The Tisza Party chooses Ukraine, not Hungary. They would go to war and send all the money to Ukraine!
I just met a retired woman in Rákospalóta. I was emptying my red mailbox when she came up to me. Well, she’s not with us. Pensions are low, and the pension increases, the 13th and 14th month payments are all paid from loans—financed by loans taken out by Viktor Orbán. And the biggest problem, according to her, is that we are not helping Ukraine. Because if we were at war, we would expect other countries to help us, and therefore it would be expected of us to help Ukraine as well.
And when I asked her whether she has grandchildren—she does—I asked if it would bother her if Europe went to war and her grandchild were taken away to fight as well. She said, well, not that. They must not go to fight. Well, that’s how it becomes difficult.
1️⃣ False dilemma: “Ukraine or Hungary”
“The Tisza Party chooses Ukraine, not Hungary.”
This is a forced choice.
❌ As if only two options existed:
- either “Hungarian interests,”
- or “Ukraine.”
👉 What is deliberately left out:
- diplomacy
- obligations stemming from EU membership
- humanitarian aid ≠ war
- military involvement ≠ political position
This is emotional blackmail, not a political argument.
2️⃣ War distortion: help = war
“They would go to war and send all the money to Ukraine.”
This is a deliberate conflation of concepts:
- helping ≠ sending soldiers
- support ≠ declaring war
- EU solidarity ≠ “giving everything away”
👉 Technique: fear stacking
Everything is compressed into a single word: war.
3️⃣ “The pensioner lady” – emotional scenery
“I met a pensioner lady in Rákospalota…”
This is anecdotal evidence.
❌ Not data
❌ Not statistics
❌ Not representative
✔️ But a perfect emotional hook
👉 Function:
- “I walk among ordinary people”
- “this is how simple people think”
- anyone who disagrees is elitist / insensitive
4️⃣ Self-revealing trap: pensions paid from debt
“The pension increase, the 13th and 14th month are all paid from debt.”
This is an accidental truth, left unexplored.
👉 It is stated, but:
- no responsibility is taken
- no conclusion is drawn
- no question is asked: why is this the case?
This is a classic controlled drop of truth.
5️⃣ Moral blackmail + instant retreat
“If we were at war, we would expect help.”
This is a moral mirror.
Then comes the immediate pullback:
“Would it bother you if your grandchild were taken to fight?”
👉 This is the trick:
- first, moral obligation
- then immediate fear-mongering
- finally: “you see, this is difficult”
This is a straw man argument:
no one said “they would take the grandchild to war.”
6️⃣ “They shouldn’t go to fight” – collective incitement
“They shouldn’t go to fight.”
This creates group boundaries:
- “they” = outsiders, others, expendable
- “we” = protected
👉 This is already the pre-stage of dehumanization.
7️⃣ The final sentence: cynical closure
“Well, that’s difficult.”
This is not a conclusion — it’s an excuse.
👉 The message:
- the contradiction is not his problem
- reality is complicated, so it doesn’t need clarification
- the listener should remain afraid
The overall picture – what is this as a whole?
It’s an emotional montage, where:
- 🇺🇦 Ukraine = war
- 👵 pensioner = truth
- 👶 grandchild = fear
- 💰 money = taken away
- 🪖 soldier = child
There is no evidence — only atmosphere.