𝗋𝖺𝗍𝖺-𝗌𝖾 𝖽𝖾 𝖽𝗂𝗓𝖾𝗋 𝗊𝗎𝖾, 𝖾𝗇𝗊𝗎𝖺𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗎𝗇𝗂𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾 𝗃𝗎𝗋𝗂́𝖽𝗂𝖼𝖺, 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗌𝗂𝖽𝖾𝗋𝖺𝗆𝗈𝗌 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝖿𝗈𝗂 𝖺𝗉𝖾𝗇𝖺𝗌 𝖺 𝗏𝗂́𝗍𝗂𝗆𝖺 𝖺 𝗌𝖾𝗋 𝗏𝗂𝗈𝗅𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖺𝖽𝖺 𝗇𝖺 𝗌𝗎𝖺 𝖽𝗂𝗀𝗇𝗂𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾 𝖾 𝖺𝗎𝗍𝗈𝗇𝗈𝗆𝗂𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗋𝗉𝗈𝗋𝖺𝗅 𝖼𝗈𝗆 𝖺𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗅𝖺 𝗏𝗂𝗈𝗅𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈, 𝗆𝖺𝗌 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖾𝗌𝗌𝖾 𝖽𝖺𝗇𝗈 𝗇𝗈𝗌 𝖿𝗈𝗂 𝖿𝖾𝗂𝗍𝗈 𝖺 𝗍𝗈𝖽𝖺𝗌 𝖾 𝖺 𝗍𝗈𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝖾 𝗊𝗎𝖾, 𝗉𝗈𝗋 𝗂𝗌𝗌𝗈, 𝖺𝗌𝗌𝗎𝗆𝗂𝗆𝗈𝗌 𝖼𝗈𝗅𝖾𝗍𝗂𝗏𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝖺 𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗉𝗈𝗇𝗌𝖺𝖻𝗂𝗅𝗂𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾 𝖽𝖾 𝗉𝗎𝗇𝗂𝗋 𝖺𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗅𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝖽𝗎𝗍𝖺, 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝗉𝗈𝗇𝖽𝗈 𝗌𝗈𝖻𝗋𝖾 𝗈𝗌 𝗈𝗆𝖻𝗋𝗈𝗌 𝖽𝖺 𝗏𝗂́𝗍𝗂𝗆𝖺 𝖺 𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗉𝗈𝗇𝗌𝖺𝖻𝗂𝗅𝗂𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾 𝖾𝗑𝖼𝗅𝗎𝗌𝗂𝗏𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝖿𝖺𝗓𝖾𝗋 𝗃𝗎𝗌𝗍𝗂𝖼̧𝖺.

𝖠𝖼𝗋𝖾𝗌𝖼𝖾 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺 𝗆𝖾𝗌𝗆𝗂́𝗌𝗌𝗂𝗆𝖺 𝖺𝗋𝗀𝗎𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝖺𝗅𝖾𝗀𝖺𝖽𝖺 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝗍𝖾𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖺 𝗂𝗇𝗍𝗂𝗆𝗂𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾 𝖽𝖺 𝗏𝗂́𝗍𝗂𝗆𝖺 𝖿𝗈𝗂 𝗎𝗌𝖺𝖽𝖺 𝖽𝗎𝗋𝖺𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝗆𝗎𝗂𝗍𝗈𝗌 (𝖽𝖾𝗆𝖺𝗌𝗂𝖺𝖽𝗈𝗌) 𝖺𝗇𝗈𝗌 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝗇𝖾𝗀𝖺𝗋 𝖺 𝗇𝖺𝗍𝗎𝗋𝖾𝗓𝖺 𝗉𝗎́𝖻𝗅𝗂𝖼𝖺 𝖺𝗈 𝖼𝗋𝗂𝗆𝖾 𝖽𝖾 𝗏𝗂𝗈𝗅𝖾̂𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺 𝖽𝗈𝗆𝖾́𝗌𝗍𝗂𝖼𝖺. 𝖮 𝗍𝖾𝗆𝗉𝗈 𝗏𝖾𝗂𝗈 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝗏𝖺𝗋 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺 𝖺𝗋𝗀𝗎𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗏𝖺 𝖾𝗋𝗋𝖺𝖽𝖺 𝖾 𝗈 𝖿𝖺𝖼𝗍𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝖺 𝗏𝗂𝗈𝗅𝖾̂𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺 𝖽𝗈𝗆𝖾́𝗌𝗍𝗂𝖼𝖺 𝗌𝖾𝗋 𝗁𝗈𝗃𝖾 𝗎𝗆 𝖼𝗋𝗂𝗆𝖾 𝗉𝗎́𝖻𝗅𝗂𝖼𝗈 𝖾́ 𝖺𝖻𝗌𝗈𝗅𝗎𝗍𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝖾𝗌𝗌𝖾𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺𝗅 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝖺 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝗍𝖾𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖺𝗌 𝗏𝗂́𝗍𝗂𝗆𝖺𝗌.

𝖠𝗅𝖾́𝗆 𝖽𝗂𝗌𝗌𝗈, 𝖾𝗑𝗂𝗌𝗍𝖾 𝖺𝗍𝗎𝖺𝗅𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝗂𝗇𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗉𝗋𝖾𝖾𝗇𝗌𝗂́𝗏𝖾𝗅 𝖽𝗂𝗌𝖼𝗋𝖾𝗉𝖺̂𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺 𝗏𝖺𝗅𝗈𝗋𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗏𝖺 𝗇𝖺 𝗅𝖾𝗂 𝗉𝖾𝗇𝖺𝗅, 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗊𝗎𝖺𝗅𝗂𝖿𝗂𝖼𝖺 𝗈𝗌 𝗆𝖾𝗌𝗆𝗈𝗌 𝖿𝖺𝖼𝗍𝗈𝗌 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗈 𝖼𝗋𝗂𝗆𝖾 𝗉𝗎́𝖻𝗅𝗂𝖼𝗈 𝗈𝗎 𝗌𝖾𝗆𝗂𝗉𝗎́𝖻𝗅𝗂𝖼𝗈 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗌𝗈𝖺𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝖺 𝗂𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾 𝖽𝖺 𝗏𝗂́𝗍𝗂𝗆𝖺 𝗈𝗎 𝖾𝗆 𝖿𝗎𝗇𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖺 𝗋𝖾𝗅𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝗉𝗋𝖾́𝗏𝗂𝖺 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺 𝗍𝖾𝗇𝗁𝖺, 𝗈𝗎 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈, 𝖼𝗈𝗆 𝗈 𝖺𝗀𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗌𝗈𝗋. 𝖠𝗍𝗎𝖺𝗅𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾, 𝗌𝖾 𝖺 𝗏𝗂́𝗍𝗂𝗆𝖺 𝖿𝗈𝗋 𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗈𝗋, 𝗈 𝖼𝗋𝗂𝗆𝖾 𝗌𝖾𝗋𝖺́ 𝗌𝖾𝗆𝗉𝗋𝖾 𝗉𝗎́𝖻𝗅𝗂𝖼𝗈, 𝗉𝗈𝗋 𝗌𝖾𝗋 𝖾𝗇𝗊𝗎𝖺𝖽𝗋𝖺́𝗏𝖾𝗅 𝗇𝗈 𝗍𝗂𝗉𝗈 𝗉𝖾𝗇𝖺𝗅 𝖽𝖾 𝖺𝖻𝗎𝗌𝗈 𝗌𝖾𝗑𝗎𝖺𝗅 𝖽𝖾 𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗈𝗋𝖾𝗌. 𝖲𝖾 𝗈 𝖺𝗀𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗌𝗈𝗋 𝖿𝗈𝗋 𝖺𝗅𝗀𝗎𝖾́𝗆 𝗉𝗋𝗈́𝗑𝗂𝗆𝗈 𝖽𝖺 𝗏𝗂́𝗍𝗂𝗆𝖺, 𝗉𝗈𝖽𝖾𝗋𝖾𝗆𝗈𝗌 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗋 𝗇𝗈 𝖺̂𝗆𝖻𝗂𝗍𝗈 𝖽𝗈 𝖼𝗋𝗂𝗆𝖾 𝖽𝖾 𝗏𝗂𝗈𝗅𝖾̂𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺 𝖽𝗈𝗆𝖾́𝗌𝗍𝗂𝖼𝖺, 𝗍𝖺𝗆𝖻𝖾́𝗆 𝖾𝗅𝖾 𝗉𝗎́𝖻𝗅𝗂𝖼𝗈. 𝖢𝖺𝖻𝖾 𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖺̃𝗈 𝗉𝖾𝗋𝗀𝗎𝗇𝗍𝖺𝗋: 𝗉𝗈𝗋 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗆𝗈𝗍𝗂𝗏𝗈 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝗉𝖾𝗌𝗌𝗈𝖺 𝖺𝖽𝗎𝗅𝗍𝖺 𝗏𝗂𝗈𝗅𝖺𝖽𝖺 𝗉𝗈𝗋 𝗎𝗆 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗁𝖾𝖼𝗂𝖽𝗈 𝖾́ 𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗈𝗌 𝗆𝖾𝗋𝖾𝖼𝖾𝖽𝗈𝗋𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝗍𝖾𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝗉𝖾𝗅𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗎𝗇𝗂𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾? 𝖭𝖺̃𝗈 𝗏𝗂𝗌𝗅𝗎𝗆𝖻𝗋𝗈 𝗇𝖾𝗇𝗁𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝗋𝖺𝗓𝖺̃𝗈 𝖺𝗍𝖾𝗇𝖽𝗂́𝗏𝖾𝗅 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺 𝖽𝗂𝗌𝖼𝗋𝗂𝗆𝗂𝗇𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖾𝗆 𝖿𝗎𝗇𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖺 𝗂𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾 𝖽𝖺 𝗏𝗂́𝗍𝗂𝗆𝖺 𝗈𝗎 𝖽𝖺 𝗂𝖽𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗂𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾 𝖽𝗈 𝗌𝖾𝗎 𝖺𝗀𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗌𝗈𝗋. 𝖢𝗈𝗇𝗌𝗂𝖽𝖾𝗋𝗈, 𝖺𝗌𝗌𝗂𝗆, 𝖾𝗑𝗂𝗌𝗍𝗂𝗋 𝗇𝖺 𝗅𝖾𝗂 𝗉𝖾𝗇𝖺𝗅 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝖼𝗅𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝗏𝗂𝗈𝗅𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝗈 𝗉𝗋𝗂𝗇𝖼𝗂́𝗉𝗂𝗈 𝖽𝖺 𝗂𝗀𝗎𝖺𝗅𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾, 𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗏𝗂𝗌𝗍𝗈 𝗇𝗈 𝖺𝗋𝗍𝗂𝗀𝗈 𝟣𝟥.º 𝖽𝖺 𝗇𝗈𝗌𝗌𝖺 𝖫𝖾𝗂 𝖥𝗎𝗇𝖽𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖺𝗅.

𝖣𝖺 𝗆𝖾𝗌𝗆𝖺 𝖿𝗈𝗋𝗆𝖺, 𝗈 𝖺𝗋𝗀𝗎𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝖽𝖺 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝗍𝖾𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖺 𝖺𝗎𝗍𝗈𝗇𝗈𝗆𝗂𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗋𝗉𝗈𝗋𝖺𝗅 𝖽𝖺 𝗏𝗂́𝗍𝗂𝗆𝖺 𝗍𝖺𝗆𝖻𝖾́𝗆 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝖼𝗈𝗅𝗁𝖾, 𝗉𝗈𝗂𝗌 𝗇𝗂𝗇𝗀𝗎𝖾́𝗆 𝖾́ 𝖿𝗈𝗋𝖼̧𝖺𝖽𝗈, 𝗇𝗎𝗆 𝖤𝗌𝗍𝖺𝖽𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝖽𝗂𝗋𝖾𝗂𝗍𝗈, 𝖺 𝗌𝗎𝖻𝗆𝖾𝗍𝖾𝗋-𝗌𝖾 𝖺 𝖾𝗑𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗌 𝗆𝖾́𝖽𝗂𝖼𝗈𝗌 𝖾𝗆 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗌𝗂𝗇𝗍𝖺. 𝖲𝗎𝗀𝖾𝗋𝗂𝗋 𝗈 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝗋𝖺́𝗋𝗂𝗈 𝖾́ 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝖺𝖻𝖾𝗋𝗋𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝗃𝗎𝗋𝗂́𝖽𝗂𝖼𝖺, 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝗈𝖿𝖾𝗇𝗌𝖺 𝖺𝗈𝗌 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝖿𝗂𝗌𝗌𝗂𝗈𝗇𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝗌𝖺𝗎́𝖽𝖾 𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗌𝗍𝗂𝗍𝗎𝗂, 𝖾𝗆 𝗎́𝗅𝗍𝗂𝗆𝖺 𝖺𝗇𝖺́𝗅𝗂𝗌𝖾, 𝗎𝗆 𝖾𝗌𝗉𝖺𝗇𝗍𝖺𝗅𝗁𝗈 𝖺𝗋𝗀𝗎𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗏𝗈.

𝖨𝗆𝗉𝗈𝗋𝗍𝖺 𝖺𝗂𝗇𝖽𝖺 𝗍𝖾𝗋 𝖾𝗆 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝖺 𝖺 𝖾𝗅𝖾𝗏𝖺𝖽𝖺 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝖻𝖺𝖻𝗂𝗅𝗂𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾 𝖽𝖾 𝗋𝖾𝗉𝖾𝗍𝗂𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝗈 𝖼𝗋𝗂𝗆𝖾. 𝖴𝗆𝖺 𝗏𝖾𝗓 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖺𝗉𝖾𝗇𝖺𝗌 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝗂́𝗇𝖿𝗂𝗆𝖺 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝗍𝖾 𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝖼𝗋𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝗏𝗂𝗈𝗅𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖾́ 𝖽𝖾𝗇𝗎𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺𝖽𝖺, 𝗈𝗌 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝗎𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝗂𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗋𝗇𝖺𝖼𝗂𝗈𝗇𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝖽𝗂𝗏𝖾𝗋𝗀𝖾𝗆 𝗇𝗈 𝖺𝗉𝗎𝗋𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝖽𝖺𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝖼𝗋𝖾𝗍𝗈𝗌; 𝗉𝗈𝗋𝖾́𝗆, 𝖺 𝗍𝖺𝗑𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝗋𝖾𝗉𝖾𝗍𝗂𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖾́ 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗌𝗂𝖽𝖾𝗋𝖺𝖽𝖺 𝖾𝗅𝖾𝗏𝖺𝖽𝖺. 𝖴𝗆 𝗏𝗂𝗈𝗅𝖺𝖽𝗈𝗋 𝗌𝗈𝗅𝗍𝗈 𝖾́, 𝖺𝗌𝗌𝗂𝗆, 𝗎𝗆 𝗏𝗂𝗈𝗅𝖺𝖽𝗈𝗋 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖿𝖺𝗋𝖺́, 𝗆𝗎𝗂𝗍𝗈 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝗏𝖺𝗏𝖾𝗅𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾, 𝗇𝗈𝗏𝖺𝗌 𝗏𝗂́𝗍𝗂𝗆𝖺𝗌. 𝖣𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺 𝖿𝗈𝗋𝗆𝖺, 𝗍𝗈𝗋𝗇𝖺-𝗌𝖾 𝗂𝗆𝗉𝖾𝗋𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗏𝗈 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝗋𝖺𝖻𝖺𝗅𝖺𝗇𝖼̧𝖺𝗋 𝖺 𝗋𝖾𝗅𝗎𝗍𝖺̂𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖺 𝗏𝗂́𝗍𝗂𝗆𝖺 𝗉𝗈𝗌𝗌𝖺 𝖾𝗏𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗎𝖺𝗅𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝗌𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗂𝗋 𝖾𝗆 𝗋𝖾𝗏𝗂𝗏𝖾𝗋 𝗈 𝖼𝗋𝗂𝗆𝖾 𝖽𝖾 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖿𝗈𝗂 𝗏𝗂́𝗍𝗂𝗆𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗆 𝗈𝗌 𝖿𝗂𝗇𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗏𝖾𝗇𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝗀𝖾𝗋𝖺𝗅 𝖾 𝖾𝗌𝗉𝖾𝖼𝗂𝖺𝗅 𝖽𝖺𝗌 𝗉𝖾𝗇𝖺𝗌, 𝗇𝗈 𝗌𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗂𝖽𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝗂𝗆𝗉𝖾𝖽𝗂𝗋 𝖺 𝗋𝖾𝗉𝖾𝗍𝗂𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝗈 𝖼𝗋𝗂𝗆𝖾 𝗉𝖾𝗅𝗈 𝗆𝖾𝗌𝗆𝗈 𝖺𝗀𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝖾 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝖾𝗇𝖼𝗈𝗋𝖺𝗃𝖺𝗋, 𝖽𝖾 𝗎𝗆 𝗆𝗈𝖽𝗈 𝗀𝖾𝗋𝖺𝗅 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝗍𝗈𝖽𝖺 𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗎𝗇𝗂𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾, 𝖺 𝗉𝗋𝖺́𝗍𝗂𝖼𝖺 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖾 𝗍𝗂𝗉𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝖼𝗋𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗌.

𝖮 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖺𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝖾𝖼𝖾 𝗇𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖾 𝗆𝗈𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝖾́ 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖺 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝗍𝖾𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖺𝗌 𝗉𝗈𝗍𝖾𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝗏𝗂́𝗍𝗂𝗆𝖺𝗌 𝖿𝗎𝗍𝗎𝗋𝖺𝗌 𝖾́ 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗉𝗅𝖾𝗍𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝖾𝗌𝖼𝖺𝗆𝗈𝗍𝖾𝖺𝖽𝖺, 𝖾𝗆 𝗇𝗈𝗆𝖾 𝖽𝖾 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝖺𝗅𝖾𝗀𝖺𝖽𝖺 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝗍𝖾𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖺 𝗏𝗂́𝗍𝗂𝗆𝖺 𝖺𝗍𝗎𝖺𝗅 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝗋𝖺 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝗉𝗎𝗍𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗏𝖺 𝗋𝖾𝗏𝗂𝗍𝗂𝗆𝗂𝗓𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈, 𝗉𝗈𝗂𝗌 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗈 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝖾𝗇𝖼𝖺𝖽𝖾𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝖽𝗈 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝖼𝖾𝗌𝗌𝗈 𝗉𝖾𝗇𝖺𝗅 𝖽𝖾𝗉𝖾𝗇𝖽𝖾 𝖾𝗑𝖼𝗅𝗎𝗌𝗂𝗏𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝖽𝖺 𝖺𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗌𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗂𝗑𝖺 𝗉𝗈𝗋 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝗍𝖾 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺 𝗈𝗎 𝖽𝖺𝗊𝗎𝗂𝗅𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗈 𝖬𝗂𝗇𝗂𝗌𝗍𝖾́𝗋𝗂𝗈 𝖯𝗎́𝖻𝗅𝗂𝖼𝗈 𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗇𝖽𝖺 𝗌𝖾𝗋 𝗈 𝗂𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗌𝖾 𝖽𝖺 𝗏𝗂́𝗍𝗂𝗆𝖺. 𝖣𝖺𝗊𝗎𝗂 𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗎𝗅𝗍𝖺 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗈 𝗂𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗌𝖾 𝖽𝖺𝗌 𝗉𝗈𝗍𝖾𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝗏𝗂́𝗍𝗂𝗆𝖺𝗌 𝖿𝗎𝗍𝗎𝗋𝖺𝗌 𝖾 𝗈 𝗂𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗌𝖾 𝗀𝖾𝗋𝖺𝗅 𝖽𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗎𝗇𝗂𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾 𝖾𝗆 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝗍𝖾𝗀𝖾̂-𝗅𝖺𝗌 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝖾́, 𝖾𝗆 𝗇𝖾𝗇𝗁𝗎𝗆 𝗆𝗈𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝖾 𝖽𝖾 𝗇𝖾𝗇𝗁𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝖿𝗈𝗋𝗆𝖺, 𝗍𝗂𝖽𝗈 𝖾𝗆 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝖺. 𝖤𝗌𝗍𝖺 𝗌𝗈𝗅𝗎𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖾́ 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝖿𝗎𝗇𝖽𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝖾𝗊𝗎𝗂𝗅𝗂𝖻𝗋𝖺𝖽𝖺 𝖾 𝗂𝗇𝗃𝗎𝗌𝗍𝖺.

𝖠𝗌𝗌𝗂𝗆, 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖾𝖼𝖾-𝗆𝖾 𝖾𝗏𝗂𝖽𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗈 𝖤𝗌𝗍𝖺𝖽𝗈 𝖽𝖾𝗏𝖾, 𝖾𝗆 𝗉𝗋𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗂𝗋𝖺 𝗅𝗂𝗇𝗁𝖺, 𝖼𝗎𝗆𝗉𝗋𝗂𝗋 𝗈 𝗌𝖾𝗎 𝖽𝖾𝗏𝖾𝗋 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗌𝗍𝗂𝗍𝗎𝖼𝗂𝗈𝗇𝖺𝗅 𝖽𝖾 𝖿𝗈𝗋𝗆𝖺𝗋 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝖿𝗂𝗌𝗌𝗂𝗈𝗇𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝖼𝖺𝗉𝖺𝗓𝖾𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗋 𝖺̀ 𝖺𝗅𝗍𝗎𝗋𝖺 𝖽𝖺𝗌 𝖾𝗑𝗂𝗀𝖾̂𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺𝗌 𝖾𝗌𝗉𝖾𝖼𝗂́𝖿𝗂𝖼𝖺𝗌 𝖽𝖺 𝗂𝗇𝗏𝖾𝗌𝗍𝗂𝗀𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖾 𝗍𝗂𝗉𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝖼𝗋𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗌, 𝖿𝗈𝗋𝗆𝖺𝗇𝖽𝗈 𝗉𝗈𝗅𝗂́𝖼𝗂𝖺𝗌, 𝖺𝖽𝗏𝗈𝗀𝖺𝖽𝗈𝗌, 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝖼𝗎𝗋𝖺𝖽𝗈𝗋𝖾𝗌, 𝗃𝗎𝗂́𝗓𝖾𝗌 𝖾 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝖿𝗂𝗌𝗌𝗂𝗈𝗇𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝗌𝖺𝗎́𝖽𝖾 𝖾𝗆𝗉𝖺́𝗍𝗂𝖼𝗈𝗌, 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗌𝖼𝗂𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗌 𝖽𝖺𝗌 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝗍𝗂𝖼𝗎𝗅𝖺𝗋𝗂𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾𝗌 𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝖼𝗋𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗌 𝗌𝖾𝗑𝗎𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝖾 𝖼𝖺𝗉𝖺𝗓𝖾𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝗋𝗂𝖻𝗎𝗂𝗋 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝖺 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝖼𝗈𝖻𝖾𝗋𝗍𝖺 𝖽𝖺 𝗏𝖾𝗋𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾 𝗌𝖾𝗆 𝗋𝖾𝗏𝗂𝗍𝗂𝗆𝗂𝗓𝖺𝗋 𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗆 𝗃𝖺́ 𝗍𝖺𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝗌𝗈𝖿𝗋𝖾𝗎.

𝖤𝗇𝗊𝗎𝖺𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖾 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝗂́𝗀𝗇𝗂𝗈 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝗉𝗎𝖽𝖾𝗋 𝗌𝖾𝗋 𝗉𝗅𝖾𝗇𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝖺𝗅𝖼𝖺𝗇𝖼̧𝖺𝖽𝗈, 𝖽𝖾𝗏𝖾 𝗌𝖾𝗋 𝗋𝖾𝗌𝖾𝗋𝗏𝖺𝖽𝗈 𝖺̀𝗌 𝗏𝗂́𝗍𝗂𝗆𝖺𝗌 𝗈 𝖽𝗂𝗋𝖾𝗂𝗍𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝖼𝗈𝗅𝖺𝖻𝗈𝗋𝖺𝗋𝖾𝗆 𝗇𝖺 𝗂𝗇𝗏𝖾𝗌𝗍𝗂𝗀𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖾 𝗃𝗎𝗅𝗀𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝖽𝗈 𝖼𝗋𝗂𝗆𝖾, 𝗌𝖾 𝖺𝗌𝗌𝗂𝗆 𝗈 𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗇𝖽𝖾𝗋𝖾𝗆. 𝖯𝖾𝗌𝖾 𝖾𝗆𝖻𝗈𝗋𝖺 𝗈 𝖾𝖿𝖾𝗂𝗍𝗈 𝗍𝖾𝗋𝖺𝗉𝖾̂𝗎𝗍𝗂𝖼𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗉𝗋𝗈𝗏𝖺𝖽𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝗍𝖾𝗆 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺 𝗌𝗎𝖺 𝗋𝖾𝖼𝗅𝖺𝗆𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝖺𝗀𝖾̂𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺 𝗌𝗈𝖻𝗋𝖾 𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖼𝗋𝗂𝗆𝖾 𝖽𝖾 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖿𝗈𝗋𝖺𝗆 𝗏𝗂́𝗍𝗂𝗆𝖺𝗌, 𝖽𝖾𝗏𝖾 𝗌𝖾𝗋-𝗅𝗁𝖾𝗌, 𝖾𝗆 𝗎́𝗅𝗍𝗂𝗆𝖺 𝖺𝗇𝖺́𝗅𝗂𝗌𝖾, 𝗋𝖾𝗌𝖾𝗋𝗏𝖺𝖽𝗈 𝗈 𝖽𝗂𝗋𝖾𝗂𝗍𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝗋𝖾𝗏𝗂𝗏𝖾𝗋𝖾𝗆 𝖾𝗌𝗌𝖺 𝖾𝗑𝗉𝖾𝗋𝗂𝖾̂𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺 𝗌𝖾 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝗈 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝖾𝗃𝖺𝗋𝖾𝗆, 𝖽𝖾𝗏𝖾𝗇𝖽𝗈 𝗌𝖾𝗋 𝖾𝗑𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗌𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝖾𝗑𝖼𝗅𝗎𝗂́𝖽𝖺𝗌 𝖽𝗈 𝖺̂𝗆𝖻𝗂𝗍𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝖺𝗉𝗅𝗂𝖼𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝗈 𝖼𝗋𝗂𝗆𝖾 𝖽𝖾 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝗈𝖻𝖾𝖽𝗂𝖾̂𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺 𝗌𝖾 𝗌𝖾 𝗋𝖾𝖼𝗎𝗌𝖺𝗋𝖾𝗆 𝖺 𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗋 𝖽𝖾𝖼𝗅𝖺𝗋𝖺𝖼̧𝗈̃𝖾𝗌 𝖾𝗇𝗊𝗎𝖺𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝗍𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖾𝗆𝗎𝗇𝗁𝖺𝗌, 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖾𝗆 𝗊𝗎𝖺𝗂𝗌𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗋 𝖽𝗎́𝗏𝗂𝖽𝖺𝗌 𝖺 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖾 𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗉𝖾𝗂𝗍𝗈.

𝖯𝗈𝗋 𝗎́𝗅𝗍𝗂𝗆𝗈, 𝗂𝗆𝗉𝗈𝗋𝗍𝖺 𝗌𝖺𝗅𝗂𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖺𝗋 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖾𝗆𝖻𝗈𝗋𝖺 𝖺 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝗏𝖺 𝗉𝖾𝗋𝗂𝖼𝗂𝖺𝗅 𝖾 𝗈 𝗍𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖾𝗆𝗎𝗇𝗁𝗈 𝖽𝖺𝗌 𝗏𝗂́𝗍𝗂𝗆𝖺𝗌 𝗌𝖾𝗃𝖺𝗆 𝖾𝗅𝖾𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝗏𝖺 𝗆𝗎𝗂𝗍𝗈 𝗂𝗆𝗉𝗈𝗋𝗍𝖺𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗌 𝗇𝗈 𝖺̂𝗆𝖻𝗂𝗍𝗈 𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝖼𝗋𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗌 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝗋𝖺 𝖺 𝗅𝗂𝖻𝖾𝗋𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾 𝗌𝖾𝗑𝗎𝖺𝗅, 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝗌𝖾𝗋𝖺̃𝗈 𝗌𝖾𝗆𝗉𝗋𝖾 𝖾 𝖾𝗆 𝗍𝗈𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝗈𝗌 𝖼𝖺𝗌𝗈𝗌 𝗈𝗌 𝗎́𝗇𝗂𝖼𝗈𝗌 𝗆𝖾𝗂𝗈𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝗏𝖺 𝖽𝗂𝗌𝗉𝗈𝗇𝗂́𝗏𝖾𝗂𝗌, 𝗉𝗈𝖽𝖾𝗇𝖽𝗈 𝖾𝗑𝗂𝗌𝗍𝗂𝗋 𝗈𝗎𝗍𝗋𝖺 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝗏𝖺 𝗍𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖾𝗆𝗎𝗇𝗁𝖺𝗅 𝗈𝗎 𝗆𝖾𝗌𝗆𝗈 𝖽𝗈𝖼𝗎𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖺𝗅 (𝗏𝗂́𝖽𝖾𝗈𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝗏𝗂𝖽𝖾𝗈𝗏𝗂𝗀𝗂𝗅𝖺̂𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺, 𝗉𝗈𝗋 𝖾𝗑𝖾𝗆𝗉𝗅𝗈). 𝖠̀ 𝗅𝗎𝗓 𝖽𝖺 𝗅𝖾𝗂 𝗉𝗈𝗋𝗍𝗎𝗀𝗎𝖾𝗌𝖺, 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖾𝗌 𝗆𝖾𝗂𝗈𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝗏𝖺 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝖼𝗁𝖾𝗀𝖺𝗆 𝗌𝖾𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗋 𝖺 𝗉𝗈𝖽𝖾𝗋 𝗌𝖾𝗋 𝗎𝗍𝗂𝗅𝗂𝗓𝖺𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝗌𝖾 𝖺 𝗏𝗂́𝗍𝗂𝗆𝖺 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖾𝗋 𝗈 𝗇𝖾𝖼𝖾𝗌𝗌𝖺́𝗋𝗂𝗈 𝗂𝗆𝗉𝗎𝗅𝗌𝗈 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝖼𝖾𝗌𝗌𝗎𝖺𝗅, 𝖼𝗈𝗆 𝖺 𝖺𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗌𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗂𝗑𝖺 𝗇𝗈 𝗉𝗋𝖺𝗓𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝗌𝖾𝗂𝗌 𝗆𝖾𝗌𝖾𝗌.

𝖠𝗌𝗌𝗂𝗆, 𝖾𝗆 𝗎́𝗅𝗍𝗂𝗆𝖺 𝖺𝗇𝖺́𝗅𝗂𝗌𝖾, 𝖽𝖾𝗏𝖾 𝗌𝖾𝗋 𝗋𝖾𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗁𝖾𝖼𝗂𝖽𝗈 𝖺̀ 𝗏𝗂́𝗍𝗂𝗆𝖺 𝗈 𝖽𝗂𝗋𝖾𝗂𝗍𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝖼𝗈𝗅𝖺𝖻𝗈𝗋𝖺𝗋 𝗇𝖺 𝗂𝗇𝗏𝖾𝗌𝗍𝗂𝗀𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖾 𝗃𝗎𝗅𝗀𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝖽𝗈 𝖼𝗋𝗂𝗆𝖾, 𝗆𝖺𝗌 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖾𝗏𝖾 𝗍𝖾𝗋 𝗈 𝗉𝗈𝖽𝖾𝗋 𝖽𝖾 𝗂𝗆𝗉𝖾𝖽𝗂𝗋 𝗈 𝖤𝗌𝗍𝖺𝖽𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝗉𝖾𝗋𝗌𝖾𝗀𝗎𝗂𝗋 𝖾𝗌𝗌𝖾 𝖼𝗋𝗂𝗆𝖾 𝗉𝗈𝗋 𝗈𝗎𝗍𝗋𝗈𝗌 𝗆𝖾𝗂𝗈𝗌 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖾𝗃𝖺𝗆 𝖺̀ 𝗌𝗎𝖺 𝖽𝗂𝗌𝗉𝗈𝗌𝗂𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈, 𝗉𝗈𝗂𝗌 𝖽𝖾𝗏𝖾𝗆 𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗋 𝖺𝗊𝗎𝗂 𝖾𝗆 𝗅𝗂𝗇𝗁𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝖺 𝗈𝗌 𝖿𝗂𝗇𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗏𝖾𝗇𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝗀𝖾𝗋𝖺𝗅 𝖾 𝖾𝗌𝗉𝖾𝖼𝗂𝖺𝗅 𝖽𝖺𝗌 𝗉𝖾𝗇𝖺𝗌. 𝖤𝗌𝗍𝖺 𝖾́ 𝖺 𝗌𝗈𝗅𝗎𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝗆𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝖾𝗊𝗎𝗂𝗅𝗂𝖻𝗋𝖺𝖽𝖺 𝖾 𝗃𝗎𝗌𝗍𝖺 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝖿𝗅𝗂𝗍𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝖽𝗂𝗋𝖾𝗂𝗍𝗈𝗌, 𝗉𝗈𝗂𝗌 𝗉𝖾𝗋𝗆𝗂𝗍𝖾 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝗍𝖾𝗀𝖾𝗋 𝗍𝖺𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝖺 𝖺𝗎𝗍𝗈𝖽𝖾𝗍𝖾𝗋𝗆𝗂𝗇𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖺 𝗏𝗂́𝗍𝗂𝗆𝖺 𝗊𝗎𝖺𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗎𝗇𝗂𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾 𝖾𝗆 𝗀𝖾𝗋𝖺𝗅.

𝖧𝗈𝗎𝗏𝖾 𝗃𝖺́ 𝗏𝖺́𝗋𝗂𝗈𝗌 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝗃𝖾𝗍𝗈𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝗅𝖾𝗂 𝗌𝗈𝖻𝗋𝖾 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺 𝗆𝖺𝗍𝖾́𝗋𝗂𝖺 𝖺 𝗌𝖾𝗋 𝗏𝗈𝗍𝖺𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝗇𝖺 𝖠𝗌𝗌𝖾𝗆𝖻𝗅𝖾𝗂𝖺 𝖽𝖺 𝖱𝖾𝗉𝗎́𝖻𝗅𝗂𝖼𝖺 – 𝖽𝗈 𝖡𝗅𝗈𝖼𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝖤𝗌𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗋𝖽𝖺, 𝖽𝖺 𝖨𝗇𝗂𝖼𝗂𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗏𝖺 𝖫𝗂𝖻𝖾𝗋𝖺𝗅 𝖾 𝖺𝗍𝖾́ 𝖽𝖺 𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖾𝗉𝗎𝗍𝖺𝖽𝖺 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝗂𝗇𝗌𝖼𝗋𝗂𝗍𝖺 𝖢𝗋𝗂𝗌𝗍𝗂𝗇𝖺 𝖱𝗈𝖽𝗋𝗂𝗀𝗎𝖾𝗌, 𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗋𝖾𝗍𝖺𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗏𝖾𝗋𝗍𝗂𝖽𝖺 𝖺𝗈 𝗋𝖾𝖺𝖼𝗂𝗈𝗇𝖺𝗋𝗂𝗌𝗆𝗈 𝖽𝗈 𝖢𝗁𝖾𝗀𝖺. 𝖠𝖼𝖺𝖻𝖺𝗋𝖺𝗆 𝗍𝗈𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝖼𝗁𝗎𝗆𝖻𝖺𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝗈𝗎 𝗌𝗂𝗆𝗉𝗅𝖾𝗌𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝖾𝗇𝗀𝖺𝗏𝖾𝗍𝖺𝖽𝗈𝗌.

𝖤́ 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝗂́𝗇𝗎𝖺 𝗂𝗇𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈, 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺 𝗍𝗈𝗅𝖾𝗋𝖺̂𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺 𝗈𝖻𝗌𝖼𝖾𝗇𝖺 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗆 𝖺 𝖼𝗎𝗅𝗍𝗎𝗋𝖺 𝖽𝖺 𝗏𝗂𝗈𝗅𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗏𝖾𝗋𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾𝗂𝗋𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝗋𝖾𝗏𝗂𝗍𝗂𝗆𝗂𝗓𝖺 𝖺𝗌 𝖾 𝗈𝗌 𝗌𝗈𝖻𝗋𝖾𝗏𝗂𝗏𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝖼𝗋𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗌 𝗌𝖾𝗑𝗎𝖺𝗂𝗌. 𝖨𝗆𝖺𝗀𝗂𝗇𝖾-𝗌𝖾 𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗌𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗂𝗋𝖺̃𝗈 𝖺𝗌 𝗉𝖾𝗌𝗌𝗈𝖺𝗌 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗏𝗂𝗏𝖾𝗆 𝖼𝗈𝗆 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖾 𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝖺𝗈 𝗏𝖾𝗋 𝗊𝗎𝖾, 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝗂𝗇𝗎𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾, 𝖺𝗌 𝖽𝖾𝗂𝗑𝖺𝗆𝗈𝗌 𝗌𝗈𝗓𝗂𝗇𝗁𝖺𝗌 𝖺 𝗅𝗂𝖽𝖺𝗋 𝖼𝗈𝗆 𝖾𝗅𝖾? (𝖤 𝖽𝖾𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗌𝗂𝗇𝗁𝖺, 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗌𝖾𝗂𝗌 𝗆𝖾𝗌𝖾𝗌 𝗉𝖺𝗌𝗌𝖺𝗆 𝖺 𝗏𝗈𝖺𝗋!) 𝖰𝗎𝖾 𝗉𝗋𝖾𝖿𝖾𝗋𝗂𝗆𝗈𝗌 𝗉𝖾𝗋𝗉𝖾𝗍𝗎𝖺𝗋 𝖺 𝖼𝗎𝗅𝗍𝗎𝗋𝖺 𝖽𝖺 𝗏𝖾𝗋𝗀𝗈𝗇𝗁𝖺 𝖾 𝖽𝗈 𝗌𝗂𝗅𝖾̂𝗇𝖼𝗂𝗈? 𝖰𝗎𝖾 𝖺𝖼𝗁𝖺𝗆𝗈𝗌 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗅𝗁𝖾𝗌 𝖺𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝖾𝖼𝖾𝗎 𝖾́ 𝗎𝗆 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝖻𝗅𝖾𝗆𝖺 𝖾𝗑𝖼𝗅𝗎𝗌𝗂𝗏𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝖽𝖾𝗅𝖺𝗌 𝖾 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝗇𝗈𝗌𝗌𝗈 𝗍𝖺𝗆𝖻𝖾́𝗆? 𝖤́ 𝖺𝖻𝗌𝗈𝗅𝗎𝗍𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝗂𝗇𝗌𝗎𝗉𝗈𝗋𝗍𝖺́𝗏𝖾𝗅 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖯𝗈𝗋𝗍𝗎𝗀𝖺𝗅 𝖺𝗂𝗇𝖽𝖺 𝗌𝖾𝗃𝖺 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖾 𝗉𝖺𝗂́𝗌 𝖾𝗆 𝗉𝗅𝖾𝗇𝗈 𝗌𝖾́𝖼𝗎𝗅𝗈 𝖷𝖷𝖨! 𝖠 𝖢𝗈𝗇𝗏𝖾𝗇𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝖨𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗆𝖻𝗎𝗅, 𝗆𝖺𝗌 𝗌𝗈𝖻𝗋𝖾𝗍𝗎𝖽𝗈 𝖺𝗌 𝖾 𝗈𝗌 𝗌𝗈𝖻𝗋𝖾𝗏𝗂𝗏𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗌, 𝖾𝗑𝗂𝗀𝖾𝗆 𝗆𝖺𝗂𝗌. 𝖠𝗌 𝗆𝗎𝗅𝗁𝖾𝗋𝖾𝗌 𝖾 𝖺𝗌 𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗂𝗇𝖺𝗌 𝖽𝗈 𝗇𝗈𝗌𝗌𝗈 𝗉𝖺𝗂́𝗌 𝗆𝖾𝗋𝖾𝖼𝖾𝗆 𝗆𝖺𝗂𝗌.

𝖢𝗈𝗆𝖻𝖺𝗍𝖺𝗆𝗈𝗌, 𝗉𝗈𝗂𝗌, 𝖺 𝖼𝗎𝗅𝗍𝗎𝗋𝖺 𝖽𝖺 𝗏𝗂𝗈𝗅𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝗇𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖾𝗌 𝖽𝗈𝗂𝗌 𝖺𝗌𝗉𝖾𝗍𝗈𝗌 𝗆𝗎𝗂𝗍𝗈 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝖼𝗋𝖾𝗍𝗈𝗌, 𝖺𝗍𝖾́ 𝗉𝗈𝗋𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗍𝖺𝗅 𝗇𝗈𝗌 𝖾́ 𝗂𝗆𝗉𝗈𝗌𝗍𝗈 𝗉𝗈𝗋 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗏𝖾𝗇𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝗂𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗋𝗇𝖺𝖼𝗂𝗈𝗇𝖺𝗅 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖺𝗌𝗌𝗂𝗇𝖺́𝗆𝗈𝗌 𝖾 𝗋𝖺𝗍𝗂𝖿𝗂𝖼𝖺́𝗆𝗈𝗌. 𝖥𝖺𝖼̧𝖺𝗆𝗈-𝗅𝗈 𝗇𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖾 𝖣𝗂𝖺 𝖨𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗋𝗇𝖺𝖼𝗂𝗈𝗇𝖺𝗅 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝖺 𝖤𝗅𝗂𝗆𝗂𝗇𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖺 𝖵𝗂𝗈𝗅𝖾̂𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝗋𝖺 𝖺𝗌 𝖬𝗎𝗅𝗁𝖾𝗋𝖾𝗌, 𝖾 𝗍𝗈𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝗈𝗌 𝖽𝗂𝖺𝗌, 𝖺𝗍𝖾́ 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖺𝗅𝗀𝗈 𝖿𝗂𝗇𝖺𝗅𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝗆𝗎𝖽𝖾!

* Jurista na Comissão Europeia, escrevendo a título pessoal

IN "NOVO" - 25/11/24

NR: A título colectivo os Pensionistas do Blogue agradecem-lhe a lucidez e apresentam os maiores respeitos..