.
e a esquerda
Rita Matias quis fazer crer que a forma violenta da intervenção nos espaços da AAC foi um meio para alcançar o fim nobre de defender a liberdade de expressão e a democracia. A verdade é que a invasão foi fim em si mesma: uma demonstração de força perpetrada pelos fortes sobre os mais fracos.
𝖠 𝗂𝗇𝗏𝖺𝗌𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖺 𝗌𝖾𝖽𝖾 𝖽𝖺 𝖠𝗌𝗌𝗈𝖼𝗂𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖠𝖼𝖺𝖽𝖾́𝗆𝗂𝖼𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝖢𝗈𝗂𝗆𝖻𝗋𝖺 𝖾, 𝖾𝗆 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝗍𝗂𝖼𝗎𝗅𝖺𝗋, 𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝗎́𝖽𝗂𝗈𝗌 𝖽𝖺 𝖱𝖺́𝖽𝗂𝗈 𝖴𝗇𝗂𝗏𝖾𝗋𝗌𝗂𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾 𝖽𝖾 𝖢𝗈𝗂𝗆𝖻𝗋𝖺 𝗉𝗈𝗋 𝗆𝗂𝗅𝗂𝗍𝖺𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗌 𝖽𝗈 𝖢𝗁𝖾𝗀𝖺 𝖿𝗈𝗂 𝗆𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝗎𝗆 𝖾𝗉𝗂𝗌𝗈́𝖽𝗂𝗈 𝖼𝗂𝗋𝖼𝖾𝗇𝗌𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗈 𝗍𝖺𝗇𝗍𝗈𝗌 𝗈𝗎𝗍𝗋𝗈𝗌 𝖺 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗈 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝗍𝗂𝖽𝗈 𝗃𝖺́ 𝗇𝗈𝗌 𝖿𝗈𝗂 𝗁𝖺𝖻𝗂𝗍𝗎𝖺𝗇𝖽𝗈. 𝖲𝖾𝗇𝖽𝗈 𝖾𝗏𝗂𝖽𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖺𝗌𝗌𝗂𝗌𝗍𝗂𝗆𝗈𝗌 𝖺 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝗆𝖺𝗇𝗈𝖻𝗋𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝖽𝗂𝗏𝖾𝗋𝗌𝖺̃𝗈, 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝗍𝗂𝗇𝖺𝖽𝖺 𝖺 𝗈𝖻𝗌𝖼𝗎𝗋𝖾𝖼𝖾𝗋 𝗈 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗅𝗎𝗂𝗈 𝖽𝗈 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝗍𝗂𝖽𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝖵𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗎𝗋𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗆 𝗈 𝗀𝗈𝗏𝖾𝗋𝗇𝗈 𝖺 𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗉𝖾𝗂𝗍𝗈 𝖽𝖺 𝖺𝗅𝗍𝖾𝗋𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖺 𝗅𝖾𝗂 𝖽𝗈 𝖺𝗋𝗋𝖾𝗇𝖽𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈, 𝖺 𝗃𝗎𝗌𝗍𝗂𝖿𝗂𝖼𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖺𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗌𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖺𝖽𝖺 𝖾 𝖺𝗅𝗀𝗎𝗆𝖺𝗌 𝗋𝖾𝖺𝖼̧𝗈̃𝖾𝗌 𝖺̀ 𝖾𝗌𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗋𝖽𝖺 𝗆𝖾𝗋𝖾𝖼𝖾𝗆 𝗋𝖾𝖿𝗅𝖾𝗑𝖺̃𝗈 𝗆𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝖺𝗉𝗋𝗈𝖿𝗎𝗇𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖺.
𝖭𝗈 𝗋𝖾𝗌𝖼𝖺𝗅𝖽𝗈 𝖽𝗈 𝗂𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖽𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾, 𝖱𝗂𝗍𝖺 𝖬𝖺𝗍𝗂𝖺𝗌 𝖾 𝗈𝗌 𝗌𝖾𝗎𝗌 𝗌𝖾𝗀𝗎𝗂𝖽𝗈𝗋𝖾𝗌 𝗋𝖾𝗉𝖾𝗍𝗂𝗋𝖺𝗆 𝖺𝖽 𝗇𝖺𝗎𝗌𝖾𝗎𝗆 𝖽𝗎𝖺𝗌 𝗅𝗂𝗇𝗁𝖺𝗌 𝖺𝗋𝗀𝗎𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗏𝖺𝗌. 𝖯𝗈𝗋 𝗎𝗆 𝗅𝖺𝖽𝗈, 𝗇𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗍𝖾́𝗀𝗂𝖺 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗃𝖺́ 𝗍𝖾̂𝗆 𝖻𝖾𝗆 𝗈𝗅𝖾𝖺𝖽𝖺, 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝖼𝗎𝗋𝖺𝗋𝖺𝗆 𝖺𝗋𝗋𝖾𝗀𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖺𝗋 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝗈 𝗌𝖾𝗎 𝖼𝖺𝗆𝗉𝗈 𝖺 𝗅𝗂𝖻𝖾𝗋𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾 𝖽𝖾 𝖾𝗑𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗌𝖺̃𝗈 𝖾 𝖺 𝖽𝖾𝗆𝗈𝖼𝗋𝖺𝖼𝗂𝖺, 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝖽𝖾𝗇𝖺𝗇𝖽𝗈 𝖺𝗌 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝖽𝗂𝖼̧𝗈̃𝖾𝗌 𝖽𝗂𝖿𝖾𝗋𝖾𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺𝖽𝖺𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝖽𝖾𝖻𝖺𝗍𝖾 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗅𝗁𝖾𝗌 𝗁𝖺𝗏𝗂𝖺𝗆 𝗌𝗂𝖽𝗈 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝗉𝗈𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗌 𝗉𝖾𝗅𝖺 𝖱𝖴𝖢. 𝖯𝗈𝗋 𝗈𝗎𝗍𝗋𝗈 𝗅𝖺𝖽𝗈, 𝖿𝖺𝗓𝖾𝗇𝖽𝗈 𝗎𝗌𝗈 𝖽𝖺 𝗌𝗎𝖺 𝗍𝖺𝗆𝖻𝖾́𝗆 𝗃𝖺́ 𝗁𝖺𝖻𝗂𝗍𝗎𝖺𝗅 𝗍𝖾́𝖼𝗇𝗂𝖼𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝖽𝗂𝗓𝖾𝗋 𝗍𝗎𝖽𝗈 𝖾 𝗈 𝗌𝖾𝗎 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝗋𝖺́𝗋𝗂𝗈, 𝗋𝖾𝖼𝗎𝗌𝖺𝗋𝖺𝗆 𝖺 𝖺𝖼𝗎𝗌𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖾 “𝗂𝗇𝗏𝖺𝗌𝖺̃𝗈”, 𝗂𝗇𝗏𝗈𝖼𝖺𝗇𝖽𝗈 𝗈 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗏𝗂𝗍𝖾 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝗍𝗂𝖼𝗂𝗉𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝗋𝖾𝗆𝗈𝗍𝖺 𝗇𝗈 𝖽𝖾𝖻𝖺𝗍𝖾, 𝖾 𝖾𝗇𝗌𝖺𝗂𝖺𝗋𝖺𝗆 𝗌𝗎𝗋𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗌𝖺 𝖿𝖺𝖼𝖾 𝖺̀𝗌 𝗋𝖾𝖺𝖼̧𝗈̃𝖾𝗌 𝖽𝖺 𝖾𝗌𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗋𝖽𝖺, 𝖺𝗉𝗈𝗇𝗍𝖺𝗇𝖽𝗈-𝗅𝗁𝖾 𝗈 𝖺𝗉𝗈𝗂𝗈 𝖺 𝖿𝗈𝗋𝗆𝖺𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝗍𝖾𝗌𝗍𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖾𝗇𝗏𝗈𝗅𝗏𝖾𝗆 𝖺 𝗈𝖼𝗎𝗉𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝖾𝖽𝗂𝖿ı́𝖼𝗂𝗈𝗌.
𝖮𝗋𝖺, 𝗈 𝖿𝗂𝗈 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝖽𝗎𝗍𝗈𝗋 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗎𝗇𝖾 𝗍𝗈𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖾𝗌 𝖺𝗋𝗀𝗎𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈𝗌 𝖾́ 𝖺 𝗋𝖺𝖼𝗂𝗈𝗇𝖺𝗅𝗂𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾 𝗂𝗇𝗌𝗍𝗋𝗎𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖺𝗅 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗅𝗁𝖾𝗌 𝗌𝗎𝖻𝗃𝖺𝗓: 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝗈 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝗃𝖾𝗍𝗈 𝗉𝗈𝗅ı́𝗍𝗂𝖼𝗈 𝖽𝗈 𝖢𝗁𝖾𝗀𝖺, 𝖺 𝗅𝗂𝖻𝖾𝗋𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾 𝖽𝖾 𝖾𝗑𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗌𝖺̃𝗈, 𝖺 𝖽𝖾𝗆𝗈𝖼𝗋𝖺𝖼𝗂𝖺 𝖾 𝗈 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝗍𝖾𝗌𝗍𝗈 𝗌𝖺̃𝗈 𝗌𝗂𝗆𝗉𝗅𝖾𝗌 𝗆𝖾𝗂𝗈𝗌 – 𝗂𝗇𝗌𝗍𝗋𝗎𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈𝗌 𝖺 𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗌𝖾𝗋𝗏𝖺𝗋 𝖾𝗇𝗊𝗎𝖺𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝖾 𝗇𝖺 𝗆𝖾𝖽𝗂𝖽𝖺 𝖾𝗆 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝗂𝗇𝗎𝖺𝗋𝖾𝗆 𝖺 𝗌𝖾𝗋 𝗎́𝗍𝖾𝗂𝗌 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝖺𝗅𝖼𝖺𝗇𝖼̧𝖺𝗋 𝗈𝗌 𝗌𝖾𝗎𝗌 𝖿𝗂𝗇𝗌. 𝖲𝗈́ 𝖺𝗌𝗌𝗂𝗆 𝗉𝗈𝖽𝖾 𝗈 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝗍𝗂𝖽𝗈 𝖼𝗎𝗃𝗈 𝗅ı́𝖽𝖾𝗋 𝗌𝗎𝗋𝗀𝖾 𝗌𝗂𝗌𝗍𝖾𝗆𝖺𝗍𝗂𝖼𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝗇𝗈𝗌 𝗅𝗎𝗀𝖺𝗋𝖾𝗌 𝖼𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗂𝗋𝗈𝗌 𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝗂𝗇𝖽𝗂𝖼𝖺𝖽𝗈𝗋𝖾𝗌 𝗌𝗈𝖻𝗋𝖾 𝖾𝗑𝗉𝗈𝗌𝗂𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝗆𝖾𝖽𝗂𝖺́𝗍𝗂𝖼𝖺 (𝗆𝗎𝗂𝗍𝖺𝗌 𝗏𝖾𝗓𝖾𝗌 𝖺̀ 𝖿𝗋𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝖽𝗈 𝖯𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗂𝖽𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝖽𝖺 𝖱𝖾𝗉𝗎́𝖻𝗅𝗂𝖼𝖺 𝖾 𝖺𝗍𝖾́ 𝖽𝗈 𝖯𝗋𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗂𝗋𝗈-𝖬𝗂𝗇𝗂𝗌𝗍𝗋𝗈) 𝗋𝖾𝖼𝗅𝖺𝗆𝖺𝗋 𝖽𝖾 “𝖼𝖺𝗇𝖼𝖾𝗅𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈” 𝖾 𝗂𝗇𝗏𝖺𝖽𝗂𝗋 𝗈𝗌 𝖾𝗌𝗉𝖺𝖼̧𝗈𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝖺𝗌𝗌𝗈𝖼𝗂𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝗎𝖽𝖺𝗇𝗍𝗂𝗅 𝖾𝗆 𝗇𝗈𝗆𝖾 𝖽𝖺 𝗅𝗂𝖻𝖾𝗋𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾 𝖽𝖾 𝖾𝗑𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗌𝖺̃𝗈.
𝖠𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝖾𝖼𝖾 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺 𝗉𝖾𝗋𝗌𝗉𝖾𝗍𝗂𝗏𝖺 𝗂𝗇𝗌𝗍𝗋𝗎𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖺𝗅 𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝗏𝖺𝗅𝗈𝗋𝖾𝗌 𝖿𝗎𝗇𝖽𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝖽𝖺 𝗈𝗋𝖽𝖾𝗆 𝖽𝖾𝗆𝗈𝖼𝗋𝖺́𝗍𝗂𝖼𝖺 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝖾́ 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝖾𝗑𝖼𝖾𝖼𝗂𝗈𝗇𝖺𝗅𝗂𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾 𝖽𝗈 𝖢𝗁𝖾𝗀𝖺, 𝖺𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗌 𝗌𝖾𝗇𝖽𝗈 𝖺 𝗏𝗂𝗌𝖺̃𝗈 𝗁𝖾𝗀𝖾𝗆𝗈́𝗇𝗂𝖼𝖺, 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝗍𝗂𝗅𝗁𝖺𝖽𝖺 (𝖾, 𝗉𝗈𝗋𝗏𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗎𝗋𝖺, 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝖽𝗎𝗓𝗂𝖽𝖺) 𝗉𝖾𝗅𝗈𝗌 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝗍𝗂𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝖽𝗈 𝖼𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗋𝗈. 𝖠𝗌𝗌𝗂𝗆 𝗌𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗉𝗋𝖾𝖾𝗇𝖽𝖾 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖺 𝖽𝖾𝗆𝗈𝖼𝗋𝖺𝖼𝗂𝖺 𝗍𝖾𝗇𝗁𝖺 𝗌𝗂𝖽𝗈 𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗎𝗆𝗂𝖽𝖺 𝖺𝗈 𝖺𝗍𝗈 𝖾𝗅𝖾𝗂𝗍𝗈𝗋𝖺𝗅 – 𝗎𝗆 𝗆𝖾𝗂𝗈 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝗌𝖾𝗅𝖾𝖼𝗂𝗈𝗇𝖺𝗋 𝗋𝖾𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗌𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖺𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗌, 𝖾 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝗎𝗆 𝖿𝗂𝗆 𝖾𝗆 𝗌𝗂 𝗆𝖾𝗌𝗆𝖺. 𝖤 𝖺𝗌𝗌𝗂𝗆 𝗌𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗉𝗋𝖾𝖾𝗇𝖽𝖾 𝗍𝖺𝗆𝖻𝖾́𝗆 𝗈 𝗂𝗆𝗉𝗎𝗅𝗌𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖺𝗌𝖾 𝗎𝗇𝗂𝗏𝖾𝗋𝗌𝖺𝗅 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝗋𝖾𝖺𝗀𝗂𝗋 𝖺 𝖾𝗉𝗂𝗌𝗈́𝖽𝗂𝗈𝗌 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗈 𝗈 𝖽𝖺 𝗂𝗇𝗏𝖺𝗌𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝗎́𝖽𝗂𝗈𝗌 𝖽𝖺 𝖱𝖴𝖢 𝖼𝗈𝗆 𝖼𝖾𝗇𝗌𝗎𝗋𝖺𝗌 𝖺̀ 𝗏𝗂𝗈𝗅𝖾̂𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺, 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗉𝗈𝗇𝖽𝗈-𝗅𝗁𝖾 𝗈 𝖽𝖾𝖻𝖺𝗍𝖾 𝖾 𝗈 𝗉𝗅𝗎𝗋𝖺𝗅𝗂𝗌𝗆𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝗂𝖽𝖾𝗂𝖺𝗌. 𝖤𝗌𝗍𝖺 𝗍𝖾𝗆 𝗌𝗂𝖽𝗈, 𝖺𝗅𝗂𝖺́𝗌, 𝖺 𝖼𝖺𝗋𝗍𝗂𝗅𝗁𝖺 𝖽𝗈 𝖼𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗋𝖺̃𝗈 𝗉𝗈𝗅ı́𝗍𝗂𝖼𝗈, 𝗇𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖺𝗅 𝖼𝗈𝖺𝖻𝗂𝗍𝖺𝗆 𝗈𝗌 “𝗆𝗈𝖽𝖾𝗋𝖺𝖽𝗈𝗌” 𝖽𝖺𝗌 𝗆𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝖽𝗂𝗏𝖾𝗋𝗌𝖺𝗌 𝗉𝖾𝗋𝗌𝗎𝖺𝗌𝗈̃𝖾𝗌. 𝖥𝗈𝗂 𝗇𝖾𝗌𝗌𝖺 𝗅𝗂𝗇𝗁𝖺 𝖺 𝗋𝖾𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖺̀𝗌 𝗂𝗇𝗏𝖺𝗌𝗈̃𝖾𝗌 𝖽𝗈 𝖢𝖺𝗉𝗂𝗍𝗈́𝗅𝗂𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝟨 𝖽𝖾 𝗃𝖺𝗇𝖾𝗂𝗋𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝟤𝟢𝟤𝟣 𝖾 𝖽𝗈 𝖯𝗅𝖺𝗇𝖺𝗅𝗍𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝟪 𝖽𝖾 𝗃𝖺𝗇𝖾𝗂𝗋𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝟤𝟢𝟤𝟥, 𝖻𝖾𝗆 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗈 𝖺 𝗋𝖾𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖺𝗈𝗌 𝖺𝗍𝖺𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗌 𝖺 𝖣𝗈𝗇𝖺𝗅𝖽 𝖳𝗋𝗎𝗆𝗉 𝖾 𝖺̀ 𝗆𝗈𝗋𝗍𝖾 𝖽𝖾 𝖢𝗁𝖺𝗋𝗅𝗂𝖾 𝖪𝗂𝗋𝗄.
𝖠 𝗂𝖽𝖾𝗂𝖺 𝗉𝗂𝗇𝖺𝖼𝗎𝗅𝖺𝗋 𝖽𝖺 𝗆𝗈𝖽𝖾𝗋𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝗉𝗈𝗅ı́𝗍𝗂𝖼𝖺 𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝗇𝗈𝗌𝗌𝗈𝗌 𝖽𝗂𝖺𝗌 𝖾́ 𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗌𝖾 “𝖼𝗈𝗇𝖽𝖾𝗇𝖺 𝗍𝗈𝖽𝖺𝗌 𝖺𝗌 𝖿𝗈𝗋𝗆𝖺𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝗏𝗂𝗈𝗅𝖾̂𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺”. 𝖠 𝗏𝗂𝗈𝗅𝖾̂𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺, 𝖽𝗂𝗓𝖾𝗆-𝗇𝗈𝗌, 𝖾́ 𝗈 𝗆𝖾𝗂𝗈 𝖾𝗋𝗋𝖺𝖽𝗈 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝗌𝗌𝖾𝗀𝗎𝗂𝗋 𝗊𝗎𝖺𝗂𝗌𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗋 𝖿𝗂𝗇𝗌, 𝗉𝗈𝗋 𝗆𝗎𝗂𝗍𝗈 𝗃𝗎𝗌𝗍𝗈𝗌 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗌𝖾𝗃𝖺𝗆. 𝖤𝗌𝗍𝖺 𝖾́, 𝗍𝗈𝖽𝖺𝗏𝗂𝖺, 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝗆𝗎𝗇𝖽𝗂𝗏𝗂𝗌𝖺̃𝗈, 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝗌𝗈́ 𝖺𝗅𝗂𝖼𝖾𝗋𝖼̧𝖺𝖽𝖺 𝗇𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝗌𝖾́𝗋𝗂𝖾 𝖽𝖾 𝖿𝖺𝗅𝗌𝖺𝗌 𝖾𝗊𝗎𝗂𝗏𝖺𝗅𝖾̂𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺𝗌, 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗈 𝖼𝗋𝖾𝗌𝖼𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝗂𝗇𝖼𝖺𝗉𝖺𝗓 𝖽𝖾 𝖽𝖾𝖿𝖾𝗇𝖽𝖾𝗋 𝖺 𝖽𝖾𝗆𝗈𝖼𝗋𝖺𝖼𝗂𝖺 (𝗆𝖺𝗍𝖾𝗋𝗂𝖺𝗅, 𝖾 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝗆𝖾𝗋𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝖿𝗈𝗋𝗆𝖺𝗅) 𝗉𝖾𝗋𝖺𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝗈𝗌 𝖺𝗏𝖺𝗇𝖼̧𝗈𝗌 𝖽𝖺 𝖾𝗑𝗍𝗋𝖾𝗆𝖺-𝖽𝗂𝗋𝖾𝗂𝗍𝖺.
𝖢𝗈𝗆𝖾𝖼𝖾𝗆𝗈𝗌 𝗉𝗈𝗋 𝗋𝖾𝖼𝗈𝗋𝖽𝖺𝗋 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗋𝖾𝗃𝖾𝗂𝗍𝖺𝗋 “𝗍𝗈𝖽𝖺𝗌 𝖺𝗌 𝖿𝗈𝗋𝗆𝖺𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝗏𝗂𝗈𝗅𝖾̂𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺” 𝗂𝗆𝗉𝗅𝗂𝖼𝖺, 𝗌𝗈𝖻𝗋𝖾𝗍𝗎𝖽𝗈 𝖺̀ 𝖾𝗌𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗋𝖽𝖺, 𝗇𝖾𝗀𝖺𝗋 𝗈 𝗅𝖾𝗀𝖺𝖽𝗈 𝖽𝗈 𝖺𝖻𝗈𝗅𝗂𝖼𝗂𝗈𝗇𝗂𝗌𝗆𝗈 𝖾𝗌𝖼𝗅𝖺𝗏𝖺𝗀𝗂𝗌𝗍𝖺, 𝖽𝗈 𝗋𝖾𝗉𝗎𝖻𝗅𝗂𝖼𝖺𝗇𝗂𝗌𝗆𝗈, 𝖽𝖺𝗌 𝗅𝗎𝗍𝖺𝗌 𝖺𝗇𝗍𝗂𝖼𝗈𝗅𝗈𝗇𝗂𝖺𝗂𝗌, 𝖽𝗈 𝖺𝗇𝗍𝗂𝖿𝖺𝗌𝖼𝗂𝗌𝗆𝗈, 𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗋𝖾 𝗍𝖺𝗇𝗍𝗈𝗌 𝗈𝗎𝗍𝗋𝗈𝗌 𝗆𝗈𝗏𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈𝗌 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗍𝖺́𝗋𝗂𝗈𝗌 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗇𝗈𝗌 𝖺𝖻𝗋𝗂𝗋𝖺𝗆 𝗈 𝖼𝖺𝗆𝗂𝗇𝗁𝗈. 𝖣𝖾𝗉𝗈𝗂𝗌, 𝗈 𝗉𝗋𝗈́𝗉𝗋𝗂𝗈 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝖼𝖾𝗂𝗍𝗈 𝖽𝖾 “𝗏𝗂𝗈𝗅𝖾̂𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺 𝗉𝗈𝗅ı́𝗍𝗂𝖼𝖺” 𝖽𝖾𝗏𝖾 𝗌𝖾𝗋 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝗆𝖺𝗌𝖼𝖺𝗋𝖺𝖽𝗈 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗈 𝗈 𝖺𝗋𝗍𝗂𝖿ı́𝖼𝗂𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖾́: 𝖺 𝖺𝖽𝗃𝖾𝗍𝗂𝗏𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖺 𝗏𝗂𝗈𝗅𝖾̂𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺 𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗍𝖾𝗇𝖽𝖾 𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗇𝗌𝖿𝗈𝗋𝗆𝖺́-𝗅𝖺 𝗇𝗎𝗆 𝖿𝖾𝗇𝗈́𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗈 𝖾𝗑𝖼𝖾𝖼𝗂𝗈𝗇𝖺𝗅, 𝗉𝗈𝗋 𝗂𝗌𝗌𝗈 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝖽𝖾𝗇𝖺́𝗏𝖾𝗅, 𝗈𝖻𝗌𝖼𝗎𝗋𝖾𝖼𝖾𝗇𝖽𝗈 𝖺 𝗏𝗂𝗈𝗅𝖾̂𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺 𝗊𝗎𝗈𝗍𝗂𝖽𝗂𝖺𝗇𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗆 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖺 𝗆𝖺𝗂𝗈𝗋𝗂𝖺 𝗌𝖾 𝖽𝖾𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝗍𝗈𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝗈𝗌 𝖽𝗂𝖺𝗌. 𝖢𝗈𝗇𝖽𝖾𝗇𝖺𝗋 𝖺 “𝗀𝗋𝖺𝗇𝖽𝖾 𝗏𝗂𝗈𝗅𝖾̂𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺”, 𝗂𝗇𝖽𝖾𝗉𝖾𝗇𝖽𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝖽𝗈 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗑𝗍𝗈 𝖾 𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝖺𝗍𝗈𝗋𝖾𝗌, 𝖾́ 𝗈 𝖾𝗑𝖾𝗋𝖼ı́𝖼𝗂𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝗉𝖾𝗋𝖿𝗈𝗋𝗆𝖺𝗇𝖼𝖾 𝗆𝗈𝗋𝖺𝗅𝗂𝗓𝖺𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝖿𝖺𝗏𝗈𝗋𝗂𝗍𝗈 𝖽𝖺𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗅𝖾𝗌 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗉𝖾𝗋𝗉𝖾𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗆 𝖺 “𝗉𝖾𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗇𝖺 𝗏𝗂𝗈𝗅𝖾̂𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺” 𝖽𝗈 𝖽𝗂𝖺-𝖺-𝖽𝗂𝖺. 𝖢𝗈𝗇𝗍𝗂𝗇𝗎𝖺𝗆 𝖺 𝗉𝗋𝖾𝖼𝗂𝗌𝖺𝗋 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖡𝗋𝖾𝖼𝗁𝗍 𝗅𝗁𝖾𝗌 𝗋𝖾𝖼𝗈𝗋𝖽𝖾 𝗊𝗎𝖾, 𝖾𝗇𝗊𝗎𝖺𝗇𝗍𝗈 “𝖼𝗈𝗇𝖽𝖾𝗇𝖺𝗆” 𝗈 𝗋𝗂𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗍𝗎𝖽𝗈 𝖺𝗋𝗋𝖺𝗌𝗍𝖺, 𝖾𝗌𝗊𝗎𝖾𝖼𝖾𝗆-𝗌𝖾 𝖽𝖺𝗌 𝗆𝖺𝗋𝗀𝖾𝗇𝗌 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗈 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗉𝗋𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗆 𝗏𝗂𝗈𝗅𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾.
𝖠 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝖽𝖾𝗇𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖺 𝗏𝗂𝗈𝗅𝖾̂𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺 𝖾𝗆 𝖺𝖻𝗌𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗍𝗈 𝖾́, 𝗉𝗈𝗋𝗍𝖺𝗇𝗍𝗈, 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝖽𝗎𝗍𝗈 𝖽𝖺 𝖾𝗑𝖺𝗍𝖺 𝗆𝖾𝗌𝗆𝖺 𝗅𝗈́𝗀𝗂𝖼𝖺 𝗂𝗇𝗌𝗍𝗋𝗎𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖺𝗅 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗏𝖾̂ 𝗇𝖺 𝖽𝖾𝗆𝗈𝖼𝗋𝖺𝖼𝗂𝖺 𝖾 𝗇𝖺𝗌 𝗅𝗂𝖻𝖾𝗋𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾𝗌 𝖼ı́𝗏𝗂𝖼𝖺𝗌 𝗆𝖾𝗋𝗈𝗌 𝗆𝖾𝗂𝗈𝗌 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝖺𝗅𝖼𝖺𝗇𝖼̧𝖺𝗋 𝗈𝗎𝗍𝗋𝗈𝗌 𝖿𝗂𝗇𝗌. 𝖥𝗈𝗂 𝖺 𝖿𝗈́𝗋𝗆𝗎𝗅𝖺 𝖾𝗇𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝗋𝖺𝖽𝖺 𝗉𝖾𝗅𝗈 𝖾𝗑𝗍𝗋𝖾𝗆𝗈-𝖼𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗋𝗈 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝗌𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝖻𝗋𝗂𝗋 𝖽𝖾 𝗌𝗎𝗉𝖾𝗋𝗂𝗈𝗋𝗂𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾 𝗆𝗈𝗋𝖺𝗅 𝖾𝗇𝗊𝗎𝖺𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝖾𝗇𝖼𝖺𝗆𝗂𝗇𝗁𝖺𝗏𝖺 𝖺 𝗇𝗈𝗌𝗌𝖺 𝗏𝗂𝖽𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗅𝖾𝗍𝗂𝗏𝖺 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝗈 𝖺𝖻𝗂𝗌𝗆𝗈 𝖽𝗈 𝖼𝖺𝗉𝗂𝗍𝖺𝗅𝗂𝗌𝗆𝗈 𝗍𝖺𝗋𝖽𝗂𝗈. 𝖬𝖺𝗌 𝗌𝖾 𝖺𝗌𝗌𝗂𝗆 𝖾́, 𝖿𝗂𝖼𝖺 𝖺 𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝗌𝖺𝖻𝖾𝗋 𝗌𝖾, 𝗉𝗈𝗋𝗊𝗎𝖾̂ 𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗈 𝖽𝖾𝗏𝖾 𝖺 𝖾𝗌𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗋𝖽𝖺 𝗈𝗉𝗈𝗋-𝗌𝖾 𝖺𝗈 𝗍𝗂𝗉𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝗉𝗈𝗅ı́𝗍𝗂𝖼𝖺 𝗅𝖾𝗏𝖺𝖽𝖺 𝖺 𝖼𝖺𝖻𝗈 𝗉𝖾𝗅𝗈 𝖢𝗁𝖾𝗀𝖺 𝗇𝖺 𝗌𝖾𝖽𝖾 𝖽𝖺 𝖠𝖠𝖢. 𝖤𝗆 𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗉𝖾𝗂𝗍𝗈 𝗉𝖾𝗅𝖺 𝗋𝖾𝖿𝗅𝖾𝗑𝖺̃𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗇𝗈𝗌 𝖾́ 𝖾𝗑𝗂𝗀𝗂𝖽𝖺, 𝗍𝖾𝗆𝗈𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝖼𝖾𝖽𝖾𝗋 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗁𝖺́ 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖼𝗂𝖺𝗅 𝗏𝖾𝗋𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾 𝗇𝖺 𝖺𝗋𝗀𝗎𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖺𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗌𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖺𝖽𝖺: 𝗁𝗂𝗌𝗍𝗈𝗋𝗂𝖼𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾, 𝖺 𝗈𝖼𝗎𝗉𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖾 𝖺 𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗂𝗌𝗍𝖾̂𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺 𝖺𝗈𝗌 𝗉𝗈𝖽𝖾𝗋𝖾𝗌 𝗂𝗇𝗌𝗍𝗂𝗍𝗎ı́𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝗍𝖾̂𝗆 𝗌𝗂𝖽𝗈 𝗉𝖺𝗍𝗋𝗂𝗆𝗈́𝗇𝗂𝗈𝗌 𝖽𝖺 𝖾𝗌𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗋𝖽𝖺. 𝖤 𝗍𝖾𝗋𝖺́ 𝗌𝗂𝖽𝗈, 𝗉𝗈𝗋𝗏𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗎𝗋𝖺, 𝗈 𝗌𝖾𝗎 𝖺𝖻𝖺𝗇𝖽𝗈𝗇𝗈, 𝗆𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝗈𝗎 𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗈𝗌 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗌𝖼𝗂𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾, 𝖾𝗆 𝗇𝗈𝗆𝖾 𝖽𝖺 “𝗍𝗈𝗅𝖾𝗋𝖺̂𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺” 𝖾 𝖽𝗈 “𝗉𝗅𝗎𝗋𝖺𝗅𝗂𝗌𝗆𝗈” 𝖺𝖻𝗌𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗍𝗈𝗌, 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖺𝖻𝗋𝗂𝗎 𝖼𝖺𝗆𝗂𝗇𝗁𝗈 𝖺̀ 𝖼𝖺𝗏𝖺𝗅𝗀𝖺𝖽𝖺 𝖽𝖺 𝖾𝗑𝗍𝗋𝖾𝗆𝖺-𝖽𝗂𝗋𝖾𝗂𝗍𝖺.
𝖠 𝗂𝗇𝗏𝖺𝗌𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖺𝗌 𝗂𝗇𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗅𝖺𝖼̧𝗈̃𝖾𝗌 𝖽𝖺 𝖱𝖴𝖢 𝖾́ 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝖽𝖾𝗇𝖺́𝗏𝖾𝗅, 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝗉𝗈𝗋𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖺 𝖽𝖾𝗆𝗈𝖼𝗋𝖺𝖼𝗂𝖺 𝗉𝗋𝗂𝗏𝗂𝗅𝖾𝗀𝗂𝖺 𝗌𝖾𝗆𝗉𝗋𝖾 𝗈 “𝖽𝖾𝖻𝖺𝗍𝖾 𝖽𝖾 𝗂𝖽𝖾𝗂𝖺𝗌” 𝖾𝗆 𝖽𝖾𝗍𝗋𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝖽𝖺 𝖺𝗆𝖾𝖺𝖼̧𝖺 𝖽𝖺 𝖿𝗈𝗋𝖼̧𝖺, 𝗇𝖾𝗆 𝗍𝖺̃𝗈-𝗉𝗈𝗎𝖼𝗈 𝗉𝗈𝗋𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖺 𝗈𝖼𝗎𝗉𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖾 𝖺 𝗂𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗋𝗋𝗎𝗉𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖺𝗌 𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗏𝗂𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾𝗌 𝗋𝖾𝗀𝗎𝗅𝖺𝗋𝖾𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝗎𝗆 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝗀𝗋𝖺𝗆𝖺 𝗂𝗇𝖿𝗈𝗋𝗆𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗏𝗈 𝗌𝖺̃𝗈 𝗇𝖾𝖼𝖾𝗌𝗌𝖺𝗋𝗂𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝗆𝖾𝗂𝗈𝗌 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝖽𝖾𝗇𝖺́𝗏𝖾𝗂𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝗍𝖾𝗌𝗍𝗈, 𝗆𝖺𝗌 𝗉𝗈𝗋𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗌𝖾 𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗍𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝗍𝖺́𝗍𝗂𝖼𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝗂𝗇𝗍𝗂𝗆𝗂𝖽𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖾𝗑𝖾𝗋𝖼𝗂𝖽𝖺 𝗇𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖺𝖽𝗋𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝗋𝖾𝗅𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝗂𝗀𝗎𝖺𝗅 𝗉𝗈𝗋 𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗆 𝖽𝖾𝖿𝖾𝗇𝖽𝖾 𝗏𝖺𝗅𝗈𝗋𝖾𝗌 𝖺𝗇𝗍𝗂𝖽𝖾𝗆𝗈𝖼𝗋𝖺́𝗍𝗂𝖼𝗈𝗌 – 𝖺𝖿𝗂𝗇𝖺𝗅, 𝖿𝖺𝗅𝖺𝗆𝗈𝗌 𝖽𝗈 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝗍𝗂𝖽𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗍𝖾𝗆 𝖺 𝗌𝖾𝗀𝗎𝗇𝖽𝖺 𝗆𝖺𝗂𝗈𝗋 𝖻𝖺𝗇𝖼𝖺𝖽𝖺 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝗅𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖺𝗋 𝗇𝖺 𝖠𝗌𝗌𝖾𝗆𝖻𝗅𝖾𝗂𝖺 𝖽𝖺 𝖱𝖾𝗉𝗎́𝖻𝗅𝗂𝖼𝖺 𝖺 𝗂𝗇𝗍𝗂𝗆𝗂𝖽𝖺𝗋 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝗋𝖺́𝖽𝗂𝗈 𝗎𝗇𝗂𝗏𝖾𝗋𝗌𝗂𝗍𝖺́𝗋𝗂𝖺 𝗂𝗇𝖽𝖾𝗉𝖾𝗇𝖽𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾. 𝖱𝗂𝗍𝖺 𝖬𝖺𝗍𝗂𝖺𝗌 𝗊𝗎𝗂𝗌 𝖿𝖺𝗓𝖾𝗋 𝖼𝗋𝖾𝗋 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖺 𝖿𝗈𝗋𝗆𝖺 𝗏𝗂𝗈𝗅𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖺 𝖽𝖺 𝗂𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗋𝗏𝖾𝗇𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝗇𝗈𝗌 𝖾𝗌𝗉𝖺𝖼̧𝗈𝗌 𝖽𝖺 𝖠𝖠𝖢 𝖿𝗈𝗂 𝗎𝗆 𝗆𝖾𝗂𝗈 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝖺𝗅𝖼𝖺𝗇𝖼̧𝖺𝗋 𝗈 𝖿𝗂𝗆 𝗇𝗈𝖻𝗋𝖾 𝖽𝖾 𝖽𝖾𝖿𝖾𝗇𝖽𝖾𝗋 𝖺 𝗅𝗂𝖻𝖾𝗋𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾 𝖽𝖾 𝖾𝗑𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗌𝖺̃𝗈 𝖾 𝖺 𝖽𝖾𝗆𝗈𝖼𝗋𝖺𝖼𝗂𝖺. 𝖠 𝗏𝖾𝗋𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾, 𝗍𝗈𝖽𝖺𝗏𝗂𝖺, 𝖾́ 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖺 𝗂𝗇𝗏𝖺𝗌𝖺̃𝗈 𝖿𝗈𝗂 𝖿𝗂𝗆 𝖾𝗆 𝗌𝗂 𝗆𝖾𝗌𝗆𝖺: 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝖽𝖾𝗆𝗈𝗇𝗌𝗍𝗋𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝖿𝗈𝗋𝖼̧𝖺 𝗉𝖾𝗋𝗉𝖾𝗍𝗋𝖺𝖽𝖺 𝗉𝖾𝗅𝗈𝗌 𝖿𝗈𝗋𝗍𝖾𝗌 𝗌𝗈𝖻𝗋𝖾 𝗈𝗌 𝗆𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝖿𝗋𝖺𝖼𝗈𝗌. 𝖮 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝖻𝗅𝖾𝗆𝖺 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝖾́ 𝗈 𝗆𝖾𝗂𝗈, 𝖾́ 𝗈 𝖿𝗂𝗆.
𝖳𝖺𝗅 𝗏𝗂𝗌𝖺̃𝗈 𝖾́ 𝖺 𝗎́𝗇𝗂𝖼𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗉𝖺𝗍ı́𝗏𝖾𝗅 𝖼𝗈𝗆 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝗂𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗋𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗍𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝗆𝖺𝗍𝖾𝗋𝗂𝖺𝗅 𝖽𝖺 𝖽𝖾𝗆𝗈𝖼𝗋𝖺𝖼𝗂𝖺 𝖾 𝖽𝖺 𝗉𝗋𝗈́𝗉𝗋𝗂𝖺 𝗅𝗂𝖻𝖾𝗋𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾 𝖽𝖾 𝖾𝗑𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗌𝖺̃𝗈. 𝖲𝖾 𝖽𝖾𝗆𝗈𝖼𝗋𝖺𝖼𝗂𝖺 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝖿𝗈𝗋 𝗉𝖾𝗋𝗌𝗉𝖾𝗍𝗂𝗏𝖺𝖽𝖺 𝖺𝗉𝖾𝗇𝖺𝗌 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗈 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝖼𝖾𝗌𝗌𝗈, 𝗆𝖺𝗌 𝖺𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗌 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗈 𝗌𝗂𝗌𝗍𝖾𝗆𝖺 𝗉𝗈𝗅ı́𝗍𝗂𝖼𝗈 𝗈𝗋𝗂𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖺𝖽𝗈 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝖺 𝖾𝗆𝖺𝗇𝖼𝗂𝗉𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈, 𝖼𝗎𝗃𝗈 𝗈𝖻𝗃𝖾𝗍𝗂𝗏𝗈 𝖾́ 𝗀𝖺𝗋𝖺𝗇𝗍𝗂𝗋 𝖺 𝗍𝗈𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝖺 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝗍𝗂𝖼𝗂𝗉𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝗇𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗌𝗍𝗋𝗎𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖺 𝗏𝗂𝖽𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗅𝖾𝗍𝗂𝗏𝖺, 𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖺̃𝗈 𝗌𝖾𝗋-𝗅𝗁𝖾-𝖺́ 𝖺𝗇𝗍𝖺𝗀𝗈́𝗇𝗂𝖼𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖺𝗅𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗋 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝗃𝖾𝗍𝗈 𝗉𝗈𝗅ı́𝗍𝗂𝖼𝗈 𝖺𝗅𝗂𝖼𝖾𝗋𝖼̧𝖺𝖽𝗈 𝗇𝖺 𝖾𝗑𝖼𝗅𝗎𝗌𝖺̃𝗈 𝖾 𝗇𝖺 𝗈𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗌𝖺̃𝗈 – 𝗍𝖺𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖺𝗇𝖽𝗈 𝖾𝗌𝗌𝖾 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝗃𝖾𝗍𝗈 𝗏𝖾𝗆 𝖾𝗆𝖻𝖺𝗅𝖺𝖽𝗈 𝖾𝗆 𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗉𝖾𝗂𝗍𝖺𝖻𝗂𝗅𝗂𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾 𝗂𝗇𝗌𝗍𝗂𝗍𝗎𝖼𝗂𝗈𝗇𝖺𝗅, 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖺𝗇𝖽𝗈 𝗋𝗈𝗆𝗉𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗆 𝖾𝗌𝗌𝖺 𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗉𝖾𝗂𝗍𝖺𝖻𝗂𝗅𝗂𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾.
𝖢𝖾𝗇𝗌𝗎𝗋𝖺𝗋 𝖺 𝗂𝗇𝗏𝖺𝗌𝖺̃𝗈 𝖾𝗑𝖾𝖼𝗎𝗍𝖺𝖽𝖺 𝗉𝖾𝗅𝗈 𝖢𝗁𝖾𝗀𝖺 𝖺 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝗍𝗂𝗋 𝖽𝖾 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝖽𝖾𝗇𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝗀𝖾𝗇𝖾́𝗋𝗂𝖼𝖺 𝖽𝖺 𝗏𝗂𝗈𝗅𝖾̂𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺, 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗈 𝗌𝖾 𝗏𝗂𝗎 𝖾𝗆 𝗏𝖺́𝗋𝗂𝗈𝗌 𝗊𝗎𝖺𝖽𝗋𝖺𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗌 𝖽𝖺 𝖾𝗌𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗋𝖽𝖺 𝗅𝗂𝖻𝖾𝗋𝖺𝗅, 𝖾́, 𝗉𝗈𝗋 𝗂𝗌𝗌𝗈, 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝖺𝗋𝗆𝖺𝖽𝗂𝗅𝗁𝖺 𝖺 𝖽𝗈𝗂𝗌 𝗍𝖾𝗆𝗉𝗈𝗌. 𝖯𝗋𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗂𝗋𝗈, 𝖺𝗋𝗋𝖺𝗌𝗍𝖺 𝖾𝗌𝗌𝖺 𝗆𝖾𝗌𝗆𝖺 𝖾𝗌𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗋𝖽𝖺 𝗅𝗂𝖻𝖾𝗋𝖺𝗅 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝖻𝖾𝖼𝗈𝗌 𝗌𝖾𝗆 𝗌𝖺ı́𝖽𝖺 𝗊𝗎𝖺𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝖺̀ 𝗌𝗎𝖺 𝗋𝖾𝗅𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖼𝗈𝗆 𝖿𝗈𝗋𝗆𝖺𝗌 𝗅𝖾𝗀ı́𝗍𝗂𝗆𝖺𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝗍𝖾𝗌𝗍𝗈 𝖽𝖾𝗆𝗈𝖼𝗋𝖺́𝗍𝗂𝖼𝗈 𝗆𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝗈𝗎 𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗈𝗌 𝗏𝗂𝗈𝗅𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈 – 𝖽𝖺𝗌 𝗋𝗎𝖺𝗌 𝖿𝗋𝖺𝗇𝖼𝖾𝗌𝖺𝗌 𝖺𝗍𝖾́ 𝖺̀𝗌 𝖺𝖼𝖺𝗆𝗉𝖺𝖽𝖺𝗌 𝖾𝗌𝗉𝖺𝗇𝗁𝗈𝗅𝖺𝗌 𝖾 𝗉𝗈𝗋𝗍𝗎𝗀𝗎𝖾𝗌𝖺. 𝖲𝖾𝗀𝗎𝗇𝖽𝗈, 𝖾𝗌𝗌𝖾 𝖺𝗉𝖾𝗀𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝗂𝗇𝖿𝗂𝗇𝖽𝖺́𝗏𝖾𝗅 𝖺̀ 𝗈𝗋𝖽𝖾𝗆 𝖾 𝖺̀ 𝗆𝗈𝖽𝖾𝗋𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖺𝖿𝖺𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗆-𝗇𝖺 𝖼𝖺𝖽𝖺 𝗏𝖾𝗓 𝗆𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝖻𝖺𝗌𝖾 𝗉𝗈𝗉𝗎𝗅𝖺𝗋 𝗅𝖾𝗀𝗂𝗍𝗂𝗆𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝗓𝖺𝗇𝗀𝖺𝖽𝖺 𝖾 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝖼𝗋𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝗇𝖺 𝖽𝖾𝗆𝗈𝖼𝗋𝖺𝖼𝗂𝖺 𝗅𝗂𝖻𝖾𝗋𝖺𝗅 𝖿𝗈𝗋𝗆𝖺𝗅.
𝖠 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝖾𝗌𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗋𝖽𝖺 𝗌𝗈𝖼𝗂𝖺𝗅𝗂𝗌𝗍𝖺, 𝗉𝗈𝗋 𝗈𝗉𝗈𝗌𝗂𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈, 𝖾́ 𝖾𝗑𝗂𝗀ı́𝗏𝖾𝗅 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗌𝗂𝗀𝖺 𝗏𝖾𝗋 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝖺𝗅𝖾́𝗆 𝖽𝖺 “𝗈𝗋𝖽𝖾𝗆 𝗉𝗎́𝖻𝗅𝗂𝖼𝖺” 𝖾 𝖽𝗈 “𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗉𝖾𝗂𝗍𝗂𝗇𝗁𝗈”, 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝖻𝖺𝗍𝖾𝗇𝖽𝗈 𝖺 𝗇𝖺𝗋𝗋𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗏𝖺
𝗂𝗇𝗌𝗍𝗋𝗎𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖺𝗅 𝖽𝖺 𝖽𝖾𝗆𝗈𝖼𝗋𝖺𝖼𝗂𝖺 𝖾 𝖽𝖺𝗌 𝗅𝗂𝖻𝖾𝗋𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾𝗌 𝖼ı́𝗏𝗂𝖼𝖺𝗌 𝖾 𝖺 𝖺𝗌𝗌𝗈𝖼𝗂𝖺𝖽𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝖽𝖾𝗇𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖾 “𝗍𝗈𝖽𝖺𝗌 𝖺𝗌 𝖿𝗈𝗋𝗆𝖺𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝗏𝗂𝗈𝗅𝖾̂𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺”. 𝖤𝗆 𝗍𝖾𝗆𝗉𝗈𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝖺𝖼𝖾𝗇𝖽𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝖽𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗏𝗎𝗅𝗌𝖺̃𝗈 𝗌𝗈𝖼𝗂𝖺𝗅, 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝖻𝖺𝗍𝖾𝗆𝗈𝗌 𝖺 𝖾𝗑𝗍𝗋𝖾𝗆𝖺-𝖽𝗂𝗋𝖾𝗂𝗍𝖺, 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝗂𝗌𝖼𝗎𝗍𝗂𝗇𝖽𝗈 𝗈𝗌 𝗆𝖾𝗂𝗈𝗌, 𝗆𝖺𝗌 𝗋𝖾𝖼𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗇𝖽𝗈 𝖺 𝗅𝗎𝗍𝖺 𝗉𝗈𝗅ı́𝗍𝗂𝖼𝖺 𝗇𝗈𝗌 𝖿𝗂𝗇𝗌.
Matemática Rio com Prof. Rafael Procopio-06/0820
