Trump the Pope elections in Hungary

🔵 Official Positions of DirectDemocracyS

(April 2026 –)

In April 2026, several significant international events occurred. Many people asked us to clarify our official positions, both on global situations and on specific cases.

This is a clear, accessible, and structured summary of our assessments.

🌍 1. International conflicts and energy

The conflict between Israel, the United States, and Iran continues, with the Strait of Hormuz frequently blocked.
The consequences are clear:

• increase in oil prices
• increasing energy costs
• direct impact on citizens and economic activities

Our position remains consistent:

👉 Every military escalation causes enormous damage to civilian populations , even when it is justified for strategic or security reasons.

🕊️ 2. Freedom, rights and role of citizens

For DirectDemocracyS, freedom is a fundamental value.

It is not an abstract concept, but something as concrete and necessary as:

• waterfall
• food
• medical care
• instruction
• social participation

👉 Freedom is like oxygen: without it, you can't truly live.

The basic principle is simple:

➡️ the freedom of each individual ends where that of another individual or group begins

From this derive:

• political pluralism
• right of expression
• possibility of public criticism

🚨 3. Repression and use of force

Our position is clear:

👉 No power should use violence against peaceful protesters

If it happens:

• whoever orders must be removed
• whoever carries out must assume individual responsibility
• law enforcement must protect citizens, not repress them

If this does not happen:

• there must be independent investigations
• fair trials
• severe penalties for the guilty

⚠️ 4. Manipulations and infiltrations

Recent history shows that:

👉 Peaceful demonstrations can be infiltrated by violent groups
to provoke unrest and justify repression.

Our proposal is practical:

• isolate the violent
• document everything
• hand over evidence to the authorities

This protects:

• the protesters
• the police
• the citizens
• public and private goods

🌐 5. When should the international community intervene?

In current systems, the answer is often:

👉 “it depends on the interests”

We believe this is one of the main limitations of the global system.

The current international system, including the United Nations, is:

• conditioned by balances of power
• limited by mechanisms such as the veto
• often ineffective in the most critical moments

👉 This leads to inconsistent interventions:

• rapid in some cases
• late or absent in others

🧩 6. Our proposal: people's protagonism

DirectDemocracyS proposes a different model:

👉 change must start with the populations

Preferably through:

• peaceful protests
• conscious participation
• organized civil disobedience

Practical example:

• suspension of non-essential activities
• maintenance of vital services
• massive and peaceful presence in the squares

🛑 7. Terrorism and organized violence

A fundamental principle:

👉 No state or organization should have as its objective the destruction of a people or a country

Because of this:

• terrorism must be stopped
• all forms of systematic violence must cease

Our solutions focus on:

• the populations
• honest people present in every society

🇱🇧 8. Escalation in Lebanon

Recent events in Lebanon show a spiral of violence:

• state military actions
• activities of armed organizations

👉 both contribute to instability and civilian casualties

Our position:
➡️ Stop the escalation
➡️ Protect civilians
➡️ Progressively reduce all forms of violence

🗳️ 9. Elections in Hungary

The recent elections marked a significant political shift.

DirectDemocracyS did not provide voting instructions.
Not out of disinterest, but out of consistency with our method.

👉 By not participating directly:

• we don't impose choices
• we do not artificially influence

Our approach is different:
➡️ observe
➡️ analyze
➡️ evaluate the results over time

⚖️ 10. Beyond right and left

DirectDemocracyS does not identify with:

• right
• left
• center

👉 We believe these categories are often limiting.

At the same time, we have a clear position on history:

➡️ Nazism and Communism were criminal regimes

Responsible for:

• repression
• violence
• limitations of freedoms

👉 These systems may have some useful theoretical elements,
but taken together they have caused enormous damage.

Because of this:

• we don't consider them models
• we do not consider them replicable
• We only analyse isolated technical aspects, never the system as a whole.

🧠 11. Freedom of expression and public debate

We live in an age of intense polarization.

It often happens that:

• a person is judged as a whole
• everything is accepted or rejected based on the "part"

We reject this logic.

👉 Every idea must be evaluated individually,
regardless of who proposes it.

🏛️ 12. Case: Political and religious leaders

Everyone should be free to express themselves:

• political leaders
• religious leaders
• citizens

👉 Freedom of expression applies to everyone

At the same time:

• mutual respect is fundamental
• Avoiding interference in the roles of others is desirable

👉 Criticizing is legitimate
👉 completely imposing or delegitimizing is often counterproductive

🏛️ 12. Freedom of expression and the relationship between political and religious leaders (in-depth analysis)

In the contemporary world, one of the main problems is the growing confusion between:

• personal opinions
• institutional responsibilities
• media influence
• ideological or emotional affiliations

This creates polarized reactions, where often the contents are not analyzed, but only "who said them".

👤 12.1 General principle

For DirectDemocracyS:

👉 Every political, religious or institutional leader must be able to express his position freely

But at the same time:

• no leader has universal moral or political authority over other sectors of society
• each role has a scope of competence
• mutual respect between institutions is fundamental

🌍 12.2 Protagonists and recent dynamics

In recent years and months, several episodes have clearly demonstrated these tensions.

🇺🇸 Donald Trump (politics)

Donald Trump
has repeatedly expressed strong opinions on international, religious and geopolitical issues, generating:

• very strong consensus in a part of public opinion
• very harsh criticism from elsewhere

👉 This shows how a single statement can quickly become a global identity clash.

🇺🇸 JD Vance (politics)

JD Vance
has often defended political positions related to the American administration and his own political orientation.

👉 Its role highlights another phenomenon:

• political loyalty tends to prevail over independent debate
• the statements are read as "positions", not as analyses

⛪ Pope (religious authority)

Pope Leo XIV
As a global religious figure:

• intervenes on ethical and social issues
• represents a worldwide spiritual community

👉 Tensions arise when:

• political leaders comment on religious issues
• or religious authorities are perceived as political actors

This easily generates media conflicts and conflicting interpretations.

⚠️ 12.3 Central problem emerged in recent history

Events of recent years (international conflicts, political crises, religious and social tensions) show a recurring pattern:

• every statement is amplified by the media
• opinions become "fan bases"
• the ability for rational analysis is lost

Typical examples include:

• wars and geopolitical crises where each side is supported or demonized without full analysis
• discussions between political and religious leaders transformed into ideological clashes
• polarization on social media, where only the parts that are "useful to one's narrative" are selected

🧠 12.4 DirectDemocracyS Position

Our position is simple and coherent:

1. Everyone has the right to express themselves freely
2. Each role must remain within its own area of responsibility
3. Opinions should be analyzed in content, not in faction
4. Respect must be mutual between politics, religion and civil society

🧭 12.5 Objective of our approach

We don't want:

• automatically take sides
• feed the fan base
• simplify reality into “good guys and bad guys”

Instead we want:

• promote rational analysis
• reduce polarization
• increase mutual understanding

🔚 Section summary

👉 Freedom of speech is a fundamental right
👉 But the responsibility of those who speak is equally important
👉 The modern problem is not what is said, but how it is interpreted and exploited

🧭 13. The problem with current systems

Many people:

• they just comment
• they vent on social media
• they remain passive

👉 This does not produce real changes

In traditional systems:

• individual opinion has little weight
• control over representatives is limited

🌐 14. The DirectDemocracyS model

Our system is based on:

• direct participation
• shared leadership
• continuous monitoring of voters
• collective ownership of the system

👉 Control exists:

• before the elections
• during
• even after

🇨🇭 15. Comparison with Switzerland

In Switzerland:

• 100,000 signatures in 18 months for constitutional changes
• long and complex processes

In our system:

👉 Each member can propose:

• ideas
• laws
• reforms

And the process is:

• analyses
• discussion
• test
• internal vote
• implementation

➡️ Everyone can really participate
➡️ not just a few

🔚 Conclusion

We don't ask for immediate trust.

👉 We only ask one thing:

➡️ Get informed
➡️ Analyze
➡️ Understand our system

If it really works,
you won't need slogans to convince you.

Further details, explanations, and motivations.

Many important events occurred in April 2026, and many people are asking us for our official positions on current events in general, and specifically on certain countries and individuals.

The Israeli and US attack on Iran continues, and with the Strait of Hormuz almost permanently blocked, oil prices, and therefore fuel and electricity prices, have increased rapidly, with serious repercussions on the population and various businesses.

This news contains a lot of information and deserves our comment, even though we already expressed our opinion after the first attack, a few weeks ago, which we confirm.

Simply put, for us at DirectDemocracyS, every totalitarian regime must be stopped by its own people and replaced with one decided by the people, one that guarantees individual and group freedoms, potentially infinite, but which end exactly where the freedoms of another individual or group begin. These freedoms, for us, are as important as water, food, healthcare, medicine, education, culture, and social activities. Freedom for our system, and for anyone who joins us, is like oxygen for living beings dependent on it: without it, we cannot live! The most important beneficial consequence of freedom is political pluralism, which in turn enables a "democracy" that is never real, never authentic, never continuous, never fully functional, and never safe and secure, unless it is implemented by our system, on our platforms. Another consequence of freedom is the ability to complain if something doesn't suit us, publicly, peacefully, intelligently, and decisively.

For us and for anyone who joins us, anyone in power who orders the shooting of protesters or the use of violence against peaceful people should be immediately removed from power, and every military and law enforcement command position should refuse to carry out the order and defend their citizens by all means.

But what happens if law enforcement officers fail to defend their citizens? They should be reported, investigated, charged, tried, and if found guilty, punished very severely. People cannot be killed, injured, threatened, or intimidated, not even in dictatorships. The same procedures apply to all those who ordered, transmitted, and carried out orders against peaceful protesters.

Various cases have shown that many regimes know how to infiltrate violent individuals into peaceful demonstrations, causing unrest and thus encouraging a violent response from authorities and law enforcement. Our solution to these cases: isolate the violent individuals from peaceful groups and hand them over to law enforcement along with videos demonstrating their behavior. This not only prevents a violent response from law enforcement, but also prevents destruction, injuries, and killings, which could harm protesters, non-protesters, law enforcement, and all the property of people who have done nothing wrong.

But what happens if law enforcement kills many protesters? Even one injury is already a very serious incident, and in those cases, one must be extremely careful. As with violent protesters, law enforcement responses could also be orchestrated by political forces seeking power, and the same rules apply: film and identify, or identify, the culprits.

But what is the limit beyond which the international community can intervene? In traditional systems, and with the political forces that existed before DirectDemocracyS, the answer is: it depends. On what? On strategic, economic, power, and wealth interests. In some countries, intervention is made earlier and more decisively; in others, also for geopolitical reasons, it is delayed, poorly executed, and often completely useless.

We don't want to lecture anyone; it's not our duty to teach anyone anything. For DirectDemocracyS, every dictatorial, violent, oligarchic, party-based, and one-track regime, where opponents and dissidents are killed, tortured, injured, imprisoned, or rendered ineffective, must end immediately, thanks to their respective populations, possibly peacefully, intelligently, and determinedly, or through widespread civil disobedience. No citizen of any public opinion shows up to work, anywhere, whether state or private, in schools, universities, but only essential services are guaranteed—healthcare, pharmacies, freight transport, especially food, and water. Everything else stops, and we all take to the streets together, peacefully, asking for protection from the police.

But if protesters are killed, is the international community authorized to intervene, and how? From the beginning, DirectDemocracyS invented and implemented within itself the world organization of peoples, precisely because the United Nations is practically useless, impotent, politically managed, subservient to the superpowers, and makes decisions, often blocked by antiquated and ineffective veto rights, with the usual geopolitical, economic, financial, and strategic interests in mind. In some places, intervention is necessary, in others, not, because all it takes is one superpower to get in the way, and the international community's action becomes as useful as a bucket of sand in the desert. Calculate how many conflicts there are currently, and how many there have been in the past, and you will understand perfectly how useful and decisive the international community, the United Nations, and other similar bodies are. Our proposals and ours are pioneering; we explain them here incompletely and superficially, but we have and are organizing every necessary activity and detail.

The previous attack was compounded by Israel's invasion and extremely violent attacks in Lebanon, resulting in massive civilian casualties. Here too, the spiral of violence is fueled both by the Israeli government and its armed forces and by various terrorist organizations, which no one is able, or willing, to eradicate.

Another premise.

A state or a terrorist organization must not and cannot have as its objective the destruction and extermination of an entire people, and an entire country. Therefore, all measures must be taken to permanently quell any threat, provocation, and violent activity, and the first step is undoubtedly to end all terrorist activity. We also have our own concrete proposals and solutions for these problems, placing, as always, the populations at the center and making them the protagonists, and above all, all the good people who exist within each of them.

Another interesting topic: the Hungarian elections, which saw the clear and likely definitive defeat of Prime Minister Orban, after 16 years in which, like every politician from the old and failed systems and political forces, he did more harm than good to his own people. We have been accused of failing to take a clear position, advising Hungarian voters on who to vote for. DirectDemocracyS Hungary did not provide voting advice, as we as a political force did not participate, nor did our candidates. This is not out of disinterest, but because, based on various internal and external polls within our system, it was already clear how the outcome would turn out, and the people had clear ideas. We cannot make direct assessments of the various platforms, which are very different, but we can say that there are no left-wing political forces, also because in a normal country, with people who use logic and common sense, after having learned the damage of communism, they do not vote for those who come from or are on that side. We at DirectDemocracyS are neither right nor left, nor centrist, nor anything that goes with it. We don't have our own ideals, which are often pioneering, very practical, pragmatic, confident, and, above all, work optimally for the common good. Time will tell whether Prime Minister Magyar is better or worse than his predecessor. We want to be optimistic and realistic in saying that he will hardly be able to do worse than his predecessor, and this is true in many countries where the previous governments have been defeated.

A very divisive topic (after all, other systems and political forces thrive and do what they please thanks to divisions) is President Trump's recent statement against the positions of Pope Leo XIV, with Vice President Vance obviously defending his "employer." First, a brief premise. If we were to publicly comment on everything President Trump says, does, thinks, or proposes, we would waste our precious time on pointless things that only benefit those who, without controversy, without necessarily taking sides, without envying, denigrating, and even hating one or the other, would have nothing to say or do during their days. We are certain that people—fortunately not all, but far too many—are so manipulated that they are incapable of appreciating the right things, which anyone can, even by mistake, propose and do. Manipulation and division have practically prevented many good people from thinking for themselves. If a person or political force isn't liked by influencers, or by their favorites, or isn't on their political side, they're automatically judged poorly, even extracting parts to confirm their own assessments, eliminating every tiny bit of positive. This completely flawed mentality, this lack of reasoning (why reason if others are already doing it for us?), this superficiality, and this laziness, result in all the news we see, and all the problems we know about. Fortunately, many people understand that sitting on the sidelines, passively complaining on traditional social media, spewing venom , envying, denigrating, proposing, and organizing social revolts (which no one will actually do, and which no one will be able to manage if they do) doesn't solve problems, and the satisfaction of having expressed one's insignificant opinion (not because it's wrong, but because in the old systems, anyone's opinion counts for nothing) lasts a very short time, and the next day it starts all over again, and the next, the same thing over and over again. Those who hate Trump, even if they previously hated the Church and couldn't stand the Pope, will clearly side with the Vatican. Those who, on the other hand, are followers of the American President will say: well done Trump, finally someone who says the right things, in the right way.

And what about us at DirectDemocracyS? Will we be biased, or politically correct? Will we be ambiguous, or easily understandable? You be the judge.

Trump said one of his many bullshit statements, one that will cost him dearly in the next election, and the ones after that. A businessman, a politician, and no other man can afford to teach the Pope how to do his job, namely, the Pope. The same goes for every leader of any religion, who we believe must always be esteemed, respected, and continuously defended, without any preference. We don't do this to appear good or righteous, but because that's what we decided from the start: to respect everyone, but not allow anyone, in any way, any kind of interference in our system. President Trump said this legitimately, because if the Pope is free to say what he wants, Trump should be free to do so too, without anyone attempting to limit his freedom. Likewise, Vice President Vance is free to express his opinion, as are all people in free countries. Is this a fall from grace by Trump? One of many. But everyone involved, and even all citizens, are free to express themselves, even to cheer for and support only one side, without ever understanding the reasons of others. We still advise you to have an open mind, to get comprehensive information, and to form your own opinion, but with an open mind, free from partisanship and stadium-like fandom. At DirectDemocracyS, everyone's ideas and projects are of vital importance to us, because every person is important to us, indeed, fundamental.

We're often compared to Swiss direct democracy, but DirectDemocracyS actually works, and it's very secure. It's truly and completely shared leadership, with collective ownership of the entire system by all members. It's fully managed and fully controlled by our voters, our platforms, and our political representatives, before, during, and, for the first time in the world, even after elections. So we're not only the only authentic democracy—direct democracy—but we're also the only one that's continuous over time.

Let's see how a popular initiative is proposed in Switzerland: To propose an amendment to the Federal Constitution in Switzerland via a popular initiative, 100,000 valid signatures from citizens eligible to vote are required, collected within 18 months of the official publication. Here are the details on the procedures and numbers:

Number of signatures required (Federal Level)

• Popular initiative (to amend the Constitution): 100,000 signatures in 18 months.
• Optional referendum (to oppose a law of Parliament): 50,000 signatures in 100 days.

Startup and collection modes

1. Promoting Committee: The initiative starts with a group of citizens (usually a committee) who formulate the text of the proposal.
2. Preliminary examination: The text is submitted to the Federal Chancellery to verify its formal conformity before starting the signature collection.
3. Signature Collection: The collection must be done using official forms, either paper or, in some cases, electronically (currently being tested). All Swiss citizens with the right to vote (adults, not disqualified) may sign.
4. Certification: The collected signatures are sent to the signatories' municipalities of residence for certification of their right to vote.
5. Deposit: Certified signatures are delivered to the Federal Chancellery.

Once the signatures have been deposited and validated, the Federal Council and Parliament discuss the initiative, potentially proposing a counter-proposal, before submitting it to the final vote of the people and the cantons.

Note: At the cantonal level (e.g., Ticino), the required numbers are lower (e.g., 7,000 or 10,000 signatures depending on the type of legislative or constitutional initiative). 

How do you propose and organize the same thing in DirectDemocracyS?

Every official member of ours, who has an idea or project, even a constitutional reform, proposes it to our support groups, and our entire system, including everyone involved, after analyzing, discussing, testing, and voting on it, actively and concretely works to bring it to fruition. Quickly, the final law approved by all, with all the signatures collected and all the various external stages, will be voted on by the entire population, who will decide whether it is useful or not. Obviously, not all proposals will be approved internally, but the process certainly allows everyone to have a say, not just a few. Literally, all our members. Try doing the same thing in other political forces, and in other systems, and you'll see the differences.