We are pragmatic

Anyone who begins to study our system might at first glance think we are a complicated system, but instead it is all very simple, just always using a method that we revealed to you from the first article: logic, common sense, truth, study, reality, and mutual respect.
To ensure we always know our official position on everything, we'd like to add one more to this long list of adjectives, one that many sensed but few understood: pragmatism. For those unfamiliar, we'll briefly explain the meaning of this beautiful word: an attitude informed by a realistic and practical vision, aimed at achieving, sometimes even unscrupulously, concrete results; practicality, concreteness, realism.
To better explain why we are pragmatic, you should know that the concrete results achieved, to change and improve the world, and increase well-being for the entire world population, without any kind of discrimination, are worth much more to us than divisive philosophies and partisan ideologies.
To many, our primary goal—changing and improving the world—may seem too abstract; to others, it may seem utopian, impossible, and too general. Trust me, changing and improving the world is the only thing that matters to our system, and to anyone who joins us. But it's not enough. To be truly complete, we must do it with the well-being and interests of the entire world's population as our goal, without discrimination, always starting with concrete help and favoring—first, most, and for the longest time—those most in need. We don't do this to gain the support of those in need, but because it's logical, common sense, fair, and right.
You may have noticed that we have very ambitious goals, striving for significant results, for the well-being and protection of all. Economically, financially, and socially, expect radical, pioneering, intelligent, courageous, and highly efficient methods to achieve all our goals.
To do this, we need consistency, which those who have followed us from the beginning will have noticed and appreciated, in every word, every sentence, everything we've made public. And we assure you, the same applies to our internal structure. Inside, we're just as beautiful as you see us from the outside, perhaps even more so.
Those accustomed to other systems will be surprised by our simple, direct, and highly detailed communication style. What's surprising, however, is that all other systems only pursue their own interests, even influencing and managing nearly all political forces and their respective political representatives. While DirectDemocracyS, from the very beginning, has had the common good and everyone's interests as its fundamental principle.
Everyone knows that the fundamental rules in our system can only be changed by unanimity. For very important rules, significant majorities are required, even 75-85%; for important rules, around 65-75%; and only for rules of medium or lesser importance is 50% + 1 vote sufficient. These percentages must be reached for the first three votes based on the total number of our users eligible to vote, and only from the fourth vote onward will 50% + 1 vote be sufficient. The reasons for this can be found in our voting regulations, along with all the relevant methodologies, instructions, and rationales.
As you know, the unanimity required for the fundamental rules is a security measure, to prevent anyone from distorting our system for the interests of a few individuals, groups, or lobbies. This way, we won't forget why we were born, where we want to go, and how we want to get there. DirectDemocracyS will never lose its identity and its mindset, but will be able to evolve, integrate, and improve according to the needs of the future, always remaining modern, innovative, and alternative.
But what purpose does pragmatism serve? We are interested in the well-being of all citizens, especially those most in need, who must be able to live in conditions of potentially infinite freedom, both individual and collective, but which ends exactly where the freedoms of another individual or group begin. Total freedom is the only freedom that allows the implementation of our DirectDemocracyS system, and which allows democracy, with various political forces, of majorities and oppositions. These are long but very detailed sentences that need to be explained.
Always peacefully, and always based on popular will, every type of dictatorship must be eliminated everywhere in the world, especially in countries where living conditions are more difficult for the population. Dictatorships generally lack not only concrete opposition, but also freedom, and almost always the population lives in miserable conditions. Every peaceful change must have a positive impact, improving the lives of all citizens, preserving the integrity and sovereignty of the people, and, with DirectDemocracyS, and with anyone else, the full ownership of all the wealth within their geographical area by resident citizens, and dissidents living abroad. Let's look at some concrete examples: for example, Venezuela, which experienced the dictatorships of Presidents Chávez and Maduro, and the "nationalizations" of oil and other resources, with disastrous effects for the people. The population not only didn't live in a democracy, not only wasn't free, but they gained nothing from the superficial nationalizations, which made dictators and their supporters very rich and powerful, but kept the vast majority of the population in absolute poverty. Political crimes, imprisonment of dissidents, violence of all kinds, people fleeing in search of a better future, lack of medical care, medicine, food, and other very serious problems.
DirectDemocracyS was, is, and always will be on the side of the Venezuelan people, and of all those in difficulty, whether they live in dictatorships or partial democracies (because the only authentic and complete democracy is ours). If living conditions are miserable, the lack of freedom and democracy is an evil compounded by other evils. Therefore, any change that improves people's living conditions and provides greater freedom, and as a natural consequence, more democracy, must be supported and encouraged.
The armed intervention of the United States , with the capture and forced transportation abroad of the incumbent President Nicolas Maduro, has been discussed and evaluated by DirectDemocracyS, in 2 informative articles, the first concerning the military action, at this link:
https://www.directdemocracys.org/home/all-news/world-news/south-america-news/venezuela-news/us-attack-on-venezuela
The second, very important, article discusses the arrest of President Maduro and the terms of international law, which are analyzed in detail at this link:
https://www.directdemocracys.org/home/all-news/world-news/south-america-news/venezuela-news/arrest-of-president-maduro
Regardless of one's views, we must make some pragmatic and correct considerations.
What happens if a people wants to free themselves from a violent dictatorship, but they don't have the means? Should they allow bloody riots, widespread violence, countless deaths, countless injuries, and severe destruction, or should they perform "surgical" operations to depose dictators who are undoubtedly dangerous? From the perspective of international law, it is desirable that the people do so from within, because international law, and certain people who lack pragmatism and intelligence, are interested in respecting rules and traditions, rather than less violent innovations. In our view, the American attack could have been avoided, and would have been justified only in the event of a violent reaction by the regime to street demonstrations. But even then, how many deaths, injuries, and destruction can there be to warrant intervention by the invisible and useless United Nations? We have long proposed the creation of a People's World Organization, with distinct rules, methodologies, instructions, powers, and security measures that can prevent all forms of violence.
Regarding the real motivations for the United States' armed intervention in Venezuela, some people completely mistakenly compare it to the cowardly Russian invasion of Ukraine. First, the situation is different: Ukraine enjoys a partial democracy and greater freedom than Russia, where an oligarchic dictatorship exists. This allows a few "friends" of President Putin to manage, control, and exploit nearly all of Russia's wealth, forcing the majority of the population to live below the poverty line and, above all, to suffer a lack of freedom, resulting in the elimination and imprisonment of opposition political representatives. We have written several articles on the conflict in Ukraine, and we won't repeat all the concepts here. Let's just add one big difference: as of January 6, 2026, the Russians in Ukraine have been bombing for almost four years, with many dead, many wounded, much destruction, and much fear, both in Russia and especially in Ukraine. Meanwhile, the United States, in a few hours, in a single night, with a highly efficient military operation, changed the President, with few deaths (even one is too many for us), few wounded (even one is too many for us), and limited destruction (even a few is too many for us). Again, we are pragmatic, and we cannot compare the two military operations and their effects.
However, we will never agree, anywhere in the world, that a military operation, whoever carries it out, takes all the wealth of their respective countries . For us at DirectDemocracyS, this wealth must be the exclusive property of the population living in each geographic area. At the right time, we will make our plan for restructuring and reassigning wealth known worldwide (renegotiating all contracts) to those who have every right to manage, control, and exploit it: the population living there. They can, if they wish, enter into contracts that always respect real and concrete collective property, and always based on joint decisions, in the interest of the entire population.