Fear of DirectDemocracyS

The DirectDemocracy system rewrites, redesigns, redefines, changes, and improves society, all over the world, and because of this there are lobbies, almost all other systems, entire states, dictators, almost all the old, failed traditional political forces, many alternative political groups, and even some superficial people, who are afraid of our system.

As we always say: those who have done nothing wrong have no logical reason to fear us.

And all the others, if they try in every way to remedy their mistakes, will not suffer serious consequences.

We were never born to fight against old systems, or even to change them. Fighting them would be counterproductive, and would risk "innocent victims," while trying to change them would be a waste of time, and improving them would be impossible.

DirectDemocracyS is made up of an endless series of good ideas and projects, proposed by anyone who joins us, and in many cases, even by those who criticize us from the outside.

This last sentence is very important, because it explains the creation of the system, which is a long, arduous, detailed, and very complicated collective effort, not that of a few individuals or groups. There are no internal or external lobbies to help, no individuals to favor, and no interests to defend, except the interests of all the people in the world. Without preferences, without discrimination, without envy, and without hatred.

DirectDemocracyS is based on the greatest force in the universe, which is undoubtedly love, and this characteristic of ours makes us unique and inimitable.

We also have a unique feature: we transform criticism into proposals, and if they're deemed valid, they're integrated into our system and implemented. While constructive criticism initially represented concrete ideas and projects that could be used, now that we've already created all the fundamental rules, most of the very important rules, and many important rules, we use criticism of all kinds primarily to better explain some very important concepts. In any case, we want to thank those within, and even outside, who have contributed to creating a comprehensive and virtually unassailable system.

But let's talk about some fears that many people have because of us.

The biggest question at the beginning was who was behind it. And theories began to surface, based on suppositions, conspiracies, and we initially toyed with them, even having fun. The truth is very simple: even those who have joined us now, those who will join us in the future, and even those who won't join us but have contacted us with questions and suggestions, have contributed decisively to creating our system. We have serious reasons for hiding the names and surnames of the first five members (the creators), and of the subsequent 277 members (creators of the fundamental rules and architects of the system), as well as all the others who brought the initial ideas to fruition. But if we guarantee everyone the ability to be completely invisible (both from the outside and from the inside), and the option of remaining forever anonymous (using a nickname or a random code), we must guarantee these important opportunities to those who join us, from the first to the last user. But we must guarantee the confidentiality of personal data, including those who contact us and anyone who collaborates with us, even those outside our system. The personal choice of whether or not to be public figures must be guaranteed to everyone, and protected forever, for anyone, we repeat: inside or outside our system. Then there are those who, failing to correctly assess the importance and potential of DirectDemocracyS, fail to consider the potential risks, including physical ones, not only to our initial members, but especially to their families. They have created something of disruptive power, which will undoubtedly change and improve the world, but these improvements will surely annoy very powerful, wealthy, and famous individuals and lobbies, who will try in every way, futilely and unsuccessfully, to boycott us, slow us down, and even stop us. They will use every legal, and even illegal, means, every falsehood, and every possible "trick" against us, who will be able to respond with intelligence and determination. For these reasons, our attention to security measures, and the investments in this regard, are normal, and certainly not excessive.

The fear of granting too much power to DirectDemocracyS is illogical, and only those who are envious or hate us can truly believe that by making our existence known to everyone and winning elections everywhere, we would become the dictators of the world and pose a risk to humanity. These fears are unjustified, because from the very beginning, we were aware of the enormous responsibility we would have in managing the enormous power we will gain, and we have made it impossible for our system to take away freedom and democracy. We have created it morphologically impossible to corrupt, modify, influence, sabotage, and exploit in an ethically and morally incorrect manner.

To understand these rules, we need to take a step back to the moment when five people decided to create an innovative system, completely different from all others, with the goal of changing and improving the world. None of those present knew how to do it; there was no know-how, not even an instruction manual, to create a system from scratch. They decided to do it, fully aware of the enormous challenges and risks involved.

They knew it would be impossible to fight against the various systems, and impossible to change and improve them, so they took the most difficult and courageous path: creating the best system in human history. To do everything efficiently, they decided to first create the best political organization in human history, taking the very few positive aspects from all political forces and completely eliminating all the negative aspects. To begin this complex work of creation, 277 competent people from nearly every country in the world were selected. Brilliant minds, young and old, women and men, representing nearly all the major peoples of the earth, virtually all traditions and cultures, and the main religions. To be part of this initial group, number 00, called the initiators, creators, and guarantors, only one thing was asked of them: to set aside all divisions, to create a system that unites (with the slogan "united in diversity") , to set aside interests, to consider the needs and interests of all the good people of the earth, and to create something that will have an indefinite duration, to restore all power and dignity to the people, to all peoples, and not to individual political forces. An unattainable utopia? Study our system with a comprehensive, open mind, and you will understand that it is a concrete reality. Among the many important things to do was to foresee every possible problem and resolve it before having to actually address it. We created a joint group for the foresight and early resolution of potential problems.

Predicting the future isn't very difficult; just look to the past, and you'll find plenty of inspiration. Mainly, it's about "what not to do," and the most challenging part has been finding the right innovations to make our system complete and unassailable.

Over time, we've faced several potential problems to solve. The first of these is preventing anyone from misusing our system. We've created foolproof security measures, often copied without mentioning us by many others, because while they didn't invade anyone's privacy, they guaranteed us optimal protection. We've made them gradual and increasingly detailed, based on the user type of anyone who joins us, including our official representatives and our political representatives, who as such must, and always will, be willing to be fully vetted, as they publicly represent us (our official representatives) and represent our constituents (our political representatives) in elections and in institutions. If public figures had nothing to hide, they should have no problem complying with our rules and all the necessary checks to prevent any potential problems.

But it wasn't enough to have clean representatives; they also had to remain so, forever. Therefore, our checks had to be continuous over time, and we also had to use various tests to continually verify their honesty and reliability. We tempt them with gifts, money, and perks, to see if they give in to temptation. It's not about being dishonest, but we prefer to be the ones to uncover and force dishonest and liars to resign early, rather than suffer the consequences of their decisions, or worse, suffer the damage to our system's reputation that a single corrupt, thieving, lying, or unreliable representative can cause to DirectDemocracyS. Just look at how many people generalize, saying the worst things about the political class, obviously, sparing only their own favorites, to whom they forgive everything.

We are very strict with those who transgress our rules, which are all based on logic, common sense, truth, study, and mutual respect. We defend all our official representatives and all our political representatives intelligently and with all legal means, precisely because we are certain that these people deserve it. But if someone, anyone, lies to us even once, after analyzing the situation and judging their motives, we will always scrutinize everything they tell us. If someone steals, we will never trust them again, and we will never again assign them positions of great importance and greater responsibility. We will never put wolves to guard the sheep , but will choose competent, reliable, honest, and incorruptible people.

We had to find a way to force them to resign if they were found engaging in unethical activities: we created and made mandatory for everyone an irrevocable resignation for personal reasons, which must be completed and signed before applying for or obtaining any role. This may seem unfair, and in some cases illegal, but it is a morally and ethically unassailable decision for anyone. If one did not doubt oneself, one should have no problem signing an early resignation. As for legality, respect for all our rules is a free and democratic choice made by informed people who propose, discuss, test, and vote on all our laws. Therefore, everyone knows the respective rules, has decided them together, and will respect them because they are part of our identity.

In practice: everyone knows that in DirectDemocracyS these early resignations exist, for all roles, to demand loyalty, reliability, and competence, therefore, those who do not accept and implement them, can run for office in other systems, and political forces.

We also needed to prevent a few users, or groups, from accumulating too much power, so we created our own truly and completely shared leadership, composed of all our registered users, with verified and guaranteed identities, and, most importantly, the right of collective ownership by all our official members. These two unique characteristics, and our immutable fundamental rules, make us incorruptible and prevent us from managing the entire world at will. No one will stop anyone from becoming, at the right time, our registered user with verified and guaranteed identities; thus, from being a real-time participant in all our decisions, or, later, if they wish, from becoming our own. We do not discriminate against anyone, as anyone can join us and receive their share of the power gained from our system, which, as we always repeat, is and will forever remain completely shared.

There are many other features that should reassure our detractors. First and foremost, our voters' complete management and continuous, total control over their political representatives, before, during, and, for the first time in the world, even after the elections. This same bottom-up control is also internal, with our base, through shared leadership, managing and controlling all our higher hierarchies. A perfect balance between traditional leadership (competent and meritocratic) and bottom-up direct democracy. We know it seems incredible, but almost everyone, when they hear about something so radical and pioneering, is initially wary. Superficial people, who are of no use to us in the initial stages, don't get informed and criticize regardless, while compatible and competent people, who are useful at all stages, study and then make informed judgments.