PEDRO TADEU

 .

"Não se luta

com um porco?

𝖴𝗆 𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝗅𝗎𝗀𝖺𝗋𝖾𝗌-𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗎𝗇𝗌 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗆𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝗆𝖾 𝗂𝗋𝗋𝗂𝗍𝖺 𝖾́ 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺 𝖼𝗂𝗍𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈, 𝖺𝗉𝗅𝗂𝖼𝖺𝖽𝖺 𝖺𝗈 𝖽𝖾𝖻𝖺𝗍𝖾 𝗉𝗈𝗅ı́𝗍𝗂𝖼𝗈: “𝖭𝗎𝗇𝖼𝖺 𝗅𝗎𝗍𝖾𝗌 𝖼𝗈𝗆 𝗎𝗆 𝗉𝗈𝗋𝖼𝗈; 𝖿𝗂𝖼𝖺𝗌 𝗍𝗈𝖽𝗈 𝗌𝗎𝗃𝗈, 𝖾 𝖺𝗂𝗇𝖽𝖺 𝗉𝗈𝗋 𝖼𝗂𝗆𝖺 𝗈 𝗉𝗈𝗋𝖼𝗈 𝗀𝗈𝗌𝗍𝖺.”

𝖣𝖾 𝖼𝗋𝗂𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖾𝗋𝗋𝖺𝖽𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝖺𝗍𝗋𝗂𝖻𝗎ı́𝖽𝖺 𝖺𝗈 𝖾𝗌𝖼𝗋𝗂𝗍𝗈𝗋 𝖡𝖾𝗋𝗇𝖺𝗋𝖽 𝖲𝗁𝖺𝗐 (𝗌𝖾 𝖾𝗅𝖾 𝖺 𝖽𝗂𝗌𝗌𝖾, 𝖿𝗈𝗂 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝗋𝖾𝗉𝗅𝗂𝖼𝖺𝗋 𝗎𝗆 𝖽𝗂𝗍𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗏𝗂𝗇𝗁𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝗍𝗋𝖺́𝗌), 𝖺 𝖼𝗂𝗍𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖺𝗉𝗈́𝖼𝗋𝗂𝖿𝖺 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝗌𝖾 𝗌𝗈𝖼𝗂𝖺𝗅𝗂𝗌𝗍𝖺 𝖿𝖺𝖻𝗂𝖺𝗇𝗈 𝗍𝖾𝗆 𝗌𝖾𝗋𝗏𝗂𝖽𝗈 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝗆𝗈𝗏𝖾𝗋 𝖺 𝗂𝖽𝖾𝗂𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝗏𝖺𝗅𝖾 𝖺 𝗉𝖾𝗇𝖺 𝖽𝖾𝖻𝖺𝗍𝖾𝗋, 𝗇𝗈𝗌 𝗆𝖾𝖽𝗂𝖺, 𝖼𝗈𝗆 𝖿𝖺𝗌𝖼𝗂𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗌 𝗈𝗎 𝖼𝗈𝗆 𝗉𝗈𝗉𝗎𝗅𝗂𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗌.

𝖠 𝖿𝗋𝖺𝗌𝖾, 𝗇𝖾𝗌𝗌𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗑𝗍𝗈, 𝗉𝖾𝖼𝖺 𝗅𝗈𝗀𝗈 𝗉𝖾𝗅𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝗋𝖺𝖽𝗂𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝗂𝖽𝖾𝗈𝗅𝗈́𝗀𝗂𝖼𝖺 𝖾 𝖾́𝗍𝗂𝖼𝖺: 𝖺𝗈 𝖼𝗅𝖺𝗌𝗌𝗂𝖿𝗂𝖼𝖺𝗋 𝗈 𝖺𝖽𝗏𝖾𝗋𝗌𝖺́𝗋𝗂𝗈 𝗉𝗈𝗅ı́𝗍𝗂𝖼𝗈 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗈 “𝗉𝗈𝗋𝖼𝗈”, 𝗈 “𝖽𝖾𝗆𝗈𝖼𝗋𝖺𝗍𝖺” 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖺 𝖽𝗂𝗓 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺́ 𝖺 𝗎𝗌𝖺𝗋 𝖺𝗌 𝗆𝖾𝗌𝗆𝖺𝗌 𝗍𝖾́𝖼𝗇𝗂𝖼𝖺𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝗎𝗆𝖺𝗇𝗂𝗓𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖾 𝖻𝖾𝗌𝗍𝗂𝖺𝗅𝗂𝗓𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖼𝗋𝗂𝗍𝗂𝖼𝖺 𝗏𝗂𝗈𝗅𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾, 𝖼𝗈𝗆 𝗋𝖺𝗓𝖺̃𝗈, 𝖺𝗈𝗌 𝗋𝖺𝖼𝗂𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗌, 𝖺𝗈𝗌 𝗇𝖾𝗈𝗇𝖺𝗓𝗂𝗌, 𝖺𝗈𝗌 𝗆𝖺𝖼𝗁𝗂𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗌, 𝖺𝗈𝗌 𝗁𝗈𝗆𝗈𝖿𝗈́𝖻𝗂𝖼𝗈𝗌, 𝖺𝗈𝗌 𝗉𝗈𝗉𝗎𝗅𝗂𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗌 𝗆𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝗎́𝗉𝗂𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝖾 𝖺 𝗍𝖺𝗇𝗍𝖺𝗌 𝗈𝗎𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗌 𝗏𝖺𝗋𝗂𝖺𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗌 𝖽𝖺 𝗆𝖺𝗅𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾 𝗉𝗈𝗅ı́𝗍𝗂𝖼𝖺. 𝖲𝖾 𝗈 𝖽𝖾𝗆𝗈𝖼𝗋𝖺𝗍𝖺 𝗎𝗌𝖺 𝗈 𝗂𝗇𝗌𝗎𝗅𝗍𝗈 𝖺𝗇𝗂𝗆𝖺𝗅𝖾𝗌𝖼𝗈 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗈 𝖺𝗋𝗆𝖺 𝗉𝗈𝗅ı́𝗍𝗂𝖼𝖺, 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗈 𝗉𝗈𝖽𝖾 𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗋𝖾𝗋 𝗂𝗆𝗉𝗈𝗋 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖾𝗌𝗌𝖺 𝗆𝖾𝗌𝗆𝖺 𝖺𝗋𝗆𝖺 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝗌𝖾𝗃𝖺 𝗎𝗌𝖺𝖽𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝗋𝖺 𝖾𝗅𝖾?

𝖤𝗌𝗌𝖺 𝖿𝗋𝖺𝗌𝖾 𝗋𝖾𝗏𝖾𝗅𝖺 𝗍𝖺𝗆𝖻𝖾́𝗆 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗆 𝖺 𝖽𝗂𝗓 𝗌𝗎𝖼𝗎𝗆𝖻𝗂𝗎 𝖺𝗈 𝗆𝖾𝖽𝗈 𝖾 𝖺̀ 𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗀𝗎𝗂𝖼̧𝖺.

𝖤𝗆 𝗉𝗋𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗂𝗋𝗈 𝗅𝗎𝗀𝖺𝗋 𝗏𝖾𝗆 𝗈 𝗆𝖾𝖽𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝗈 “𝖽𝖾𝗆𝗈𝖼𝗋𝖺𝗍𝖺” 𝗌𝖾𝗋 𝖽𝖾𝗋𝗋𝗈𝗍𝖺𝖽𝗈, 𝗁𝗎𝗆𝗂𝗅𝗁𝖺𝖽𝗈 𝖾 𝗂𝗇𝗌𝗎𝗅𝗍𝖺𝖽𝗈 𝗉𝖾𝗅𝖺𝗌 𝗍𝖾́𝖼𝗇𝗂𝖼𝖺𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝖽𝖾𝗆𝖺𝗀𝗈𝗀𝗂𝖺 𝖾 𝖺𝗀𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗌𝗂𝗏𝗂𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾 𝖽𝗈 𝖺𝖽𝗏𝖾𝗋𝗌𝖺́𝗋𝗂𝗈. 𝖯𝗈𝖽𝖾 𝖺𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝖾𝖼𝖾𝗋, 𝗆𝖺𝗌... 𝖾 𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖺̃𝗈? 𝖮 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝗉𝗈𝖽𝖾𝗋 𝖼𝖺𝗇𝗍𝖺𝗋, 𝖼𝗂𝗋𝖼𝗎𝗇𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺𝗅𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾, 𝗏𝗂𝗍𝗈́𝗋𝗂𝖺 𝗇𝗎𝗆 𝖽𝖾𝖻𝖺𝗍𝖾 𝗃𝗎𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝗆𝖾𝗂𝖺 𝖽𝗎́𝗓𝗂𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝖺𝗆𝗂𝗀𝗈𝗌 𝖾́ 𝗋𝖺𝗓𝖺̃𝗈 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝖿𝗎𝗀𝗂𝗋 𝖺̀ 𝗅𝗎𝗍𝖺 𝗉𝗈𝗅ı́𝗍𝗂𝖼𝖺? 𝖨𝗌𝗌𝗈 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝖾́ 𝖿𝖺𝗅𝗍𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖾̂𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺? 𝖨𝗌𝗌𝗈 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝖾́ 𝖼𝗈𝖻𝖺𝗋𝖽𝗂𝖺?

𝖬𝖾𝗌𝗆𝗈 𝖽𝖾𝗋𝗋𝗈𝗍𝖺𝖽𝖺 (𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗈 𝖾́ 𝗌𝗎𝖻𝗃𝖾𝗍𝗂𝗏𝖺 𝖾 𝗍𝗈𝗅𝖺 𝖾𝗌𝗌𝖺 𝗊𝗎𝖺𝗅𝗂𝖿𝗂𝖼𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖺𝗉𝗅𝗂𝖼𝖺𝖽𝖺 𝖺𝗈 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝖿𝗋𝗈𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝗂𝖽𝖾𝗂𝖺𝗌), 𝖺 𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗌𝖺𝗀𝖾𝗆 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗈 “𝖽𝖾𝗆𝗈𝖼𝗋𝖺𝗍𝖺” 𝗍𝖾𝗆 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝗉𝖺𝗌𝗌𝖺𝗋 𝗇𝗎𝗆 𝖽𝖾𝖻𝖺𝗍𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗆 𝗎𝗆 𝗉𝗈𝗉𝗎𝗅𝗂𝗌𝗍𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝖽𝗂𝗋𝖾𝗂𝗍𝖺 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝗍𝖾𝗋𝖺́, 𝗇𝗈 𝗆ı́𝗇𝗂𝗆𝗈, 𝗌𝖾𝗇𝗌𝗂𝖻𝗂𝗅𝗂𝗓𝖺𝖽𝗈 𝖺𝗅𝗀𝗎𝗆𝖺𝗌 𝗉𝖾𝗌𝗌𝗈𝖺𝗌 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖺 𝗈𝗎𝗏𝗂𝗋𝖺𝗆? 𝖤 𝗂𝗌𝗌𝗈 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝖾́ 𝗎́𝗍𝗂𝗅? 𝖠 𝖺𝗅𝗍𝖾𝗋𝗇𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗏𝖺, 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖾́ 𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝖽𝖾𝗂𝗑𝖺𝗋 𝗈 𝖺𝖽𝗏𝖾𝗋𝗌𝖺́𝗋𝗂𝗈 𝗎𝗌𝖺𝗋 𝗅𝗂𝗏𝗋𝖾𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾, 𝗌𝖾𝗆 𝗊𝗎𝖺𝗅𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗋 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝖿𝗋𝗈𝗇𝗍𝗈, 𝗈 𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗌𝗈 𝗍𝖾𝗆𝗉𝗈 𝗆𝖾𝖽𝗂𝖺́𝗍𝗂𝖼𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖽𝗂𝗌𝗉𝗈̃𝖾, 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝖾́ 𝗉𝗂𝗈𝗋?

𝖤𝗆 𝗌𝖾𝗀𝗎𝗇𝖽𝗈 𝗅𝗎𝗀𝖺𝗋, 𝗁𝖺́ 𝖺 𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗀𝗎𝗂𝖼̧𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝗍𝗋𝖺𝖻𝖺𝗅𝗁𝖺𝗋 𝖺 𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝗎𝗆 𝖽𝖾𝖻𝖺𝗍𝖾 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝗌𝖾𝗌 𝖼𝗈𝗆 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝗉𝖾𝗌𝗌𝗈𝖺 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗎𝗌𝖺 𝗌𝗂𝗌𝗍𝖾𝗆𝖺𝗍𝗂𝖼𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝖺 𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗂𝗋𝖺, 𝖺 𝗆𝖺𝗇𝗂𝗉𝗎𝗅𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈, 𝖺 𝗂𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗋𝗋𝗎𝗉𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈, 𝖺 𝗁𝗈𝗌𝗍𝗂𝗅𝗂𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾, 𝖺 𝗏𝗂𝗈𝗅𝖾̂𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺 𝗏𝖾𝗋𝖻𝖺𝗅. 𝖨𝗌𝗍𝗈 𝖾𝗑𝗂𝗀𝖾 𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗌𝗍𝗋𝗎𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝖺𝗋𝗀𝗎𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖼𝖺𝗉𝖺𝗓, 𝖺𝖽𝖾𝗊𝗎𝖺𝖽𝖺 𝖺 𝖾𝗌𝗌𝖾 “𝖼𝖺𝗆𝗉𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝖻𝖺𝗍𝖺𝗅𝗁𝖺”, 𝖺̀ “𝗉𝗈𝖼𝗂𝗅𝗀𝖺 𝖽𝗈 𝗉𝗈𝗋𝖼𝗈”, 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝖾́ 𝖿𝖺́𝖼𝗂𝗅 𝖽𝖾 𝖾𝗇𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗋 𝖾 𝗊𝗎𝖾, 𝖺𝗂𝗇𝖽𝖺 𝗉𝗈𝗋 𝖼𝗂𝗆𝖺, 𝗈𝖻𝗋𝗂𝗀𝖺 𝖺 𝗍𝖾𝗋 𝖽𝖾 𝖾𝗑𝗉𝗅𝗂𝖼𝖺𝗋 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝖼𝖾𝗂𝗍𝗈𝗌 𝖻𝖺́𝗌𝗂𝖼𝗈𝗌 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗃𝗎𝗅𝗀𝖺́𝗏𝖺𝗆𝗈𝗌 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗋𝖾𝗆 𝗌𝗈𝗅𝗂𝖽𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝖾𝗇𝗋𝖺𝗂𝗓𝖺𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝗇𝖺 𝗌𝗈𝖼𝗂𝖾𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾.

𝖠𝗈 𝖽𝖾𝖻𝖺𝗍𝖾𝗋 𝖼𝗈𝗆 𝗎𝗆 𝗋𝖺𝖼𝗂𝗌𝗍𝖺, 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝖻𝖺𝗌𝗍𝖺 𝖽𝗂𝗓𝖾𝗋 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗈 𝗋𝖺𝖼𝗂𝗌𝗆𝗈 𝖾́ 𝗆𝖺𝗎, 𝗍𝖾𝗆𝗈𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝖾𝗑𝗉𝗅𝗂𝖼𝖺𝗋 𝗉𝗈𝗋𝗊𝗎𝖾̂.

𝖠𝗈 𝖽𝖾𝖻𝖺𝗍𝖾𝗋 𝖼𝗈𝗆 𝗎𝗆 𝗇𝖾𝗈𝖿𝖺𝗌𝖼𝗂𝗌𝗍𝖺, 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝖻𝖺𝗌𝗍𝖺 𝖽𝗂𝗓𝖾𝗋 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗈 𝖿𝖺𝗌𝖼𝗂𝗌𝗆𝗈 𝖾́ 𝗆𝖺𝗎, 𝗍𝖾𝗆𝗈𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝖾𝗑𝗉𝗅𝗂𝖼𝖺𝗋 𝗉𝗈𝗋𝗊𝗎𝖾̂.

𝖠𝗈 𝖽𝖾𝖻𝖺𝗍𝖾𝗋 𝖼𝗈𝗆 𝗎𝗆 𝗁𝗈𝗆𝗈𝖿𝗈́𝖻𝗂𝖼𝗈, 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝖻𝖺𝗌𝗍𝖺 𝖽𝗂𝗓𝖾𝗋 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖺 𝗁𝗈𝗆𝗈𝖿𝗈𝖻𝗂𝖺 𝖾́ 𝗆𝖺́, 𝗍𝖾𝗆𝗈𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝖾𝗑𝗉𝗅𝗂𝖼𝖺𝗋 𝗉𝗈𝗋𝗊𝗎𝖾̂.

𝖤́ 𝖽𝗂𝖿ı́𝖼𝗂𝗅, 𝖽𝖺́ 𝗍𝗋𝖺𝖻𝖺𝗅𝗁𝗈 𝖾 𝗈 𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗎𝗅𝗍𝖺𝖽𝗈 𝖾́ 𝗂𝗇𝖼𝖾𝗋𝗍𝗈, 𝗆𝖺𝗌, 𝗌𝖾 𝗂𝗌𝗌𝗈 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝖿𝗈𝗋 𝖿𝖾𝗂𝗍𝗈, 𝗌𝖾 𝖾𝗌𝗌𝖾 𝖾𝗑𝖾𝗋𝖼ı́𝖼𝗂𝗈 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝖿𝗈𝗋 𝗍𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖺𝖽𝗈 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝗏𝖾𝗓, 𝗈𝗎𝗍𝗋𝖺, 𝗈𝗎𝗍𝗋𝖺 𝖾 𝗆𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝗈𝗎𝗍𝗋𝖺 𝗏𝖾𝗓, 𝖼𝗈𝗆 𝗆𝖺𝗂𝗈𝗋 𝗈𝗎 𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗈𝗋 𝗌𝗎𝖼𝖾𝗌𝗌𝗈 𝗉𝗈𝗇𝗍𝗎𝖺𝗅, 𝖺 𝖽𝖾𝗋𝗋𝗈𝗍𝖺 𝗀𝗅𝗈𝖻𝖺𝗅 𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝖽𝖾𝗆𝗈𝖼𝗋𝖺𝗍𝖺𝗌 𝖾́ 𝗆𝖾𝗌𝗆𝗈 𝖼𝖾𝗋𝗍𝖺.

𝖠𝗅𝖾́𝗆 𝖽𝗂𝗌𝗌𝗈, 𝗇𝗈𝗌 𝗌𝖾𝗎𝗌 𝗉𝗋𝗂𝗇𝖼ı́𝗉𝗂𝗈𝗌 𝖻𝖺́𝗌𝗂𝖼𝗈𝗌, 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖾 𝖽𝖾𝗏𝖾𝗋𝗂𝖺 𝗌𝖾𝗋 𝗎𝗆 𝗍𝗋𝖺𝖻𝖺𝗅𝗁𝗈 𝖼𝗈𝗅𝖾𝗍𝗂𝗏𝗈, 𝗌𝗈𝗅𝗂𝖽𝖺́𝗋𝗂𝗈 𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗋𝖾 𝗍𝗈𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝗈𝗌 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗌𝖾 𝗈𝗉𝗈̃𝖾𝗆 𝖺̀ 𝖾𝗑𝗍𝗋𝖾𝗆𝖺-𝖽𝗂𝗋𝖾𝗂𝗍𝖺. 𝖥𝖾𝗓-𝗆𝖾 𝗆𝗎𝗂𝗍𝖺 𝗂𝗆𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗌𝖺̃𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗈𝗌 “𝖽𝖾𝗆𝗈𝖼𝗋𝖺𝗍𝖺𝗌” 𝗉𝗈𝗋𝗍𝗎𝗀𝗎𝖾𝗌𝖾𝗌 𝖼𝗈𝗆 𝗏𝗈𝗓 𝗉𝗎́𝖻𝗅𝗂𝖼𝖺 (𝖼𝗈𝗆 𝖺𝗅𝗀𝗎𝗆𝖺𝗌 𝗋𝖺𝗋𝖺𝗌 𝖾𝗑𝖼𝖾𝖼̧𝗈̃𝖾𝗌, 𝗇𝗈𝗍𝖺𝗏𝖾𝗅𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝖯𝖺𝗎𝗅𝗈 𝖡𝖺𝗅𝖽𝖺𝗂𝖺) 𝗉𝖺𝗌𝗌𝖺𝗌𝗌𝖾𝗆 𝖺𝗌 𝗎́𝗅𝗍𝗂𝗆𝖺𝗌 𝖽𝗎𝖺𝗌 𝗌𝖾𝗆𝖺𝗇𝖺𝗌 𝖺 𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗋𝖺𝗋-𝗌𝖾 𝖺 𝖯𝖺𝖼𝗁𝖾𝖼𝗈 𝖯𝖾𝗋𝖾𝗂𝗋𝖺 𝗉𝗈𝗋, 𝖺𝗅𝖾𝗀𝖺𝖽𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾, 𝖾𝗅𝖾 𝗍𝖾𝗋 𝗉𝖾𝗋𝖽𝗂𝖽𝗈 𝗈 𝖽𝖾𝖻𝖺𝗍𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗆 𝖠𝗇𝖽𝗋𝖾́ 𝖵𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗎𝗋𝖺, 𝖾𝗆 𝗏𝖾𝗓 𝖽𝖾 𝗎𝗌𝖺𝗋𝖾𝗆 𝗍𝖺𝗇𝗍𝖺 “𝗏𝖾𝗋𝗏𝖾” 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝖾𝗑𝗉𝗅𝗂𝖼𝖺𝗋 𝖺𝗌 𝗆𝖺𝗇𝗂𝗉𝗎𝗅𝖺𝖼̧𝗈̃𝖾𝗌 𝖽𝖺 𝗁𝗂𝗌𝗍𝗈́𝗋𝗂𝖺 𝖽𝗈 𝗉𝗈́𝗌-𝟤𝟧 𝖽𝖾 𝖠𝖻𝗋𝗂𝗅 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗈 𝗅ı́𝖽𝖾𝗋 𝖽𝗈 𝖢𝗁𝖾𝗀𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝖾𝗍𝖾𝗎. 𝖰𝗎𝖾𝗆, 𝖺̀ 𝖽𝗂𝗋𝖾𝗂𝗍𝖺, 𝖾𝗌𝖼𝗋𝖾𝗏𝖾 𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖺 𝗇𝗈𝗌 𝗆𝖾𝖽𝗂𝖺 𝖿𝖾𝗓 𝗉𝗋𝖾𝖼𝗂𝗌𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝗈 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝗋𝖺́𝗋𝗂𝗈 𝖾 𝖼𝖺𝗎𝖼𝗂𝗈𝗇𝗈𝗎 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗈 𝗏𝖾𝗋𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾𝗌 𝖺𝗌 𝖿𝖺𝗅𝗌𝗂𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾𝗌 𝖺𝗅𝗂 𝖽𝗂𝗍𝖺𝗌... 𝖽𝖾𝗉𝗈𝗂𝗌 𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗂𝗑𝖾𝗆-𝗌𝖾 𝖽𝖾 𝗈 𝗉𝗈𝗏𝗈 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝗌𝖾𝗋 𝖾𝗌𝖼𝗅𝖺𝗋𝖾𝖼𝗂𝖽𝗈!

𝖵𝗂𝗏𝖺 𝗈 𝟤𝟧 𝖽𝖾 𝖠𝖻𝗋𝗂𝗅!

* Jornalista

IN "DIÁRIO DE NOTÍCIAS"-24/04/26 .