I made a video last week about the Tisza Party candidate in North Pest, Anna Müller, who is a teacher, a high school teacher, and who says that in her school children are living in fear, they are anxious, they have no motivation to go to school, they are afraid of tests, and of course everything is blamed on the government, or rather on Viktor Orbán’s policies. Overload, anxiety, pressure to perform.
Several people commented on this video and sent messages on Messenger saying that this is not acceptable: that a teacher complains about the education system and says that in her school children are terrified, feel unwell — but did she try to address this problem? Did she report it to anyone? If she could not solve it herself, did she ask for help?
Simply saying, like every Tisza supporter, that “the country doesn’t work, education doesn’t work, and then everything will be much better once there is a change of government” — nobody buys that.
🎯 Core Function (real purpose)
The statement is not about the condition of the education system, and it does not examine children’s mental strain, but instead:
- delegitimizes the teacher who voices criticism,
- discredits the Tisza narrative,
- disconnects the problem from the systemic level,
- and preemptively rejects the possibility of change (“no one is buying this”).
👉 The conclusion is fixed in advance:
“Problems in education are not systemic; the critical speaker is either incompetent or acting in bad faith.”
1️⃣ Individualization of the problem – detaching the system
“…a teacher is complaining… did she try to resolve the problem?”
🔹 Technique: shifting responsibility (individualization)
🔹 Mechanism:
- a nationwide education problem is reduced to the personal competence of a single teacher,
- the systemic level disappears from view.
👉 Classic authoritarian logic:
if there is a problem, it is not the system’s fault, but the individual’s.
2️⃣ Moral inversion – the victim becomes the accused
“…this is not okay, that a teacher is complaining…”
🔹 Technique: moral framing
🔹 Effect:
- raising the problem itself becomes ethically questionable,
- instead of anxious children, the focus shifts to the “complaining teacher.”
👉 Message:
“Whoever talks about the problem is the problem.”
3️⃣ Pseudo-professionalism – “did she report it?”
“Did she report it? Did she ask for help?”
🔹 Technique: superficial rationality
🔹 Reality:
- these questions are not asked to gain information,
- but to shift the burden of proof onto the critic.
👉 Manipulation:
until you can document every step you took, you have no right to speak.
4️⃣ Collective stigmatization – “like every Tisza supporter”
“Saying what every Tisza member says…”
🔹 Technique: collective labeling
🔹 Effect:
- individual content disappears,
- a pre-fabricated enemy identity takes its place.
👉 This is not debate, but stigma.
5️⃣ Pre-closed debate – “no one is buying this”
🔹 Technique: discourse closure
🔹 Function:
- it does not refute,
- it forbids taking the issue seriously.
👉 Authoritarian communication marker:
truth is irrelevant; what matters is what is ‘allowed’ to be discussed.
🧠 Summary – what is actually happening?
This statement:
- does not protect children,
- does not improve education,
- does not argue with evidence.
Instead, it:
✔️ silences,
✔️ personalizes blame,
✔️ morally stigmatizes,
✔️ and shuts down the very idea of change.
👉 This is not education policy. This is loyalty enforcement.