We make it a habit to answer all questions submitted to us through our contact forms, and we often compile them into informative articles that we publish to better explain to our visitors how our system works. Naturally, we respond to general questions with general answers, and to detailed questions with appropriate responses, always keeping confidential any information, we cannot disclose.
The first question concerns precisely this aspect. One of our visitors asks: why aren't you completely transparent and honest, making every detail of everything you're doing public? Another accuses us of hiding the identity of the person who devised our entire system. Another tells us he doesn't appreciate our method, disclosing only a few things about us.
We have brought together three important, interconnected questions for a comprehensive answer.
Our answer is: as of June 27, 2025, we published over 335 public informational articles and several thousand private articles. Therefore, no one can accuse us of poor communication. What we publish for our visitors is the final version, approved according to very detailed rules, of what we want to communicate. Our followers, to learn about us, aren't interested in theories of all kinds, or in pre-final versions of our informational articles. Rules, methodologies, and instructions are useless if they aren't implemented, but only in theory. We prefer to disclose only the things we've decided to make public, keeping all confidential information to ourselves, all information that could be violated in any way: the right to anonymity (which we guarantee to everyone), even to those who first had the idea to create all this (but there were five of them, creating DirectDemocracyS), we protect and will forever protect the privacy and personal data of anyone who joins us. Finally, there are a few little secrets which we prefer to reveal only to those who join us, establishing mutual trust. When, in our early stages, they asked us: Who had the idea? Who created all this? Who finances you? Who is your leader? We responded with very long articles, explaining in detail: it's a long and hard collective effort, DirectDemocracyS is owned by all its official members. Everyone who has joined us, and who will join us in the future, with the exception of our free users, has contributed and will continue to contribute financially (through annual dues and donations) to enable us to self-finance, with ideas and projects to be designed and implemented together, and with concrete work to operate our entire mechanism, which controls our entire system. We have no leaders or small "command" groups, but shared leadership, with all our registered users, with verified and guaranteed identities, who hold all power, all management, and all control over all our activities, based on rules, methodologies, and instructions respected by all. All our official members have collective ownership of our entire system, because each of them holds a single, non-cumulative and non-transferable individual share. And this has truly been the case and has always been the case! You can see for yourself.
How do you combine equality and meritocracy, guaranteeing them to everyone? Why don't you allow everyone to join you? Don't you realize you're discriminating against some people? Why do you keep saying that to study, and to understand DirectDemocracyS, you need above-average intelligence?
Here too, we combined three questions into a single answer. For us, from the very beginning, it was important to clarify that in rights and duties, in freedoms and democracy, all people are equal, must have the same dignity and the same opportunities. Obviously, we are not all the same; some are more intelligent, some less so, some are competent, some are not, some are reliable, and some are not, and every person has different characteristics and abilities. But everyone also has things they understand and do well, and this is our true strength. Putting all the right people in the right places, where they can achieve, and help us achieve, excellent results. It wouldn't be fair, and it wouldn't create any advantage for anyone, to reward and punish everyone equally, whether they do excellent work or not. This is why all the various hierarchies were created, decided primarily, but not exclusively, based on points which each person who joins us accumulates, but can also lose, at any time. One of our special groups, dedicated to equality and meritocracy, composed of many of our members and users, continuously guarantees everyone who joins us the same opportunities, and the same rules, methodologies, and instructions, rewarding the best and punishing the worst. All other systems fail to guarantee equality and meritocracy to everyone, continuously, and always together. Whoever tells you that all people are equal is lying, but in the old systems, meritocracy doesn't even exist, and to understand this, just look at how many injustices there are. Regarding our very careful selection of everyone who joins us, at every stage of our journey, you must put yourselves in our shoes. If you were in our shoes, would you welcome anyone, without any selection, into your large family (we truly are a huge global family), into your immense home (which is our platforms and our websites). Would you allow incompetent people to lay the foundations for a new system—one that must be innovative and alternative, but better, more just, equitable, supportive, professional, and secure? Our choice is based on awareness of the importance of what we are doing, and on the need to avoid missteps or, worse, failure. Furthermore, at the right time, anyone can join us, but only when we have put all the right people in the right places, making it impossible for problems to arise and preventing all despicable activities by bad people. In short, in military jargon: we had to secure the perimeter. To understand our rules, our methodologies, our instructions, the enormous potential, but also the great responsibility, of our system, certainly requires, at least in the early stages, above-average intelligence. We are confident that this choice of ours, like everything we decide, was made based on very detailed, fair, equitable, and honest rules, and with all security measures implemented.
You too often think of yourself as perfect, you have an oversized ego, you're vain and presumptuous. Don't you think this way of expressing yourself makes people angry? Perfection doesn't exist.
The only thing that shouldn't exist are banal phrases like: perfection doesn't exist. DirectDemocracyS was conceived and created to be the best, most just, fair, loyal, sincere, supportive, safe, free, democratic, independent, neutral, competent, innovative, and alternative political force in human history. We conceived and created it with this goal: to come as close to perfection as possible. We didn't do it to make a few people rich, powerful, and famous, or to give undeserved advantages to lobbies, or to favor a few groups of people, but always with the good of all humanity as our sole interest, without any preference. This attitude of ours, including our direct, concrete, simple (but not simplistic), and often unusual way of expressing ourselves, can only offend the sensibilities of those who are aware of their own limitations (and who will have to wait a long time to join us). Those who accuse us of being presumptuous are desperately searching for reasons to prove we're not perfect. They certainly don't do this to help us improve (even if they do so unconsciously and unintentionally), but to contradict our "supposed" superiority. Often, certain statements that attempt to denigrate us and find flaws only demonstrate that we are, and will forever be, very close to perfection. Furthermore, no one ever tells us: "I know something better than you." These criticisms come from people who are envious of our achievements and frustrated that we didn't think of it themselves, that we didn't do all the hard work. They know it will be impossible for them to copy us, both because no one forgives those who copy and because they wouldn't have the ability to create something similar. Intelligent people understand the purpose of this method of communication and often decide to delve deeper and understand why we consider ourselves superior to everyone else. They don't do it to find flaws, but to have confirmation that we are the best. The truth often hurts and bothers many people. We're not vain, we're just realistic, aware of our enormous potential, and proud of our long, hard work, which belongs not to a few, but to all those who have joined us. DirectDemocracyS is owned by all its members, and all its users are little cogs, part of a huge mechanism, conceived, created, managed, and controlled by a truly shared leadership. We are all masters of our entire system, and this is truly annoying and frustrating for those on the outside. However, let's be clear: if you find something better than us, please let us know, because if that's truly the case, we can honestly and resignedly say that we are the second-best system and the best political organization in human history. So, to those who ask us, "Are you really perfect?" We answer: "No, but we work every day to get closer to the ideal. And if you find a way to do it better, we're here to listen."
You write many articles, without contradiction, and you claim to always tell the truth. But you only tell your truths.
Many of our articles arise from messages we receive from people who criticize us or, in many cases, suggest arguments. This too is based on messages received from many of our visitors, so there is always a contradictory nature, and we are always engaged in dialogue. Naturally, there are dozens of our articles presenting our official positions and our solutions to various problems. In others, we explain how people live within our system, with what rules, methodologies, and instructions. The truth—documented, verified, and guaranteed only by reliable sources—is the foundation of our work. We have many groups that work and study every theory, idea, and even conspiracies, but our positions, and what we disseminate, are based solely on the truth, which is not ours, but everyone's. We leave uncertainties, suppositions, and unreliable sources to others; we rely on the facts. Anyone with "alternative" ideas, unprovable "truths," can express and study them with others in our free groups. But in our public areas and our specialist groups, everyone speaks and discusses only what they know thoroughly, whether through teaching, working directly with them, or having studied them. One of the main problems with all other systems, and all their traditional social networks, is that anyone can say anything publicly, even about topics they don't even have a basic understanding of. They confuse freedom of speech, thought, and expression with misinformation, often with disastrous results. In DirectDemocracyS, while guaranteeing everyone full freedom in free groups, everyone speaks publicly, and in specialist groups, only and exclusively about what they know, and thus we have accurate information. Since we partially made public the existence of our system and our political organization, we have given anyone, both internally and externally, the opportunity to challenge (using appropriate contact forms) any of our statements. This must be done with reliable documentation from appropriate sources, and we are available at any time to amend even the smallest part of our statements that may be proven untrue, admitting any errors and apologizing publicly.
