Love at first sight

When a person hears about us for the first time, or reads one of our articles, or visits our website for the first time, he does not believe what he hears, and does not believe his eyes.

Every person, in DirectDemocracyS, finally finds an innovative, alternative, and incompatible political organization with everything around. Better, the same, or worse? Certainly different, and unique, even if various groups, especially on social networks, try to copy us, with bad results, and without any possibility of having a future. No one seeks, or wants a copy, because it will never look like the original.

At first glance, anyone may think: great ideas, but it's utopia. Whoever thinks a little, instead says: excellent ideas, but many people are bad, greedy, selfish, and seek power, and money from political activity, therefore, DirectDemocracyS cannot work.

No one, for now wrote: bad ideas. Nobody wrote - the project is bad. Even if many superficially think: it can't work, they won't let you do it. The most superficial of all, instead try to compare us to the old politics.

By reading each of our articles, even several times, any doubts should disappear. But to do so, it takes a lot of good will, and also a lot of time. To understand DirectDemocracyS, before you start reading, you should completely forget all the old politics. Only with an open mind can we begin to get to know our political organization in depth.

So, do they often tell us, that we are too "beautiful" to be true?

This article of ours may seem a bit chaotic, but it is perhaps the first in which we put ourselves in your place, dear visitors.

Many people don't like the way we communicate, in which we explain every detail, even in a repetitive way, but we do it this way, because many concepts, and many topics, are connected, and if you don't have a 360-degree vision, you don't can understand the meaning of our rules.

Others don't like our continuous answering to every question that someone might ask about us, our rules, and our method. If we didn't explain, in detail, all our motivations, you would hardly understand the reason for many of our choices.

Others tell us that we never say our positions on the various issues, according to them, for fear of losing consensus. In fact, for these people, it is not enough to say: every one of our choices is based on logic, common sense, mutual respect for all people, and starting today, we add a new sentence to all of this: we are based on the truth, on the evidence, about science, about education, and about the clear distinction, between good and evil. The previous sentence contains our essence, which to many may seem vague, unclear, and written by people who believe they have all the solutions. We don't have all the solutions, but we find them easily, if necessary, simply by asking our expert groups.

For almost every topic or political question, the old politics has accustomed you to political forces that take sides, for or against, and we are not very different in this, we always choose the good. For us too, there are things that are right or wrong, like people are good or bad. Except that the old politics is based on being, always, against each other. If a political force says one thing, even sensible and right, the other political forces, in order to be different, prefer to make the wrong choice, say the wrong thing, in order not to resemble those, who for them, are, in at best "adversaries", and are often considered, and treated, as real "enemies". We are completely alternative, and we don't work against anyone. Therefore, please do not take only one part of each of our positions based on your interests. Too often, from a very long article, only certain sentences are taken, based on one's own interests, to make people believe things that are completely wrong and false.

Let us give you an example, a bit trivial, but which will explain the situation well.

If we affirmed: DirectDemocracyS, it is against smoking. There will be many people who will say: very good, think about people's health. But there will be others who will say: you are stupid, but you know how much money the States make with taxes on cigarettes. And still others: do you know how many people work in the tobacco industries and in activities connected to smoking? Thus, our stance against smoking will please some, and others will not. Want to know, what is our position on smoking?

First a brief introduction.

Banning something is never the solution, we have talked about it in other articles, even on negative publicity.

Bad publicity.

If we say: banging your head against a wall, it hurts. Many, out of curiosity, will hit their head to see how much it hurts, others will try, in various ways, and there will always be someone who will say: it doesn't always hurt, it just depends on how hard you hit it. Others will say they feel better after doing it. The same goes for anything. For example, if we said that a fruit juice is not good, that it sucks, many would buy it, to taste it, to see, and taste, if it really is bad, and by tasting it, they would realize that it is not bad, and many, may like. Negative advertising can often sell better than positive advertising.

Our location.

Regarding smoking, it is clear that it is harmful, but rather than forbidding it, our basic idea is to make people understand the damage it causes, without frightening them, but trying to change and improve their habits and mentality of people. For some, it could be considered a "brainwashing", for a good purpose. With the previous sentence, some will accuse us of doing a real brainwashing of all people. Changing and improving one's mentality is not an easy thing, but it certainly makes all those who manage to do it better people.

The same argument made for tobacco products is true for alcohol, for drugs, and for anything else, and for every topic. Our decisions, and our positions, on everything, are all based on logic, common sense, and mutual respect, of all people, and are all decided, by very many groups of experts, all numbering several hundred, or thousands, soon millions of people, who propose, select, decide, discuss, evaluate, and finally vote, what will be the official position of DirectDemocracyS on each topic. This method will allow us not to make mistakes, and to always be on the right side, choosing well, always thinking of the collective interest, always starting to help people and businesses that are most in difficulty. It will also avoid, to each of our users, unnecessary waste of time, to look for alternative solutions, despite having anyone, the possibility of contesting, the decisions, of the groups of experts, with the obligation, however, to present valid arguments, and real evidence and safe, for your own complaints. Otherwise, the decision of the expert groups will remain valid and shareable for all.

For every position we take, we are sure we risk losing some voters, but the good of the people, and their state of health, matters more than a few or many voters lost.

We all know that the population, if they read 2 or more studies by completely different experts, always choose the one closest to their way of thinking, which confirms their theories. A simple again example, cannabis, for some studies it hurts, and kills brain cells, for others it is "a medicine", and for others, a harmless pastime. In some countries, and in some cultures, it is prohibited, in others it is tolerated, in others it is recommended. In general, we leave a choice to the various populations of each geographical area, even though we have clear positions, and always valid, and for everyone, on the basic rules and on the methodology.

Our position, on cannabis, as on alcohol, is clear: each person is responsible for his own state of health and mental state, and always chooses based on his own intelligence. Provided that this behavior cannot cause physical, moral, or material damage to other people. If a person, under the influence of drugs or alcohol, drives a car, and causes an accident, in which innocent people die or are injured, we consider it an execrable behavior, to be prevented, and to be severely punished. Would banning alcohol, and cannabis, solve the problem? Absolutely not, but teaching people what are the best choices to be healthy, and to avoid unnecessary risks, for themselves and for innocent people, would give better, immediate results, and which will surely last over time.

Teaching people that you can have fun in a less dangerous way, for yourself and for others, is certainly better than drastically prohibiting certain behaviors. Also, to avoid that many people, not very intelligent, perpetually against any type of system, and against the rules, make wrong choices, just to be stupidly "fashionable". For DirectDemocracyS, being clear-headed, and in the fullest of one's mental faculties, is essential in order to be able to live in a healthy community, which knows how to prevent potentially very serious accidents and problems. Always for DirectDemocracyS, maturity, and being "adult", is not demonstrated by smoking, drinking, and taking drugs. For DirectDemocracyS, one enjoys the same, and certainly better, having a lucid and clear memory of parties, and moments of fun, in a group, which, being under the influence of drugs and alcohol, make us forget, every happy moment, or sad, and every fun. For DirectDemocracyS, if a person likes another person, one should have the courage to say it clearly, directly, and not looking for the "courage" to declare himself, in drugs and alcohol. Finally, for DirectDemocracyS, sex is more pleasant, if you are awake, lucid, and know well what you are doing. But to be the way we like it, you need a strong character, great ambition, a lot of self-control, and the ability, and the courage, to be able to distinguish between good and evil, always choosing the good. Furthermore, culture, civic education, and mutual respect are needed. Therefore, we must not prohibit, but offer valid reasons to act differently and better. It takes longer, but you will certainly get better results, and that will last over time. But we will talk about these topics, in other dedicated articles, very detailed. We are talking about individual and group behaviors, which are also very important and delicate, which cannot be dealt with in a synthetic and superficial way.

You will all have understood that we are not like the other political forces, who would do anything for one more vote, and to receive consensus. You just need to look around, to find all the confirmations, with every word we write.

We have already said, and we repeat, DirectDemocracyS, is politically perfect, also thanks to the old policy. We have carefully studied all their mistakes, all their wrong behaviors, all their ideals, almost all failures, and in almost all of our activities, we try to do the opposite of what they do, or what they would do.

We like to be honest, decide all things together with those who join us, offering anyone the opportunity to be a protagonist. How important is sincerity? Say things straight, and don't make fun of anyone. We don't need coddled, brainwashed, and lied to voters to get them to join us. We won't give you gifts, but every good thing, and every improvement in your life (and surely, there will be many), you will have to sweat it out, working hard, together with all of us, to change and improve the world.

But let's see, briefly, some small differences between DirectDemocracyS and the other political forces.

The old politics steals all your power and chooses for you. We give you all the power, and we choose everything, together with you.

The old policy decides on the basis of financial and economic interests, by which it is controlled and influenced. We serve the interests of all the world's population, and of every population, in any territory, because we are owned, managed, controlled, and influenced, only by all of our constituents. Each local community decides for its own geographical area, and multiple areas together decide for larger territories, such as street blocks, neighborhoods, cities, districts, counties, provinces, regions, states, countries, continents, and the entire planet. They are our geographic, free, and democratic groups.

The old politics promises anything, decides the programs, and almost never keeps them, their political representatives do what they like, often betray, lie, steal, change parties, and decide, based on hidden interests. DirectDemocracyS, all political programs, makes them together with its constituents, based on everyone's proposals, which are discussed, decided, and voted on, and then put into practice, by all our political representatives, of which we all have control together complete, so we don't cheat, we don't steal, we don't lie, and of course, we decide, based on the interests of the entire population. We put the common good, therefore everyone's, first, and before our own good, or that of a privileged few.

The old politics has a leadership, which often wastes precious time, to fight, with more or less lawful means, with other political forces, or with internal struggles, for power, and for control, between various ambitious leaders. DirectDemocracyS does not have a single leader, each user is exactly the same as another user, and all together, we are a single leader who manages and controls all our activities. We always put the motto into practice: one for all, all for one.

We could go on explaining the differences, but we would write too long an article, suffice it to say that unlike the old politics, for us, everything we say, write, or show are commitments made towards our voters, and we carry out, everything we promise.

We have written clear, detailed rules that everyone respects. With us, there are no, and will never exist, the "smart", who can exploit our rules, and our method, for their own interests. Our method works, and cannot fail, because we have foreseen everything, and because we have been working hard on it, many users, for a long time.

Finally, we give you some reasons not to join us. Yes, you read that right, we are giving you some valid reasons to never join us. We are not crazy, but we like to let you know which people we do not want with us. It's the clearest way to do it, by giving you reasons not to join us.

The main reason is that despite there being equality of opportunity, and the same, identical, possibilities for everyone, meritocracy is always put into practice here. Only those who truly deserve it can have the possibility of obtaining important roles, with important responsibilities, internally and externally. There is no real hierarchy, but each activity of each of our users is evaluated by our system and by our specialized groups, and only the best will be able, for example, to stand as our political representatives in the elections, and represent us, in case of victory, in the institutions. Each of our users works, alone or in groups, to make all our huge mechanism work in a coordinated way. So, in a nutshell, people who are incapable or dull will hardly join us, especially at the beginning, because they will not be able to understand our political organization and our enormous potential.

The second motivation is that we all have to work together, 20 minutes a day, or at least 2 hours a week, because the world doesn't change, and it doesn't improve by itself, but there is a need for continuous commitment, by everyone, in various ways. Not everyone likes to commit themselves and others. We had about ten people who told us: I don't join you, because political representatives are paid to decide, and I don't want to do their job, especially for free. Technically, they are right, but our question is: does the old policy always decide well, is it honest, sincere, respects its promises, and respects every commitment made with its constituents? If the answer is yes, those who don't join us are doing very well to stick with the old politics. If, on the other hand, the answer is no, we are right to want to change and improve all politics with our innovation and alternative. Therefore, the fact of obliging political representatives to make the best choice for everyone is a moral obligation for anyone. We do useless things every day, for many hours, lost, without obtaining any useful and concrete result. DirectDemocracyS gives back the power to all its voters to be masters of their present and future.

The third reason is because with us, the clever, or the ambitious, those who seek power, and money, only for themselves, have no chance of being able to realize their meanness. Since there is no leadership, all those who are selfish, greedy, and seek power (not deserving it), have no reason to join us. If by chance they manage to join us, they certainly won't be able to stay with us, and they certainly won't be able to slow us down, or stop us.

The fourth reason is that everyone can come to us to carry out their own projects, but no one can join us to teach us how to work. We have worked, we work, and we will always work, to expand our projects, without ever changing, not even a word, or even a rule, from the beginning, and those that have been added over time. We don't want to change anything, because each of our choices has been proposed, selected, discussed, and voted on by our members. There are no leaders, who decide, every decision is collective, based on individuals and groups, all coordinated, and who trust and respect each other. We had a hundred people who joined us to make us change, or the name, or the logo, or some rules, which they didn't agree with. We love all people, even those who think they know everything, but to join us, they must first of all know how to adapt and be compatible with our rules, our method, and our characteristics.

The fifth reason is of a technical nature. We have thousands (soon to be tens of thousands) of expert groups (only a very few of these groups are public), of all types, on every topic, all composed (except public ones), by hundreds, thousands (and soon from millions), of users each, who have worked, are working, and will work, to decide everything, based on the various topics, in a coordinated way. Traditional social networks allow anyone to carry out activities of all kinds, speaking and commenting on topics they do not know, in DirectDemocracyS, to access specialist groups, one must be a professor, or work directly, or have studied, or in some cases study, with excellent results, and with innovation, every topic, every subject, and every activity. This method allows us to have users, and political representatives, always informed, in a free, complete, independent, honest, competent, and disinterested way, on any topic, and on the various choices, with all the consequences, envisaged, for any choice. This method of ours is not liked by those who think they know everything, without having the right and necessary skills. Thanks to this feature, here, each person deals, only and exclusively, with things he knows perfectly, and accepts, sharing them, the decisions of the various groups, even though he can contest them, based on detailed rules. Many like to have their say on every topic and do not accept the competent and honest opinion of others. It is a bit the defect of those who believe that they have all the answers, on everything, thanks to search engines. The thing we don't like is that the right results, which are found on the internet, are not easily distinguishable from the wrong ones, for those who are not experts, therefore, many tend to assume that only the information is good and right, who confirm their thoughts, and their theories, often based on simple intuitions, assumptions, without real, guaranteed, and reliable evidence.

The sixth reason is somewhat connected to the fifth. The search for truth often leads some to consider their theories as absolute truths. Let us briefly clarify this fundamental concept, with some information, and some examples. Each of our articles, which is published on our website, in the main menu item: Law, which contains information, rules, instructions, is historically proven and scientifically flawless, therefore, no one can dispute what we write, without making a bad figure. Thinking of one thing, or having, even a legitimate suspicion, for us, is not equivalent to absolute truth. We consider only the news, which we can verify, to be authentic, and we do not rely on "partially reliable" sources, not adequate, because we know well that not all people always tell the truth, including multimedia, and the information, even "official", in general. Even the ways of presenting the news, to make people reach the desired conclusions, by those who give the news, are not part of our method. We trust our groups of experts, who also have the fundamental purpose of confirming what "they say around". Many people, who base their lives on what is said around, often on assumptions, we don't need, as we don't want with us, people who tell us proud: I think, with my head. First, because you don't think with your head, but with a part of your brain. Second, because those who think they know all the truths certainly don't need us, and our project. Without a doubt, he can obtain leadership roles in traditional political forces. Third, because we, unlike those who do not have the technical and specialized means to distinguish the true from the false, always prefer to question everything, everything, verifying it, and if we write, say, or show something, it must be, only the truth. Search engines mix truths with falsehoods, good with evil, right with wrong. Our groups, made up of experts, help us choose, competently, without making mistakes. We will make various articles dedicated to the Internet, which does not contain only the right things, and the truth, and how people, who think they are intelligent, are unable to distinguish the true from the false. We will also talk about the mania for protagonist, of many users, of social networks, who feel the irresistible need to say their own opinion, on everything, on every topic, often, making a bad impression, demonstrating their ignorance to everyone. In some cases, they demonstrate malice, envy, frustration, hatred, for anyone who is rich, famous, or, for those who are involved in politics. Maybe not everyone knows that politics is the exact mirror of the population that votes, and those who don't vote, however, by not expressing themselves, deserve all the politics there is, because they leave the task of choosing to others. In many cases, there is a large dose of anti-Americanism, where everything is blamed on the United States. In some cases, the United States has made bullying, wrong choices, and mistakes (and we do not hesitate to point them out, and always condemn them), but they are not to be hated, on the contrary, we should carefully study the whole of history (and not only the parts, which suit us), and then eventually, follow long courses in logic. Often, the United States is hated for old utopian ideals, such as communism and statism, which luckily for all, no longer exist, in any country in the world, but where they have existed, they have left bad memories, and shameful results often tragic. For example, the countries of Eastern Europe, although in some cases rich, are more than 50 years behind, in all, compared to the Western countries, which were under the protection of NATO and the United States. Or Russia, which from exploitative tsarism had an exploitative and incompetent communism, and then passed to an oligarchic, exploitative, incompetent and cruel dictatorship. China itself has renounced, in many cases, corrupt statism, and moved on to an equally corrupt, but more just, semi-capitalism (always, with the usual, anti-democratic, single party). The United States, at least, allows everyone to speak up, protest, and hate, even frustrated people, who always have to blame someone for their inability to create a decent life. If something goes wrong, instead of finding solutions and putting them into practice, what is simpler and more comfortable is to blame someone, or something, for your failures. But the worst imbeciles are those who consider themselves superior and blame other citizens (who are considered uninformed and manipulated) for the current situation. If you ask these people, who "have no faults", who they would have voted for, they say, that is private information. They are also ashamed of the failed and incapable political forces that they themselves support. Like those who say, with every piece of news: are you talking about this fact? And they add: but there are other important facts to talk about. To these people, we explain clearly that the information, even the false one, from various news, and certainly deals with, various topics, even those, which interest users who protest (just search, and you will find everything), because they are not interested to a certain topic. Already the fact of commenting on news that is of no interest is stupid, exactly as it is to say: I don't want to watch this TV show, or: I won't watch it. So, someone should care that a complete stranger is not interested in some news, or does not watch, a certain program on TV. Perfect strangers, who give judgments on everything, and they believe they are always right, and always prefer the best things. Their judgment does not interest anyone, and the tastes of anyone, for anything, are not discussed. If we don't like something, it's enough for us to comment, only the things we like, without judging the tastes and interests of other people. There are no better tastes in anything, and no worse ones. And on TV, dear friends, fortunately you have many programs to choose from (you just need to learn how to use the remote control), or you can read a good book, without considering those who watch a specific program "inferior". Many boast that they don't watch TV, and that they don't follow the "official media" (although, we have to admit, not all official information is false). These people boast of their ignorance, TV is full of interesting programs, including culture, science, and other useful programs. This need for protagonism, which our specialists consider a real disease, and certainly a modern phobia. There are important studies, some supported, and carried out, even by us, which demonstrate that the need to say one's opinion on everything is like an addiction, in many cases, it is the desire to have an opinion, to make it public (although knowing, in one's unconscious that nobody cares) and is dictated by the need to have someone who can know how they think, and maybe find someone who responds, even to senseless comments. Others boast of not believing the official sources of information, and if you ask them: where do you get your absolute truths, often they don't answer, or they give you links, to websites, or to credible groups, such as a $3 bill. What a sad life they must have, no longer believing in anything except a few "friends" who tell them “Their truth", the one that they themselves want to hear. Unfortunately, these "informed" are almost completely unrecoverable, they live in their "sad alternative world". Others love animals more (which certainly deserve love and protection), than humans, because they themselves are of the "human race" of generalizations. To these people, humanity is all evil, all guilty, if these people are frustrated, and certainly in a pitiful state. If something fails you, if your life sucks, instead of wasting time, showing off your ignorance, find the strength, and the courage, and the way, to change and improve your lives. Certainly, it is more difficult and tiring, but at least it solves your problems. One must never generalize, and write sentences, from mentally ill people like: we deserve extinction. Indeed, whoever writes these sentences, or who has certain behaviors, makes the statement, despicable, and from heartless people, about extinction partly true and correct. Then, there are people, who put laughing smileys on shocking news, which immediately make them angry, other people, perhaps equally stupid, who write the inevitable comments, such as: but whoever puts a laughing smiley face, what problems do they have. Every person is interested in commenting on the stupidity, and lack of empathy, of other people. There are also the nice ones, who have to make everyone laugh, as they often do, during their sexual performances. You see, at least our jokes make a smile, even on the sad truth. And we are certainly not referring to our sexual performance, which, with a few exceptions, which we all know, is excellent. There are also, people paid to write certain things, who are sold, for economic interest, or others, politically aligned, to do a "brainwashing" to "minds in difficulty". There are political forces that have a despicable need to create social hatred and riots in order to obtain consensus and votes, and then do worse than the others once they have obtained power. All these bad habits, and waste of time, show you what kind of world we live in, and we'll let you in on a secret. Some of us, seeing what kind of people there are around, feel slightly discouraged, and many of us, every now and then say: but it's worth it, working hard, and wasting your precious time, to change and improve the world, even to this type of people? Then, we find our "motivators", who tell us, that there are many good people, who deserve, a different and better life, and that obviously, there will be many people, who reading this article, will start to behave well, avoiding behaviors wrong. Even if not, many will reach this point of reading this article, many will give up and stop reading, after the first few lines, without going down to here. Too bad for them. Before moving on to the seventh reason, we want to make a dutiful clarification. When we write about theories, or ideas, without evidence, or undocumented, we do not condemn those who think differently, for any topic, on the contrary, we have dedicated groups, in which every theory, even the most bizarre, is proposed by anyone, who has the opportunity to explain his theories to anyone interested. We analyze them, with our experts, because there may be good ideas, and truths to discover. But in an official way, we say safe and proven things, but for those who consider us: closed, and without mental openness, we tell you clearly, that we do not throw anything away, and every idea, theory, even every probable conspiracy, is analyzed. If the proofs are found, of every affirmation, we will be happy about it, and we will work for that too. Maximum open-mindedness, such as we require, of anyone to join us.

The seventh reason not to join us is because, for some, we are presumptuous, and we always have all the answers ready, we are unnerving, because we think we know everything. This is due to the fact that we have competent people and groups of experts with us, who do an excellent job, whom we all trust 100%. So, we have every reason to be presumptuous, and we actually have all the answers ready. And then, if we're proud of our work and our results, we don't think we're so annoying. The truth, in some cases, is annoying, because anyone would like to have had our ideas, and then, they would have wanted to create all this. It is always said: “the fox, which does not reach the grapes, says it is unripe”. Ours is a collective work, and even the excellent results, which make us proud, must be shared, and the credit goes to all of us. As we have written, thousands of times, we have no leader (but we are all leaders), in the same way, our ideas belong to all those who are with us and will join in the future, adding their own ideas, and their own projects. Our first ideas, integrating with those of anyone who joins us, will always be bigger, as long as we don't try to distort, or change the meaning, and the ideas we've had from the beginning. This method of ours could be the eighth reason not to join us. But we confess to you that we will use it forever, never to lose, and for any reason, our identity, and our characteristics, which make us unique, innovative, and alternative to all the rest of politics. How many times do we repeat certain words, always in pairs, or in groups, to explain well, each of our choices, and the logical motivation. Because we, we do nothing, without a valid reason. We can assure you.

There are many other reasons not to join us. We have written a lot, to make everyone understand how we are, and to be able to choose, in an informed manner, whether to join us, or whether it is better not to. In some cases, many will prefer to wait, to see if we will have all the success, we are sure we deserve.

Friends, of course, the reasons for joining us are more numerous, and more important, than those for not.

To understand everything, on DirectDemocracyS, to discover all our motivations, you have to read, very carefully, even a couple of times, each of our articles, from the beginning to the end (it takes a lot of time, patience, open-mindedness, but you will avoid surprises). These articles make us "very unpleasant", and make us consider presumptuous, by those who believe, to be able to join us, to change our political organization according to their own conveniences and tastes. Nothing is changed, things are added, without distorting anything, because unlike many who join us, all of us have enormous, infinite respect for all the work done by those who have been in DirectDemocracyS for the longest time ours. Therefore, if you cannot accept these rules, and this method, you are perfectly free not to join us, as we are completely free, to select, with great care, anyone who wants to join us. If the love isn't mutual, it can't work, so better not start, the relationship.

Each of you, reading our articles, will find many reasons to "hate us", but you will surely find many more to love us. So, choose, based on what you think is best for you, for your present, and for future generations. Just one piece of advice, from the bottom of my heart, get busy directly, with us, or with others, so as not to leave all the power it does not deserve to the old politics.

We offer you the only alternative, credible and functional. The world population, at the right time, will all be informed of our existence, in a complete, and we anticipate, certainly innovative way. Each person will be able to choose between us, and them. And we are all confident that they will be able to choose the best political organization, namely ours, DirectDemocracyS.