A different and better politics

In this informative article, we'll explore why DirectDemocracyS's policies are significantly different from, and certainly better than, all the others. Toward the end of the article, we'll also discuss some of our official positions on other political forces and some global news. While we'll obviously be keeping a general overview, those interested in specific positions at the continental, national, and even local levels can contact our organizations in the various geographical, territorial, administrative, and electoral divisions.

When we introduced our DirectDemocracyS system, and thus our political organization, to a few carefully selected people in our initial stages, we really put them in a difficult position.

Our rules, our methodologies, our instructions, and above all, our motivations, were not, are not, and for some, will never be truly understood. By explaining to everyone our characteristics, our strengths, and therefore the things that make us unique and inimitable, we have found different types of people.

Fortunately for us and our system, not everyone was able to immediately grasp the enormous potential of our ideas, our projects, our activities, and we will immediately explain the reasons for this paradox: being happy not to be understood by everyone.

If DirectDemocracyS were understood by everyone, in the same way, at the same time, and from the very beginning, we would truly be overrun by too many people, of all kinds, with not very pleasant consequences. Our system, to function perfectly, requires continuous, yet gradual, and carefully selected growth. We don't need "flashes in the pan" that burn out quickly, but a living fire, fueled and kept alight by every single person who joins us.

With too much popularity in a short period of time, and too much immediate approval, it would be difficult to maintain our safety standards, and put the right people in the right places, and we would risk wasting too much time keeping away people who might or might not want to create problems, even small but annoying ones.

You see, dear friends: in this too, we are different, and certainly better than everyone else. We don't chase voters, and we don't beg anyone to join us, because we are confident in the strength and enormous value of our "system architecture," and we don't fear comparisons with any other system. Our communication methodology, which was not, is not, and never will be afraid of comparisons with all the others, was seen by some as presumption, vanity, and the "illusion of being different and better." Fortunately, these people didn't join us because they would have been just a burden to carry around for years. Those few people of this kind, curious to see our evolution from the inside, wasted precious time remaining ineffectual spectators, instead of working concretely and actively to become, together, the true protagonists of this system.

We always talk about shared leadership and collective ownership, which are the pillars on which our entire system is based—people, also supported and integrated by technology, our IT system, and our Artificial Intelligence model—because it's necessary to be part of the evolution, and not be overwhelmed by it. Shared leadership and collective ownership are essential to understanding the enormous errors of those who have judged us definitively and superficially, without carefully studying our entire project, which became a reality thanks to everyone's work. Even the often senseless criticisms, insults, and misjudgments helped us change, improve, and evolve, because they allowed us to explain our motivations, based on the need to be consistent and credible, from our first published words to the current situation, and into the future. The fact that literally every person who joins us truly becomes a shared leader, and every official member of ours holds a single, non-cumulative, non-transferable individual share, becoming a collective owner of our system, has ensured that everything we decide together is fair, equitable, real, loyal, reliable, secure, and therefore protected from any attempt at corruption, and above all from any tendency toward individualism.

DirectDemocracyS was not conceived, created, and implemented by a single person, nor even by a few leadership groups, which in all other systems create internal and external conflicts, often bordering on illegality. Instead, as is declared and demonstrable at any time: literally by everyone who joined us, with the conviction and desire to be a protagonist, not a mere spectator. It's obvious that, since not all people are the same, there have been varying degrees of involvement in our activities. We've had some less active users, and we haven't expelled them; we've let them choose when and how to engage in our shared work.

There were those who were taken aback by our innovation, which is completely alternative to everything that existed before us, and everything that will exist after us.

They couldn't understand why we were so sure of the validity of our ideas. They didn't understand, and perhaps never will, that being different and better isn't a sin, but a huge responsibility to change and improve the world.

The biggest and most understandable mistake was not trusting our own words, which, when analyzing the differences between us and everyone else, were always confirmed, and continuing to compare DirectDemocracyS with all the other systems. We know that to evaluate the differences and understand their potential, we had to put ourselves and the others on the same scale, but it's wrong to look at DirectDemocracyS, criticize it, and judge it using the same method used to evaluate other systems, because we're not "playing the same game." More or less all other systems have disappointed and often created enormous problems for countless people, and we, all together, seek and find credible and, above all, sustainable solutions, based on truth and reality, and not on promises and lies, simply to gain consensus. We won't give you undeserved gifts, but we will provide all the necessary means and all the opportunities to change and improve your lives, whether you join us—and we hope so—or whether you never do.

We told you from the very beginning: with just a few users, hundreds, thousands, millions, billions, or the entire world population, our system does not change qualitatively, but only numerically.

At this point, you may be wondering: if you're few, and if you don't have the necessary votes, you won't be able to win elections politically, and therefore you won't have the "numbers" to change and improve the world. Quality always beats numbers. Because numbers without quality don't create better conditions for the entire world's population, and as time passes, those with quality gain numbers, while those without quality lose out. Time is our best ally. We'll explain the reasons here too, even though we believe almost everyone has already guessed. All other systems are based on electoral consensus, then power is shared among a few leaders and powerful groups, the famous lobbies. DirectDemocracyS shares power on the basis of equality, always combined with meritocracy, with literally anyone who joins us. Are the two variants identical? No, they're the opposite of each other. And which is the best, the fairest, the most equitable, and the safest? DirectDemocracyS, there's not a single doubt. But when we published them from the beginning, knowing who we were—because we proposed, created, tested, evaluated, selected, and voted on them together—and making our rules, our methodologies, our unique and inimitable features, our system architecture, our potential, our security measures, and our motivations known, initially to a few carefully selected people, suddenly the first people appeared who attempted to bribe us, buy us, boycott us, slow us down, or worse, stop us. We had foreseen this, so there weren't too many problems, and above all, not serious ones.

In the politics of the past, and even the present, voters, and therefore the population, are taken into consideration and count for something only before elections, when the various political forces and political representatives promise things that are often unattainable or unsustainable, just to gain the votes of citizens who trust them. Often, however, when they win elections, they don't follow through on everything they promise, and their various programs are not fully implemented. But let's also analyze how the various candidates are chosen, by whom, and on what compromises? Are the best people really chosen, and are their voters offered proof of these skills, as well as proof of how the candidates are selected? Who decides the political programs, and what chance do voters have of being decisive and binding? If they are dissatisfied with their political representatives, can voters intervene, and if necessary, punish them, or replace them? Can any poor, intelligent, and competent citizen become, for example, President of the United States of America? Or can any poor, intelligent, and competent citizen become, for example, the Head of State or Government of a dictatorial or one-party country? Who is behind the various political forces, or even groups of people who claim to be anti-establishment? After elections, who decides? Can voters stop bad decisions or change them? Can voters propose and enforce their own decisions by their political representatives at any time? All of the above questions can be answered simply by thinking about them, or by getting informed.

Now let's see why our political organization is certainly different and better.

At DirectDemocracyS, all our voters, who have a verified and guaranteed identity, have complete control over our political representatives on our platforms before, during, and, for the first time in the world, even after the elections. Before examining some of the differences in detail, let's explain the previous sentence. Democracy means power to the people, and in no way does it mean the transfer of power after the elections to the political forces and their political representatives. Therefore, in traditional systems, immediately after the vote, all power no longer belongs to the citizens, but is transferred for many years to the various political forces and their political representatives. Therefore, it is a partial democracy, temporary in time, incomplete, and loses all its initial meaning. It becomes an oligarchic partycracy, and citizens, the people, do not even have the opportunity to propose or prevent any wrong decisions of the old political forces. At this point, you might say: popular referendums exist, but many signatures must be collected, the process is long, and citizens' decisions are often not respected. So, in short, referendums are rare, and almost never on important issues, and they almost never allow citizens to express themselves freely.

In DirectDemocracyS, any of our official members can propose an idea, a project, or a law. These ideas are always conceived, integrated, and improved by a group, involving numerous specialist groups. In a short time, proposals can be submitted to our analysis groups. Depending on their importance, they can be voted on and authorized by our specialized groups, and implemented and implemented by our political representatives. Or, if they are important laws, they can be voted on by our shared leadership, that is, by all our users with verified and guaranteed identities. Although we repeat it often, it is necessary to always clarify: only those who have joined us as our registered users/voters, and have a verified and guaranteed identity, can vote in our system officially and legally, precisely because they are members and because they have a unique identification number, which guarantees that there cannot be multiple personal profiles, and therefore, no more than one vote for the same person.

But how do we choose our political representatives? We have created various groups at various geographic levels for selection, verification, and authorization of our political representatives. These groups are composed of our specialists and our five local special groups, always from the smallest urban or rural area to the largest. Each of our official members, as the collective owner of our entire system, can request—and, if they meet all the requirements, obtain—a political representative profile to engage in political activity within our system, outside of it, or both. Each of our political representatives can participate in our closed online primary elections, first at the local level, then at the regional, state, national, continental, and international levels. All information about the types of users invisibly linked to your personal profile, our political representatives, and our official representatives can be found in their respective public information, or in their private information, visible only to our official members. The general rules for our closed online primary elections are also available in our private area, although we have discussed them publicly in several informational articles. Thus, unlike all other political forces, it is our registered voters/users, with verified and guaranteed identities, who choose our candidates, at every level, in real elections, through regular closed online primaries. Our voters/users with the right to vote, at every level, always receive a ranking with scores established by our experts, based on various selection processes, as well as the period of activity, and through extensive direct communication activities, to ensure equal selection, always rewarding the best candidates, based on the decisions of our users/voters. Of course, the documentation of the various candidate tests, and other information on how the rankings were created, are available to all our voters in our reserved areas. Furthermore, while we present these rankings and make our candidates known to every voter on our platforms, everyone votes for their preferred candidate, clearly explaining their decisions and assuming full responsibility for their choice and the consequences of their vote. But let's answer the other questions and see the differences.

Who decides political programs, and what chance do voters have of being decisive and binding? At DirectDemocracyS, our political representatives and our official members/voters jointly decide on all political activities on our platforms, in the various program groups, at every level, according to very detailed implementation rules. If they are dissatisfied with their political representatives, can voters intervene and, if necessary, punish or replace them? If they are dissatisfied with their political representatives, they can penalize them by withholding all the funds related to their political activities. In fact, they receive 25% of their salary monthly, with the remaining 25% of the annual total at the end of the year, provided they have kept the promises, programs, and orders of their voters/users on our platforms. At the end of the political representation activity, if our users/voters are satisfied with the work done by their political representatives, they can unlock the 25% for the entire term. Twenty-five percent of all revenue from political representation will be retained by our political organization and spent according to very detailed rules. If our voters/users decide something, and the political representative does not immediately follow the order, the immediate and irrevocable resignation for personal reasons will be mandatory. This resignation, for personal reasons, will be required for every candidate in our closed online primary elections for every possible political representation role at any level. Based on the votes of their voters in their respective groups, we can decide at any time to dismiss anyone. They are representatives, not holders of power, and must exercise it as directed by those who, with their vote, gave them the right to represent them in the various institutions. Representation, not the gift of power, in DirectDemocracyS remains with the voters' decisions on our platforms. Can any poor, intelligent, and competent citizen become, for example, President of the United States of America? Any of our official members who meet all the legal requirements to run for President of the United States, in our US groups, on our platforms, whether rich or poor, can run for any office, based on our online primaries and our selection of political representatives. Or can any poor, intelligent, and competent citizen become, for example, the Head of State or Government of a dictatorial or one-party country? The same answer above applies everywhere in the world. Who is behind the various political forces, or even groups of people who claim to be anti-establishment? Behind, in front of, alongside, above, and below DirectDemocracyS is a truly and completely shared leadership, composed of all our registered users with verified and guaranteed identities. And for all our activities, the protagonists are and will forever remain all our official members, who collectively own our entire system. After the elections, who decides? All our voters at various geographical levels everywhere make up our truly and completely shared leadership, composed of all our registered users with verified and guaranteed identities. Can voters prevent or change bad decisions? Under the previous rules, our voters/users on our platforms manage and monitor all the activities of their political representatives live, 24/7, and can therefore prevent any unauthorized decisions. Can voters propose and enforce their own decisions at any time? Under the previous rules, our voters/users on our platforms manage and monitor all the activities of their political representatives live, 24/7, and can therefore enforce any authorized decisions.

Now, after all this explanation, which policy is different and better: the old, traditional one, which is failing and unsafe, or DirectDemocracy? Again, the answer is obvious, logical, and simple: we are certainly different and better.

We must answer those who ask us questions not to justify ourselves but to make everyone understand our motivations, and this time we will do so briefly.

DirectDemocracyS does not make alliances, agreements, or coalitions, but isn't politics the art of compromise? Given the way our political organization is structured, which gives all power to the people, and therefore potentially to all our voters on our platforms, we have no need and no intention of making alliances, agreements, or coalitions with other political forces. If we win the elections (and with such a system, we are unlikely to lose), we will govern and make laws for the good of all, collaborating with everyone. If we don't win, we will wage a fair, equitable, loyal, and healthy opposition, voting for the laws our voters consider useful on our platforms, complimenting those who proposed them. Or, if our voters say they are unfair, we will vote against them, offering our solutions and collaborating to change and improve the laws, always for the common good. A fundamental rule of DirectDemocracyS is to decide everything for the common good, therefore for everyone, whether they are within or outside of us. Another rule is precisely that of not accepting any interference in our system, no political blackmail, and no compromise.

Right, left, or center? Democrats or Republicans? Progressives or conservatives? We have people within us from literally every old political force; therefore, we have together created the perfect political ideal, taking the few good things and eliminating the many bad things from all other ideologies, choosing together, internally. This is also one of the many reasons why we have no need for alliances, agreements, or coalitions. Our ideal in a nutshell? It may seem strange, but it's perfectly coherent: meritocratic communism and capitalism with a human face. We know that everyone has understood that we are against any kind of extremism, whether right-wing or left-wing, we are against any limitation of freedom, and against any kind of dictatorship. Let's also consider the fake Western democracies, with their real name: oligarchic partycracy. So, for these reasons too, we do not form alliances, agreements, or coalitions with any other political force. DirectDemocracyS has official positions based on logic, common sense, truth, reality, research, consistency, and mutual respect. It's therefore not difficult to know how we feel about various issues, other political forces, or their respective political representatives. We analyze the concrete facts, their decisions, and the consequences of their decisions. We offer our solutions, which are generally alternatives, because we have no masters and cannot be bribed, boycotted, slowed down, or stopped.

Is DirectDemocracyS a closed system reserved for a select few? Literally anyone can join us and be part of our shared leadership, after verifying their identity. After a certain period of time, if they wish and meet all the requirements, they can become our official member, and therefore collectively own our entire system. Therefore, we are open to all, although obviously, in the delicate and crucial initial phases, when we are laying the foundations of our enormous shared home, we are more selective for certain higher-level users, to prevent any possible reprehensible activity. Therefore, ours is not a closed system; rather, it is the only truly and completely open one.

Why only on your platforms? Because, like all our rules, all our activities, including our platforms, are part of our collective property, not of a few individuals or groups, but of all our official members. Security, complete mutual verification—and therefore of everyone on everything—and the traceability of all our activities and decisions are fundamental, and can be managed and controlled by everyone only on our platforms, which are optimally protected.

Must those who join the DirectDemocracyS system leave the other systems? No, those who join our system can continue to work, study, and engage in activities outside our system. Politically, however, our political representatives must engage in politics only with the rest of us, and only on our platforms. We demand exclusivity in politics, and anyone engaging in unauthorized external political activity will be immediately expelled and declared persona non grata by all of us. The reasons are logical: we must prevent any potential problems, such as corruption, internal or external infighting, and other reprehensible activities that could occur on other platforms.

And what happens if those who join DirectDemocracyS don't vote for their own political organization's candidates? We are consistent in this too. For us, freedom and democracy are fundamental, and if those who join us decide to vote for another political party and another candidate, they will assume full responsibility for the consequences of their choices. Let us explain: we can criticize anyone, but we have no right to judge free individual or group decisions. However, we all ask everyone to assume full responsibility for every consequence of their own coercion, of any kind. For their own activities, over which they have complete management and control, and for all the activities of their favorite political parties and their political representatives, over which only DirectDemocracyS has complete management and complete control, continuously over time. Let us explain even more: complaining about politics and the various systems is completely pointless if, having a valid, different, and better alternative, one freely chooses to vote for the old political parties or for others. The only moral, material, logical, and common-sense obligation is to assume full responsibility. It's like choosing evil from good; if you do that, you can't blame others. One of the most foolish habits is to allow ourselves to judge the choices of others, and even to blame others for collective guilt. In DirectDemocracyS, all together, but also in geographical groups, and in groups of any kind, we not only discover and punish the worst, rewarding the best, but for any activity that goes wrong, we assume full responsibility, and we will always seek to atone, with concrete action, for even the smallest mistakes. Look: in all other systems, this assumption of responsibility doesn't exist, or it gets "diluted" over time, or the blame is placed on others and never on our favorites, or perhaps the most execrable statement: it's collateral damage. Let me give you a simple example: if a dictator or a powerful man, or a group of such powerful men, orders a military attack or an embargo that causes thirst, hunger, disease, and death, the responsibility for all this lies not only with those who order these despicable activities, and all the others, but also with those who carry them out or support them (there are no mandatory orders if they cause pain and fear to others), but above all, all responsibility lies with anyone who voted for these individuals and these groups. It may seem exaggerated, but it is precisely this lack of accountability that causes many of the world's problems. However, we must limit ourselves to responsibility, allowing everyone the freedom to decide, even if it creates immense pain and countless problems. Those who will investigate, accuse, judge, and punish will be: the community and future generations, who will study us and be able to find the blame and, hopefully, also the solutions to the mistakes of past generations. And please, let's stop considering the new generations, and future ones, to be wrong, and saying that things are always getting worse, because it's absolutely not right, and it's not fair, in fact it's self-defeating, because every generation is the consequence of the previous ones, so anyone who says: in my day things were better is just an old man, a liar and a hypocrite.

Tricks and bad habits, not only political, but also individual and group ones. One of the many bad political habits is considering political opponents or other political forces as enemies, rather than entities with every right to exist and express themselves. DirectDemocracyS was not created against anyone or anything. It was born as an innovative system, an alternative to all others, and we have written informative articles explaining that, as an entire system (financial, economic, social, information, multimedia, sports, and even a charitable foundation), we are completely different and better than everyone else. We have no enemies, and we will not prevent anyone from legally carrying out their activities, as long as they do not attempt to copy our ideas and projects, and as long as they do not manipulate people, exploit workers, or destroy the environment. DirectDemocracyS cannot be partially copied, because it only works as a whole: as a solid system structure and architecture, with rules designed to achieve the best results, with consistency, resilience, and exceptional security measures. Anyone who copied our system only partially and incompletely would fail miserably, lacking the right people and the necessary methodologies to achieve the desired results. Anyone who copied our system entirely, in addition to committing illegal acts such as unfair competition and copyright infringement, would never, under any circumstances, be forgiven by the majority of good people, who cannot tolerate, support, or forgive those who copy the ideas and projects of others, even if they have not created them themselves. We cannot tolerate personal attacks; we simply analyze everyone's decisions and concrete actions, assessing their consequences and offering our solutions. We cannot tolerate anyone who dares to judge personal choices and preferences, as long as they also assume responsibility for them. Criticizing those who choose other political forces or prefer other systems would be a waste of time, and anyone who does so is wrong. We will never say: don't vote for a particular political party, perhaps trying to scare voters, as many people and political parties do, often creating external conflicts that are not in the public's best interests. We simply clarify the differences, and then, at the right time, sooner or later, everyone will understand our enormous potential and know how to choose our political representatives. Speaking of electoral challenges, many people tell us, via messages, that everything about DirectDemocracyS is great, but we are slow to grow and don't see our political representatives at every election. Our growth is deliberately slow, with a great focus on gradually raising awareness of our system, and giving priority to the most suitable people, and therefore those compatible with our system. We grow continuously but slowly, to put the right people in the right places, and this is essential to creating a solid foundation for our great common home. If you think about it, having so many good people in the most important and responsible roles will make it impossible for bad people to create any problems in the future. Therefore, our "natural selection" in the initial stages is intended to prevent any ethically and morally incorrect and reprehensible activities in later stages, especially once everyone knows about DirectDemocracyS, understands its mechanisms and enormous potential. The worst bad habit is laziness, which is often a consequence of superficiality. There are actually people who say: if I vote for someone, this political force, or these political representatives are paid to do their job; therefore, at DirectDemocracyS you are "stupid" for wanting to continuously and at any time decide what your political representatives should do. To these people, we respond: better to manage and control, to prevent bad or unjust decisions. We'll give you an example, but it applies to literally everything. When a powerful figure, or a traditional political force, orders, for example, an invasion or a military attack, all those who order it, and all those who approve it, must be the first to go to the front lines to fight. Do they do so? Would they do so if they knew they had to set an example of consistency? If they are so certain it is the right choice and the only option, let them do so and demonstrate dignity and consistency. Or let them assume personal civil and criminal responsibility for every death, every injury, every moral and material damage, and for the fear and inconvenience caused.

We'll give you just one simple yet tragic example: the cowardly Russian invasion of Ukraine. Since this article will last forever, like all the others, we'll explain what it's about. The Russian invasion of Ukraine is a large-scale military offensive launched by the armed forces of the Russian Federation on February 24, 2022. Key aspects of the conflict

• Origin: The attack marked a serious escalation of the conflict that began in 2014 with the annexation of Crimea and the war in Donbass.
• Rationale: Russian President Vladimir Putin called the action a "special military operation," falsely citing the need to demilitarize and "denazify" Ukraine, as well as opposing NATO expansion.
• International response: The European Union, the United States and allied countries condemned the aggression, imposing heavy economic sanctions on Russia and providing humanitarian and military aid to Ukraine.
• Humanitarian crisis: The conflict has generated the largest refugee crisis in Europe since World War II and huge human and material losses.

Four years after the start of the large-scale invasion, the human and material impact of the conflict has reached dramatic figures, with overall estimates speaking of over 2 million total casualties (dead, wounded, and missing) among military and civilians on both sides.

Official data and updated independent estimates outline the current situation:

👥 Civilian Casualties

The official data are collected by the United Nations, although the UN itself specifies that the real numbers are certainly much higher due to the difficulties of verification in combat areas:

• Confirmed deaths: At least 16,874 civilians lost their lives (including over 820 children).
• Confirmed Injuries: More than 51,200 civilians were injured.
• Current trend: In the first months of 2026, there was a sharp increase in civilian casualties (about 37% more) due to the intensified use of drones and Russian long-range ballistic missiles hitting urban centers far from the front lines. [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ]

🪖 Military Losses

Governments do not release precise official figures on their economic or human losses, but estimates by Western intelligence and think tanks such as the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) highlight a staggering human cost: [ 1 , 2 ]

• Russian Forces: Estimates indicate between 1,100,000 and 1,400,000 total casualties (killed, wounded, or missing). Of these, confirmed or estimated Russian deaths range from 325,000 to over 500,000.
• Ukrainian Forces: Western estimates put the total number of Ukrainian soldiers killed, wounded, and missing since the beginning of the conflict at around 600,000 .

🏚️ Material Damage and Reconstruction Costs

The destruction of Ukraine's infrastructure has reached historic proportions. According to the latest joint Rapid Damage and Needs Assessment (RDNA5) report by the Ukrainian government, the World Bank , the European Union, and the UN:

• Direct Damage: Direct material damage to Ukrainian infrastructure, homes and transport exceeded $195-197 billion .
• Cost of Reconstruction: Reconstructing Ukraine over the next ten years will cost nearly $588 billion (about three times the country's entire GDP).

The sectors most affected and requiring the greatest financial intervention are:

• Transportation: Over $96 billion in damage to roads, bridges, and railways.
• Energy: Approximately $91 billion . The power grid, power plants, and heating facilities were severely impacted by the winter attacks.
• Housing: Nearly $90 billion . Approximately 14% of Ukraine's entire housing stock was damaged or completely destroyed, leaving over 3 million homes damaged.
• Agriculture and Industry: More than $118 billion in total damage to factories, fields, and agricultural machinery.
• Demining: Approximately $28 billion will be needed just to clear the area of debris and unexploded mines.

Since the beginning of this vile invasion, we have been accused of siding with Ukraine and of being biased. For us, there are no privileged or disadvantaged countries and peoples, no masters or subjects. For us, every country and every people must be able to freely and democratically decide which economic and military alliance to join, and no one has the right to interfere or impose their will on others by force. Therefore, our official position is logical and sensible. However, there are those who tell us that we are not consistent , because our positions vary depending on whether the invasions and military activities are carried out by the United States or by other countries. Given that, for us, every invasion and military activity is wrong, as are all sanctions that cause suffering to people, especially the weakest and most defenseless, if certain countries overthrow dictatorships, hence authoritarian regimes, and if the people are better off after these actions, while not accepting violence of any kind, our positions are not equally intransigent. In practice, not all regimes and not all old systems are the same, and therefore even our positions, always consistent, can change slightly, if we try to offer better living conditions to various peoples and countries, with more freedom and democracy, which for us are like air, water, food, medicines, and health services, necessary for living.

We don't write information to justify ourselves; we don't need to be defensive. But if we publish something, we do it only to inform and to make everyone understand that behind every word of every single sentence, for every choice we make, for every decision we make, there are very valid reasons, and a truly collective and shared effort.

Behind our system is the concrete work of shared leadership, collective ownership, and for every person who joins us, groups of tens, hundreds, thousands, and soon tens of thousands, and even millions of members are created, who communicate, collaborate, and carry out a multitude of activities.

Our system astonishes everyone by its impossibility of attacking one or more of our leaders, for the simple reason that practically all of us are leaders; in fact, almost everyone who joins us immediately demands a higher level of user, and those who don't immediately demand it quickly, because higher levels of user offer greater potential. Our collective ownership of all our official members, however, eliminates all potential internal and external corruption, and responds to the writer Robert Michels, who in 1911, in his book Sociology of the Political Party, expressed a law considered universal: "Who says organization, says oligarchy." This may be true for many, perhaps for everyone else, but not for DirectDemocracyS, where everyone holds all the power, thanks in part to property rights, which alone solves many potential problems. Decisions in groups. The fact that each person in our system has their own group, and is in turn part of a potentially unlimited number of groups, which in turn communicate, collaborate, verify, and are verified by many other groups, just like individual users, makes the system safe, secure, resilient, fair, just, concrete, and very efficient.

Those who have decided not to vote, perhaps because they feel unrepresented by any political force, will surely understand by joining DirectDemocracyS that participation in political decisions is essential, not only for democracy but also for themselves and everyone else. Even those disillusioned with other political forces will find a different and better alternative in DirectDemocracyS. The only ones who will struggle to understand our system are those who, being too ideologically driven, perhaps by entire generations of one-sided politics, would not abandon—and perhaps never will—those who have long manipulated them, telling them what they want to hear, promising them a different life, almost always failing to keep their promises. Even those who are anti-establishment will be unlikely to join us, especially in our early stages, because unlike them, we don't engage in political activity against something or someone, but for and in the interest of all. We don't destroy anything, but we create a credible, concrete, real, true, just, fair, loyal, and efficient alternative that doesn't manipulate or exploit envy, hatred, resentment, or the desire to destroy everything. We don't offer credible changes and improvements based on programs that can be implemented and work, but only on empty and often meaningless slogans. But we can assure you that over time, everyone will study us with a fair and open mind, understanding the brilliance and attention to detail that clearly makes our politics, and our entire system, different and better. Everyone promises reforms, everyone promises change, but no one keeps all their promises, and almost no one enables all people, not just a privileged few, to live better.

We are integrating and democratizing new technologies and Artificial Intelligence, which frighten some, into our allddsAI system. We do not exclude anyone, but rather create our own system of collective management and verification, our own collective property, which makes it impossible for machines, and anyone who controls them, to embarrass humanity. We will never stop progress, but we will not allow a few to misuse it in an ethically and morally incorrect manner. The common good is fundamental, so after reading all this and all our information, if you understand it and like our method, and above all, if you feel compatible with all our rules, join us, and let's change and improve the world together.