The liberal, Tisza-aligned media keep stirring things up! They are defending the violent criminals who caused trouble at the Lázár Info event. The biggest bootlickers!
Good morning. For four days now. Telex, RTL, and the rest of the idiots have been throwing a tantrum because it turned out—and was made public—that the people who caused the disturbance in Gyöngyös are violent, murderous, woman-beating hooligan criminals. These people are completely insane. And they want to take over the governance of Hungary. Never.
1️⃣ Repetition as “evidence” (defamation by hammering)
“murderous violent thug woman-beating criminals”
“murderous violent woman-beating thug criminals”
👉 This is not accidental redundancy, but a deliberate technique:
- the same accusation
- in different word order
- repeated multiple times
The brain does not weigh it — it records it.
This is not information, it is conditioning.
❗ What’s missing:
- case number
- verdict
- concrete facts
- sources
Only labels.
2️⃣ Media = accomplice to crime (collective guilt)
“They are defending the criminals”
“liberal, Tisza-aligned media”
“Telex, RTL and the rest of the idiots”
👉 Classic frame-merging:
- whoever asks questions → defends
- whoever adds nuance → accomplice
- whoever doesn’t shout → enemy
This shuts down debate, because:
if you ask questions, you’re defending criminals.
From here, there is no rational way back.
3️⃣ Dehumanization + degradation
“the biggest lackeys”
“completely stupid”
This is not emotion, but hierarchy-building:
- we = strong, pure
- they = stupid, inferior
👉 This later allows the legitimation of:
- silencing
- exclusion
- the “they deserve it” narrative
4️⃣ “It turned out” — without saying how
“it turned out and became public”
This is the keyword of pseudo-evidence.
❌ What is not revealed:
- who uncovered it
- how
- when
- in what procedure
👉 Here, “it turned out” really means:
I am stating it now.
5️⃣ Final political closure: fear + exclusion
“And they want to take over Hungary. Never.”
This is the classic existential frame:
- not a political debate
- not a difference of opinion
- but a question of survival
👉 Message:
if not us, then chaos and criminals.
🧠 The big picture — what is this really?
This is not news, not opinion, not analysis.
It is an emotion-driven legitimization speech whose purpose is:
- to maintain emotional overheating
- to sharpen the “us vs. them” fault line
- to completely eliminate the need for proof
The language is deliberately extreme, because:
if it’s harsh enough, you stop asking questions.