.
Cansados de blogs bem comportados feitos por gente simples, amante da natureza e blá,blá,blá, decidimos parir este blog do non sense.Excluíremos sempre a grosseria e a calúnia, o calão a preceito, o picante serão ingredientes da criatividade. O resto... é um regalo
10/12/2024
MARIANA GARRIDO
.
A guerra é a guerra
É possível que a ideia de paz nunca tenha sido tão impopular. Se o
institucionalismo liberal não conseguiu garantir a paz e a estabilidade
mundiais, a atual deriva para um consenso bélico seguramente agravará
essas falhas, com consequências humanas e ambientais irreversíveis.
ℒ𝑜𝓃𝑔𝑒 𝓋𝒶̃𝑜 𝑜𝓈 𝒹𝒾𝒶𝓈 𝑒𝓂 𝓆𝓊𝑒 𝑜 𝒹𝑒𝓈𝒶𝓇𝓂𝒶𝓂𝑒𝓃𝓉𝑜 𝑒 𝒶 𝓃𝒶̃𝑜-𝓅𝓇𝑜𝓁𝒾𝒻𝑒𝓇𝒶𝒸̧𝒶̃𝑜 𝑒 𝒶 𝓅𝒶𝓏 𝑔𝓁𝑜𝒷𝒶𝓁 𝑒𝓇𝒶𝓂 𝓂𝒶𝓉𝑒́𝓇𝒾𝒶 𝒹𝑒 𝒸𝑜𝓃𝓈𝑒𝓃𝓈𝑜 𝑒 𝑜𝒷𝒿𝑒𝓉𝒾𝓋𝑜𝓈 𝓅𝒶𝓇𝓉𝒾𝓁𝒽𝒶𝒹𝑜𝓈. 𝒩𝒶̃𝑜 𝑜 𝑒𝓇𝒶𝓂 𝒶𝓅𝑒𝓃𝒶𝓈 𝓃𝑜 𝒹𝒾𝓈𝒸𝓊𝓇𝓈𝑜 𝒹𝑜𝓈 𝓁𝒾́𝒹𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓈 𝓂𝓊𝓃𝒹𝒾𝒶𝒾𝓈; 𝑒𝓇𝒶𝓂-𝓃𝑜 𝓉𝒶𝓂𝒷𝑒́𝓂 𝓃𝒶𝓈 𝓅𝓇𝒾𝑜𝓇𝒾𝒹𝒶𝒹𝑒𝓈 𝑒𝓈𝓉𝓇𝒶𝓉𝑒́𝑔𝒾𝒸𝒶𝓈, 𝓃𝒶 𝒹𝒾𝓅𝓁𝑜𝓂𝒶𝒸𝒾𝒶, 𝑒 𝓃𝑜𝓈 𝒻𝓊𝓃𝒹𝑜𝓈 𝒹𝑒𝓈𝓉𝒾𝓃𝒶𝒹𝑜𝓈 𝒶̀ 𝒸𝑜𝑜𝓅𝑒𝓇𝒶𝒸̧𝒶̃𝑜 𝓅𝒶𝓇𝒶 𝑜 𝒹𝑒𝓈𝑒𝓃𝓋𝑜𝓁𝓋𝒾𝓂𝑒𝓃𝓉𝑜. ℰ𝓈𝓈𝑒𝓈 𝓉𝑒𝓂𝓅𝑜𝓈 𝓅𝒶𝓇𝑒𝒸𝑒𝓂 𝓉𝑒𝓇 𝒸𝒽𝑒𝑔𝒶𝒹𝑜 𝒶𝑜 𝒻𝒾𝓂.
𝒜 𝓆𝓊𝑒𝓈𝓉𝒶̃𝑜 𝒹𝒶 𝓅𝓇𝑒𝓋𝑒𝓃𝒸̧𝒶̃𝑜 𝒹𝑒 𝒸𝑜𝓃𝒻𝓁𝒾𝓉𝑜𝓈 𝑒 𝒹𝒶 𝒸𝑜𝓃𝓈𝓉𝓇𝓊𝒸̧𝒶̃𝑜 𝒹𝒶 𝓅𝒶𝓏 𝑒́ 𝒶𝓃𝓉𝒾𝑔𝒶, 𝓂𝒶𝓈 𝑔𝒶𝓃𝒽𝒶 𝓂𝒶𝒾𝑜𝓇 𝓇𝑒𝓁𝑒𝓋𝒶̂𝓃𝒸𝒾𝒶 𝒶𝓅𝑜́𝓈 𝒶 𝒮𝑒𝑔𝓊𝓃𝒹𝒶 𝒢𝓊𝑒𝓇𝓇𝒶 ℳ𝓊𝓃𝒹𝒾𝒶𝓁, 𝒹𝑒𝓈𝒹𝑒 𝓁𝑜𝑔𝑜, 𝒸𝑜𝓂 𝒶 𝒸𝓇𝒾𝒶𝒸̧𝒶̃𝑜 𝒹𝒶 𝒪𝓇𝑔𝒶𝓃𝒾𝓏𝒶𝒸̧𝒶̃𝑜 𝒹𝒶𝓈 𝒩𝒶𝒸̧𝑜̃𝑒𝓈 𝒰𝓃𝒾𝒹𝒶𝓈 𝑒𝓂 𝟷𝟿𝟺𝟻. ℰ𝓂𝒷𝑜𝓇𝒶 𝒶 𝒢𝓊𝑒𝓇𝓇𝒶 ℱ𝓇𝒾𝒶 𝓉𝑒𝓃𝒽𝒶 𝒶𝒷𝓇𝒶𝓃𝒹𝒶𝒹𝑜 𝒶𝓈 𝑒𝓍𝓅𝑒𝒸𝓉𝒶𝓉𝒾𝓋𝒶𝓈 𝑒𝓂 𝓇𝑒𝓁𝒶𝒸̧𝒶̃𝑜 𝒶̀ 𝓇𝑒𝒸𝑒́𝓂 𝒸𝓇𝒾𝒶𝒹𝒶 𝒪𝒩𝒰 𝑒 𝒶̀𝓈 𝓁𝒾𝓂𝒾𝓉𝒶𝒸̧𝑜̃𝑒𝓈 𝒹𝑜 𝒞𝑜𝓃𝓈𝑒𝓁𝒽𝑜 𝒹𝑒 𝒮𝑒𝑔𝓊𝓇𝒶𝓃𝒸̧𝒶, 𝓃𝑜𝓈 𝒶𝓃𝑜𝓈 𝟷𝟿𝟿𝟶, 𝒶 𝓆𝓊𝑒𝓈𝓉𝒶̃𝑜 𝒹𝒶 𝓅𝒶𝓏 𝓇𝑒𝓈𝓈𝓊𝓇𝑔𝑒 𝒸𝑜𝓂 𝒻𝑜𝓇𝒸̧𝒶.
ℰ𝓂 𝟷𝟿𝟿𝟷, 𝑒𝓍𝓉𝒾𝓃𝑔𝓊𝑒-𝓈𝑒 𝑜 𝒫𝒶𝒸𝓉𝑜 𝒹𝑒 𝒱𝒶𝓇𝓈𝑜́𝓋𝒾𝒶. ℰ𝓂 𝟷𝟿𝟿𝟸, 𝑜 𝒮𝑒𝒸𝓇𝑒𝓉𝒶́𝓇𝒾𝑜-𝒢𝑒𝓇𝒶𝓁 𝒹𝒶𝓈 𝒩𝒶𝒸̧𝑜̃𝑒𝓈 𝒰𝓃𝒾𝒹𝒶𝓈 𝒶𝓅𝓇𝑒𝓈𝑒𝓃𝓉𝒶 𝒶 𝒜𝑔𝑒𝓃𝒹𝒶 𝓅𝒶𝓇𝒶 𝒶 𝒫𝒶𝓏, 𝓆𝓊𝑒 𝓃𝒶̃𝑜 𝓈𝑜́ 𝓂𝒶𝓅𝑒𝒾𝒶 𝒶𝓈 𝑜𝒷𝓇𝒾𝑔𝒶𝒸̧𝑜̃𝑒𝓈 𝒹𝒶 𝒪𝒩𝒰 𝓃𝒶 𝓂𝒶𝓃𝓊𝓉𝑒𝓃𝒸̧𝒶̃𝑜 𝒹𝒶 𝓅𝒶𝓏 𝓂𝓊𝓃𝒹𝒾𝒶𝓁, 𝒸𝑜𝓂𝑜 𝓉𝒶𝓂𝒷𝑒́𝓂 𝒸𝑜𝓁𝑜𝒸𝒶 𝓂𝒶𝒾𝑜𝓇 𝑒̂𝓃𝒻𝒶𝓈𝑒 𝓃𝒶 𝓅𝓇𝑒𝓋𝑒𝓃𝒸̧𝒶̃𝑜 𝒹𝑒 𝒸𝑜𝓃𝒻𝓁𝒾𝓉𝑜𝓈. ℰ𝓂 𝟷𝟿𝟿𝟾, 𝒹𝒶́-𝓈𝑒 𝓂𝒶𝒾𝓈 𝓊𝓂 𝒶𝓋𝒶𝓃𝒸̧𝑜 𝓈𝒾𝑔𝓃𝒾𝒻𝒾𝒸𝒶𝓉𝒾𝓋𝑜 𝒸𝑜𝓂 𝑜 ℰ𝓈𝓉𝒶𝓉𝓊𝓉𝑜 𝒹𝑒 ℛ𝑜𝓂𝒶, 𝓆𝓊𝑒 𝑒𝓈𝓉𝒶𝒷𝑒𝓁𝑒𝒸𝑒 𝑜𝓈 𝒸𝓇𝒾𝓂𝑒𝓈 𝒹𝑒 𝑔𝑒𝓃𝑜𝒸𝒾́𝒹𝒾𝑜, 𝒸𝓇𝒾𝓂𝑒𝓈 𝒹𝑒 𝓁𝑒𝓈𝒶 𝒽𝓊𝓂𝒶𝓃𝒾𝒹𝒶𝒹𝑒, 𝒸𝓇𝒾𝓂𝑒𝓈 𝒹𝑒 𝑔𝓊𝑒𝓇𝓇𝒶 𝑒 𝑜 𝒸𝓇𝒾𝓂𝑒 𝒹𝑒 𝒶𝑔𝓇𝑒𝓈𝓈𝒶̃𝑜, 𝓉𝑜𝓇𝓃𝒶𝓃𝒹𝑜-𝓈𝑒 𝑜 𝒾𝓃𝓈𝓉𝓇𝓊𝓂𝑒𝓃𝓉𝑜 𝒸𝑜𝓃𝓈𝓉𝒾𝓉𝓊𝓉𝒾𝓋𝑜 𝒹𝑜 𝒯𝓇𝒾𝒷𝓊𝓃𝒶𝓁 𝒫𝑒𝓃𝒶𝓁 ℐ𝓃𝓉𝑒𝓇𝓃𝒶𝒸𝒾𝑜𝓃𝒶𝓁.
𝒪 𝒯𝓇𝒶𝓉𝒶𝒹𝑜 𝒹𝑒 𝒩𝒶̃𝑜 𝒫𝓇𝑜𝓁𝒾𝒻𝑒𝓇𝒶𝒸̧𝒶̃𝑜, 𝑒𝓂 𝓋𝒾𝑔𝑜𝓇 𝒹𝑒𝓈𝒹𝑒 𝟷𝟿𝟼𝟾, 𝑒́ 𝒸𝑜𝓂𝓅𝓁𝑒𝓂𝑒𝓃𝓉𝒶𝒹𝑜, 𝑒𝓂 𝟷𝟿𝟿𝟼, 𝓅𝑒𝓁𝑜 𝒯𝓇𝒶𝓉𝒶𝒹𝑜 𝒹𝑒 ℐ𝓃𝓉𝑒𝓇𝒹𝒾𝒸̧𝒶̃𝑜 𝒞𝑜𝓂𝓅𝓁𝑒𝓉𝒶 𝒹𝑒 ℰ𝓃𝓈𝒶𝒾𝑜𝓈 𝒩𝓊𝒸𝓁𝑒𝒶𝓇𝑒𝓈 𝑒, 𝑒𝓂 𝟸𝟶𝟷𝟽, 𝓅𝑒𝓁𝑜 𝒯𝓇𝒶𝓉𝒶𝒹𝑜 𝓈𝑜𝒷𝓇𝑒 𝒶 𝒫𝓇𝑜𝒾𝒷𝒾𝒸̧𝒶̃𝑜 𝒹𝑒 𝒜𝓇𝓂𝒶𝓈 𝒩𝓊𝒸𝓁𝑒𝒶𝓇𝑒𝓈. 𝒟𝓊𝓇𝒶𝓃𝓉𝑒 𝒶𝓈 𝒹𝑒́𝒸𝒶𝒹𝒶𝓈 𝒹𝑒 𝟷𝟿𝟿𝟶 𝑒 𝟸𝟶𝟶𝟶, 𝒹𝒾𝓋𝑒𝓇𝓈𝑜𝓈 𝒶𝒸𝑜𝓇𝒹𝑜𝓈 𝒹𝑒 𝓅𝒶𝓏 𝓅𝓊𝓈𝑒𝓇𝒶𝓂 𝒻𝒾𝓂 𝒶 𝒸𝑜𝓃𝒻𝓁𝒾𝓉𝑜𝓈 𝒶𝓇𝓂𝒶𝒹𝑜𝓈 𝒾𝓃𝓉𝑒𝓇𝓃𝑜𝓈, 𝓂𝓊𝒾𝓉𝑜𝓈 𝒹𝑜𝓈 𝓆𝓊𝒶𝒾𝓈 𝑒𝓇𝒶𝓂 𝒽𝑒𝓇𝒶𝓃𝒸̧𝒶 𝒹𝒶 𝒢𝓊𝑒𝓇𝓇𝒶 ℱ𝓇𝒾𝒶 𝑒 𝓇𝑒𝓅𝓇𝑒𝓈𝑒𝓃𝓉𝒶𝓋𝒶𝓂 𝓇𝒾𝓈𝒸𝑜𝓈 𝓅𝒶𝓇𝒶 𝒶 𝓅𝒶𝓏 𝑒 𝑒𝓈𝓉𝒶𝒷𝒾𝓁𝒾𝒹𝒶𝒹𝑒 𝓂𝓊𝓃𝒹𝒾𝒶𝒾𝓈.
ℳ𝒶𝓈 𝒶𝓈 𝒻𝒶𝓁𝒽𝒶𝓈, 𝓁𝒾𝓂𝒾𝓉𝒶𝒸̧𝑜̃𝑒𝓈 𝑒 𝓅𝒶𝒹𝓇𝑜̃𝑒𝓈 𝒹𝓊𝓅𝓁𝑜𝓈 𝒹𝒶 𝓅𝒶𝓏 𝓁𝒾𝒷𝑒𝓇𝒶𝓁, 𝓈𝓊𝓈𝓉𝑒𝓃𝓉𝒶𝒹𝒶 𝓃𝓊𝓂𝒶 𝑒𝒸𝑜𝓃𝑜𝓂𝒾𝒶 𝒹𝑒 𝓂𝑒𝓇𝒸𝒶𝒹𝑜, 𝓈𝒶̃𝑜 𝑒𝓋𝒾𝒹𝑒𝓃𝓉𝑒𝓈. 𝒫𝑜𝓇 𝓊𝓂 𝓁𝒶𝒹𝑜, 𝓃𝒶̃𝑜 𝓈𝑒 𝒸𝑜𝓃𝓈𝑒𝑔𝓊𝒾𝓊 𝒾𝓇 𝒶𝓁𝑒́𝓂 𝒹𝑒 𝓊𝓂𝒶 𝓅𝒶𝓏 𝓃𝑒𝑔𝒶𝓉𝒾𝓋𝒶, 𝑜𝓊 𝓈𝑒𝒿𝒶, 𝓂𝒾́𝓃𝒾𝓂𝒶, 𝒻𝑜𝒸𝒶𝒹𝒶 𝑒𝓈𝓈𝑒𝓃𝒸𝒾𝒶𝓁𝓂𝑒𝓃𝓉𝑒 𝓃𝒶 𝓅𝓇𝑒𝓋𝑒𝓃𝒸̧𝒶̃𝑜 𝒹𝒶 𝒶𝑔𝓇𝑒𝓈𝓈𝒶̃𝑜 𝑒 𝒹𝒶 𝓋𝒾𝑜𝓁𝑒̂𝓃𝒸𝒾𝒶. 𝒫𝑜𝓇 𝑜𝓊𝓉𝓇𝑜, 𝓃𝒶̃𝑜 𝓈𝑒 𝒸𝑜𝓃𝓈𝓉𝓇𝓊𝒾𝓊 𝓊𝓂 𝓅𝒶𝓇𝒶𝒹𝒾𝑔𝓂𝒶 𝒹𝑒 𝓅𝒶𝓏 𝓅𝑜𝓈𝒾𝓉𝒾𝓋𝒶, 𝓈𝓊𝓈𝓉𝑒𝓃𝓉𝒶́𝓋𝑒𝓁 𝒶𝑜 𝓁𝑜𝓃𝑔𝑜 𝒹𝑜 𝓉𝑒𝓂𝓅𝑜, 𝑒 𝒶𝓈𝓈𝑒𝓃𝓉𝑒 𝑒𝓂 𝓋𝒶𝓁𝑜𝓇𝑒𝓈 𝒸𝑜𝓂𝑜 𝒶 𝒾𝑔𝓊𝒶𝓁𝒹𝒶𝒹𝑒, 𝒶 𝒿𝓊𝓈𝓉𝒾𝒸̧𝒶, 𝑜 𝒷𝑒𝓂-𝑒𝓈𝓉𝒶𝓇 𝓈𝑜𝒸𝒾𝒶𝓁, 𝒶 𝒶𝓊𝓉𝑜𝒹𝑒𝓉𝑒𝓇𝓂𝒾𝓃𝒶𝒸̧𝒶̃𝑜 𝒹𝑜𝓈 𝓅𝑜𝓋𝑜𝓈 𝑒 𝒶 𝒹𝑒𝓈𝒸𝑜𝓁𝑜𝓃𝒾𝓏𝒶𝒸̧𝒶̃𝑜. 𝒜𝒾𝓃𝒹𝒶 𝒶𝓈𝓈𝒾𝓂, 𝒽𝑜𝒿𝑒, 𝑒́ 𝑒𝓈𝓈𝒶 𝒶𝓇𝓆𝓊𝒾𝓉𝑒𝓉𝓊𝓇𝒶 𝒻𝓇𝒶́𝑔𝒾𝓁 𝓆𝓊𝑒 𝓋𝒶𝒾 𝓇𝑒𝓈𝒾𝓈𝓉𝒾𝓃𝒹𝑜 𝒶̀𝓈 𝓉𝑒𝓃𝓉𝒶𝓉𝒾𝓋𝒶𝓈 𝒹𝑒 𝓃𝑜𝓇𝓂𝒶𝓁𝒾𝓏𝒶𝓇 𝑜 𝒾𝓃𝒶𝒸𝑒𝒾𝓉𝒶́𝓋𝑒𝓁, 𝒹𝑒 𝓉𝑜𝓇𝓃𝒶𝓇 𝒶 𝑔𝓊𝑒𝓇𝓇𝒶 𝓃𝑜 “𝓃𝑜𝓋𝑜 𝓃𝑜𝓇𝓂𝒶𝓁”, 𝑒 𝒶 𝓅𝒶𝓏 𝑒𝓂 𝓆𝓊𝒶𝓁𝓆𝓊𝑒𝓇 𝒸𝑜𝒾𝓈𝒶 𝒹𝑒 𝒾𝓃𝒹𝑒𝓈𝑒𝒿𝒶́𝓋𝑒𝓁.
𝒰𝓂 𝒹𝑜𝓈 𝒾𝓃𝒹𝒾𝒸𝒶𝒹𝑜𝓇𝑒𝓈 𝒹𝒾𝓈𝓈𝑜 𝑒́ 𝒶 𝓂𝒶𝓃𝓊𝓉𝑒𝓃𝒸̧𝒶̃𝑜 𝒹𝒶 𝒪𝓇𝑔𝒶𝓃𝒾𝓏𝒶𝒸̧𝒶̃𝑜 𝒹𝑜 𝒯𝓇𝒶𝓉𝒶𝒹𝑜 𝒹𝑜 𝒜𝓉𝓁𝒶̂𝓃𝓉𝒾𝒸𝑜 𝒩𝑜𝓇𝓉𝑒 (𝒩𝒜𝒯𝒪). 𝒜 𝒩𝒜𝒯𝒪, 𝒸𝑜𝓃𝒸𝑒𝒷𝒾𝒹𝒶 𝒸𝑜𝓂𝑜 𝓊𝓂 𝓈𝒾𝓈𝓉𝑒𝓂𝒶 𝒹𝑒 𝒹𝑒𝒻𝑒𝓈𝒶 𝒸𝑜𝓁𝑒𝓉𝒾𝓋𝒶, 𝓊𝓈𝑜𝓊 𝑒 𝒶𝒷𝓊𝓈𝑜𝓊 𝒹𝑜 𝒸𝑜𝓃𝒸𝑒𝒾𝓉𝑜 𝒹𝑒 𝒶𝓊𝓉𝑜𝒹𝑒𝒻𝑒𝓈𝒶 𝑒 𝒹𝒶 𝒻𝒾𝑔𝓊𝓇𝒶 𝒹𝒶 𝒶𝒸̧𝒶̃𝑜 𝓅𝓇𝑒𝓋𝑒𝓃𝓉𝒾𝓋𝒶 𝓅𝒶𝓇𝒶 𝒿𝓊𝓈𝓉𝒾𝒻𝒾𝒸𝒶𝓇 𝒾𝓃𝓉𝑒𝓇𝓋𝑒𝓃𝒸̧𝑜̃𝑒𝓈 𝒾𝓁𝑒𝑔𝒶𝒾𝓈 𝓅𝑒𝓁𝑜 𝓂𝓊𝓃𝒹𝑜 𝒻𝑜𝓇𝒶, 𝒸𝑜𝓃𝓈𝑜𝓁𝒾𝒹𝒶𝓃𝒹𝑜 𝒶 𝒽𝑒𝑔𝑒𝓂𝑜𝓃𝒾𝒶 𝒹𝑜𝓈 ℰ𝒰𝒜 𝓃𝑜 𝓅𝑒𝓇𝒾́𝑜𝒹𝑜 𝓅𝑜́𝓈-𝒷𝒾𝓅𝑜𝓁𝒶𝓇. ℰ𝓃𝓉𝓇𝑒 𝑜𝓈 𝑒𝓍𝑒𝓂𝓅𝓁𝑜𝓈 𝓂𝒶𝒾𝓈 𝑒𝓂𝒷𝓁𝑒𝓂𝒶́𝓉𝒾𝒸𝑜𝓈 𝑒𝓈𝓉𝒶̃𝑜 𝒶 𝒾𝓃𝓋𝒶𝓈𝒶̃𝑜 𝒹𝑜 𝒜𝒻𝑒𝑔𝒶𝓃𝒾𝓈𝓉𝒶̃𝑜 𝑒𝓂 𝟸𝟶𝟶𝟷 𝑒 𝒹𝒶 ℒ𝒾́𝒷𝒾𝒶 𝑒𝓂 𝟸𝟶𝟷𝟷, 𝑜𝓃𝒹𝑒 𝑜 𝒸𝒶𝓇𝒶́𝒸𝓉𝑒𝓇 𝒹𝑒 𝒹𝑒𝒻𝑒𝓈𝒶 𝒸𝑜𝓁𝑒𝒸𝓉𝒾𝓋𝒶 𝑒́ 𝒹𝒾𝒻𝒾́𝒸𝒾𝓁 (𝑜𝓊 𝒾𝓂𝓅𝑜𝓈𝓈𝒾́𝓋𝑒𝓁) 𝒹𝑒 𝒾𝒹𝑒𝓃𝓉𝒾𝒻𝒾𝒸𝒶𝓇, 𝑒𝓃𝓆𝓊𝒶𝓃𝓉𝑜 𝑜 𝒸𝒶𝓇𝒶́𝒸𝓉𝑒𝓇 𝑜𝒻𝑒𝓃𝓈𝒾𝓋𝑜 𝑒́ 𝓈𝑜𝒷𝓇𝑒𝓂𝒶𝓃𝑒𝒾𝓇𝒶 𝑒𝓋𝒾𝒹𝑒𝓃𝓉𝑒. 𝒪 𝟷𝟷 𝒹𝑒 𝓈𝑒𝓉𝑒𝓂𝒷𝓇𝑜 𝑒 𝒶 𝓈𝓊𝒷𝓈𝑒𝓆𝓊𝑒𝓃𝓉𝑒 𝓁𝓊𝓉𝒶 𝒸𝑜𝓃𝓉𝓇𝒶 𝑜 𝓉𝑒𝓇𝓇𝑜𝓇𝒾𝓈𝓂𝑜 𝓈𝑒𝓇𝓋𝒾𝓇𝒶𝓂 𝓅𝒶𝓇𝒶 𝓁𝑒𝑔𝒾𝓉𝒾𝓂𝒶𝓇 𝓂𝓊𝒾𝓉𝒶𝓈 𝒹𝑒𝓈𝓉𝒶𝓈 𝒶𝒸̧𝑜̃𝑒𝓈 𝑒 𝓅𝒶𝓇𝒶 𝒹𝑒𝓉𝑒𝓇𝒾𝑜𝓇𝒶𝓇 𝑜 𝓇𝑒𝓈𝓅𝑒𝒾𝓉𝑜 𝓅𝑒𝓁𝑜 𝒹𝒾𝓇𝑒𝒾𝓉𝑜 𝒾𝓃𝓉𝑒𝓇𝓃𝒶𝒸𝒾𝑜𝓃𝒶𝓁, 𝒸𝑜𝓂 𝑒𝒻𝑒𝒾𝓉𝑜𝓈 𝓆𝓊𝑒 𝓈𝑒 𝒻𝒶𝓏𝑒𝓂 𝓈𝑒𝓃𝓉𝒾𝓇 𝒶𝓉𝑒́ 𝒽𝑜𝒿𝑒.
𝒪 𝓈𝑒𝑔𝓊𝓃𝒹𝑜, 𝒶𝓉𝑒́ 𝒶𝑔𝑜𝓇𝒶 𝓂𝑒𝓃𝑜𝓈 𝑒𝓋𝒾𝒹𝑒𝓃𝓉𝑒, 𝓇𝑒𝓈𝒾𝒹𝒾𝒶 𝓃𝑜 𝓅𝑜𝓉𝑒𝓃𝒸𝒾𝒶𝓁 𝒷𝑒𝓁𝒾𝒸𝒾𝓈𝓉𝒶 𝒹𝒶 𝒰𝓃𝒾𝒶̃𝑜 ℰ𝓊𝓇𝑜𝓅𝑒𝒾𝒶. 𝒜 𝟸𝟸 𝒹𝑒 𝓂𝒶𝓇𝒸̧𝑜 𝒹𝑒 𝟸𝟶𝟸𝟷, 𝒻𝑜𝒾 𝒸𝓇𝒾𝒶𝒹𝑜 𝑜 ℳ𝑒𝒸𝒶𝓃𝒾𝓈𝓂𝑜 ℰ𝓊𝓇𝑜𝓅𝑒𝓊 𝒹𝑒 𝒜𝓅𝑜𝒾𝑜 𝒶̀ 𝒫𝒶𝓏 (ℳℰ𝒜𝒫), 𝑒𝓂 𝓉𝑒𝑜𝓇𝒾𝒶 𝒹𝑒𝓈𝓉𝒾𝓃𝒶𝒹𝑜 𝒶 𝓅𝓇𝑒𝓋𝑒𝓃𝒾𝓇 𝒸𝑜𝓃𝒻𝓁𝒾𝓉𝑜𝓈, 𝒸𝑜𝓃𝓈𝓉𝓇𝓊𝒾𝓇 𝑒 𝓅𝓇𝑒𝓈𝑒𝓇𝓋𝒶𝓇 𝒶 𝓅𝒶𝓏, 𝑒 𝓇𝑒𝒻𝑜𝓇𝒸̧𝒶𝓇 𝒶 𝓈𝑒𝑔𝓊𝓇𝒶𝓃𝒸̧𝒶 𝑒 𝒶 𝑒𝓈𝓉𝒶𝒷𝒾𝓁𝒾𝒹𝒶𝒹𝑒 𝒾𝓃𝓉𝑒𝓇𝓃𝒶𝒸𝒾𝑜𝓃𝒶𝒾𝓈. ℐ𝓃𝒾𝒸𝒾𝒶𝓁𝓂𝑒𝓃𝓉𝑒 𝒹𝑜𝓉𝒶𝒹𝑜 𝒹𝑒 𝓊𝓂 𝑜𝓇𝒸̧𝒶𝓂𝑒𝓃𝓉𝑜 𝒹𝑒 𝟻 𝓂𝒾𝓁 𝓂𝒾𝓁𝒽𝑜̃𝑒𝓈 𝒹𝑒 𝑒𝓊𝓇𝑜𝓈, 𝓆𝓊𝑒 𝒶𝑔𝑜𝓇𝒶 𝓂𝒶𝒾𝓈 𝒹𝑜 𝓆𝓊𝑒 𝓉𝓇𝒾𝓅𝓁𝒾𝒸𝑜𝓊, 𝑜 ℳℰ𝒜𝒫 𝒻𝑒𝓏 𝓈𝑜𝒶𝓇 𝑜𝓈 𝒶𝓁𝒶𝓇𝓂𝑒𝓈 𝒹𝒶𝓈 𝑜𝓇𝑔𝒶𝓃𝒾𝓏𝒶𝒸̧𝑜̃𝑒𝓈 𝓃𝒶̃𝑜-𝑔𝑜𝓋𝑒𝓇𝓃𝒶𝓂𝑒𝓃𝓉𝒶𝒾𝓈 𝒾𝓃𝓉𝑒𝓇𝓃𝒶𝒸𝒾𝑜𝓃𝒶𝒾𝓈, 𝓆𝓊𝑒 𝓉𝑒𝓂𝑒𝓇𝒶𝓂 𝓆𝓊𝑒 𝑒𝓈𝓉𝑒 𝓈𝒾𝑔𝓃𝒾𝒻𝒾𝒸𝒶𝓈𝓈𝑒 𝓊𝓂 𝓅𝑜𝓃𝓉𝑜 𝒹𝑒 𝓋𝒾𝓇𝒶𝑔𝑒𝓂 𝓇𝓊𝓂𝑜 𝒶 𝓊𝓂𝒶 𝒶𝒷𝑜𝓇𝒹𝒶𝑔𝑒𝓂 𝓂𝒶𝒾𝓈 𝒷𝑒𝓁𝒾𝒸𝒾𝓈𝓉𝒶 𝒹𝒶 𝑔𝑒𝓈𝓉𝒶̃𝑜 𝒹𝑜𝓈 𝒸𝑜𝓃𝒻𝓁𝒾𝓉𝑜𝓈. 𝒞𝑜𝓃𝒻𝑜𝓇𝓂𝑒 𝒹𝑒𝓃𝓊𝓃𝒸𝒾𝒶𝒹𝑜 𝓅𝑜𝓇 𝑒𝓈𝓉𝒶𝓈 𝒪𝒩𝒢ℐ, 𝑜 ℳℰ𝒜𝒫, 𝒶𝑜 𝒻𝑜𝓇𝓃𝑒𝒸𝑒𝓇 𝑒𝓆𝓊𝒾𝓅𝒶𝓂𝑒𝓃𝓉𝑜 𝓂𝒾𝓁𝒾𝓉𝒶𝓇, 𝒶𝓇𝓂𝒶𝓈 𝓁𝑒𝓉𝒶𝒾𝓈 𝑒 𝓉𝓇𝑒𝒾𝓃𝑜 𝒶 𝒻𝑜𝓇𝒸̧𝒶𝓈 𝒶𝓇𝓂𝒶𝒹𝒶𝓈 𝑒𝓂 𝓏𝑜𝓃𝒶𝓈 𝒹𝑒 𝒸𝑜𝓃𝒻𝓁𝒾𝓉𝑜, 𝒶𝓇𝓇𝒾𝓈𝒸𝒶𝓋𝒶 𝒶𝑔𝓇𝒶𝓋𝒶𝓇 𝒶𝓈 𝓋𝒾𝑜𝓁𝒶𝒸̧𝑜̃𝑒𝓈 𝒹𝑜𝓈 𝒹𝒾𝓇𝑒𝒾𝓉𝑜𝓈 𝒽𝓊𝓂𝒶𝓃𝑜𝓈, 𝒾𝓃𝓉𝑒𝓃𝓈𝒾𝒻𝒾𝒸𝒶𝓇 𝒶 𝓋𝒾𝑜𝓁𝑒̂𝓃𝒸𝒾𝒶 𝑒 𝒻𝑜𝓂𝑒𝓃𝓉𝒶𝓇 𝒶 𝓅𝓇𝑜𝓁𝒾𝒻𝑒𝓇𝒶𝒸̧𝒶̃𝑜 𝒹𝑒 𝒶𝓇𝓂𝒶𝓈, 𝑒𝓂 𝓋𝑒𝓏 𝒹𝑒 𝓅𝓇𝑜𝓉𝑒𝑔𝑒𝓇 𝑜𝓈 𝒸𝒾𝓋𝒾𝓈 𝑒 𝒾𝓃𝒸𝑒𝓃𝓉𝒾𝓋𝒶𝓇 𝓈𝑜𝓁𝓊𝒸̧𝑜̃𝑒𝓈 𝓅𝑜𝓁𝒾́𝓉𝒾𝒸𝒶𝓈. 𝒩𝑜 𝒮𝒶𝒽𝑒𝓁, 𝓅𝒶𝑔𝒶-𝓈𝑒 𝒶𝑔𝑜𝓇𝒶 𝒶 𝒻𝒶𝓉𝓊𝓇𝒶 𝒹𝑒𝓈𝓈𝒶𝓈 𝑒𝓈𝒸𝑜𝓁𝒽𝒶𝓈.
𝒜 𝒾𝓃𝓋𝒶𝓈𝒶̃𝑜 𝒹𝒶 𝒰𝒸𝓇𝒶̂𝓃𝒾𝒶 𝓉𝓇𝑜𝓊𝓍𝑒 𝒶̀𝓈 𝑒𝓁𝒾𝓉𝑒𝓈 𝒹𝒶 𝒰𝓃𝒾𝒶̃𝑜 ℰ𝓊𝓇𝑜𝓅𝑒𝒾𝒶 𝒶 𝑜𝓅𝑜𝓇𝓉𝓊𝓃𝒾𝒹𝒶𝒹𝑒 𝑒 𝒶 𝒿𝓊𝓈𝓉𝒾𝒻𝒾𝒸𝒶𝒸̧𝒶̃𝑜 𝒽𝒶́ 𝓂𝓊𝒾𝓉𝑜 𝒹𝑒𝓈𝑒𝒿𝒶𝒹𝒶𝓈 𝓅𝒶𝓇𝒶 𝒸𝑜𝓃𝓈𝓉𝓇𝓊𝒾𝓇 𝓊𝓂 𝒸𝑜𝓃𝓈𝑒𝓃𝓈𝑜 𝒷𝑒́𝓁𝒾𝒸𝑜 𝓃𝒶 ℰ𝓊𝓇𝑜𝓅𝒶, 𝓅𝓇𝑜𝓋𝒶𝓃𝒹𝑜 𝓆𝓊𝑒 𝑜 𝓅𝓇𝑜𝒿𝑒𝓉𝑜 𝑒𝓊𝓇𝑜𝓅𝑒𝓊 𝓃𝓊𝓃𝒸𝒶 𝒻𝑜𝒾 𝓋𝑒𝓇𝒹𝒶𝒹𝑒𝒾𝓇𝒶𝓂𝑒𝓃𝓉𝑒 𝓈𝑜𝒷𝓇𝑒 𝒶 𝒾𝒹𝑒𝒾𝒶 𝒹𝑒 𝓅𝒶𝓏 𝑒 𝓆𝓊𝑒, 𝓃𝑜𝓈 𝒹𝒾𝒶𝓈 𝒹𝑒 𝒽𝑜𝒿𝑒, 𝓉𝒶𝓂𝓅𝑜𝓊𝒸𝑜 𝓈𝑒 𝓁𝒾𝓂𝒾𝓉𝒶 𝒶̀ 𝓂𝑒𝓇𝒶 𝓃𝑒𝒸𝑒𝓈𝓈𝒾𝒹𝒶𝒹𝑒 𝒹𝑒 “𝒹𝑒𝒻𝑒𝓈𝒶”. 𝒟𝑒𝓈𝒹𝑒 𝑒𝓃𝓉𝒶̃𝑜, 𝒻𝑜𝓇𝓂𝑜𝓊-𝓈𝑒 𝓊𝓂𝒶 𝓉𝑒𝓂𝓅𝑒𝓈𝓉𝒶𝒹𝑒 𝓅𝑒𝓇𝒻𝑒𝒾𝓉𝒶.
ℰ𝓂 𝓂𝒶𝓇𝒸̧𝑜 𝒹𝑒 𝟸𝟶𝟸𝟸, 𝑜 𝒞𝑜𝓃𝓈𝑒𝓁𝒽𝑜 𝒶𝒹𝑜𝓉𝑜𝓊 𝒶 ℬ𝓊́𝓈𝓈𝓊𝓁𝒶 ℰ𝓈𝓉𝓇𝒶𝓉𝑒́𝑔𝒾𝒸𝒶 𝓅𝒶𝓇𝒶 𝒶 𝓈𝑒𝑔𝓊𝓇𝒶𝓃𝒸̧𝒶 𝑒 𝒹𝑒𝒻𝑒𝓈𝒶 𝓃𝒶 ℰ𝓊𝓇𝑜𝓅𝒶 𝑒 𝒸𝒽𝑒𝑔𝑜𝓊 𝒶 𝒶𝒸𝑜𝓇𝒹𝑜 𝓅𝒶𝓇𝒶 𝓆𝓊𝑒 𝑜𝓈 𝑒𝓈𝓉𝒶𝒹𝑜𝓈-𝓂𝑒𝓂𝒷𝓇𝑜𝓈 𝒾𝓃𝓋𝑒𝓈𝓉𝒾𝓈𝓈𝑒𝓂 𝟸% 𝒹𝑜 𝒫ℐℬ 𝑒𝓂 𝒹𝑒𝓈𝓅𝑒𝓈𝒶𝓈 𝓂𝒾𝓁𝒾𝓉𝒶𝓇𝑒𝓈. 𝒟𝑜𝒾𝓈 𝒶𝓃𝑜𝓈 𝓂𝒶𝒾𝓈 𝓉𝒶𝓇𝒹𝑒, 𝑒𝓂 𝓂𝒶𝓇𝒸̧𝑜 𝒹𝑒 𝟸𝟶𝟸𝟺, 𝒻𝑜𝒾 𝒶𝓅𝓇𝑒𝓈𝑒𝓃𝓉𝒶𝒹𝒶 𝒶 𝓅𝓇𝒾𝓂𝑒𝒾𝓇𝒶 ℰ𝓈𝓉𝓇𝒶𝓉𝑒́𝑔𝒾𝒶 ℐ𝓃𝒹𝓊𝓈𝓉𝓇𝒾𝒶𝓁 𝒹𝑒 𝒟𝑒𝒻𝑒𝓈𝒶 ℰ𝓊𝓇𝑜𝓅𝑒𝒾𝒶 𝓆𝓊𝑒 “𝒹𝑒𝒻𝒾𝓃𝑒 𝓊𝓂𝒶 𝓋𝒾𝓈𝒶̃𝑜 𝒸𝓁𝒶𝓇𝒶 𝑒 𝒹𝑒 𝓁𝑜𝓃𝑔𝑜 𝓅𝓇𝒶𝓏𝑜 𝓅𝒶𝓇𝒶 𝒶𝓁𝒸𝒶𝓃𝒸̧𝒶𝓇 𝒶 𝓅𝓇𝑜𝓃𝓉𝒾𝒹𝒶̃𝑜 𝒶 𝓃𝒾́𝓋𝑒𝓁 𝒾𝓃𝒹𝓊𝓈𝓉𝓇𝒾𝒶𝓁 𝓃𝑜 𝒹𝑜𝓂𝒾́𝓃𝒾𝑜 𝒹𝒶 𝒹𝑒𝒻𝑒𝓈𝒶 𝓃𝒶 𝒰𝓃𝒾𝒶̃𝑜 ℰ𝓊𝓇𝑜𝓅𝑒𝒾𝒶”.
ℰ𝓈𝓉𝒶 𝑒𝓈𝓉𝓇𝒶𝓉𝑒́𝑔𝒾𝒶 𝒾𝓃𝒸𝓁𝓊𝒾 𝓊𝓂𝒶 𝓃𝑜𝓋𝒶 𝒾𝓃𝒾𝒸𝒾𝒶𝓉𝒾𝓋𝒶 𝓁𝑒𝑔𝒾𝓈𝓁𝒶𝓉𝒾𝓋𝒶, 𝑜 ℛ𝑒𝑔𝓊𝓁𝒶𝓂𝑒𝓃𝓉𝑜 𝒹𝑜 𝒫𝓇𝑜𝑔𝓇𝒶𝓂𝒶 ℰ𝓊𝓇𝑜𝓅𝑒𝓊 𝒹𝒶 ℐ𝓃𝒹𝓊́𝓈𝓉𝓇𝒾𝒶 𝒹𝑒 𝒟𝑒𝒻𝑒𝓈𝒶, 𝓆𝓊𝑒 𝓅𝓇𝑜𝒸𝓊𝓇𝒶 𝒸𝑜𝓃𝓈𝑜𝓁𝒾𝒹𝒶𝓇 𝒶𝓈 𝓂𝑒𝒹𝒾𝒹𝒶𝓈 𝒹𝑒 𝑒𝓂𝑒𝓇𝑔𝑒̂𝓃𝒸𝒾𝒶 𝒶𝒹𝑜𝓉𝒶𝒹𝒶𝓈 𝑒𝓂 𝟸𝟶𝟸𝟹, 𝒸𝑜𝓂𝑜 𝑜 𝒜𝒮𝒜𝒫 (𝒾𝓃𝓈𝓉𝓇𝓊𝓂𝑒𝓃𝓉𝑜 𝒹𝑒 𝒶𝓅𝑜𝒾𝑜 𝒻𝒾𝓃𝒶𝓃𝒸𝑒𝒾𝓇𝑜 𝒶̀𝓈 𝒾𝓃𝒹𝓊́𝓈𝓉𝓇𝒾𝒶𝓈 𝒹𝒶 𝒹𝑒𝒻𝑒𝓈𝒶 𝓅𝒶𝓇𝒶 𝑜 𝒶𝓊𝓂𝑒𝓃𝓉𝑜 𝒹𝒶 𝒸𝒶𝓅𝒶𝒸𝒾𝒹𝒶𝒹𝑒 𝒹𝑒 𝓅𝓇𝑜𝒹𝓊𝒸̧𝒶̃𝑜) 𝑒 𝑜 ℰ𝒟ℐℛ𝒫𝒜 (𝓅𝒶𝓇𝒶 𝓇𝑒𝒻𝑜𝓇𝒸̧𝒶𝓇 𝒶 𝒸𝑜𝑜𝓅𝑒𝓇𝒶𝒸̧𝒶̃𝑜 𝑒𝓃𝓉𝓇𝑒 𝑜𝓈 ℰ𝓈𝓉𝒶𝒹𝑜𝓈-ℳ𝑒𝓂𝒷𝓇𝑜𝓈 𝓃𝒶 𝒻𝒶𝓈𝑒 𝒹𝑒 𝒸𝑜𝓃𝓉𝓇𝒶𝓉𝒶𝒸̧𝒶̃𝑜 𝓅𝓊́𝒷𝓁𝒾𝒸𝒶 𝓅𝒶𝓇𝒶 𝒶 𝒸𝑜𝓂𝓅𝓇𝒶 𝒹𝑒 𝒶𝓇𝓂𝒶𝓂𝑒𝓃𝓉𝑜), 𝒶𝓋𝒶𝓃𝒸̧𝒶𝓃𝒹𝑜 𝓅𝒶𝓇𝒶 𝓂𝑒𝒹𝒾𝒹𝒶𝓈 𝓂𝒶𝒾𝓈 𝑒𝓈𝓉𝓇𝓊𝓉𝓊𝓇𝒶𝒾𝓈 “𝒶 𝒻𝒾𝓂 𝒹𝑒 𝒶𝓁𝒸𝒶𝓃𝒸̧𝒶𝓇 𝒶 𝓅𝓇𝑜𝓃𝓉𝒾𝒹𝒶̃𝑜 𝒾𝓃𝒹𝓊𝓈𝓉𝓇𝒾𝒶𝓁 𝓃𝑜 𝒹𝑜𝓂𝒾́𝓃𝒾𝑜 𝒹𝒶 𝒹𝑒𝒻𝑒𝓈𝒶.” 𝒩𝑜 𝒻𝓊𝓃𝒹𝑜, 𝓉𝓇𝒶𝓉𝒶-𝓈𝑒 𝒹𝑒 𝓅𝓇𝑒𝓅𝒶𝓇𝒶𝓇 𝒶 𝓉𝓇𝒶𝓃𝓈𝒾𝒸̧𝒶̃𝑜 𝒹𝒶 𝑒𝒸𝑜𝓃𝑜𝓂𝒾𝒶 𝑒 𝒹𝑜 𝓉𝑒𝒸𝒾𝒹𝑜 𝒾𝓃𝒹𝓊𝓈𝓉𝓇𝒾𝒶𝓁 𝑒𝓊𝓇𝑜𝓅𝑒𝓊𝓈 𝓅𝒶𝓇𝒶 𝓊𝓂𝒶 𝑒𝒸𝑜𝓃𝑜𝓂𝒾𝒶 𝒹𝑒 𝑔𝓊𝑒𝓇𝓇𝒶, 𝒸𝑜𝓂 𝑔𝓇𝒶𝓃𝒹𝑒𝓈 𝒷𝑒𝓃𝑒𝒻𝒾́𝒸𝒾𝑜𝓈 𝓅𝒶𝓇𝒶 𝒶𝓈 𝑒𝓂𝓅𝓇𝑒𝓈𝒶𝓈 𝑒𝓊𝓇𝑜𝓅𝑒𝒾𝒶𝓈 𝒹𝑜 𝓈𝑒𝓉𝑜𝓇.
𝒮𝑒𝑔𝓊𝓃𝒹𝑜 𝒶 𝒜𝑔𝑒̂𝓃𝒸𝒾𝒶 ℰ𝓊𝓇𝑜𝓅𝑒𝒾𝒶 𝒹𝑒 𝒟𝑒𝒻𝑒𝓈𝒶, 𝑜𝓈 ℰ𝓈𝓉𝒶𝒹𝑜𝓈-ℳ𝑒𝓂𝒷𝓇𝑜𝓈 𝒹𝒶 𝒰ℰ 𝒿𝒶́ 𝒶𝓁𝒸𝒶𝓃𝒸̧𝒶𝓇𝒶𝓂 𝑔𝒶𝓈𝓉𝑜𝓈 𝒸𝑜𝓂𝒷𝒾𝓃𝒶𝒹𝑜𝓈 𝒹𝑒 𝟸𝟽𝟿 𝓂𝒾𝓁 𝓂𝒾𝓁𝒽𝑜̃𝑒𝓈 𝒹𝑒 𝑒𝓊𝓇𝑜𝓈 𝑒𝓂 𝟸𝟶𝟸𝟹, 𝓊𝓂 𝒶𝓊𝓂𝑒𝓃𝓉𝑜 𝒹𝑒 𝟷𝟶% 𝒻𝒶𝒸𝑒 𝒶𝑜 𝒶𝓃𝑜 𝒶𝓃𝓉𝑒𝓇𝒾𝑜𝓇, 𝑒 𝓅𝓇𝑒𝓋𝑒̂-𝓈𝑒 𝓆𝓊𝑒 𝑒𝓈𝓉𝑒𝓈 𝒶𝓊𝓂𝑒𝓃𝓉𝑒𝓂 𝓅𝒶𝓇𝒶 𝟹𝟸𝟼 𝓂𝒾𝓁 𝓂𝒾𝓁𝒽𝑜̃𝑒𝓈 𝒹𝑒 𝑒𝓊𝓇𝑜𝓈 — 𝑜 𝑒𝓆𝓊𝒾𝓋𝒶𝓁𝑒𝓃𝓉𝑒 𝒶 𝟷,𝟿% 𝒹𝑜 𝓅𝓇𝑜𝒹𝓊𝓉𝑜 𝒾𝓃𝓉𝑒𝓇𝓃𝑜 𝒷𝓇𝓊𝓉𝑜 (𝒫ℐℬ). ℰ𝓈𝓉𝑒 𝒶𝓊𝓂𝑒𝓃𝓉𝑜 𝓂𝒶𝓇𝒸𝒶𝓇𝒶́ 𝑜 𝒹𝑒́𝒸𝒾𝓂𝑜 𝒶𝓃𝑜 𝒸𝑜𝓃𝓈𝑒𝒸𝓊𝓉𝒾𝓋𝑜 𝒹𝑒 𝒸𝓇𝑒𝓈𝒸𝒾𝓂𝑒𝓃𝓉𝑜 𝓃𝒶 𝒹𝑒𝓈𝓅𝑒𝓈𝒶 𝒸𝑜𝓂 𝒹𝑒𝒻𝑒𝓈𝒶 𝓅𝑜𝓇 𝓅𝒶𝓇𝓉𝑒 𝒹𝑜𝓈 ℰ𝓈𝓉𝒶𝒹𝑜𝓈-ℳ𝑒𝓂𝒷𝓇𝑜𝓈.
ℰ𝓈𝓉𝒶 𝓈𝑒𝓂𝒶𝓃𝒶, 𝑜 𝓈𝑒𝒸𝓇𝑒𝓉𝒶́𝓇𝒾𝑜-𝑔𝑒𝓇𝒶𝓁 𝒹𝒶 𝒩𝒜𝒯𝒪, ℳ𝒶𝓇𝓀 ℛ𝓊𝓉𝓉𝑒, 𝒻𝑜𝒾 𝒶𝒾𝓃𝒹𝒶 𝓂𝒶𝒾𝓈 𝓁𝑜𝓃𝑔𝑒, 𝓈𝓊𝑔𝑒𝓇𝒾𝓃𝒹𝑜 𝓆𝓊𝑒, 𝓅𝒶𝓇𝒶 𝒶𝓉𝒾𝓃𝑔𝒾𝓇 𝑜𝓈 𝟸% 𝒹𝑜 𝒫ℐℬ 𝑒𝓂 𝒹𝑒𝓈𝓅𝑒𝓈𝒶 𝓂𝒾𝓁𝒾𝓉𝒶𝓇, 𝑒𝓂 𝒸𝒶𝓈𝑜 𝒹𝑒 𝑒𝓈𝒸𝒶𝓈𝓈𝑒𝓏 𝒹𝑒 𝓋𝑒𝓇𝒷𝒶𝓈, 𝑜𝓈 ℰ𝓈𝓉𝒶𝒹𝑜𝓈-ℳ𝑒𝓂𝒷𝓇𝑜𝓈 𝒸𝑜𝓇𝓉𝑒𝓂 𝓃𝒶 𝓈𝒶𝓊́𝒹𝑒 𝑜𝓊 𝓃𝒶𝓈 𝓅𝑒𝓃𝓈𝑜̃𝑒𝓈 𝒹𝑒 𝓇𝑒𝒻𝑜𝓇𝓂𝒶. 𝒫𝒶𝓇𝒶 𝓆𝓊𝑒𝓂, 𝒸𝑜𝓂𝑜 𝑒𝓊, 𝒸𝓇𝑒𝓈𝒸𝑒𝓊 𝓈𝑜𝒷 𝒶 𝓈𝑜𝓂𝒷𝓇𝒶 𝒹𝒶𝓈 𝓂𝑒𝒹𝒾𝒹𝒶𝓈 𝒹𝒶 𝒶𝓊𝓈𝓉𝑒𝓇𝒾𝒹𝒶𝒹𝑒, 𝑒𝓈𝓉𝒶𝓈 𝒹𝑒𝒸𝓁𝒶𝓇𝒶𝒸̧𝑜̃𝑒𝓈 𝒹𝑒 ℛ𝓊𝓉𝓉𝑒 𝓃𝒶̃𝑜 𝒹𝑒𝒾𝓍𝒶𝓂 𝒹𝑒 𝓅𝓇𝑜𝓋𝑜𝒸𝒶𝓇 𝓊𝓂 𝒹𝑒́𝒿𝒶̀ 𝓋𝓊, 𝓂𝒶𝓈 𝒶𝑔𝑜𝓇𝒶 𝒸𝑜𝓂 𝒸𝑜𝓇𝓉𝑒𝓈 𝒶 𝓈𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓂 𝒻𝑒𝒾𝓉𝑜𝓈 𝑒𝓂 𝓃𝑜𝓂𝑒 𝒹𝒶 𝑔𝓊𝑒𝓇𝓇𝒶. ℰ𝓈𝓉𝒶𝓂𝑜𝓈 𝓅𝑒𝓇𝒶𝓃𝓉𝑒 𝓊𝓂 𝓅𝓇𝑜𝒸𝑒𝓈𝓈𝑜 𝒹𝑒 𝓈𝑒𝒸𝓊𝓇𝒾𝓉𝒾𝓏𝒶𝒸̧𝒶̃𝑜 𝑒𝓂 𝒸𝓊𝓇𝓈𝑜, 𝑒𝓂 𝓆𝓊𝑒, 𝑒𝓂 𝒹𝑒𝓉𝓇𝒾𝓂𝑒𝓃𝓉𝑜 𝒹𝒶 𝓅𝒶𝓏, 𝒹𝒶 𝓇𝑒𝓈𝑜𝓁𝓊𝒸̧𝒶̃𝑜 𝓃𝑒𝑔𝑜𝒸𝒾𝒶𝒹𝒶 𝒹𝑜𝓈 𝒸𝑜𝓃𝒻𝓁𝒾𝓉𝑜𝓈 𝑒 𝒹𝒶 𝓈𝑒𝑔𝓊𝓇𝒶𝓃𝒸̧𝒶 𝒽𝓊𝓂𝒶𝓃𝒶, 𝓅𝓇𝑒𝓋𝒶𝓁𝑒𝒸𝑒 𝓊𝓂𝒶 𝒸𝑜𝓇𝓇𝒾𝒹𝒶 𝒶𝑜 𝒶𝓇𝓂𝒶𝓂𝑒𝓃𝓉𝑜. 𝒩𝒶̃𝑜 𝒽𝒶́ 𝓅𝒶̃𝑜 𝓃𝒶 𝓂𝑒𝓈𝒶, 𝓂𝒶𝓈 𝒽𝒶́ 𝒸𝒶𝓇𝓃𝑒 𝓅𝒶𝓇𝒶 𝒸𝒶𝓃𝒽𝒶̃𝑜.
𝒮𝑜𝒷 𝒶 𝓈𝓊𝓅𝑜𝓈𝓉𝒶 𝒶𝓂𝑒𝒶𝒸̧𝒶 𝒹𝒶 𝒶𝑔𝓇𝑒𝓈𝓈𝒶̃𝑜 𝓂𝒾𝓁𝒾𝓉𝒶𝓇 𝑜𝓊 𝒹𝒶 𝒹𝑒𝓅𝑒𝓃𝒹𝑒̂𝓃𝒸𝒾𝒶 𝑒𝓃𝑒𝓇𝑔𝑒́𝓉𝒾𝒸𝒶 𝓇𝓊𝓈𝓈𝒶, 𝒷𝑒𝓂 𝒸𝑜𝓂𝑜 𝒶 𝓃𝑒𝒸𝑒𝓈𝓈𝒾𝒹𝒶𝒹𝑒 𝒹𝑒 𝓈𝓊𝓅𝑒𝓇𝒶𝓇 𝒶 𝒸𝑜𝓂𝓅𝑒𝓉𝒾𝓉𝒾𝓋𝒾𝒹𝒶𝒹𝑒 𝒻𝒶𝒸𝑒 𝒶̀ 𝒞𝒽𝒾𝓃𝒶, 𝒶 𝒰ℰ 𝓉𝑒𝓂 𝒶𝒾𝓃𝒹𝒶 𝓅𝓇𝑜𝓂𝑜𝓋𝒾𝒹𝑜 𝑜 𝒸𝑜𝓃𝒸𝑒𝒾𝓉𝑜 𝒹𝑒 “𝒶𝓊𝓉𝑜𝓃𝑜𝓂𝒾𝒶 𝑒𝓈𝓉𝓇𝒶𝓉𝑒́𝑔𝒾𝒸𝒶” - 𝒸𝑜𝓃𝒸𝑒𝒾𝓉𝑜 𝒿𝒶́ 𝓊𝓈𝒶𝒹𝑜 𝓅𝒶𝓇𝒶 𝒻𝒶𝓁𝒶𝓇 𝒹𝒶 𝒾𝓃𝒹𝓊́𝓈𝓉𝓇𝒾𝒶 𝒹𝑒 𝒹𝑒𝒻𝑒𝓈𝒶 𝑒𝓊𝓇𝑜𝓅𝑒𝒾𝒶 𝓅𝑒𝓁𝑜 𝓂𝑒𝓃𝑜𝓈 𝒹𝑒𝓈𝒹𝑒 𝟸𝟶𝟷𝟹. 𝒮𝑜𝒷 𝒶 𝒶𝓈𝒶 𝒹𝑒𝓈𝓉𝑒 𝒸𝑜𝓃𝒸𝑒𝒾𝓉𝑜, 𝒹𝑒𝓋𝑒 𝓂𝑒𝓃𝒸𝒾𝑜𝓃𝒶𝓇-𝓈𝑒 𝒶𝒾𝓃𝒹𝒶 𝑜 𝒢𝓁𝑜𝒷𝒶𝓁 𝒢𝒶𝓉𝑒𝓌𝒶𝓎, 𝒾𝓃𝒾𝒸𝒾𝒶𝓉𝒾𝓋𝒶 𝓁𝒶𝓃𝒸̧𝒶𝒹𝒶 𝑒𝓂 𝟸𝟶𝟸𝟷 𝓅𝑒𝓁𝒶 𝒞𝑜𝓂𝒾𝓈𝓈𝒶̃𝑜 𝒹𝑒 𝒰𝓇𝓈𝓊𝓁𝒶 𝓋𝑜𝓃 𝒹𝑒𝓇 ℒ𝑒𝓎𝑒𝓃, 𝒸𝑜𝓂 𝑜 𝑜𝒷𝒿𝑒𝓉𝒾𝓋𝑜 𝒹𝑒 𝒻𝒶𝓏𝑒𝓇 𝒻𝒶𝒸𝑒 𝒶̀ ℬ𝑒𝓁𝓉 𝒶𝓃𝒹 ℛ𝑜𝒶𝒹 ℐ𝓃𝒾𝓉𝒾𝒶𝓉𝒾𝓋𝑒 𝒹𝒶 𝒞𝒽𝒾𝓃𝒶, 𝓁𝒶𝓃𝒸̧𝒶𝒹𝒶 𝒿𝒶́ 𝑒𝓂 𝟸𝟶𝟷𝟹. 𝒜𝓅𝑒𝓈𝒶𝓇 𝒹𝑒 𝓊𝓂𝒶 𝓇𝑒𝓉𝑜́𝓇𝒾𝒸𝒶 𝒶𝓈𝓈𝑒𝓃𝓉𝑒 𝓃𝑜𝓈 𝒪𝒷𝒿𝑒𝓉𝒾𝓋𝑜𝓈 𝒹𝑒 𝒟𝑒𝓈𝑒𝓃𝓋𝑜𝓁𝓋𝒾𝓂𝑒𝓃𝓉𝑜 𝒮𝓊𝓈𝓉𝑒𝓃𝓉𝒶́𝓋𝑒𝓁 𝑒 𝓃𝒶 𝓉𝓇𝒶𝓃𝓈𝒾𝒸̧𝒶̃𝑜 𝓋𝑒𝓇𝒹𝑒, 𝑜 𝒢𝓁𝑜𝒷𝒶𝓁 𝒢𝒶𝓉𝑒𝓌𝒶𝓎 𝓉𝑒𝓂 𝓋𝒾𝓃𝒹𝑜 𝒶 𝓇𝑒𝒻𝑜𝓇𝒸̧𝒶𝓇 𝒹𝒾𝓃𝒶̂𝓂𝒾𝒸𝒶𝓈 𝓃𝑒𝑜𝒸𝑜𝓁𝑜𝓃𝒾𝒶𝒾𝓈 𝑒 𝒶 𝒾𝓂𝓅𝑜𝓇 𝒸𝑜𝓃𝒹𝒾𝒸𝒾𝑜𝓃𝒶𝓁𝒾𝒹𝒶𝒹𝑒𝓈, 𝒹𝑒𝓈𝓋𝒾𝒶𝓃𝒹𝑜 𝓇𝑒𝒸𝓊𝓇𝓈𝑜𝓈 𝒹𝑒𝓈𝓉𝒾𝓃𝒶𝒹𝑜𝓈 𝒶̀ 𝒸𝑜𝓃𝓈𝓉𝓇𝓊𝒸̧𝒶̃𝑜 𝒹𝒶 𝓅𝒶𝓏, 𝒶̀ 𝓅𝓇𝑜𝓂𝑜𝒸̧𝒶̃𝑜 𝒹𝑜𝓈 𝒹𝒾𝓇𝑒𝒾𝓉𝑜𝓈 𝒽𝓊𝓂𝒶𝓃𝑜𝓈 𝑒 𝒶𝑜 𝒸𝑜𝓂𝒷𝒶𝓉𝑒 𝒶̀ 𝓅𝑜𝒷𝓇𝑒𝓏𝒶 𝓅𝒶𝓇𝒶 𝑜 𝒸𝑜𝓃𝓉𝓇𝑜𝓁𝑜 𝒶𝓃𝓉𝒾-𝒾𝓂𝒾𝑔𝓇𝒶𝒸̧𝒶̃𝑜 - 𝒸𝓊𝓈𝓉𝑒 𝑜 𝓆𝓊𝑒 𝒸𝓊𝓈𝓉𝒶𝓇 - 𝑒 𝓅𝒶𝓇𝒶 𝑔𝓇𝒶𝓃𝒹𝑒𝓈 𝓅𝓇𝑜𝒿𝑒𝓉𝑜𝓈 𝒹𝑒 𝒾𝓃𝒻𝓇𝒶𝑒𝓈𝓉𝓇𝓊𝓉𝓊𝓇𝒶, 𝓁𝒾𝑔𝒶𝒹𝑜 𝒶̀ 𝓂𝒶𝓉𝑒́𝓇𝒾𝒶𝓈-𝓅𝓇𝒾𝓂𝒶𝓈 𝒸𝓇𝒾́𝓉𝒾𝒸𝒶𝓈 𝑒, 𝒸𝓁𝒶𝓇𝑜, 𝒶̀ 𝒾𝓃𝒹𝓊́𝓈𝓉𝓇𝒾𝒶 𝒹𝒶 𝑔𝓊𝑒𝓇𝓇𝒶.
ℰ́ 𝓅𝑜𝓈𝓈𝒾́𝓋𝑒𝓁 𝓆𝓊𝑒 𝒶 𝒾𝒹𝑒𝒾𝒶 𝒹𝑒 𝓅𝒶𝓏 𝓃𝓊𝓃𝒸𝒶 𝓉𝑒𝓃𝒽𝒶 𝓈𝒾𝒹𝑜 𝓉𝒶̃𝑜 𝒾𝓂𝓅𝑜𝓅𝓊𝓁𝒶𝓇. 𝒮𝑒 𝑜 𝒾𝓃𝓈𝓉𝒾𝓉𝓊𝒸𝒾𝑜𝓃𝒶𝓁𝒾𝓈𝓂𝑜 𝓁𝒾𝒷𝑒𝓇𝒶𝓁 𝓃𝒶̃𝑜 𝒸𝑜𝓃𝓈𝑒𝑔𝓊𝒾𝓊 𝑔𝒶𝓇𝒶𝓃𝓉𝒾𝓇 𝒶 𝓅𝒶𝓏 𝑒 𝒶 𝑒𝓈𝓉𝒶𝒷𝒾𝓁𝒾𝒹𝒶𝒹𝑒 𝓂𝓊𝓃𝒹𝒾𝒶𝒾𝓈, 𝒶 𝒶𝓉𝓊𝒶𝓁 𝒹𝑒𝓇𝒾𝓋𝒶 𝓅𝒶𝓇𝒶 𝓊𝓂 𝒸𝑜𝓃𝓈𝑒𝓃𝓈𝑜 𝒷𝑒́𝓁𝒾𝒸𝑜 𝓈𝑒𝑔𝓊𝓇𝒶𝓂𝑒𝓃𝓉𝑒 𝒶𝑔𝓇𝒶𝓋𝒶𝓇𝒶́ 𝑒𝓈𝓈𝒶𝓈 𝒻𝒶𝓁𝒽𝒶𝓈, 𝒸𝑜𝓂 𝒸𝑜𝓃𝓈𝑒𝓆𝓊𝑒̂𝓃𝒸𝒾𝒶𝓈 𝒽𝓊𝓂𝒶𝓃𝒶𝓈 𝑒 𝒶𝓂𝒷𝒾𝑒𝓃𝓉𝒶𝒾𝓈 𝒾𝓇𝓇𝑒𝓋𝑒𝓇𝓈𝒾́𝓋𝑒𝒾𝓈. 𝒜𝓈 𝑒𝓁𝒾𝓉𝑒𝓈 𝑒𝓊𝓇𝑜𝓅𝑒𝒾𝒶𝓈 𝑒 𝑜𝒸𝒾𝒹𝑒𝓃𝓉𝒶𝒾𝓈 𝑒𝓈𝓉𝒶̃𝑜 𝒹𝒾𝓈𝓅𝑜𝓈𝓉𝒶𝓈 𝒶 𝓁𝓊𝒸𝓇𝒶𝓇 𝒸𝑜𝓂 𝑜 𝓂𝑒𝒹𝑜, 𝒶 𝓉𝓇𝒶𝓃𝓈𝒻𝑜𝓇𝓂𝒶𝓇 𝒶 𝑔𝓊𝑒𝓇𝓇𝒶 𝓃𝓊𝓂 𝓂𝑜𝒹𝑒𝓁𝑜 𝒹𝑒 𝓃𝑒𝑔𝑜́𝒸𝒾𝑜, 𝓃𝑜 𝓆𝓊𝒶𝓁 𝑜𝓈 𝓃𝑜𝓈𝓈𝑜𝓈 𝒹𝒾𝓇𝑒𝒾𝓉𝑜𝓈 𝒽𝓊𝓂𝒶𝓃𝑜𝓈 𝑒 𝓁𝑒𝑔𝒾́𝓉𝒾𝓂𝒶𝓈 𝒶𝓈𝓅𝒾𝓇𝒶𝒸̧𝑜̃𝑒𝓈 𝓈𝒶̃𝑜 𝒶 𝓂𝑜𝑒𝒹𝒶 𝒹𝑒 𝓉𝓇𝑜𝒸𝒶. 𝒫𝒶𝓇𝒶 𝒹𝑒𝓉𝑒𝓇 𝒶 𝒷𝒶𝓇𝒷𝒶́𝓇𝒾𝑒, 𝑒́ 𝓊𝓇𝑔𝑒𝓃𝓉𝑒 𝓅𝓇𝑜𝒸𝓊𝓇𝒶𝓇 𝓈𝑜𝓁𝓊𝒸̧𝑜̃𝑒𝓈 𝓃𝑒𝑔𝑜𝒸𝒾𝒶𝒹𝒶𝓈 𝑒 𝓇𝑒𝒶𝓋𝒾𝓋𝒶𝓇 𝑜 𝑒𝓈𝓅𝒾́𝓇𝒾𝓉𝑜 𝒹𝑒 𝓊𝓂𝒶 𝓅𝒶𝓏 𝓅𝑜𝓈𝒾𝓉𝒾𝓋𝒶, 𝓆𝓊𝑒, 𝑒𝓂𝒷𝑜𝓇𝒶 𝓃𝓊𝓃𝒸𝒶 𝓈𝑒 𝓉𝑒𝓃𝒽𝒶 𝒸𝓊𝓂𝓅𝓇𝒾𝒹𝑜 𝓋𝑒𝓇𝒹𝒶𝒹𝑒𝒾𝓇𝒶𝓂𝑒𝓃𝓉𝑒, 𝒸𝑜𝓃𝓉𝒾𝓃𝓊𝒶 𝒶 𝓈𝑒𝓇 𝓅𝑜𝓈𝓈𝒾́𝓋𝑒𝓁 𝒹𝑒 𝒶𝓁𝒸𝒶𝓃𝒸̧𝒶𝓇. 𝒜 𝑔𝓊𝑒𝓇𝓇𝒶 𝑒́ 𝒶 𝑔𝓊𝑒𝓇𝓇𝒶, 𝑒 𝒹𝑒𝓋𝑒 𝓈𝑒𝓇 𝓉𝓇𝒶𝓉𝒶𝒹𝒶 𝒸𝑜𝓂𝑜 𝓉𝒶𝓁 - 𝒸𝑜𝓂 𝒶 𝒸𝑜𝓃𝓈𝒸𝒾𝑒̂𝓃𝒸𝒾𝒶 𝒹𝒶𝓈 𝓈𝓊𝒶𝓈 𝒸𝑜𝓃𝓈𝑒𝓆𝓊𝑒̂𝓃𝒸𝒾𝒶𝓈 𝒹𝑒𝓋𝒶𝓈𝓉𝒶𝒹𝑜𝓇𝒶𝓈 𝑒 𝒾𝓇𝓇𝑒𝓅𝒶𝓇𝒶́𝓋𝑒𝒾𝓈.
* Mestre Erasmus Mundus em Segurança, Intelligence e Estudos Estratégicos, com especialização em paz e conflitos. Trabalha com direitos humanos em Bruxelas.
IN "ESQUERDA" -10/12/24 .
.
Elementos do PCC em Portugal
.
NR: As nossas polícias não têm recursos humanos para nos defenderem de bandidos vindos do estrangeiro.
Perguntem à senhora ministra quantos computadores foram roubados dum armazém da GNR em Lisboa, bastou um pontapé na porta,
Perguntem à senhora ministra se sabe quantos elementos patrulham os territórios de Setúbal e Sesimbra durante a noite, nós respondemos, DOIS.
.
Subscrever:
Mensagens (Atom)