🗣 István Csillag, an expert linked to Tisza, called right-wing people “rats.”
❌ It’s outrageous that a former SZDSZ minister speaks in such a disgraceful way. We’ve heard this same aggressive tone recently when they were insulting women, people from the countryside, and the elderly.
This kind of arrogance and condescending style is exactly what usually leads the left to lose elections.
Let’s show, by filling out the national petition, that we cannot be intimidated!
Let’s say no to further financing of the Russia–Ukraine war.
Let’s say no to making us pay for the functioning of the Ukrainian state over the next 10 years.
❗Let’s say no to war-driven increases in utility prices!❗
🟠 Only Fidesz is the safe choice.
“What are you doing here in Óbuda?”
“I’m heading to Kéhli for lunch with István Tarlós. We talk from time to time and have lunch together, so I’m just about to hurry in and leave you here.
And did you see that István Csillag, the former liberal minister, said that everyone who fills out the petitions is a rat?”
“I saw, I saw. Well, I encourage everyone to fill out this petition boldly, because it raises very important issues. We must say no to them taking our money and sending it to Ukraine. We must also say no to pouring our money into the war.
And we don’t want Hungarian families’ utility costs to increase because of the war either. We can say no to all of this. I think it’s a very bad and harmful trend that lately comments coming from Tisza supporters are regularly written in such an insulting tone — it’s unbelievable. They call women, rural people, and pensioners stupid. And now they’re calling voters “rats” who stand up for issues important to Hungarians.
So let’s also show, by filling out the petition, that we will not fall for this kind of aggressive style.”
🎯 1️⃣ “They called right-wingers rats” → launching moral panic
This opening is not information — it’s an emotional detonator.
Goal:
- to provoke outrage
- to create the feeling that “we are under attack”
- to activate group identity: “they are insulting us”
What matters is not the exact context of what was said, but that:
👉 the voter emotionally feels like a victim
This is one of the most powerful mobilization tools in politics.
🧠 2️⃣ One person’s sentence → demonizing an entire side
“Same style toward women, rural people, the elderly…”
Logically, this looks like:
X said something → “this is what THEY are like”
This is collective stigmatization.
Not debate → but enemy image construction.
🔥 3️⃣ Insult → fear → petition
This is the real structure:
- Someone said something offensive
- This is dangerous, aggressive rhetoric
- This now threatens democracy
- We must defend ourselves
- Fill out the petition
This is not public debate.
This is emotional recruitment.
The petition here is not a legal tool, but:
👉 a loyalty test
🌍 4️⃣ Ukraine + utilities + war = deliberate blending
Notice the slide:
- “Financing Ukraine”
- “War”
- “Rising utility costs”
This suggests:
If Ukraine is supported → your life becomes more expensive
This is causal oversimplification — politically effective, but economically highly debatable.
🧩 5️⃣ Placing themselves in the victim role
“We will not fall for this aggressive style.”
This is very clever, because meanwhile:
- they use war rhetoric
- they talk about “insults”
- they build an enemy image
yet they present themselves as the peaceful side.
This is called:
the pose of moral superiority combined with attack-style communication
🟠 6️⃣ The real core is this:
Not Ukraine.
Not utility prices.
Not István Csillag.
But:
“Are you part of the camp or not?”
Filling out the petition = a signal of political loyalty.
💡 Why does this work?
Because it builds on emotions:
✔ resentment
✔ fear
✔ identity
✔ the feeling that “they look down on us”
✔ group cohesion
That’s far more powerful than any data or policy discussion.