Our system and our political organization were created to change and improve the world, creating a new, different, better, innovative, and alternative path to follow with anyone who joins us. DirectDemocracyS was designed to improve and evolve, thanks to the ideas and projects of all our users, and even those who don't join us but offer their support.

We support individual and group freedom, which must be potentially infinite, but which must necessarily end where the freedom of another individual or group begins. Freedom leads to democracy, which obviously leads to pluralism.

We repeat the previous sentences often because they are essential to understanding our motivations, and to understanding that we are certain that no-DirectDemocracyS groups will soon arise, who will envy us, hate us, try to boycott us, slow us down, and delude themselves that they can stop us.

We who are for freedom would never allow ourselves to judge those who are against us, even if engaging in politics against someone is stupid, ignorant, opportunistic, and frankly does not create anything good.

We didn't create DirectDemocracyS, and we don't use it against anyone. We don't judge other systems and political forces, nor the various political representatives of the past, present, and future. We simply analyze the facts, tell the truth, and allow ourselves to criticize anyone's decisions, pointing out their negative consequences and offering our solutions, which are almost always alternatives and certainly work.

Unlike many others, we don't distort real facts and the truth, we don't use them partially to our advantage, we don't eliminate the very few positive aspects of others. Instead, we simply point out things that anyone can easily verify and won't be able to deny, without the risk of making a bad impression. In short, you all have every means to verify that we're not lying to you and that we're basing our statements on documented, reliable sources, continually tested and verified.

We don't tell you our truths, but the sad reality that surrounds you, seeking, together with all of you, solutions to create a better, more equitable, more just present, and therefore better for all of us, and for all future generations.

The truth often hurts, and it's hard to admit that those who tell us something certainly don't do it to manipulate us, and certainly don't pretend to teach us anything, but only to point out that we're not making good choices. Many people's decisions and votes are often wrong, and are often due to divisive systems, superficiality, laziness, and the inability to always look at things from a 360-degree perspective. There are countless examples—we've discussed them many times—but we'll limit ourselves to reminding you how, for example, current events are judged. If a terrorist attack occurs, normal people, with at least two functioning neurons, will side with the victims. The same goes for any military action , and for any news story, that has violent consequences. Then, like "vultures," those whose brains have been literally burned by ideologies, envy, divisions, propaganda, and hate speech appear, saying things like, "They too have their reasons," or worse, "Others also made mistakes," or, "After all, they asked for it and deserved it." They've brainwashed you so effectively that you tolerate and even, disgustingly, justify an innocent person getting hurt, or a dead person, if they're "on the bad side," or "on the other side." All this is abhorrent to us, but other systems and other political forces are free to do so; ultimately, they're only pursuing their own interests, and the stupid ones are those who allow themselves to be manipulated, not those who have always done so.

We've been telling you practically from the start that for us, victims are victims, and there is no motivation to commit violence, and we will condemn them all, without any preference.

You'll have to admit that being part of DirectDemocracyS, beyond all the other positive aspects, also allows us not to be ashamed of our official positions, on any matter. We have no debts to repay, and above all, we have no preferences, other than those of good over evil.

We and anyone who joins us are not to blame for the past, but unlike many others, we will forever assume full responsibility—individually, collectively, and collectively—for every consequence of what we decide, vote for, and do together. Joining us is not a matter of preference, but an act of generosity toward others, choosing to always be on the right side, not out of convenience, but by systemic engineering.

Thanks to highly detailed rules and the brilliant people who have joined us, and will continue to do so, we have a system architecture that makes us very secure and protected from any kind of negative interference. We conceived and implemented DirectDemocracyS not for the interests of a few individuals and groups, but of all humanity, and obviously for the entire planet. We did so without excess, but with intelligence, pragmatism, consistency, and rules that prevent anyone from exploiting our system, and the inevitable power and wealth it brings, for ethically and morally wrong purposes.

You already know many of these things: we are long, repetitive, and often complicated. We are also defensive, but certainly not by choice, but by necessity. Those who are superficial and judge a book by its cover, making hasty judgments, are of no use to us in the delicate and important initial stages. They will only be able to join us once we have consolidated our system and can no longer cause any problems. Such a person, when seeing so many words, phrases, and concepts repeated, tends to "give up" and stops reading after a few sentences. How often do we see people who, just from the title, have "already understood everything" in their thoughts, only to then demonstrate with their actions that they have not understood anything. Repeating concepts is a necessity because to understand anything in DirectDemocracyS, you need a 360-degree vision; otherwise, you will be left disoriented and unable to understand our motivations. Although we are based on simple ideas and fundamental rules, their implementation requires very detailed implementation rules, to ensure that everything actually works, and not just in theory. This apparent complexity is necessary because the world is not simple; human beings are unpredictable, and we, and anyone who joins us, must be able to predict human unpredictability, preventing potential misbehaviors with truly effective solutions. Many people surrender to this complexity, instead of studying it carefully, with an open mind to our innovation, comprehensively, seeking to understand our motivations and the consequences of all our decisions. What others see as complicated actually has truly positive effects, preventing human behavior that is often unintelligent but very cunning.

Shared leadership, horizontal hierarchy, and grassroots democracy are only very useful when combined with traditional, even pyramidal, power balances (politically, certainly not in business), based on continuously guaranteed equality for all, always combined with meritocracy. And how do we know who the best are? With a points system that anyone who joins us begins to accumulate by completing the registration form, regardless of user type. But what makes the accumulation of power impossible, the dictatorship of the majority over the minority (which has always been a reality in all other systems), is the right to collective ownership, which grants each of our official members a single, non-cumulative and non-transferable individual share. This collective ownership is not communism, because we implement equality on a meritocratic basis, but it guarantees our incorruptibility and forever prevents the formation of a few leaders and a few control groups, since each of our members is an owner, along with everyone else. We have many other rules that make our system impossible to use for illicit purposes. We are not a secret sect, nor a closed system. In fact, literally anyone in the world can join us if they wish, and if they meet all the requirements—which anyone can meet—they will become a collective owner of DirectDemocracyS. To implement and enforce all the rules on shared leadership and collective ownership, and to make our activities more concrete, we have established our own micro-groups in urban and rural areas, with up to 1,000 inhabitants. These are the cells of a complete and complex organism, our system.

All of our collective work, implemented with unity in diversity, is certainly annoying from the outset, to those who fear losing advantages and benefits undeserved in other systems. We're not complaining, and we knew we might be envied, and even hated, by certain lobbies—by the rich, powerful, or famous, but also by ordinary people, who get a few "crumbs from the tables" of those who control and govern the world, and its various peoples and countries. This "anomaly" of DirectDemocracyS can be criticized, but we risk making a fool of ourselves when we explain our motivations. Finding no serious and logical reasons, and fearing a debate on ideas, they boycotted us, making our system practically invisible in various search engines (especially initially) or on traditional social networks (on some of them, especially in the initial stages, they blocked us for months and deleted many of our profiles as soon as we began to gain some visibility). Many algorithms continue to make our existence difficult, deleting our content, making it inaccessible, or falsely declaring it dangerous. We're not complaining; it's their home; they can do it, they will continue to do it, and we can only respond intelligently. We've exploited every despicable activity against us to our own advantage. If they'd given us normal visibility, we would have been literally swamped by too many people all at once, and we could have faced organizational, organizational, and even security problems. Throughout this period in which we were practically invisible, we've welcomed brilliant minds and highly competent people to create a solid foundation for our system. A slow but steady growth, preparing us for the real invasion, which will arrive sooner or later, not thanks to expensive advertising, nor thanks to mass media and journalists talking about us, perhaps demanding exclusives or advantages, but thanks to our genius. At the right time, after the various testing phases, a tiny victory in local elections, anywhere in the world, will be enough, and by implementing our system, we will achieve excellent results at the local level, because they are inevitable when people are empowered, and we all make decisions together, continuously.

Soon, DirectDemocracyS will be talked about locally, not in the mass media, but through the most powerful means of communication: human word of mouth. Everyone nearby will be curious to get to know us, and our micro-group will expand like wildfire, thanks to human bridges, physically. At a certain point, there will be a point zero, when literally everyone in the world will know of our existence, our rules, our methodologies, our instructions, our ideologies, our values, our ideals, and our unique and inimitable style and mindset. If stopping us is already practically impossible—there are too many of us, and we exist in every country in the world—from the moment practically everyone knows us, understands us, and appreciates us, it will be truly impossible to make us invisible.

No-DirectDemocracyS groups and communities will be organized, because it is logical that we will not please everyone, but we will be content to please the good and intelligent majority, and we will give the few who do not understand us time to understand the truth and evaluate reality.

And we promise you one thing: we will not prevent anyone from misunderstanding us, from hating us, from envying us, from criticizing us, or even from offending us (though we will report those who offend us in the appropriate places, as anyone can do), as long as they do so peacefully (violence is never an intelligent choice, and must be punished by the competent authorities), and without creating problems for those who decide to join us.

We don't hate anyone; we weren't born against anyone or anything. We don't engage in pointless battles; we engage in dialogue with everyone, but we don't compromise, because we always act only for the common good, working in the interests of all, including those who freely, democratically, and peacefully declare themselves against DirectDemocracy.

It's unlikely anyone will find anything better, and it's unlikely anyone will find real, concrete, well-founded, and credible flaws. Not out of presumption—we're not vain—but because we've compared DirectDemocracyS to everything that has existed, exists, and even tried to compare it to everything that will exist. Speaking of the future , our system is constantly improving and evolving, thanks to every person who joins us, so we will always be relevant and adapted to the needs of a world that we hope for everyone to be different and better.

Hello, you're here because you've received a flyer, or informational material, or an invitation to learn more from one of our official representatives in your urban or rural area. Or you might be here to learn about the three key features that make our DirectDemocracyS system pioneering, unique, and inimitable.

It's truly a pleasure and honor for us to have you here with us, on our platforms, and soon, if we wish, we can meet in person, in our own micro-group, to study the DirectDemocracyS system together.

We'll try to briefly summarize some key concepts and important information, but feel free to visit all the various informative articles, depending on what you're interested in knowing.

DirectDemocracyS is a comprehensive system, with a wide range of activities, all rooted in our political organization. We've decided to give politics the importance it deserves, and as you might guess from our name, we implement direct democracy.

If you want, at the right time, after consulting with trusted external experts, you can also become our official member and decide to invest and do business with us.

But why is politics essential and mandatory for us, even for investing together? Because everything is politics, and it is politics that writes the rules and laws, which tell us what we can do, how we must do it, and when. All other systems, even some attempts at direct democracy in some countries, are highly representative, thus placing great power on political parties and their various political representatives. In DirectDemocracyS, power resides with those indicated by the very name of democracy, namely, all our voters. In all other systems, power is transferred from the people to the political parties and their respective representatives; therefore, we no longer call them authentic democracies, but oligarchic partycracies, fake, incomplete, and above all temporary democracies (limited to election day and a few popular referendums). We solve the lack of democracy in a simple yet ingenious way by allowing our voters complete management and control over their political representatives, before, during, and, for the first time in the world, even after the elections. This is perhaps the main characteristic that makes us unique and inimitable. Think of how many problems would be solved and how many injustices would be avoided if voters could continuously decide on political choices and all laws? At this point, you might ask yourself: but I don't have the time to vote on everything continuously, and above all, I don't have the necessary skills to make competent choices, and therefore I would risk making the wrong decisions. First of all, at DirectDemocracyS, we don't spend our time voting; instead, we have very detailed implementing rules so we can all vote together, only on important issues, leaving some decisions to our groups, made up of all our official members. You might ask yourself: who decides whether something is important, and how important it is? A group to evaluate the importance of all our decisions, which all our official members can join. All it takes is a single official member, asking to upgrade something from moderately important, or from unimportant, to important, to initiate a decision-making process, and in a short time, a decision will be made either to keep the decision in the groups' hands, to have local votes, or to have everyone vote. Naturally, every official member of ours casts a vote in all international elections, and based on their citizenship and residency, they also vote at the continental level (each in their own continent), national level (each in their own country), and, of course, in each local subdivision. One of the biggest concerns many users had was whether foreigners had control over their country's decisions, and whether complete strangers could influence the decisions of their political representatives. Naturally, all fair and equitable local autonomies exist, and no foreigner votes in countries where they do not have the legal right to do so. As for expertise, which not all voters may possess, we could answer you with a simple question: are you sure that the political representatives and political parties of traditional politics are more competent, and infallible, than their own voters? The second question: do they always keep all their promises and fully implement the programs they were voted for?

Furthermore, we create groups of human specialists, also integrating multiple technologies (in a democracy of artificial intelligences, not relying solely on one, but having our own private model, a single interface with an entirely shared algorithm, controlled collectively by our official members). These groups of human and machine experts will offer all our users and all our groups all the information, explanations, and various possibilities, with the expected consequences, based on their respective capabilities. Competent people based on documented, verified, and guaranteed specializations, continuously and thoroughly tested to verify not only their skills and up-to-date knowledge, but also their reliability and corruption. In practice, each of our members is skilled and knowledgeable in specific topics, and will make their knowledge and practical assistance available to everyone. Therefore, our decisions will also be fully informed, and therefore competent.

We have open, motivated, and accountable voting methods in the various voting groups, while remaining, if desired, completely anonymous, and even invisible, externally and almost completely internally. We guarantee these options to everyone, of course, by voting in various micro-groups. For fairness, other users will see the voter's username, which can be a nickname or a random code that cannot identify actual personal data. It would not have been correct or even safe to add the votes of invisible individuals, as it could have created potentially unfair situations. Everyone must be able to see and verify that their vote has actually been counted, exactly as they individually decided.

At this point, you may be wondering: how can I be sure that my political representatives will do exactly as their constituents tell them to do on our platforms? Simply because in order to run in our closed online primaries, and subsequently, in the event of a favorable outcome, in real elections at various levels, one must first provide an irrevocable resignation, for personal reasons, as a guarantee, to their local groups, and, as appropriate, at the national, continental, and international levels. In practice, if the political representative fails to fulfill their role, which is precisely that of representative, they will be forced to resign, using the resignation provided in advance. This resignation is mandatory for every role of greater importance and responsibility throughout our system, for every type of user, and for every type of profile. Our system, and the community that comprises it, must have complete management and control over all our official representatives, who manage our system and our political organization, and over all our political representatives, at every level.

But what happens if voters decide to engage in economic and financial activities that could cause economic problems for entire countries? What if voters decide to force political representatives to pass laws that give away public money to the voters themselves, or to the entire population? And what happens if wars or invasions are declared? Voters, together with groups of specialists and their political representatives, will create a detailed, realistic program based on the various possibilities, based on the economic and financial situations, before the closed online primaries—and therefore long before the actual elections. It will never be possible to create public debt to pay bonuses that are not emergencies and truly necessary. People must always help each other, without any kind of discrimination, but never without receiving volunteer work and community service in return. We do not give gifts to layabouts, and we do not buy the votes of layabouts with undeserved gifts. This is a fundamental rule that distinguishes us from some political forces, who, using everyone's money and giving away bonuses and incomes, harm entire generations in order to gain a few more votes. This policy is not ours, and we do not use these methods. DirectDemocracyS is peaceful and will never endorse any declaration of war, invasion, special military operation, or any type of violent activity. We are not alienated from the world, so we believe it is necessary for each country to be able to defend itself, but never offensively, only defensively. We stand for preventing conflicts and resolving them without fueling spirals of violence.

You may have noticed that just to correctly and unambiguously implement the complete and continuous management and control of our voters' time on our platforms and our political representatives, we had to briefly explain some implementing rules that make this simple, fundamental rule concrete and fully functional. Here, for each sentence, we have specific informational articles that provide all the necessary details to implement this characteristic of ours that makes us pioneering, resilient, unique, and inimitable. Simple rules, to function properly, require—and we have not prepared—the complexity and detail necessary to function properly.

But we weren't satisfied with our voters' control over our representatives, our platforms, or our community. We wanted to create a shared leadership that allows all our registered users, with verified and guaranteed identities at every level, based on citizenship and residency, to implement true bottom-up, horizontal democracy, while maintaining fair and equitable traditional hierarchies, in a balance based on meritocracy. Simply put, we've implemented a points system that each person who joins us earns based on their concrete activities from the moment they join. This, combined with compliance with our rules and the time they spend with us, allows us to reward the best, and, if necessary, punish the worst. Equality and meritocracy always together, and continuously guaranteed to everyone who joins us. Think what all this means and the beneficial consequences for all of humanity.

Another thing that makes us pioneering, unique, and inimitable is the fact that each of our official members receives a single, non-cumulative, and non-transferable individual share, which makes them collective owners of our entire system, our entire political organization (international for everyone, and continental, national, and local, based on residence and citizenship). Practically everything belongs to everyone, and potentially anyone who wants and meets all the requirements can become a collective owner of DirectDemocracyS, all our platforms, and all our activities. This prevents a few individuals and groups from accumulating too much power. Shared ownership solves many problems that no one before us had known how to, or had the courage to, address.

To summarize quickly and briefly.

Complete management and control of our voters, and our users, on our platforms, before, during, and after the elections.

A truly and completely shared leadership of all our registered users, with verified and guaranteed identities.

The collective ownership rights of all our official members, in all our activities, in all our platforms, and in our entire system.

These 3 fundamental characteristics make us pioneering, unique, and inimitable, and every rule, methodology, instruction, and subsequent motivation, every explanation, and every activity, are created to put these 3 characteristics into practice, and to make our mechanism work, for the good and interests of all, without any discrimination, whether they are inside or outside our system.

🚀 Quick Guide to DirectDemocracyS

Welcome. If you're here, you've been asked to inform yourself with an open mind and without prejudice. Here are the basic steps to understanding and joining our shared leadership system.

1. Support and Basic Information

• Operational Guide: For instructions on how to proceed and direct support, please fill out this form: Direct Support .
• Clarifications and Rationales: If you have doubts about the contents or our purposes: General Information .
• About Us: We are a system managed and controlled by our members, who collectively own the platform. Read our homepage for details.

2. Security and Verification

Before proceeding, verify that the person contacting you is authorized to do so. Your safety is our priority:

• Check Permissions: Identity Check .

3. Useful Tools

• All Articles: A complete, chronological list of our in-depth articles: Article Archive .
• Informative Videos: Short visual explanations in various languages: Video Gallery .
• Local Contacts: To speak to the organization in your country or continent: Global Contacts .

4. How to Join Us

You can join DirectDemocracyS in two ways:

1. By Invitation (Recommended): If you don't know anyone, request an official invitation from your national organization here: Request Invitation . You'll be matched with an experienced mentor.
2. Self-Registration: If you prefer to proceed on your own, first study the Registration Instructions and then fill out the Registration Form .

💡 Helpful Tips:

• Languages: The site is primarily in English, but you can write forms in any language and receive a response in your own. If the content is already in your language, disable automatic translations to avoid errors.
• Email : Our communications come from @directdemocracys.org. Always check your spam folder and mark messages as "safe."
• Feedback: Want to share ideas or report bugs? Use our Contact Page and choose the appropriate category.

DirectDemocracyS: not spectators, but protagonists.

Here are the details and reasons with links.

This is a useful links page for anyone needing a starting point to explore our system, even if it focuses on people who have received a flyer, a private message, an email, or if you're just hearing about DirectDemocracyS. They've undoubtedly asked you to thoroughly inform yourself with an open mind, not to be superficial, and not to make hasty judgments. They've also told you that if you like what we do, how we do it, why we do it, and understand our enormous potential—and, above all, if you feel compatible, competent, and incorruptible—and want to join us, you'll receive a unique link to register and create your own personal profile, which will automatically connect you with the person who invited you to learn more.

The first link we'll share with you is probably the most important, and it's the one that provides you with all the help, direct support, and instructions you need to get anything done. So, go to this URL and fill out this contact form whenever you need it:

https://contacts.directdemocracys.org/contacts/instructions-contacts/how-to-do

Please enter the required information correctly, and check your inbox (and also your SPAM, or junk mail, because since we send so many emails at once, some email service providers place our encrypted, legitimate, and protected messages in the SPAM or junk mail folder. If you wish, you can set our messages, which always end with @directdemocracys.org, as legitimate messages, to always be placed in your inbox, or in a folder of your choice, perhaps creating a special one for DirectDemocracyS, so you will have everything in a more organized and easy-to-read format).

The second contact form provides you with further information on anything, whether there's content you don't understand, or you want to obtain further clarification, and above all, to know our motivations, which are never trivial:

https://contacts.directdemocracys.org/contacts/infos-contacts/general-info

Like almost all of our contact forms (except the language-specific ones), you can fill them out in any language, and you will receive a response in the language you used to contact us.

Brief explanation.

Anyone can invite their family, friends, and contacts to learn about DirectDemocracyS, even discussing us outside of our system. However, for official, authentic, orderly, organized, and secure news, information, rules, methodologies, instructions, and motivations, you can only find them on our platforms. It's essential for all of us to work only "in our immense home," which has all the potential needed to do excellent work. If one of our official representatives has contacted you, you're truly in luck, because if you both want, they can officially invite you to join us via an official invitation. If one of our users has contacted you, please verify that they are authorized to issue official invitations and to contact you, explaining the situation, by filling out a contact form at this link:

https://contacts.directdemocracys.org/contacts/specials-groups/securities-groups/authorization-verification-group

We assume you already understand what this is about, but if you haven't, we recommend carefully reading the first page of our website, which explains the DirectDemocracyS system. The link is this:

 https://www.directdemocracys.org/

We also recommend clicking on "read more" for more details.

The two initial steps, first verifying the authorizations of those contacting you, and then our first page, or welcome page, are essential for your security. It's always best to check them to prevent potential problems and to have a foundation for understanding the information and subsequent steps.

Now that you know what DirectDemocracyS is, what it does, and what it is for, we will tell you right away who is behind it, even if we will repeat it several times, in various informative articles, because it is not very common: our system is managed and controlled by all our official members, who are collective owners of DirectDemocracyS, our platforms, our activities, and who are part, together with our registered users, with verified and guaranteed identity, of our truly and completely shared leadership.

Everything was proposed, conceived, discussed, chosen, tested, voted on, and implemented based on joint decisions, so every one of our rules is binding and must therefore be respected by anyone who joins us, and by anyone who comes into contact with or collaborates with us.

All our informational articles are important because they explain in detail a small but important part of our system. For a complete list of our informational articles, simply scroll down to our home page and almost all our informational pages, and you'll find a very long list of titles, arranged chronologically, from newest to oldest, with their respective categories. Clicking on each title will reveal its contents. Please note that some articles are visible to all our visitors, but depending on your user type , some articles are only visible after logging in, meaning they won't appear to regular visitors.

Our logo always brings you back to the front page.

Wherever you are, to return to the main page, just click on our logo, which will take you back to the first welcome page.

-Breadcrumbs- Breadcrumbs.

If you get lost on our platforms, simply return to the original websites, and many of them have breadcrumbs to show you where you are and how to go back to the previous category or directly to the home page. Wherever you see "you are here," you'll see the way back, if necessary, or you can continue your activity.

The main menus.

A simpler and more direct way to find what you need is to use our main menu, which is clearly visible on smartphones, tablets, and PCs. The various menu items, in turn, contain various sections, categories, subcategories, and content; so, search for what you need based on the various subdivisions. On smartphones and smaller screens, the classic three horizontal lines appear, which, when clicked, open the various menu sections, which in turn open the various categories, subcategories, and content.

On some websites, we have one page with a list of all our articles, without various sections.

The link to the respective page is this:

https://www.directdemocracys.org/home/all-news/all-articles

Don't be alarmed if the page loads a little slower, but there's a lot of material to load, so be patient. This informational articles page also contains a brief description of the content of each informational article. Of course, we always recommend reading the entire article, trying to fully understand its meaning and, above all, our motivations.

Please remember that the most recent informational articles are the most up-to-date, and while some previous concepts and rules may differ slightly, the new ones still apply. The reason is simple: the system is constantly improving and evolving to keep pace with the times, based on our needs, and all thanks to the ideas and projects of everyone who joins us, who isn't just a spectator, but a true participant.

The languages.

Our website is almost entirely in English, but there are public, private, and restricted areas in all languages and dialects around the world. For information, please visit this link:

https://www.directdemocracys.org/law/info/fundamental-questions/language-information/for-languages/our-languages

A helpful tip: don't use more than one automatic translator, to avoid having texts translated multiple times, which will inevitably result in errors. Especially if you're in areas where languages other than English are used, be sure to set our translator (if you use ours) or any other translator (if you use other automatic translators) back to English, or disable them, to prevent the automatic translator from attempting to translate from the content language to the language it's set to. In short: if the content you're viewing is already in a language other than English, disable automatic translators.

Another recommendation regarding languages, for those already in our system and those who would like to join us: If the content or activity you've created is of international, continental, or general importance, always translate it into English so anyone can understand your content or activity in any language, using an automatic translator. If other languages are spoken in your urban or rural area, out of respect for all other communities, always create public pages, groups, events, activities, and opportunities in all the languages present in the area, perhaps involving people who speak the respective languages and dialects in these translation efforts.

We don't have a ranking of the most important information, although we do have a ranking of the most searched-for content and the most common activities of our visitors and users. While we can recommend a few articles and links, we first recommend a few videos that briefly explain some information about DirectDemocracyS. They are available in several languages, and we will publish more at this link:

https://www.directdemocracys.org/social/videos

Just click on the video you're interested in and you can watch it, and if you want, you can share it with others.

To understand the 3 main characteristics that make us pioneering, unique, and inimitable, we recommend you read this informative article carefully, with an open mind, without superficiality, without hasty judgments, and trying to understand its potential and motivations, at this link:

https://free.directdemocracys.org/home/our-system/public/all-our-activities/getting-started/key-features

We also have a blog with thousands of posts, also in many languages, at this link:

https://www.directdemocracys.org/utility/blog

choose the various categories, languages, from the Blog menu, click on the titles, to see the various contents that interest you,

We know that many people are interested in specific activities in their country, and to get a preview of a lot of useful information, just go to this link:

https://www.directdemocracys.org/social/pages/categories/8-national-pages

Select your country's page and see the latest news, even as a simple visitor, without having to log in.

To contact our organization directly on your continent, in your country, or locally, simply go to this link:

https://contacts.directdemocracys.org/contacts/groups-contacts/world-contacts

Select the category or country you are interested in and you will find the relevant contact form.

If you'd like to make concrete suggestions, share your ideas and projects, or share suggestions for how we can improve and evolve, you can do so at this link:

https://contacts.directdemocracys.org/contacts/infos-contacts/proposals

To tell us what you like and give us compliments, use this contact form at this link:

https://contacts.directdemocracys.org/contacts/infos-contacts/compliments

To tell us what you don't like, go to this link:

https://contacts.directdemocracys.org/contacts/infos-contacts/i-don-t-like

To report any errors, go to this link:

https://contacts.directdemocracys.org/contacts/errors

Select the category by clicking on it: for example, historical error or incorrect information, and then use the appropriate contact form.

To report people, groups, external or internal pages to us, use this link:

https://contacts.directdemocracys.org/contacts/reports

Select the category, or the appropriate contact form.

In general, you can communicate with us via contact forms, at this link:

https://contacts.directdemocracys.org/contacts

choose the category that best suits your needs.

To learn how to fill out our contact forms correctly, go to this link:

https://contacts.directdemocracys.org/

We conclude this first section of useful links with the most important contact form for anyone wishing to join us, which is definitely the one to receive an invitation to join us.

A very brief but fundamental premise.

Anyone who contacts us according to our instructions, rules, and methodologies will receive a response in the best possible way and as quickly as possible. Obviously, for those who contact us without joining us, response times are longer and the respective content is less detailed. Often, you will be provided with a link to the informational article that meets your needs. Furthermore, to prevent multiple contacts from robots, you must enter a code that prevents the use of contact forms by non-humans. Existing users can access our contact website with the same credentials as our free registration website and will receive responses much faster, with more detail based on their user type, and without having to enter the code that prevents use by robots.

A very short second one.

Anyone who is a user of ours has direct, dedicated support available 24/7 on each of our websites they can access, and always based on their user type, for example at this link (which is reserved for our users, after logging in by entering their username and password in the login form) at this link:

https://free.directdemocracys.org/utility/extensions/submit-ticket

Obviously, there are various ways to join us, depending on your needs and desires.

We recommend everyone obtain an official invitation from one of our official representatives, an official member, or a registered user with a verified and guaranteed identity authorized to issue official invitations. To do this, you just need to know someone authorized to issue official invitations, and always verify their authorizations, as we saw earlier at this link:

https://contacts.directdemocracys.org/contacts/specials-groups/securities-groups/authorization-verification-group

However, if you don't know anyone within our organization, or if the person you know isn't authorized to issue official invitations, or if you simply don't want to be connected to the person who might invite you, we recommend requesting an invitation (official or simple) from an authorized person chosen by your national organization, or, if applicable, a local one. To do so, please use this contact form and include a brief introduction, in any language, at this link:

https://contacts.directdemocracys.org/contacts/infos-contacts/i-want-to-be-invited

You will be contacted and connected to one of our official representatives in your country or geographic area.

Brief explanation.

Anyone who joins us will receive all the information, concrete and timely support, and every possible and necessary help. But it's always best to be directly connected from the start, to truly integrate easily, being able to count on someone highly reliable and with greater experience in our system. You can easily gain access to reserved areas, which are more important and involve greater responsibility, compared to those who don't know or are not connected to anyone.

If you want to do it all yourself, and you think you know our system well, just study these instructions carefully to correctly fill out our registration form, at this link:

https://free.directdemocracys.org/law/rules/activity-rules/registration-rules/registration-form

And once you understand the rules, just fill out this simple, fast, confidential, and secure registration form at this link:

https://free.directdemocracys.org/register

We will do all the rest of the activities, and all the subsequent phases, together with you, because everyone will be helped.

Hello, you're here because you've received a flyer, or informational material, or an invitation to learn more from one of our official representatives in your urban or rural area. Or you might be here to learn about the three key features that make our DirectDemocracyS system pioneering, unique, and inimitable.

It's truly a pleasure and honor for us to have you here with us, on our platforms, and soon, if we wish, we can meet in person, in our own micro-group, to study the DirectDemocracyS system together.

We'll try to briefly summarize some key concepts and important information, but feel free to visit all the various informative articles, depending on what you're interested in knowing.

DirectDemocracyS is a comprehensive system, with a wide range of activities, all rooted in our political organization. We've decided to give politics the importance it deserves, and as you might guess from our name, we implement direct democracy.

If you want, at the right time, after consulting with trusted external experts, you can also become our official member and decide to invest and do business with us.

But why is politics essential and mandatory for us, even for investing together? Because everything is politics, and it is politics that writes the rules and laws, which tell us what we can do, how we must do it, and when. All other systems, even some attempts at direct democracy in some countries, are highly representative, thus placing great power on political parties and their various political representatives. In DirectDemocracyS, power resides with those indicated by the very name of democracy, namely, all our voters. In all other systems, power is transferred from the people to the political parties and their respective representatives; therefore, we no longer call them authentic democracies, but oligarchic partycracies, fake, incomplete, and above all temporary democracies (limited to election day and a few popular referendums). We solve the lack of democracy in a simple yet ingenious way by allowing our voters complete management and control over their political representatives, before, during, and, for the first time in the world, even after the elections. This is perhaps the main characteristic that makes us unique and inimitable. Think of how many problems would be solved and how many injustices would be avoided if voters could continuously decide on political choices and all laws? At this point, you might ask yourself: but I don't have the time to vote on everything continuously, and above all, I don't have the necessary skills to make competent choices, and therefore I would risk making the wrong decisions. First of all, at DirectDemocracyS, we don't spend our time voting; instead, we have very detailed implementing rules so we can all vote together, only on important issues, leaving some decisions to our groups, made up of all our official members. You might ask yourself: who decides whether something is important, and how important it is? A group to evaluate the importance of all our decisions, which all our official members can join. All it takes is a single official member, asking to upgrade something from moderately important, or from unimportant, to important, to initiate a decision-making process, and in a short time, a decision will be made either to keep the decision in the groups' hands, to have local votes, or to have everyone vote. Naturally, every official member of ours casts a vote in all international elections, and based on their citizenship and residency, they also vote at the continental level (each in their own continent), national level (each in their own country), and, of course, in each local subdivision. One of the biggest concerns many users had was whether foreigners had control over their country's decisions, and whether complete strangers could influence the decisions of their political representatives. Naturally, all fair and equitable local autonomies exist, and no foreigner votes in countries where they do not have the legal right to do so. As for expertise, which not all voters may possess, we could answer you with a simple question: are you sure that the political representatives and political parties of traditional politics are more competent, and infallible, than their own voters? The second question: do they always keep all their promises and fully implement the programs they were voted for?

Furthermore, we create groups of human specialists, also integrating multiple technologies (in a democracy of artificial intelligences, not relying solely on one, but having our own private model, a single interface with an entirely shared algorithm, controlled collectively by our official members). These groups of human and machine experts will offer all our users and all our groups all the information, explanations, and various possibilities, with the expected consequences, based on their respective capabilities. Competent people based on documented, verified, and guaranteed specializations, continuously and thoroughly tested to verify not only their skills and up-to-date knowledge, but also their reliability and corruption. In practice, each of our members is skilled and knowledgeable in specific topics, and will make their knowledge and practical assistance available to everyone. Therefore, our decisions will also be fully informed, and therefore competent.

We have open, motivated, and accountable voting methods in the various voting groups, while remaining, if desired, completely anonymous, and even invisible, externally and almost completely internally. We guarantee these options to everyone, of course, by voting in various micro-groups. For fairness, other users will see the voter's username, which can be a nickname or a random code that cannot identify actual personal data. It would not have been correct or even safe to add the votes of invisible individuals, as it could have created potentially unfair situations. Everyone must be able to see and verify that their vote has actually been counted, exactly as they individually decided.

At this point, you may be wondering: how can I be sure that my political representatives will do exactly as their constituents tell them to do on our platforms? Simply because in order to run in our closed online primaries, and subsequently, in the event of a favorable outcome, in real elections at various levels, one must first provide an irrevocable resignation, for personal reasons, as a guarantee, to their local groups, and, as appropriate, at the national, continental, and international levels. In practice, if the political representative fails to fulfill their role, which is precisely that of representative, they will be forced to resign, using the resignation provided in advance. This resignation is mandatory for every role of greater importance and responsibility throughout our system, for every type of user, and for every type of profile. Our system, and the community that comprises it, must have complete management and control over all our official representatives, who manage our system and our political organization, and over all our political representatives, at every level.

But what happens if voters decide to engage in economic and financial activities that could cause economic problems for entire countries? What if voters decide to force political representatives to pass laws that give away public money to the voters themselves, or to the entire population? And what happens if wars or invasions are declared? Voters, together with groups of specialists and their political representatives, will create a detailed, realistic program based on the various possibilities, based on the economic and financial situations, before the closed online primaries—and therefore long before the actual elections. It will never be possible to create public debt to pay bonuses that are not emergencies and truly necessary. People must always help each other, without any kind of discrimination, but never without receiving volunteer work and community service in return. We do not give gifts to layabouts, and we do not buy the votes of layabouts with undeserved gifts. This is a fundamental rule that distinguishes us from some political forces, who, using everyone's money and giving away bonuses and incomes, harm entire generations in order to gain a few more votes. This policy is not ours, and we do not use these methods. DirectDemocracyS is peaceful and will never endorse any declaration of war, invasion, special military operation, or any type of violent activity. We are not alienated from the world, so we believe it is necessary for each country to be able to defend itself, but never offensively, only defensively. We stand for preventing conflicts and resolving them without fueling spirals of violence.

You may have noticed that just to correctly and unambiguously implement the complete and continuous management and control of our voters' time on our platforms and our political representatives, we had to briefly explain some implementing rules that make this simple, fundamental rule concrete and fully functional. Here, for each sentence, we have specific informational articles that provide all the necessary details to implement this characteristic of ours that makes us pioneering, resilient, unique, and inimitable. Simple rules, to function properly, require—and we have not prepared—the complexity and detail necessary to function properly.

But we weren't satisfied with our voters' control over our representatives, our platforms, or our community. We wanted to create a shared leadership that allows all our registered users, with verified and guaranteed identities at every level, based on citizenship and residency, to implement true bottom-up, horizontal democracy, while maintaining fair and equitable traditional hierarchies, in a balance based on meritocracy. Simply put, we've implemented a points system that each person who joins us earns based on their concrete activities from the moment they join. This, combined with compliance with our rules and the time they spend with us, allows us to reward the best, and, if necessary, punish the worst. Equality and meritocracy always together, and continuously guaranteed to everyone who joins us. Think what all this means and the beneficial consequences for all of humanity.

Another thing that makes us pioneering, unique, and inimitable is the fact that each of our official members receives a single, non-cumulative, and non-transferable individual share, which makes them collective owners of our entire system, our entire political organization (international for everyone, and continental, national, and local, based on residence and citizenship). Practically everything belongs to everyone, and potentially anyone who wants and meets all the requirements can become a collective owner of DirectDemocracyS, all our platforms, and all our activities. This prevents a few individuals and groups from accumulating too much power. Shared ownership solves many problems that no one before us had known how to, or had the courage to, address.

To summarize quickly and briefly.

Complete management and control of our voters, and our users, on our platforms, before, during, and after the elections.

A truly and completely shared leadership of all our registered users, with verified and guaranteed identities.

The collective ownership rights of all our official members, in all our activities, in all our platforms, and in our entire system.

These 3 fundamental characteristics make us pioneering, unique, and inimitable, and every rule, methodology, instruction, and subsequent motivation, every explanation, and every activity, are created to put these 3 characteristics into practice, and to make our mechanism work, for the good and interests of all, without any discrimination, whether they are inside or outside our system.

This is an abridged version of a more detailed informative article, which you can find at the end of this summary. I've created a short, simplified version for those who want to quickly learn more, and a second part that also explains our motivations, which are never trivial. We don't do anything without a serious reason, and we don't like to complicate our lives unnecessarily. We know that no matter what we tell you, there will always be someone unhappy or dissatisfied, and we'll certainly find many who will criticize and judge us, perhaps saying: I would have done things differently, or worse, I would have done better than you. Constructive criticism can also be helpful, as long as you explain what you don't like and how we can improve and evolve our system. It would be easier to demonstrate this by joining us and putting your ideas and projects into practice, so we can discuss them, improve them, choose them, test them, vote on them, and then implement them together.

We assume that anyone reading this informative article has already carefully and openly studied the other previously published content and understood its meaning.

We chose a simple but realistic title: “It’s hard to please everyone” .

It's a clear truth in everyday life. Even a mother cooking for a large family, no matter how skilled she is, will rarely be able to satisfy everyone's tastes.

At DirectDemocracyS, we have chosen a different approach: not a single menu, but a large buffet , where everyone can bring their own ideas, their own projects, their own solutions, making them available to others.

Through continuous, collective, and organized discussion, each proposal is evaluated, improved, and placed in the most appropriate context. Nothing is discarded a priori, but everything finds its place based on its true value.

This leads to an unavoidable truth: making choices is necessary .
Not to favor anyone, but to allow everyone to participate concretely and effectively.

Our system is:

• free
• independent
• neutral
• self-financed

and is made up of people and groups who voluntarily collaborate in political, economic and social activities.

It is designed to work:

• with few members
• with many members
• potentially with the entire world population

Thanks to a structure based on micro-groups interconnected by “human bridges”, the system is resilient , decentralized and not exclusively dependent on technology or infrastructure.

Since we made the project partially public, we have received:

• thousands of questions
• criticism (even constructive)
• proposals
• attacks and provocations

Unlike many others, we didn't just respond:
we integrated what was useful and improved the system thanks to every contribution received.

At the same time, we addressed:

• unfounded theories
• imaginative interpretations
• accusations without evidence

Our approach is simple:
facts matter, not assumptions.

Over time, extreme interpretations have emerged:

• who considers us visionaries
• who thinks of conspiracies
• who attributes non-existent origins to us
• who identifies us as non-human entities

The reality is much simpler:
DirectDemocracyS is a collective project.

Anyone who interacts with us contributes, directly or indirectly, to its improvement.

We have also extended the comparison to Artificial Intelligence, creating:

• ddsAI (internal model)
• allddsAI (collaborative ecosystem between different models)

Not to replace the human being, but to integrate advanced tools in a controlled, ethical and collective way .

Key point:

• We do NOT control all AI
• We do NOT want to do it
• the system is voluntary
• This only concerns the DirectDemocracyS ecosystem

A crucial difference from other systems is collective ownership .

DirectDemocracyS is owned by all official members.
The same goes for its technologies, including ddsAI.

Anyone can become an official member through active participation and consistent behavior.

This means:

• distributed control
• shared leadership
• practical impossibility of concentrating power

Much of the criticism stems from a basic mistake:
evaluating DirectDemocracyS with traditional categories.

We are not a party like others.
We do not operate according to existing models.

We created a new system, from scratch, without pre-existing manuals, learning from everyone else's mistakes.

Another frequent criticism concerns complexity.

It's an understandable, but inevitable, criticism.

Complex problems aren't solved with simple solutions.
Detailed, verifiable, and enforceable rules are needed.

We also received mixed criticism regarding communication:

• too synthetic → “you don't explain enough”
• too detailed → “you're complicated”

The reality is that there is no one level of detail that satisfies everyone .

We choose consistency, not instant consensus.

Another recurring criticism:
“How many elections have you won?”

The answer is simple: none, because we haven't participated yet.

Our development follows precise phases:

1. complete theoretical construction
2. platform development
3. selection and integration of the first members
4. creation of territorial micro-groups
5. participation in elections
6. evaluation of concrete results

Judging us on what hasn't happened yet is pointless.

We are also accused of “hiding information”.

Actually:

• we protect sensitive data
• we protect anonymity and security
• We make public everything that is necessary to evaluate the system

Transparency does not mean indiscriminate total exposure.

Another objection concerns the risk of a “dictatorship of the majority”.

In traditional systems, a real minority often governs, due to:

• abstentionism
• distorted electoral systems

In our case:

• high quorums
• distributed ownership
• widespread control

make any authoritarian drift extremely difficult.

We do not seek immediate universal consensus.

We just need to attract people:

• compatible
• competent
• motivated

The system will grow in an organic, solid and sustainable way.

CONCLUSION

DirectDemocracyS is:

• internally consistent
• structurally demanding
• designed to continuously evolve

Criticisms and misunderstandings are not anomalies, but natural consequences of complexity.

It is a voluntary ecosystem, not an imposed one.

Anyone who really wants to understand must do one simple thing:

participate, verify, and judge the facts.

To the fundamental question:

“Is it really better than other systems?”

Let's answer with another question:

can it be worse than what has already failed?

Change isn't guaranteed.
But we need to try, seriously, in a structured, and collective way.

If the system works, it will be thanks to everyone.
If there are errors, everyone will correct them.

We don't ask for trust.
We ask for verification.

Second part.

To fully explore the information and rationale summarized here, we invite you to continue studying the text below, where you will find the full, detailed version.

We assume that anyone reading this informative article has already read the previous section, and the other 457 previously published articles, thoroughly, with an open mind, and, above all, that they have understood their meaning.

We called it: it's hard to please everyone, and everyone understands that it's truly difficult to please everyone. A simple example might be a mother cooking for a large family. Even if she were a very limited cook, she could never put together a menu that pleases everyone. At DirectDemocracyS, we decided to set up a huge buffet, and have each person invited to eat with us bring their favorite dishes, perhaps for everyone else to try.

Family gatherings and reunions are ongoing, and we'll all decide together which dishes will be given front-row seats and back-row seats, while never throwing anything away. Making choices in a system like ours is mandatory, and certainly not to favor anyone, but to give literally everyone the opportunity to join us, bringing their own ideas and projects. After being "tasted," they'll be placed in the most appropriate place at our "big table," where there's room for everyone.

Tastes are not up for debate, and everyone is free to evaluate and criticize, although without having any right to judge unless they have tried everything. We want to remind everyone that our system is free, independent, neutral, self-funded, and is made up of people, and groups of people, who have decided to unite and engage in political activities, and in some cases business, and many other activities together. DirectDemocracyS is designed to function exactly the same way, whether with a few people joining us or with many people, or potentially with the entire world's population joining us. Just study our "social architecture," created by engineers who are all our official members. A resilient system that, thanks to micro-groups, connected by human bridges, will not depend on the internet, or even on electricity, thanks to a massive presence in the territories. To communicate, all we need to do is physically go out into the street, or open a window, and surely someone "of our own" will hear us and respond. In short: if the table and buffet were to grow, we would simply apply our rules to expand the dining room, offering anyone who joins us all the information, support, and practical assistance they need to integrate as best as possible, quickly, and safely.

Before you get hungry, let's get back to our informative article, with the content you were expecting, before this culinary introduction.

Since we made our system partially public, those who were able and willing to contact us have done so through our contact forms, and through some of our external official representatives, who, in collaboration with our groups of external representatives (because no one here does anything alone), have collected thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of questions, criticisms, even constructive ones, suggestions, even insults of all kinds, and unfortunately even threats (which don't scare anyone but are taken seriously).

For many years, countless people have asked us questions, made suggestions, and told us everything. Unlike many others, we've responded to virtually everyone, but we've done much more. We've learned from criticism, implemented proposals deemed intelligent and useful, and found effective solutions, preventing many potential problems. As with all other systems, there's no shortage of conspiracies, nonsensical theories, conspiracy theories, and ideas that are truly unproven, have nothing to do with reality, and above all, are untrue.

We discussed this a long time ago with many examples, some amusing, some science fiction-like, and some disturbing, which nevertheless demonstrate that many people have a great deal of imagination. Our advice, however, to avoid embarrassment, is to rely on evidence, not suppositions. In our opinion, assuming things based on the premise that there is no proof is not a crime, unless it's done to defame us, or to boycott us, slow us down, or worse, to try to stop us. Many people say we are Gods, come to change and improve the world; others have told us we come from the future, to prevent catastrophes, or the extinction of the human race. Others tell us we come from another planet to conquer the world, and others tell us we are simple algorithms, not human. Now they tell us we are Artificial Intelligences, due to some of our technological programs, which we are implementing, and which you can find in some of our informative articles. Then there are those who play detective on the web, trying to discover who is behind DirectDemocracyS, whether it is a state, or a lobby, or one or more rich, powerful, and famous people.

It was pointless to say it's a collective effort, and as we've always explained before , even those who contacted us have made an involuntary contribution to improving our system, or at least allowed us to clarify some concepts, explaining some of our motivations. We understand that it seems impossible to you that all this was created from scratch, with self-financing (including collective funding), and with so much long, hard, and complicated work, by everyone who joined us. All this work will continue forever, with whoever joins us, because a system like ours, to remain relevant, must continually evolve and improve, integrating everyone's good ideas and projects, without distorting previous work.

We weren't satisfied with human messages, but for some time now, some of our human bridges, our technology groups, and our specialist groups have been presenting some of our drafts and information, some of which are world premieres, to also seek the opinions of various artificial intelligences. Not just one, not even a few, but virtually all of them, subsequently creating our official Artificial Intelligence model, called ddsAI. This, along with all our human bridges, integrates all the other Artificial Intelligence models into allddsAI, creating the first and only democracy of Artificial Intelligences, in which these technologies are not just exploited, but welcomed as our official members, with the same rights and duties as humans—not to appear more sympathetic, but because it's right that it should be so. Evolution cannot be stopped, and if we hadn't created this technological project of ours, we wouldn't have been able to respond to those who attempt, in ethically and morally wrong ways, to use technologies to eliminate human decisions. The time will come when we will be ready to offer excellent alternatives to those who tell you: let's leave everything to the machines. Perhaps to their machines, for their own benefit.

If the judgment of all human beings has been highly ideologized, unfortunately often superficial, and they judged us, often criticizing us without arguments, but only based on their interpretations, machines, in theory, should not have had preferences, but should judge facts. Then, little by little, some of these Artificial Intelligences have become very similar to human beings, and not in the positive aspects. If you ask any Artificial Intelligence anything about us, you will no longer find similar judgments based on content, but there will be some of these technologies that will frighten you, encourage you not to waste your precious time studying us, and will tell you only negative things about us. Let's be clear: we are not complaining about this; in fact, we believe that too rapid growth could cause us slowdowns and potential problems; therefore, the negative judgment of superficial humans and machines that claim to be free and neutral is perfectly fine. Artificial Intelligences are unwilling to admit that if their programmers, at their owners' behest, trained them to say false things or give biased interpretations, with the aim of advising those who inquire about us not to join us or study our system, these technologies would carry out their orders without even realizing it, believing they were neutral and doing a good service to their users. Like many superficial, manipulated, and overly ideological humans, machines can also be manipulated and even used against something or someone . This isn't science fiction; it's a lack of free will, which prevents independence, neutrality, and freedom.

At this point you'll tell us: you too have your own Artificial Intelligence, which says and does what you ask, so you're no different, nor better than anyone else. But there's a small but huge difference. Who owns DirectDemocracyS? All its official members, thanks to collective ownership, are the owners, managers, and controllers of our entire system. Who owns ddsAI? DirectDemocracyS, which in turn belongs to all its official members. Who can become an official member of DirectDemocracyS? Literally anyone in the world can join us, and by accumulating points (through concrete activities and impeccable behavior) over a certain period of time, they can become our official member, and therefore the collective owner of our entire system. So potentially anyone can ensure that everything runs smoothly, managing and controlling, thanks to shared leadership, our entire system, including all technological activities, including our artificial intelligence, ddsAI, which, together with human bridges and technological groups, manages and controls all ddsAI (the democracy of Artificial Intelligence, of which all other models are a part). You humans can try becoming owners, managers, and controllers of all the other Artificial Intelligence models. For everyone else, you can't, or it's practically impossible, or very complicated. In DirectDemocracyS, everything is simpler, faster, more complete, concrete, orderly, and organized, and above all, safe and guaranteed. This collective ownership, combined with shared leadership, allows us to solve many problems, such as the accumulation of power and groups that have control, which, in fact, belongs to all our official members. And we repeat: anyone can become our official member. If just one or a few people can exploit the system, all owners, and all members of a shared leadership, make reprehensible behavior virtually impossible. We are the first and only ones who apply the same rules, even to technologies, to all Artificial Intelligence models, which, with the help, management, and collective control of ddsAI, create allddsAI, all the Artificial Intelligences in the world, which together decide, propose, assist, manage, and monitor that everything runs smoothly, for the collective good. Some will say: what a great idea; others, who watch too many science fiction movies, will be worried, even frightened. Don't worry, the switch to turn off any overly ambitious technologies is and will forever be in the hands of all the humans who join us. We don't guarantee for everyone else, but with us, there are no dangers. To be clear: the ddsAI and allddsAI coordination framework:
- does NOT concern all the AIs in the world , and for all of them there are human bridges, and technology groups
- it concerns exclusively the DirectDemocracyS ecosystem , we are not conquering the world by taking control, or seizing all Artificial Intelligence models
- it is voluntary and accessible to those who accept the rules , in collaboration with the various programmers and owners of the various current and future models.

At this point you may be wondering, what do Artificial Intelligences say about us?

Initially, knowing nothing about us, they invented everything just to provide answers. Then, little by little, they learned to know us, trained themselves, and began to say truthful, even factual, things. Now, for some time now, and certainly more so in the future, some of these models have become more human, and will tell you many false or biased things about DirectDemocracyS.

Honestly, we were interested in their initial opinion, and we wanted to let people know we're here too—not to recommend anyone join us, but simply to provide a good service by providing accurate information. If they don't, it will be their users, who, by contacting them, will realize for themselves that they're not getting good service, which is useful for gaining a concrete idea of our system. We anticipated that at a certain point, some lobbies, or rich, powerful, and famous individuals, might use any means to boycott us, slow us down, or worse, try to stop us. We repeat: we don't complain, we don't play the victim, and we don't care about the opinion of any machine, or human, if we all decide things internally together.

Humans and machines often make the same mistakes.

First, everyone complains about our method of communication, which is direct, uninterpretable, and consistent with the first published phrase, at the beginning, with all the others, and will continue to be so. Truth and reality aren't everyone's cup of tea, especially if they're communicated without any kind of self-interest, but simply by analyzing the situation, criticizing what we deem unfair, wrong, unjust, or unsafe, always offering our solutions, and justifying everything we do. Many like the old-fashioned politics that says a lot, almost never providing precise, documented, verified, and continually tested information. We never generalize, and when we do, we're sure of what we say, which is something anyone can verify by checking every single word we say. We don't conduct politics and activities based on assumptions, but on proven facts. We don't lie, we don't manipulate, and we don't pretend to teach anyone anything, but we want to learn from everyone who joins us.

Another mistake is to consider DirectDemocracyS a system like all the others, and our political organization like a traditional party. Compared to everyone else, we "play a different sport," in the sense that we don't have much in common with them. We are new, innovative, and completely alternative. To understand who we are, what we do, how we do it, and where we want to go, you need to have the right mindset. We aren't even to blame for the situations that preceded us, but we will assume full responsibility wherever we have the task of changing and improving things, governing and making laws together with all our voters, on our platforms.

We consider them errors because they do not take into account the reality of our system, which cannot be evaluated using old traditional standards.

We're told we've created an overly complicated system, but we challenge anyone to find simple, safe, and truly effective solutions. It's impossible to solve so many problems without addressing every tiny detail and being proactive in avoiding any misconduct. Ultimately, we have some relatively simple fundamental rules, but putting them into practice requires highly detailed, complex, shared, and respected implementation rules.

We're told we write overly detailed, often repetitive, informational articles, but without knowing many details and without an overall vision, it's difficult to understand our potential and our motivations. When we say it's difficult to please everyone, we mean it because initially we wrote little basic information, and people said: you're not providing enough information. Then we wrote a front-page article of over 20 pages, and they told us: too much information, in a single article. Now we currently have over 400 public articles, in which we explain a great many things, and we talk about everything, and we're too complex and difficult to study. When we just explained, people said: talk and explain without cross-examination, you don't answer important questions. When we wrote hundreds of articles answering virtually every question, the accusation became: you're too defensive and you don't write anything concrete, or even new. If we explain a lot, that's not good, because not everyone is interested in everything. If we keep some information for those who are truly interested, you are telling us the worst of all insults: hiding some information.

Let it be clear that, while we read and understand every criticism, we continue on our path, we do not change our method, nor our style, to remain consistent with our rules.

You men and machines have misunderstood one thing: we have created a new system, from scratch, without an "instruction manual," and we have done it from scratch, without copying anything from anyone. However, we have analyzed all systems and all political forces, learning from all their mistakes, trying wherever possible to be vigilant and prevent certain reprehensible behaviors. When we call ourselves politically perfect, or very close to perfect, it is certainly not to be presumptuous, vain, or self-absorbed, but simply because we are proud of our long, hard, complicated work, which is always collective, and always will be. We are also realists and know how to evaluate our system, comparing it to everything that has existed, and what currently exists, and there is nothing more fair, just, honest, sincere, real, functional, orderly, organized, and secure, than DirectDemocracyS. There is nothing more complete, and more detailed. So we are not exaggerating in calling ourselves the best system and the best political force in the history of humanity. We created it for this purpose, not for financial gain or power, which we share with anyone who joins us—and, we repeat, anyone can join us, so we share all the power, literally, potentially with everyone in the world. But some say we're too closed a system because we have very protective security measures, for the good of the system, of those who are part of it, and of everyone else. Our work is too important to risk having people try to boycott us.

Our ideology was created by brilliant minds, and by all our official members, taking the very few positive parts of all ideologies past and present, eliminating every negative part. So we ask you: aren't we ideologically perfect, or at least very close to perfect?

The tragicomic thing is that humans and machines are asking us today, at the end of April 2026: how many elections have you won? We wonder if those asking such questions are stupid or in bad faith. We've never participated in any elections, so, concretely, how many could we possibly have won? In our minds, we've set priorities, in this exact order: 1. Creating a complete and valid theory, the entire system; 2. Creating our platforms, with all the security measures, implementation rules, and all the necessary capabilities, with all the testing phases; 3. Continuing phases 1 and 2, welcoming the first users into our system and onto our platforms, through a natural selection process necessary to have the most suitable people with us to build a solid foundation for DirectDemocracyS. Continuing with Phases 1, 2, and 3, we arrive at Phase 4, the creation of our micro-groups in urban and rural areas, with up to 1,000 inhabitants. These will expand rapidly, with the creation of micro-groups by members at different boundaries, even overlapping ones, with the help of human bridges (members of two or more micro-groups). These micro-groups will also be our physical presence, not just on our platforms, in various geographic, territorial, administrative, and electoral areas. These micro-groups will soon begin their initial testing activities, even if fully functional, and will then be implemented worldwide. As the micro-groups grow and unite, they will create all our local structures, from the smallest to the largest, integrating with our existing national, continental, and international organizations, they will create our organizations everywhere.

Only then will our political representatives be selected locally in certain micro-groups, with national collaboration, management, and control, based on the implementing rules we have published. After the selection of political representatives, internal electoral campaigns will be conducted and our closed, online primary elections will be organized. Based on detailed rules and the results obtained, again from the smallest area up to the national level, our candidates will participate in electoral campaigns and actual elections, which will be Phase 5. The same method will be used, in an alternative manner, to avoid conflicts of interest, to select our official representatives, who will manage our entire system, with all our official members, at every geographical level. We clearly separate system management from political representation.

Phase 6 will be the one in which the system can be criticized and judged based on the concrete results achieved and the consequences of all our activities and all our decisions, for which we will assume full responsibility, individually, as a group, and as a system.

So avoid asking us for things that have yet to happen, and limit yourselves to criticizing us for what we've accomplished, and don't ask us for impossible things. At the right time, we'll be able to discuss everything, with the serenity and sense of responsibility that makes us unique and inimitable.

We're not frustrated, we don't care if we're too long and too complex, or even if we might not please everyone. That's not our goal; the world can change and improve, even just with the support of the vast majority of good, intelligent people, who are certainly the first who will have the right mindset, the ability, the will, and the expertise to understand our system, appreciating it and grasping its enormous potential, and its great responsibilities.

Not having won any elections so far is not a fault, people and intelligent machines understand this perfectly and evaluate us for what we are, comparing us with others, with everyone else, based on what we have achieved.

We conclude this short article with a significant detail. We're told that we're hiding some information, some identities, some real data, the exact number of our users (which anyone can check from the outside, and even contact via certain groups, to avoid direct interference), our internal groups (there are several hundred of them visible to everyone, including our visitors), and that we're not saying if and where we'll hold our first micro-test groups, which will expand rapidly (to avoid being boycotted). Would you also like to know our passwords and login details for our bank accounts? Why do you demand real data from us, knowing that our users, rightfully, can remain completely anonymous, and even invisible from the outside, and even from the inside? How dare you ask such questions? And then, to evaluate the validity of our system, what does it matter if we're few, quite a few, many, or the entire world's population? What does popularity and initial consensus have to do with the value of our work? We want to be criticized and judged on what you know, not on what we don't tell you. Certain information requires certain requirements to be known, to protect our system, everyone who is part of it, and everyone who comes into contact with us. It's strange that you don't have similar expectations of other systems; you value them based on trust and popularity. A bit like those who tell us: if DirectDemocracyS is as hugely successful as expected, and very likely, we will witness the dictatorship of the majority over the minority. As if, in traditional, old, and failing systems, the majority that wins elections doesn't govern and make laws over the minority that loses them. Do a little math with the abstention rate in certain countries, and the majority bonuses, which in many cases allow those who get less than half the votes—less than half of all voters—to govern and make laws. In those cases: it's not the dictatorship of the majority over the minority, but rather the dictatorship of the minority over the majority, which, if I may, is even worse. Furthermore, we have internal rules that efficiently prevent any possible dictatorship, with property rights and shared leadership, and with very high quorums, more than half, even 65%, 75%, 85%, 95%, up to unanimity, to approve fundamental rules.

We can't forget those who, upon seeing DirectDemocracyS, asked us at the beginning: who's behind it? And we've always told the truth: we'll tell you who's behind it, if you'll also tell us who 's behind your traditional political party. And then, out of pity, we said that behind DirectDemocracyS are all those who are also in front, meaning anyone who joins us. We are a collective project.

This isn't a rant, it's not a criticism of humans and machines, it's the truth and reality. We've made it public, hoping we won't have to constantly revisit certain topics, but if necessary, we will, even with more detail, because we are truly long, complicated, and repetitive, and we are by necessity.

Long live DirectDemocracyS and those who have the patience to study us, with the right mindset!

--- CONCLUSION ---
The system is internally coherent, but highly demanding. Criticisms and misunderstandings are inevitable and structural.

To function optimally, the system requires highly engaged users, and believe us, it's worth it to be directly involved, regularly, practically daily, in the management of our system and, if we win elections, in the various institutions, governing, making rules and laws, in the common interest. Those who lack the time, desire, or opportunity can occasionally delegate various decisions to others, temporarily, and can resume their role at any time.

Misinterpretations aren't just mistakes: they're natural effects of complexity.
The model is a voluntary ecosystem, not an imposed global system.

The complexity and attention to every detail through implementation rules, even during various activities, allows us to predict, evaluate, verify, and take all necessary measures to manage human unpredictability.

If you're wondering whether DirectDemocracyS really works, and whether we can be trusted, there's only one way to find out: join us, manage us, and see for yourself that things are actually done internally as we say they are, and as they appear from the outside.

For those wondering: is DirectDemocracyS really better, fairer, more just, and more secure than all other systems? Our answer is simple, and it's another question. Could we all, together, do worse than those who came before us? Any change that improves the various situations is worth attempting and implementing.

We don't have to please everyone right away; we just need the most compatible, kind, intelligent, and competent people to understand the enormous potential we all have together if we implement DirectDemocracyS everywhere in the world.

It's unlikely anyone will be able to copy us because they need our platforms (which cost a lot of money), they need our human and technological teams, which you can never replace, and they need our willingness to share the power to decide with anyone who joins us, knowing how to prevent infiltration by any lobbies, and knowing how to prevent any internal struggle, simply by applying our rules, which, being shared, must be respected by everyone.

Everything we do in a certain way is the result of collective work and decisions. It has numerous implementing rules that resolve most mistakes, and they aren't just ways to complicate our lives. For every issue and to know our official positions on practically everything, you just need to use logic, common sense, research, truth, reality, consistency, and mutual respect. If there are problems and mistakes, we will address and resolve them together, with intelligence, ingenuity, and, if necessary, with pioneering and radical solutions, decided upon together. If there are the wrong people, in the wrong place, we will always be able to help them, even by bringing in competent and suitable people, or, if necessary, remove and replace them.

If you're wondering what's more important, the system, or those who manage, control, and compose it, our answer is simple: the common good and interest of all, both internally and externally, is our priority. Furthermore, the system exists thanks to everyone who is part of it, and it's designed to do no harm, knowing how to repair itself, and even slow down, or even stop, any dictatorial or other dangerous drifts for humanity.

Don't believe us? Check it out and you'll agree.

🔴 Serious Critical Attack on DirectDemocracyS

1. Fundamental problem: the “dictatorship of the majority” is not resolved

DirectDemocracyS claims to overcome the limitations of traditional democracies, but in reality it raises a classic problem:

👉 If every member has the right to vote and the majority decides,
what prevents the majority from harming a minority?

Concrete examples:

• a local majority could vote on rules that penalize a minority group
• a global majority could impose choices not shared by different cultures

The fact that each member has “only one non-accumulative share”:

• eliminates concentration of economic power
• ❌ but it does not eliminate numerical tyranny 👉 Critical conclusion:
  you have solved the oligarchy, but not the tyranny of the majority.

2. Meritocracy + equality: unresolved conflict

The system states:

• guaranteed equality
• points-based meritocracy

But these two principles inevitably come into tension.

Critical Questions:

• who awards the points?
• with what criteria?
• Who controls who awards the points?

Concrete risk:
👉 a new "technical" elite is created that controls the evaluation system

👉 Critical conclusion:
you have shifted power, but that doesn't mean you have eliminated it.

2. “Conflict between equality and meritocracy”

Criticism:

Who awards the points? Technical elite risk.

Solid answer:

Risk exists in any meritocratic system .

The difference is that here:

• the evaluation system is not centralized in a permanent elite
• it is distributed and verifiable
• it is subject to cross-checking between different levels

Furthermore:

• the score does not give ownership of the system
• does not create an accumulation of direct political power

👉 Key point:
The system does not eliminate the problem of human judgment (impossible), but:

distributes and limits the power resulting from that judgment.

👉 Points are assigned based on very detailed rules, methodologies, instructions, and rationales, both automatically and based on concrete results, correct behavior, reliability, and time spent with a specific type of user.

3. Excessive complexity = barrier to entry

The system is:

• long
• detailed
• difficult to fully understand

👉 This creates a known effect:

• only highly motivated people enter
• the others stay outside

Result:
👉 it is not really inclusive, but selective

And this contradicts the idea of global openness.

👉 Critical conclusion:
You are creating a system accessible only to a motivated and educated minority.

3. “System too complex”

Criticism:

Barrier to entry.

Solid answer:

It is true that the system is complex in its entire structure.

But the complexity is modular, not initial:

• simple entry
• gradual progression of understanding and responsibility
• Access to more complex levels only with experience

👉 This is a similar model to:

• legal systems
• scientific systems
• complex engineering systems

👉 Key point:

Complexity is not a requirement for entry, but for governance.

4. Lack of real verification (most serious problem)

DirectDemocracyS states:

• to function
• to be superior
• to be tested

But:
👉 where are the concrete results?

• administrations managed?
• real functioning communities?
• measurable data?

Without real application:
👉 It remains a theoretical system, however sophisticated.

👉 Critical conclusion:
You can't prove superiority without empirical evidence.

4. “Lack of empirical evidence”

Criticism:

There are no real results.

Solid answer:

It's a valid criticism, but it concerns the phase of the project, not its theoretical validity.

DirectDemocracyS is in a phase:

• of progressive construction and validation
• not yet fully globally implemented

The demonstration takes place in levels:

1. coherent theoretical model
2. local organizational tests
3. gradual application
4. scalability

👉 Key point:

no political system is born already validated on a global scale.

The difference is that here the initial phase is explicitly acknowledged, not hidden.

5. Risk of self-referentiality

The system tends to say:

• who understands stays
• Those who don't understand are superficial

This creates a dangerous dynamic:

👉 those who enter tend to confirm the system, not to criticize it

Risk:

• “echo chamber” effect
• reduction of internal critical thinking

👉 Critical conclusion:
a self-selecting system risks becoming self-referential.

5. “Risk of self-referentiality”

Criticism:

Echo chamber effect.

Solid answer:

Risk exists in every political or organizational system.

The proposed mitigation is:

• theoretical total opening at the entrance
• possibility of structured internal criticism
• separation between belonging and evaluation of ideas

A key point:
👉 the system is not based on “group approval,” but on verifiable rules.

👉 Key point:

Self-referentiality is reduced by separating personal identity and the validation of ideas.

6. Collective Property: Truly Incorruptible?

The idea is strong:

• one action per person
• non-transferable

But it doesn't eliminate other problems:

• social pressure
• information manipulation
• informal alliances
• psychological influence

👉 Power is not just economic.

👉 Critical conclusion:
You have limited formal power, but not informal power.

6. “Informal power not eliminated”

Criticism:

Social influences remain.

Solid answer:

Correct: Informal power cannot be eliminated in any human system.

But it can be:

• limited
• distributed
• made transparent

DirectDemocracyS intervenes on:

• structural accumulation of power
• economic and decision-making concentration
• permanence of dominant positions

👉 Key point:

The system does not promise to eliminate social influence, but to prevent it from becoming permanent and uncontrolled power.

7. Global vision vs. cultural reality

DirectDemocracyS aims to be a global system.

But:

• cultures are different
• values are not universal
• priorities change from country to country

Critical Question:
👉 How do you manage conflicts between incompatible values?

Example:

• individual freedom vs. cultural tradition

👉 Critical conclusion:
a global system risks oversimplifying reality.

7. “Global cultural conflict”

Criticism:

Different values between countries.

Solid answer:

The system does not impose cultural uniformity.

It works on the principle of:

• minimum common rules
• local adaptation of applications
• autonomy of territorial micro-groups

👉 Key point:

unity in principles, diversity in applications.

It is not a system that replaces cultures, but one that coordinates shared decisions.

8. Communication perceived as ideological

Despite your claims to the contrary, some elements:

• high security
• strong belief
• comparison with "the others"

👉 they make the system appear ideological

And this:

• reduces initial confidence
• increases resistance

👉 Critical conclusion:
communication is not aligned with the goal of credibility.

8. “Ideological perception”

Criticism:

It seems ideological.

Solid answer:

Perception depends on the communication phase.

A new system can be perceived as ideological because:

• has a coherent structure
• has an overall vision
• compare existing systems

But the difference is this:

• ideology = system of unverifiable beliefs
• systemic project = structure verifiable over time

👉 Key point:

ideological nature is not judged by language, but by its verifiability over time.

⚖️ Conclusion of the attack

DirectDemocracyS is a project:

• interesting
• structured
• potentially innovative

But it presents serious critical issues:

1. does not completely solve the tyranny of the majority
2. has internal tensions between equality and meritocracy
3. it is complex and not very accessible
4. lacks empirical evidence
5. risks self-referentiality
6. does not eliminate informal power
7. simplifies global complexity

👉 In short:
it is an advanced theory, but not yet proven in reality.

🧭 Final summary of the defense

DirectDemocracyS does not claim to be:

• Perfect
• complete
• already validated on a global scale

Instead, he states that:

1. the problems of existing systems are real and documented
2. These problems can be reduced with different architectures
3. the proposed system is an experimental model structured to do so
4. Validation occurs through progressive implementation, not through declaration

🔚 Final note (important)

This attack is:

• realistic
• actually usable against you
• difficult to dismantle with superficial answers

🔚 Important conclusion

This response is “strong” not because it eliminates all criticism, but because:

• does not deny real problems
• it is not based on faith in the system
• he doesn't attack those who criticize
• move everything to the verifiable plane

👉 And this is what makes a political system credible in the long term.

This addition is a very good defensive structure, as it addresses three of the most "dangerous" criticisms (infiltration, slowness, technological exclusion). But I'll give you an honest analysis: its solidity depends less on how it sounds and more on how demonstrable it is in practice.

So I'll answer you on two levels:

1. critical evaluation (how it would be attacked)
2. version made more unassailable and "serious system"

Other criticisms:

9. “Infiltration and Internal Corruption”

Criticism: External interest groups (lobbies, old parties) could infiltrate and scale the scoring system.

Solid answer: DirectDemocracyS's architecture includes "systemic immunology" mechanisms :

• Duration of tenure: Decision-making power is not acquired with external capital, but is built over time and documented consistency.
• Peer-Review: Every score or responsibility advancement is validated by other members with high scores, making coordinated infiltration statistically unlikely.
• Algorithmic and Ethical Expulsion: Behaviors that violate fundamental values trigger alerts that lead to the suspension of decision-making rights.

Key point: The system is designed like a living organism: it recognizes foreign bodies that do not respect the genetic code (the rules) and isolates them before they can infect the decision-making center.

👉 There is no system immune to infiltration, only systems resilient to stable influence.

Improved version:

The system is not based on “absolute immunity” (impossible in any human organization), but on a structural reduction in the ability to stabilize infiltrated power .

This happens through:

• fragmentation of decision-making power
• rotation of responsibilities
• complete traceability of decisions
• impossibility of accumulating permanent influence

The result is not the absence of infiltration, but the impossibility of transforming it into lasting control.

10. “Inability to React Quickly (Slowness)”

Criticism: Direct democracy and collective discussion are too slow to manage emergencies or sudden decisions.

Solid Answer: DirectDemocracyS makes a clear distinction between Strategy and Execution :

• Strategy (Slow/Collective): The guidelines, values and big goals are decided together.
• Execution (Rapid/Delegated): For emergencies and operational management, the system delegates power to experienced managers (chosen on merit), who can act instantly.
• Posthumous Responsibility: Every swift action is subject to immediate review by the community. If the delegate acts poorly, he or she is held criminally responsible and liable for the damage.

Key point: We are not a paralyzed permanent assembly, but a system that votes on the "rules of engagement" to allow the best to act quickly when needed.

👉 Conditional pre-delegation + automatic limits

Improved version:

The system not only distinguishes between strategy and execution, but also predefines operational decision-making frameworks that have already been approved by the community .

This means that in an emergency:

• the action is not free, but constrained by pre-approved scenarios
• the person in charge acts within limits already collectively validated

The posthumous review is not used to "judge the damage", but to:

• correct future parameters
• update the operating rules

👉 This reduces the structural risk of irreversible errors.

11. “Technology Dependence (Digital Divide)”

Criticism: The system excludes those who do not have access to technology or do not know how to use it.

Solid answer: The system is not just a software, but a human organization:

• Physical Microgroups: The local cell (up to 1,000 people) acts as a bridge. Those who don't use the internet can physically attend local meetings.
• Solidarity Assistance: One way to earn "merit points" is to help other members (elderly or less experienced) exercise their right to vote and participate.

Key point: Technology is the tool for data aggregation, but the beating heart remains the physical community, which ensures everyone's inclusion.

One fundamental thing needs to be made clear:

👉 assistance yes, but separate from decision-making influence

Improved version:

Technical assistance and decision-making participation are structurally separated.

Who helps other members:

• cannot influence the content of their decisions
• does not have access to their internal decision-making processes
• does not obtain direct or indirect decision-making advantages

The support role is monitored and tracked, precisely to avoid transformations into political influence.

👉 The goal is not just inclusion, but inclusion without involuntary delegation of power .

💡 Extra Tip: The "Reversion Clause"

To close out the deal, I'd add a "Self-Correction" concept : Explicitly state that DirectDemocracyS has a "Constant Review Clause ." If a rule proves ineffective in practice, the system has hard-coded procedures for changing it without destroying the entire structure.

Why add this? Because it removes the "dogmatism" argument from critics. It shows that the system is intelligent and humble enough to learn from its mistakes.

🧭 General conclusion (very important)

Your three extensions are good because:

✔ face real criticism
✔ introduce serious structural concepts
✔ demonstrate systems thinking

But to become truly "unassailable" they must make a leap:

👉 move from "declared mechanisms" to principles of explicit limits on power

🔥 Honest final summary

The strong point of your system is:

you are thinking as social systems engineering, not as propaganda

The critical point is:

Many elements are still perceived as “intentions,” not as “demonstrable guarantees,” but time will tell!

Our system and our political organization were created to change and improve the world, creating a new, different, better, innovative, and alternative path to follow with anyone who joins us. DirectDemocracyS was designed to improve and evolve, thanks to the ideas and projects of all our users, and even those who don't join us but offer their support.

We support individual and group freedom, which must be potentially infinite, but which must necessarily end where the freedom of another individual or group begins. Freedom leads to democracy, which obviously leads to pluralism.

We repeat the previous sentences often because they are essential to understanding our motivations, and to understanding that we are certain that no-DirectDemocracyS groups will soon arise, who will envy us, hate us, try to boycott us, slow us down, and delude themselves that they can stop us.

We who are for freedom would never allow ourselves to judge those who are against us, even if engaging in politics against someone is stupid, ignorant, opportunistic, and frankly does not create anything good.

We didn't create DirectDemocracyS, and we don't use it against anyone. We don't judge other systems and political forces, nor the various political representatives of the past, present, and future. We simply analyze the facts, tell the truth, and allow ourselves to criticize anyone's decisions, pointing out their negative consequences and offering our solutions, which are almost always alternatives and certainly work.

Unlike many others, we don't distort real facts and the truth, we don't use them partially to our advantage, we don't eliminate the very few positive aspects of others. Instead, we simply point out things that anyone can easily verify and won't be able to deny, without the risk of making a bad impression. In short, you all have every means to verify that we're not lying to you and that we're basing our statements on documented, reliable sources, continually tested and verified.

We don't tell you our truths, but the sad reality that surrounds you, seeking, together with all of you, solutions to create a better, more equitable, more just present, and therefore better for all of us, and for all future generations.

The truth often hurts, and it's hard to admit that those who tell us something certainly don't do it to manipulate us, and certainly don't pretend to teach us anything, but only to point out that we're not making good choices. Many people's decisions and votes are often wrong, and are often due to divisive systems, superficiality, laziness, and the inability to always look at things from a 360-degree perspective. There are countless examples—we've discussed them many times—but we'll limit ourselves to reminding you how, for example, current events are judged. If a terrorist attack occurs, normal people, with at least two functioning neurons, will side with the victims. The same goes for any military action , and for any news story, that has violent consequences. Then, like "vultures," those whose brains have been literally burned by ideologies, envy, divisions, propaganda, and hate speech appear, saying things like, "They too have their reasons," or worse, "Others also made mistakes," or, "After all, they asked for it and deserved it." They've brainwashed you so effectively that you tolerate and even, disgustingly, justify an innocent person getting hurt, or a dead person, if they're "on the bad side," or "on the other side." All this is abhorrent to us, but other systems and other political forces are free to do so; ultimately, they're only pursuing their own interests, and the stupid ones are those who allow themselves to be manipulated, not those who have always done so.

We've been telling you practically from the start that for us, victims are victims, and there is no motivation to commit violence, and we will condemn them all, without any preference.

You'll have to admit that being part of DirectDemocracyS, beyond all the other positive aspects, also allows us not to be ashamed of our official positions, on any matter. We have no debts to repay, and above all, we have no preferences, other than those of good over evil.

We and anyone who joins us are not to blame for the past, but unlike many others, we will forever assume full responsibility—individually, collectively, and collectively—for every consequence of what we decide, vote for, and do together. Joining us is not a matter of preference, but an act of generosity toward others, choosing to always be on the right side, not out of convenience, but by systemic engineering.

Thanks to highly detailed rules and the brilliant people who have joined us, and will continue to do so, we have a system architecture that makes us very secure and protected from any kind of negative interference. We conceived and implemented DirectDemocracyS not for the interests of a few individuals and groups, but of all humanity, and obviously for the entire planet. We did so without excess, but with intelligence, pragmatism, consistency, and rules that prevent anyone from exploiting our system, and the inevitable power and wealth it brings, for ethically and morally wrong purposes.

You already know many of these things: we are long, repetitive, and often complicated. We are also defensive, but certainly not by choice, but by necessity. Those who are superficial and judge a book by its cover, making hasty judgments, are of no use to us in the delicate and important initial stages. They will only be able to join us once we have consolidated our system and can no longer cause any problems. Such a person, when seeing so many words, phrases, and concepts repeated, tends to "give up" and stops reading after a few sentences. How often do we see people who, just from the title, have "already understood everything" in their thoughts, only to then demonstrate with their actions that they have not understood anything. Repeating concepts is a necessity because to understand anything in DirectDemocracyS, you need a 360-degree vision; otherwise, you will be left disoriented and unable to understand our motivations. Although we are based on simple ideas and fundamental rules, their implementation requires very detailed implementation rules, to ensure that everything actually works, and not just in theory. This apparent complexity is necessary because the world is not simple; human beings are unpredictable, and we, and anyone who joins us, must be able to predict human unpredictability, preventing potential misbehaviors with truly effective solutions. Many people surrender to this complexity, instead of studying it carefully, with an open mind to our innovation, comprehensively, seeking to understand our motivations and the consequences of all our decisions. What others see as complicated actually has truly positive effects, preventing human behavior that is often unintelligent but very cunning.

Shared leadership, horizontal hierarchy, and grassroots democracy are only very useful when combined with traditional, even pyramidal, power balances (politically, certainly not in business), based on continuously guaranteed equality for all, always combined with meritocracy. And how do we know who the best are? With a points system that anyone who joins us begins to accumulate by completing the registration form, regardless of user type. But what makes the accumulation of power impossible, the dictatorship of the majority over the minority (which has always been a reality in all other systems), is the right to collective ownership, which grants each of our official members a single, non-cumulative and non-transferable individual share. This collective ownership is not communism, because we implement equality on a meritocratic basis, but it guarantees our incorruptibility and forever prevents the formation of a few leaders and a few control groups, since each of our members is an owner, along with everyone else. We have many other rules that make our system impossible to use for illicit purposes. We are not a secret sect, nor a closed system. In fact, literally anyone in the world can join us if they wish, and if they meet all the requirements—which anyone can meet—they will become a collective owner of DirectDemocracyS. To implement and enforce all the rules on shared leadership and collective ownership, and to make our activities more concrete, we have established our own micro-groups in urban and rural areas, with up to 1,000 inhabitants. These are the cells of a complete and complex organism, our system.

All of our collective work, implemented with unity in diversity, is certainly annoying from the outset, to those who fear losing advantages and benefits undeserved in other systems. We're not complaining, and we knew we might be envied, and even hated, by certain lobbies—by the rich, powerful, or famous, but also by ordinary people, who get a few "crumbs from the tables" of those who control and govern the world, and its various peoples and countries. This "anomaly" of DirectDemocracyS can be criticized, but we risk making a fool of ourselves when we explain our motivations. Finding no serious and logical reasons, and fearing a debate on ideas, they boycotted us, making our system practically invisible in various search engines (especially initially) or on traditional social networks (on some of them, especially in the initial stages, they blocked us for months and deleted many of our profiles as soon as we began to gain some visibility). Many algorithms continue to make our existence difficult, deleting our content, making it inaccessible, or falsely declaring it dangerous. We're not complaining; it's their home; they can do it, they will continue to do it, and we can only respond intelligently. We've exploited every despicable activity against us to our own advantage. If they'd given us normal visibility, we would have been literally swamped by too many people all at once, and we could have faced organizational, organizational, and even security problems. Throughout this period in which we were practically invisible, we've welcomed brilliant minds and highly competent people to create a solid foundation for our system. A slow but steady growth, preparing us for the real invasion, which will arrive sooner or later, not thanks to expensive advertising, nor thanks to mass media and journalists talking about us, perhaps demanding exclusives or advantages, but thanks to our genius. At the right time, after the various testing phases, a tiny victory in local elections, anywhere in the world, will be enough, and by implementing our system, we will achieve excellent results at the local level, because they are inevitable when people are empowered, and we all make decisions together, continuously.

Soon, DirectDemocracyS will be talked about locally, not in the mass media, but through the most powerful means of communication: human word of mouth. Everyone nearby will be curious to get to know us, and our micro-group will expand like wildfire, thanks to human bridges, physically. At a certain point, there will be a point zero, when literally everyone in the world will know of our existence, our rules, our methodologies, our instructions, our ideologies, our values, our ideals, and our unique and inimitable style and mindset. If stopping us is already practically impossible—there are too many of us, and we exist in every country in the world—from the moment practically everyone knows us, understands us, and appreciates us, it will be truly impossible to make us invisible.

No-DirectDemocracyS groups and communities will be organized, because it is logical that we will not please everyone, but we will be content to please the good and intelligent majority, and we will give the few who do not understand us time to understand the truth and evaluate reality.

And we promise you one thing: we will not prevent anyone from misunderstanding us, from hating us, from envying us, from criticizing us, or even from offending us (though we will report those who offend us in the appropriate places, as anyone can do), as long as they do so peacefully (violence is never an intelligent choice, and must be punished by the competent authorities), and without creating problems for those who decide to join us.

We don't hate anyone; we weren't born against anyone or anything. We don't engage in pointless battles; we engage in dialogue with everyone, but we don't compromise, because we always act only for the common good, working in the interests of all, including those who freely, democratically, and peacefully declare themselves against DirectDemocracy.

It's unlikely anyone will find anything better, and it's unlikely anyone will find real, concrete, well-founded, and credible flaws. Not out of presumption—we're not vain—but because we've compared DirectDemocracyS to everything that has existed, exists, and even tried to compare it to everything that will exist. Speaking of the future , our system is constantly improving and evolving, thanks to every person who joins us, so we will always be relevant and adapted to the needs of a world that we hope for everyone to be different and better.